Sitting of 3 June 1997

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

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    PRIVATE BUSINESS
    PRIVATE BILLS (PROCEDURE)
    Motion made,
    That—

    (1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House or was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament shall have leave to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the present Session;

    (2) every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;

    (3) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Parliament;

    (4) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;

    (5) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill had been read a second time in the last Parliament) to have been read a second time and—

    (i) if such Bill had been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the last Parliament, it shall stand so referred;

    (ii) if such Bill had been referred to a Committee during the last Parliament and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall stand committed and—

    (a) all Petitions against the Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and

    (b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;

    (iii) if such Bill had been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it had been reported with Amendments in the last Parliament and had not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

    (iv) if such Bill had been read the third time in the last Parliament, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

    166

    (6) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and to which this Order relates;

    (7) when any Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and to which this Order relates is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

    (i) unless the Examiner had reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

    (ii) if the Examiner had so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it had been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

    (iii) if the Bill had been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the last Parliament it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as had been made thereto by the Committee in the last Parliament, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

    (8) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;

    (9) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which had not been withdrawn or had been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the present Session;

    (10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;

    (11) where any Standing Order had been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the last Parliament, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;

    (12) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill in the last Parliament shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the present Session;

    (13) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the last Parliament.

    That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Tuesday 10 June.

WAYS AND MEANS

  SESSIONAL RETURNS
  Ordered,
  Returns for Session 1996–97 of—

  (1) Business of the House;

  (2) Closure of Debate and Allocation of Time;

  (3) Private Bills and Private Business;

  (4) Public Bills;

  (5) Sittings of the House;

  (6) Special Procedure Orders;

  (7) Standing Committees;

  (8) Select Committees; and

  (9) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Proposals, &c.

  in the same terms as the Orders made on 29th October 1996.—
  [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CONTINGENCIES FUND ACCOUNTS 1995–96
  Ordered,
  Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1995–96, showing:—

  (1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1996.

  (2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Single Regeneration Budget
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the publication of regional guidance for those bidding under the single regeneration budget. [444]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We will publish further guidance to spell out the principles on which the fourth round of the single regeneration budget will be taken forward. Those principles are a requirement that proposals should contribute to our commitment to attack the multiple causes of economic and social decline; a greater emphasis on tackling need; and a requirement that proposals take account of existing strategies for promoting economic development and tackling deprivation.
    Mr. Vaz: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to all three of his new posts? I am sure that he will serve in all of them with great distinction. May I also welcome the Government's emphasis on the regional nature of their guidance? I hope that this is the beginning of a process that will bring an end to the lottery system that has pitted our towns and cities against one another in an unfair competition, and has resulted in great hardship for those who have not been successful. When my right hon. Friend publishes his guidance, will he ensure that it is as accurate and as detailed as possible to make up for the shambles and chaos that has been the hallmark of the Conservative Government's regeneration policies in the past 18 years?
    Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He has established a considerable reputation on the issue of urban regeneration. I attended many of the conferences that he helped to organise. I assure him that we will not entertain the sort of beauty contest that we had for regeneration schemes under the previous Administration. We are more concerned about how our policy can be developed in the regions, how we should deal with need and the consequences for urban regeneration schemes of the release of capital receipts. Our criteria will be different.
    As to the mess created by the previous Administration, if my hon. Friend would like to come and talk to me, perhaps we can spell out in detail how our policies contrast with those of the previous Government.
    Mr. Fallon: Will the new guidance include guidance on regional selective assistance? Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has succeeded or failed in his attempt to take that responsibility by mugging the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Prescott: Our regional schemes will reflect the importance that we attach to regional development, as was shown by our announcement on regional development agencies. That is one of the clear differences between the

    169
    policies of the current Government and those of the previous Administration. As to whether grants cause any problems between my right hon. Friend and me, that is merely press gossip. It is easy to reach agreement on these matters to ensure that we have a proper regional policy, so as to achieve greater prosperity in the regions and to get more people back to work. There are regional development agencies for Scotland and Wales, but they were denied to the English regions by the previous Government.
    Mr. William O'Brien: When my right hon. Friend reviews the single regeneration budget, will he take into consideration the devastating effect that the pit closure programme has had on many regions? Will he also consider whether the coal-mining industry could be developed in some of the areas in which coal mines have been closed? There is a golden opportunity to create jobs in those areas. There is room for discussion on the development of the coal-mining industry. We should end the lottery of the single regeneration budget. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that areas of gross deprivation are given serious consideration in any changes that he introduces?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that that is what we will want to do.
    I do not think that anyone who visits any of the pit areas that have been decimated by the closure of the coal industry can fail to be moved by the desperate circumstances in which the pit villages exist. That is why we need a regional strategy. Regeneration—even the work that has been done by the Coal Board, to a certain extent—needs to be included in the plans for that strategy, so that we can meet the needs caused by the deprivation that has resulted largely from the policies of the last Administration.

    Parish Councils
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role he envisages for parish councils in rural areas. [445]
    The Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Parish councils have two main roles: to represent community views and to deliver important local services. They are of particular value in representing and serving small, tightly knit communities in rural areas.
    Mr. Spring: Given the Government's clear attack on country pursuits and the rural way of life, may I tell the Minister how much my constituents welcome the recent extension of powers for parish councils in rural areas? They believe that the new powers are the essence of local democracy, and they certainly do not want a regional assembly for East Anglia which would be costly for the taxpayer and would constitute yet another layer of bureaucracy.
    Ms Armstrong: Many myths continue to prevail on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps Opposition Members will eventually learn that many people in rural areas voted for Members of Parliament who now sit on the Government Benches.
    170
    We made it clear in our manifesto—and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear—that regional assemblies will be introduced only if they have the support of local people. People will be given the opportunity to ask for a regional assembly and, indeed, to vote on whether they want one. That, however, is not in the current programme. The current Bill deals only with regional development agencies.

    Council House Sale Receipts
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities regarding the phased release of council house sale receipts. [446]
    Mr. Rammell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his proposals to release the capital receipts from the sale of council houses. [447]
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to release capital receipts for housing. [448]
    Mr. Prescott: The Local Government (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill lays the basis for the Government's capital receipts initiative. The Bill itself is simply an enabling measure that provides for previously set aside capital receipts to be taken into account when supplementary credit approvals are issued. A consultation document, which will be available shortly, will set out our detailed implementation proposals. We will be considering all representations received during that consultation exercise very carefully. A number of local authorities, however, have already written expressing their support for the initiative.
    Mr. Hanson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both his appointment and his Bill. Many local authorities will welcome the Bill, as it will give them an opportunity to build houses for rent, to modernise old housing stock and to provide many building workers with real jobs in the community to help to alleviate unemployment. Can my right hon. Friend say how many housing starts he expects in the forthcoming terms of the Labour Government, so that we may compare the Labour Government's record of success with the abject failure of the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I assure him that those idle resources can now be used effectively to put people to work and to build houses for those in the community. The measure of the success of that, in terms of both housing and putting people to work, will soon be clearly evident to all who study the position. The amount of resources that will be available—phased in over a period—will be determined in the Budget, and we must therefore wait for the Budget.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement about capital receipts, which is long overdue. People in my constituency, Harlow, have been waiting for 18 years to hear it. I know from experience in my constituency—and, indeed, from work undertaken

    171
    recently by the School for Advanced Urban Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—that people are more likely to remain unemployed, particularly young people, if they are trained only up to NVQ2 level. To get secure long-term employment, training to at least NVQ3 level is necessary. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the release of council receipts will be tied in some way to training provision and NVQ qualifications so that people in my constituency and elsewhere will get the benefit not only of new and renovated homes but of an important step along the road of the Government's programme for welfare into work?
    Madam Speaker: The best questions are the very short ones.
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point which will condition the phasing of the resources. The shortage of skills in the building industry requires to be addressed. We are short of every kind of skill, and that is the legacy of 18 years of Tory government. I assure my hon. Friend that the money will provide not only jobs and homes but will be used to train our people in the proper skills so that they can contribute to providing jobs.
    Mr. Hutton: I also warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Does he agree that his answers have confirmed the importance that we attach to improving our social housing sector? They will be a welcome boost to the building industry in my constituency and good news for the thousands of families in the Furness area who live in local authority homes.
    Mr. Prescott: They will be good news, and I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend says. Releasing such resources gives the Government a great opportunity to make changes in various areas. Those changes may be to the quality of houses or to the quality of production in the industry. They will also make a difference to the number of people who are available for training in building industries. The opportunity provided for the industry is that we will be able to guarantee resources over a longer time than the industry would normally expect for its housing programme. That will give a firm start to a good programme for houses and jobs.
    Mr. Jack: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the use of capital receipts will represent an increase in public expenditure on current published totals? What will be the effect of their use on the public sector borrowing requirement?
    Mr. Prescott: I think that that was supplementary question No.2 in the document that was given to Conservative Back Benchers. [Interruption.] Clearly, the use of those receipts will lead to an increase in public expenditure, and we shall have close discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that matter. Make no mistake about it: we fought an election on the receipts being released to improve housing. That will happen, and in five years the public will judge us not only on public expenditure but on decent housing and on getting people back to work. Those are our criteria.
    Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bill that he mentioned is a Great Britain
    172
    Bill rather than a United Kingdom one. There is also a housing problem in Northern Ireland, especially about repairs. What discussions has he initiated with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that the benefits that will flow from that Bill are also applied in the Province?
    Mr. Prescott: Capital receipts in Wales, for example, will be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Wales. They are dealt with differently in Scotland where there will be separate discussions between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also conduct such discussions with the Chancellor.
    Mr. Maples: The right hon. Gentleman describes the receipts as idle resources. Does he agree that they generate interest which helps to defray interest on outstanding local government loans or, alternatively, help to reduce council tax? If they are spent, the inevitable consequence of the loss of interest is that tax will go up.
    Mr. Prescott: Those are the matters of concern which we are discussing with the Chancellor. The constant concerns of Conservative Members are interest payments and money. We are concerned about jobs and houses, and that is the fundamental difference between us.
    Mr. Levitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the phased release of capital receipts from the sale of council houses will be welcomed throughout the country, not just for the reasons given, but because it will give local authorities the opportunity to refurbish housing stock that has design deficiencies and that, in many cases, has been waiting far too many years for refurbishment? There are examples of that in my constituency. I am sure that councils would also welcome clarification on whether the rules on the spending of those receipts apply in the same way to accumulated receipts as to future receipts.
    Mr. Prescott: Like many hon. Members, I have buildings in my constituency that have not been constructed to proper standards and cause great problems. It causes great offence to our constituents when we tell them that we cannot do anything, despite money being available in the accounts. We intend to release it so that we can say to our constituents, "The resources are there. We will put unemployed building workers to work to provide you with housing and refurbishment." This is about quality housing and that is what we intend to have.
    Mr. Gummer: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about future receipts? Will a proportion of the receipts have to be set aside by local authorities, or will they be able to spend them?
    Mr. Prescott: Again, the amounts of money that are available to local authorities to spend will be in our proposals on the phased release. It will be depend on those discussions. The amount available in total per year will be divided accordingly. We will make those decisions in good time and inform hon. Members in good time, when we produce the Bill.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce measures to increase the total standard spending assessments in areas of high unemployment. [449]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We will introduce measures that will lead to a fairer distribution of grant. Unemployment currently forms part of the economic index used in the calculation of standard spending assessments. That is one of the aspects of SSAs that we are reviewing this year, and we have notified the Local Government Association that we will do so in consultation with the assn. The Government are also committed to supporting areas of high unemployment through the welfare-to-work programme.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when we were a party of protest for 18 years and sat on the Opposition Benches, we used to regale the Tories and anyone else who cared to listen about the fact that Westminster and Wandsworth were getting money that should have gone to areas of high unemployment and to city areas that were deprived of money? Now that we are no longer a party of protest but a party of power, will my hon. Friend give guarantees, alongside those that he has already given, that areas of high unemployment, such as coalfield areas, will benefit and that places such as Westminster will not get the sort of money that they have received in the past?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Most fair-minded observers are shocked by a system that ensures that Westminster, which contains some of the most affluent areas in our country, features at number four in the social index ranking, whereas Bolsover features only in 322nd position. That is clearly not a just arrangement and we certainly intend to re-examine Westminster's treatment by the previous Administration.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the fact that not only urban areas but rural areas suffer from unfairness? One of the major unfairnesses is the area cost adjustment. Will he reopen the review on the basis not of Professor Elliott's review, which, when asked the wrong question produced the wrong answer, but of a fair reflection of the costs of unemployment?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about one of the many intricacies of the local government finance system and he will not be surprised to know that we have entered into discussions with the Local Government Association about a range of issues; indeed we have mentioned the area cost adjustment. However, complex considerations need to be considered carefully and he will understand that we are going to do that before reaching any firm decision on the matter.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. In addition to looking at areas of high unemployment with the change in formula, will he look at areas with high ethnic minority populations to ensure that they get a fair share of the redistribution of grant?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend will be aware that the presence of significant numbers of people from ethnic
    174
    minorities is one of the factors taken into account in the indices used to calculate SSAs. It is one of the considerations that indicate a need for expenditure by local authorities. Clearly, in our review of those indices, we are considering that factor along with the other factors, in particular the issue of unemployment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred.
    Mr. Curry: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House the assurance that if a local authority's SSA reduces because of a change in methodology, that decline will be limited by damping and will he confirm that he will continue the established practice of limiting the reduction to a maximum of 2 per cent?
    Mr. Raynsford: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have already mentioned the issue of damping in our preliminary discussions. No decisions have been reached and we will need to discuss all those concerns much more fully with the relevant bodies, in particular the Local Government Association, before we reach final decisions on the review that we are currently undertaking.

    Countryside
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to begin a process of consultation leading to greater access to the countryside. [450]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): In our manifesto, we made it clear that our policies for the countryside include greater freedom for people to explore our open countryside. We are considering the options for giving effect to our policies, and we intend to issue a consultation paper on our proposals in the summer. The principle of access is not negotiable, but we shall take full account of views expressed about how it should be put into effect. We shall make sure that the measures we introduce are practical and of lasting benefit to the people of this country.
    Mr. Tipping: I welcome my right hon. Friend to this important subject. Will he pursue this path with vigour, but be mindful of the obstacles that lie in the way, some of which have been frustrating legislation since 1884? In view of that, will he consult widely so that a balanced view can be reached which listens to all the voices that make demands on the countryside?
    Mr. Meacher: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his long-term interest in the subject and his experience last year with his Access to the Countryside Bill. That is experience on which we are building. I take my hon. Friend's point and that is why we have said that we will set in hand a full consultation which will extend through the summer. We will be inviting submissions up to the end of November. We will be listening carefully to all interests because I am aware that this is politically contentious. Having listened to all those interests and

    175
    sought to achieve the best consensus we can, we will bring forward legislation, but I believe that it will not be in this Session.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does the hon. Gentleman support the right to roam?
    Mr. Meacher: Yes.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that the best way that people in the countryside, particularly those such as the Country Landowners Association and others, could carry forward the debate would be to encourage far more voluntary access agreements in the next 12 months? That would show good intent on their part and might make negotiations between all the parties much easier.
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that the Country Landowners Association has already provided an initiative by extending voluntary access in a number of cases. I hope to talk to the CLA shortly about the success of those initiatives so that we can build on them. It is also important to look at how those voluntary initiatives, which have been willingly agreed and entered into, can be fitted into the nationwide pattern of access that we are now intending.

    Biodiversity
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's programme for enhancing biodiversity. [451]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): The Government are fully committed to carrying forward the work of the biodiversity convention, both domestically and internationally. In the UK, our immediate priorities are the implementation of the published species and habitat action plans and the provision of further guidance on local biodiversity action plans. Internationally, the UK has a significant aid programme in support of biodiversity objectives and we will be hosting an international biodiversity workshop in the autumn.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Lady for her answer. Will she remember, arising from the earlier exchanges, that the interests of biodiversity and access are not always identical? Can the hon. Lady bring herself to pay an appropriate tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for his efforts at the Rio summit and for introducing the biodiversity initiative in this country? Will she also pay tribute to local interests such as non-governmental organisations and the voluntary sector as well as local authorities for taking these matters forward?
    Finally, does the hon. Lady accept our assurance that if she takes the programmes forward and continues to resource and encourage them, she will have wide support in all parts of the House?
    Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am only too happy to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for
    176
    Suffolk, Coastal for the work that he did in this important area. However, success depends on partnerships at both national and local level. While we are delivering the 116 endangered species action plans and the habitat protection plans, we must remember that there are other important issues, such as the reform of the common agricultural policy and global pollution and we will be taking action on those matters in the next few months. I look forward to the Opposition's support in all those areas.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: In the approach to the United Nations General Assembly special session, one contentious issue for developing countries will be the lack of financial support from the developed world for their work on biodiversity. Will the Minister work with the Department for International Development to secure additional funds for that work from the United Kingdom? We could then play a leading role in taking forward biodiversity internationally and in helping those developing countries, rather than simply watching them destroy the natural rain forests and other unique habitats.
    Angela Eagle: Partnership at both national and global level is crucial if there is to be reasonable progress. My Department is already working closely with the new Department for International Development to take forward the important issues referred to by the hon. Gentleman, with whose observations I agree. Work is continuing and I hope that it will reach a reasonable conclusion at many of the international forums to which we will be contributing over the next year and beyond.
    Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Lady deal with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about how she believes it will be possible easily to enhance greater biodiversity in, for example, the uplands of Britain if there is to be unrestrained access?
    Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating—in line with his very exaggerated personality—the implications of the right to roam as expressed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment in his earlier answer. We are talking not about unrestricted access, but about access to the countryside—with that right to access being balanced by a responsibility to look after the countryside when one is in it. We are undertaking extensive consultation on the matter. The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate to make a point.
    Mr. Clappison: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and thank her for her generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, which I believe was appropriate.
    I urge the hon. Lady to stick to the conservation targets contained in the biodiversity action plans. Will she give priority to encouraging other countries to follow our lead, especially through measures such as the Darwin initiative?
    Angela Eagle: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I agree with much of what he said and also to confirm my earlier tribute. I was interested to discover that the Darwin initiative is, as we speak, exporting British knowledge and expertise. For example, it is currently involved in a scheme for the sustainable support of—[Interruption.] No, not birds, but seahorses in the Philippines.

    Mobile Telephone Masts
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that areas of outstanding natural beauty and other sensitive areas are protected from the effects of commercial development in the form of mobile telephone masts. [452]
    The Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government are committed to protecting the environment, particularly areas of outstanding natural beauty and other protected areas where development can be intrusive. In my Department's "Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications", we encourage local planning authorities to propose specific policies in their development plans for siting telecommunications development, having regard to the Department's guidance on the need to protect the environment.
    Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and thank him for his response. May I also press him—as I pressed Ministers in the previous Government—on the concerns expressed in my constituency over imminent development, pending a planning inquiry, in what is known as Constable country? Does he agree that development of telecommunications masts in that area would be inappropriate? Will he stand by the assurance given by his predecessor that masts, even if they are sited outside an AONB, should be a material consideration for the planning inquiry to consider if they loom over an AONB?
    Mr. Caborn: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, as he has long been campaigning on that issue. He will know that the previous Government initiated consultation. That is now almost complete, and the results should be on my desk in the next few weeks. I shall ensure that my Department corresponds with him on the findings. It would be wrong for me to intervene now in any planning inquiry, but I shall consider seriously any results that I receive. There should be discussions with the industry on whether we can rationalise some of the carrying equipment so that there is joint rather than single use, which I know has been one of his concerns.

  TRANSPORT

    Air Transport Strategy
    29. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to develop a national air transport strategy. [474]
    Mr. Prescott: The Government will pursue aviation policies that support United Kingdom industry and benefit the consumer. Over the coming weeks, I shall be examining the role of aviation within our overall transport policies.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I add my congratulations on his appointment. I am
    178
    sure that he will acknowledge the significance of regional airports as an important part of the nation's transport infrastructure. Will he therefore ensure that their importance across the UK and internationally is rightly reflected in his aviation strategy?
    Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and I can assure him that the regional dimension of most decisions—whether they are on the environment or transport issues—will be considered very seriously. Regional airports have a major part to play and they were identified in the 1985 airports policy White Paper. We are continuing to ensure that they play an important part in UK aviation policy.
    Mr. Chidgey: In his strategy, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise the threat to our environment caused by the increase in air travel? Does he realise that a key factor in controlling that environmental impact is control and management of surface access to airports? In his strategy, does he therefore have plans to limit surface access by private cars—belonging not only to passengers but to staff—and to direct investment into attractive and affordable public transport links to our airports? Specifically, does he plan to switch investment from the proposed widening of the M25 to rejuvenating the much-desired crossrail project?
    Mr. Prescott: Those are serious questions in any transport policy review and the connection between aviation, rail and road—the aspects of any integrated policy—must be considered. I hope soon to make a statement on what we mean by an integrated transport policy. [Laughter.] Yes, those have often been used as buzzwords, often by Conservative Members, but we intend to define their meaning. If any satisfaction can be found in controlling the environmental problems that have resulted from the Conservatives' privatisation of the public transport system, it is absolutely essential that we do so. The M25 widening and a spur to terminal 5 are important issues and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be commenting on the review of the roads programme. We wish, however, to connect and improve public transport to our airports as much as we want to improve access by motor vehicles.
    Sir George Young: I welcome the members of the new transport team to their first Transport Questions and congratulate Ministers on their appointments. On air transport, will the Deputy Prime Minister now resolve the total confusion that arose during the general election campaign over the Labour party's policy on national air traffic control? Does he plan to privatise it or not?
    Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's kind comments about me and the team. The confusion arose from the previous Government's original decision that no statement was to be made about air traffic control until the House had been informed about any public interest and safety. As the right hon. Gentleman wholly failed to make such a statement, we are making that assessment. A decision will be made at the appropriate time.

    Road Investment
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on current levels of investment in the trunk road and motorway systems. [475]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Provision for investment in improvement and maintenance of the trunk roads network in England for 1997–98 is some £1,491 million net. We are, however, committed to carrying out a strategic review of the trunk roads programme.
    Mrs. Winterton: In view of the importance of road infrastructure investment, especially to a strong and growing economy inherited from the previous Government, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that spending pledges made before 1 May will be honoured? Will he reassure my constituents in Cheshire and people elsewhere that the widening of the M6 will go ahead as planned on time?
    Dr. Strang: I am a little surprised at the hon. Lady's remarks. She was a supporter of a Government who massively cut the roads programme, not on the basis of an objective analysis of the relative merits of various schemes but on the basis of a need simply to cut public expenditure. I assure her that we shall adopt a much more balanced approach to those matters. We shall take into account a range of factors and we shall certainly stand by all the pledges that we gave during the general election campaign.
    Mr. Kidney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, many people are opposed to the widening of the M6, not only on environmental grounds but on strategic ones relating to the road network, especially around the north of Birmingham? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, while the outcome of the discussions is awaited, the money spent on widening the M6 could be more usefully spent on modernising the west coast main line, which is next to the M6?
    Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Those are important decisions and I can assure him that we shall be taking into account accessibility, safety, economy and, as he said, perhaps above all, the environmental impact.
    Mr. Key: I must acknowledge in all fairness that these are early days, but will the Minister give us some flavour of his own thinking on the possibility of urban and inter-urban motorway and trunk road pricing as a way of securing investment?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will accept that, in the first instance, we have to carry out a fundamental review of the roads programme. Of course, when it comes to spending on roads, and especially public transport as we are determined to have an integrated transport policy, we shall have to examine a range of issues.

    M25
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review the proposed widening of the M25. [476]
    Mr. Prescott: The widening of the M25 between junctions 8 and 10, which is under construction, will continue. We intend to announce shortly our proposals for reviewing the trunk roads programme, including other M25 schemes.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I greatly welcome the review, but will my right hon. Friend give a specific commitment that, should the grotesque proposed widening of the M25 to 10 lanes between junctions 12 and 14 and to 12 lanes between junctions 14 and 15 proceed, at his instruction, it will be, in contrast to what happened before, the subject of a planning inquiry which was denied the objectors by the previous Government? It is crucial that there should be scrutiny and accountability. In the meantime, will the grotesque widening proposals be the subject of the review to which my right hon. Friend just referred?
    Mr. Prescott: The issue is the review into those major trunkways. We shall make an announcement about that review. When we have made those decisions, other matters relating to whether planning inquiries go ahead will depend on the judgment of the review.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider the effect of Heathrow-bound traffic on the density of traffic in the M25 area, particularly to the west of London? Will he bear in mind both the possibility of a fifth terminal bringing yet more traffic on to the M25 if it is approved and the need for improved rail access, even after the completion of the high-speed link to Paddington, westwards to Langley and the west country and south-eastwards to Waterloo and beyond?
    Mr. Prescott: With his specialised knowledge of the aviation industry, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point about connections to airports. The widening of the M25 near the spur to the Heathrow terminal is an important issue, although it is not directly connected to the inquiry. I shall have to consider the proposals that come out of the terminal 5 inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will consider the review of the widening of the M25. The important point is to ask whether we can integrate better and use other forms of public connections to railways, and not only for Heathrow. We shall put our minds to those issues, which are essential for anyone who believes in an integrated transport policy.

    Rail Electrification
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to assist electrification of the main railway line from Paddington to south Wales and the west. [477]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The United Kingdom has secured £0.65 million of European Union funding for a study of potential

    181
    improvements to the Great Western line. The study is being carried out by Railtrack and is already under way. The Government are committed to the railway network being run in the public interest with higher levels of investment and we are considering how best to achieve that.
    Mr. Morgan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new job. Will she confirm that the service between London Paddington and Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea is the last major inter-city line in western Europe that uses diesel, not electricity? The GWR company can improve its livery, but it cannot improve delivery under the current technology. Does she agree that, until it goes electric, the initials GWR will stand, not, as they did in the old days, for God's wonderful railway, but for a godawful woeful railway?
    Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I reiterate our central commitment to ensuring that the vast amounts of public money that are still going to our railways should produce the best quality public services. My understanding is that, as part of a 10-year plan, Great Western Trains will invest up to £30 million to deliver a more flexible rolling stock fleet. It is part of our commitment to creating a genuine public service on our railways that all franchisees will be closely monitored to ensure that they meet the commitments that they have given.
    Sir George Young: Will the Minister explain how the higher levels of investment to which she has just committed herself will be assisted by a windfall tax on Railtrack?
    Ms Jackson: I find it astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman, who, as Secretary of State for Transport, oversaw the profligate waste of taxpayers' money on rail privatisation, including £450 million for consultancy fees alone, should make such a point. I repeat that the Government are committed to the vast amounts of public money that are still going into our railway system being used to produce the highest quality services.

    Transport Policies
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage environmentally sustainable transport policies. [478]
    Mr. Prescott: Protection and enhancement of the environment will be at the heart of our approach to government. We shall develop an integrated transport policy designed to provide genuine choice to meet people's future needs in line with our overall goal of environmentally sustainable economic and social development.
    Mr. Yeo: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways to promote sustainability is through greater use of market instruments?
    Mr. Prescott: People in any of our major cities around the country, which have been subjected to the privatisation of the bus services, leading to the choking of
    182
    much of our city space, will not agree with that policy. Integration of our transport system means a better use of public and private transportation and will be better for the environment. When we make our statement on integration, the hon. Gentleman will be able to make a judgment on it.
    Mrs. Brinton: What plans does my right hon. Friend have to encourage alternative forms of transport to work other than the car, especially in view of the fact that the previous Administration ran down public transport, particularly buses, in such a shameful fashion?
    Mr. Prescott: The House will be glad to see my hon. Friend in her place today in view of the unfortunate accident she suffered on the London underground. Both sides of the House will agree that we must do as much as we can to improve the safety of transport; that will be at the heart of our approach. Improving safety is one important aspect on which we shall spend some time.
    The major point that concerns us is that, although we have fewer cars per head than most other countries, we use them more. That is a reflection of our poor public transport system, which we intend to improve.

    M4
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish new plans for the proposed M4-A34 interchange at Chieveley. [479]
    Dr. Strang: In view of the strategic review of the roads programme, it is too early to say what our plans for this interchange will be.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept that although this interchange programme is not needed for the Newbury bypass, it will have a significant effect in my area in that there is an increase in rat running down the B4000 through Stockcross and down the A4 through Thatcham to get to the interchanges on either side of interchange 13? Therefore, the sooner that we go ahead with this programme, the better.
    Dr. Strang: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says; I know of the interest he has taken in the matter. As he knows, a national scheme was published for the improvement of the interchange, but, because it is envisaged that it will be a long time before the scheme is started—as the hon. Gentleman would expect, the interchange will be part of the review—there will be an impact on the timing of any interim improvement scheme for the roundabout.

    Railways (East Sussex)
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to take to encourage greater use of railways in East Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [480]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Our objective for the whole of the passenger network is to see more people travelling by rail. We want higher levels of investment, proper

    183
    enforcement of train operators' service commitments and all the benefits of having a national railway network. We are considering what action is necessary to achieve those things.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister recognise that, under the previous Government, money spent on roads was called investment whereas money spent on rail was called subsidy? There is a need to redress that balance. Is she aware that, in my constituency of Lewes, there is considerable potential for increased rail traffic, especially along the corridor from Lewes to Polegate, where the previous Government identified a multi-million-pound dual carriageway scheme, but had no plans for the railway? Will she work with me to secure investment in the local railway system and cheaper fares for the public? In view of the great importance of transport issues for my constituents, will she or the Secretary of State agree to an early meeting with me to discuss the issues in more detail?
    Ms Jackson: To answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, yes, I should be delighted to have a meeting with him. I well remember my visit to his constituency before the general election. I am aware that there is great popular feeling in his constituency about the extension of what people regard as existing infrastructure which could be patched in to the main line. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Links
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to ensure that trains coming from the channel tunnel will be able to (a) continue north of London and (b) link with modernised services to (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales and (iii) the north of England. [481]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I understand that London and Continental Railways, owners of Eurostar UK Ltd., plans to start regional channel tunnel services to and from Paris this year.
    Mr. Connarty: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new starring role. Does she share my concern that, on the information I have, there will be no link between Manchester and Glasgow on the west coast line for the Eurostar service? Can she give the people and businesses of Scotland, Wales and northern England some assurance that the franchise company now running the former British Rail services will provide a rail track north of London that will be capable of bearing the speeds that are expected from the Eurotunnel-London rail link?
    Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his greeting, albeit that I believe that I have a supporting as opposed to a starring role. We are extremely pleased that LCR lodged an application in January for a Transport and Works Act 1992 order. The application is to deal with the proposed new station at Stratford and its commitment to ensuring that Eurostar trains can, indeed, service our regions. That is inherent in the application for the order, which also carries with it a commitment to build a spur from the west coast main line to the channel tunnel rail link.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Lady recognise that it is not only Scotland, Wales and the north, where the Labour
    184
    strongholds are, that have an interest in Eurostar services, but the south-west of England, especially my constituency of Bournemouth?
    Ms Jackson: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that this Government came to power committed to govern for most of the people, regardless of where they live.
    Dr. Marek: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment. Does she agree that it is necessary for people to be able to buy tickets easily for Eurostar trains that go north of London? Through ticketing should be available and it should be possible for the public to use the trains that go through the tunnel to travel between different parts of the United Kingdom, instead of being able to get on them only at Crewe, Manchester or Birmingham. We need a much more easily used railway system than we have at present for such services to be a success.
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a point that the whole Government strongly endorse. We are committed to ensuring that we have linkages that facilitate the ease of passengers, on trains and throughout a multi-modal system. We shall work with everyone concerned to produce that situation soon. One philosophical difference between this Government and the Tories is that we believe that public transport modes should co-operate, not compete, with each other for the benefit of the travelling public.
    Sir Robert Smith: In the light of that philosophy, will the Minister consider seriously the electrification of the east coast main line to Aberdeen, which is another intercity link that is connected only by diesel to Europe? Is she aware that electrification would greatly increase the chance of piggyback freight and other forms of freight using the rail link?
    Ms Jackson: I repeat that the Government are committed to seeing greater levels of investment in our railway network. My understanding is that Railtrack Freight is already conducting an inquiry into the possibilities of piggyback. When it finishes that survey, it will be presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and our auditors will look at it.

    M66
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the M66 from Denton to Middleton to open. [483]
    Dr. Strang: As I said earlier, we are committed to a strategic review of the trunk road programme. A key early decision will be on how to handle those schemes at or near construction, of which the M66 scheme is a prime example.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there was great disappointment in Tameside at the delay in letting the final contract for the scheme? The traffic congestion caused by the failure to complete it has caused great anxiety to my constituents. Will he give an assurance that it will be completed at an early date?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right and I am well aware of the importance, to Manchester and surrounding

    185
    areas, of the scheme, which would effectively complete an outer-city bypass for Manchester. He has taken a great interest in the scheme and I assure him that we shall soon announce those schemes on which we shall have to take decisions in advance of the review.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: How will the Minister justify continuing to answer for the Government on English roads as a Scottish Member of Parliament, when he supports proposals that would deny any say to Welsh and English Members on roads in Scotland? Does he think that that is a sustainable proposition?
    Dr. Strang: This is the United Kingdom Parliament, which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I am privileged to serve in it.

    Speed Limits
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review existing maximum speed limits. [484]
    Dr. Strang: Speed contributes to a third of all road accidents. I am concerned to reduce its impact and I shall consider a range of measures to manage speed, including speed limits.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. Is he aware of the increasing numbers of people,
    186
    especially the elderly, who are effectively trapped in their own homes, as they are unable to cross nearby roads because of the speed and intensity of local traffic? Will he consider the proposal made by one of his predecessors, as an Opposition spokesman, to reduce speed limits outside all schools to 20 mph, which would immediately improve the safety of many children and young people?
    Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises a number of very important points. I should point out to him—this covers part of what he said—that the failure to observe the 30 mph speed limit in our urban areas is of particular concern. That speed limit is frequently ignored and often a contributor to accidents.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Given that the speed limit on motorways is only 70 mph but on winding roads in Dorset, for instance, it is 60 mph, should we not be considering raising the maximum speed limit on motorways and other such roads and bringing some sense to what seems a nonsensical set of speed limits?
    Dr. Strang: I cannot see a case for raising speed limits. Something like a third of all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Road accident statistics for 1996 have not yet been published, but in 1995, 1,200 people were killed in accidents associated with speeding.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill:—
Committee
1.—(1) Proceedings in Committee shall be completed at the sittings this day and tomorrow.
(2) At the sitting this day, proceedings on any amendments to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would amend that Clause at any place before the word 'Scotland' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill,

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

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would leave out the word 'Scotland' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in its place,

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

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would leave out the words 'and tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament' at lines 6 and 7 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in their place,

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

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would leave out only the words 'tax-varying powers' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in their place,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Six o'clock.
(6) At the sitting tomorrow, the remaining proceedings on Clause 1 and proceedings on any amendments to Clause 2—

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would amend the Bill at any place before the word 'propositions' at line 7 of page 2 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at a quarter past Six o'clock.
(7) At the sitting tomorrow, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 2—

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would leave out the word 'propositions' at line 7 of page 2 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.
(8) At the sitting tomorrow, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Eight o'clock.
(9) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
Report and Third Reading
2. The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting tomorrow and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
Conclusion of proceedings
3.—(l) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive Clauses and Schedules, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Clauses and Schedules.
(3) If at the sitting tomorrow

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, and

(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time,

the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings at that sitting in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to remaining proceedings that day on the Bill then being considered.
Order of proceedings
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
Dilatory motions
5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time
6. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour—

(a) proceedings under paragraph 3(1) or (2);

(b) proceedings to which paragraph 3(3) applies;

(c) proceedings under paragraph 8(1).

Business Committee
7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Supplemental orders
8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
(2) If at the sitting this day or tomorrow the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1 or 2, no notice

189
shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Recommittal
9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise). and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today's Question Time has confirmed our worst fears that the decision to merge the Departments of the Environment and of Transport has led to a significant reduction in Back Benchers' opportunities to question Ministers on matters of crucial importance to our constituents. In a rural constituency such as mine, environment and transport issues matter. My constituents are more concerned with the funding of local authority and rural schools than they are, with the best will in the world, with international development. As usual, the decision was taken without consulting the House. Ministers took the decision no doubt to solve a diplomatic problem concerning the Deputy Prime Minister. May I urge you, Madam Speaker, to use the influence that you have in this area to reverse the decision?
Madam Speaker: I have no authority over the allocation of time for departmental matters. The President of the Council will in due course be at the Dispatch Box, when the hon. Gentleman might like to put a question to her.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall points of order being raised about reading during Question Time. I believe that you indicated that it was acceptable if someone referred to notes. I noticed today that, once again, when an hon. Member referred to notes, a few hon. Members called out, "Reading." Will you protect Back Benchers and allow them to refer to notes during Question Time if they feel it necessary?
Madam Speaker: I have already given a ruling that it is of course occasionally possible to glance at notes. I am particularly tolerant with new hon. Members and I hope that other long-standing hon. Members will be a little tolerant about such matters, too.
Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will be able to help the House. My point concerns the change in time allowed for Question Time. About 18 months ago, an hour was allocated to Environment questions and the then Opposition asked whether that could be changed to 40 minutes, because it would help them. We agreed, on the basis that it is normally felt that Question Time should be particularly affected by the needs of the Opposition. That has been historically so.
No such discussions have taken place recently, and that is a pity. Could you find some way of trying to ensure that once again hon. Members on both sides of the House
190
feel that the allocation of time for questions is not a matter of a diktat? I should have liked to retain an hour for Environment questions, but because the then Opposition wanted a change, we accepted it. Could you use your good offices in this area?
Madam Speaker: I dislike repeating myself. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I am not consulted about a change in time. I take his point and repeat that the President of the Council will be answering such questions soon. I appeal to him to use his good offices, too, through the usual channels. I shall do what I can myself.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of clarification, Madam Speaker. It has been suggested that today's allocation of time motion will prevent individual votes on any amendments other than the first amendment in any group. Is that the case?
Madam Speaker: What is usual on a guillotine is that it depends on the progress made and on the Chairman of Ways and Means or whichever Deputy Speaker is in the Chair. It depends on progress, and the more points of order we have, the less progress we shall make.
Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. An extremely important new clause has been tabled, dealing with the threshold for majorities that would be taken into account in deciding whether a referendum was to be effective. A similar amendment was ultimately defeated under the previous Labour Government and led to that Government's fall. Do you accept that it is outrageous that under the present arrangements for the allocation of time, that new clause will effectively fall and there will be no vote on those important matters?
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I repeat that the more points of order we have, the less time we shall have for debating those matters.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night, when a statement was made about the business of the House for today, I asked whether you had any role in safeguarding the position of Back Benchers. Clearly, my question was addressed through you to the Leader of the House; I now address it directly to you. Bearing in mind the fact that a unique situation on a constitutional Bill has resulted from the Government's decision, do you have any role in safeguarding the ability of Back Benchers to speak on a Bill which, although it is only a referendum Bill, clearly has vital implications for subsequent legislation?
Madam Speaker: I have always attempted to safeguard the interests of Back Benchers. Guillotines are carried out under our Standing Orders, and I repeat that the longer hon. Members raise points of order and do not debate the issues on the Floor of the House, the worse the position is for them. I hope that we can now get on with the guillotine motion and move on to amendments. If we do not take up all the three hours on the guillotine, we can move on to the amendments.
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to try your patience,

191
but my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked you earlier about the ability of the House to put to the vote individual amendments within the selected groups, and it is my understanding, from a reading of the motion before us, that only the first amendment in any group can be voted on, unless proposed by a Minister of the Crown. That is clearly unacceptable: it means that four of my amendments will not only be inadequately debated, but cannot be voted on.
Madam Speaker: That normally happens when we discuss legislation that is under guillotine. That has happened over many years. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House when we have dealt with legislation under guillotine. It is a normal practice and how it works out depends on who is in the Chair at the time and on whether hon. Members wish to use up time by dividing the House.
Mr. Dewar: I thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am very conscious of the fact that the clock ticks and that someone moving a motion of this kind should do so, I hope, with conviction and with persuasion, but certainly quickly. The quickly part is not necessarily built into my natural mode, but I intend to be up and down reasonably sharply on this occasion.
I am also very conscious of the fact that guillotine motions are never popular. This is the first one that I have ever had to move, although I have been on the receiving end on many occasions, as Conservative Members will know.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No, I think that we should make a little progress.
I listened with particular care to the exchanges when the business statement was made last night. I am not totally persuaded that precedent is the only way in which to proceed. If we relied entirely on precedent, we would live in a very ossified society, because we could never do anything that had not been done before, and I am not sure that that would be a recipe for a live and lively democracy. Therefore, I am not entirely persuaded that we should rely on precedent in the matter.
However, I am entitled to draw the attention of the House to the fact that our action is not unprecedented, and that this is not a case of pushing something through in a way never thought, dreamt of or dared before, nor of the bulldozing of Parliament by a bullying Executive. What we are doing does not fall into any of those categories. It seems to me that the whiff of constitutional outrage that was allowed to drift round the Chamber yesterday can quickly be dispersed when one begins to look at the facts.
Opposition Members, including those who have been involved in Conservative Administrations, will know that they have often used guillotine motions as a way of managing the business of the House. I make no complaint about that; no doubt on occasion the present Government will feel it necessary to do the same. That is part of our constitutional machinery.
192
As I understand it, the particular complaint here is that a guillotine to govern a Committee stage has never been tabled before the start of that Committee stage.
Mr. Michael Howard: Not on constitional matters.
Mr. Dewar: Now we are beginning to change the script. The former Home Secretary may have saved me some time, because I was about to read out an enormous list of occasions when, under the Conservative Government, a timetable motion to guarantee progress during Committee stage was tabled before that Committee stage started.
I am thinking, for example, of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill, the Further and Higher Education Bill—[Interruption.] Let me draw attention—
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Dewar: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a little while, but the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill are burnt into my memory. I happened to be the Opposition spokesman on both—they were both important Bills that shifted a substantial financial burden on to industry. With both, a timetable not only governed the Committee stage, but took them through all their stages from Second Reading to Third Reading in one day. On successive days, both went through.
I do not know the reason for that, but it puts into perspective some of the remarks made during our exchanges last night that on occasion, although not universally, struck me as having a touch of humbug—
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Fallon rose—
Mr. Dewar: I shall make one final point before I take a couple of points of information. In order to avoid the catalogue of examples, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who will open for the Opposition, said very precisely, "Not on a constitutional Bill." He said that there was no precedent on a constitutional Bill.
We can argue about the status of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, but there can be no doubt that in 1978 the House, rightly or wrongly, passed two enormously important constitutional Acts—the Scotland Act 1978 and the Wales Act 1978—most of the proceedings on which took place under timetable motions regulating the Committee stage. Those motions were debated and agreed before the Committee stages started.
We cannot allow the myth to be perpetrated that what we are doing has never been done before, and that we are plunging into some sort of new jungle territory where democracy will die among the snakes. Things are not like that at all, and hon. Members should recognise the fact.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is smiling.
Mr. Cash: In an attempt to penetrate the Scotch mist, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to answer the

193
question that I asked the Leader of the House yesterday, which she persistently refused to answer? Does he accept that the Bill is what is known in "Erskine May" and in our precedents as a first-class constitutional Bill, because it affects the integrity of the United Kingdom Parliament in its sovereign functions? If so, does he therefore accept that it is a Bill that should be treated in a proper manner, and not, as the Government are treating it, in the manner of a Stalinist dictatorship, because they are determined to have their own way at all costs? Is it not a disgrace that the Bill should be the subject of a guillotine before we have even had a chance to examine its merits?
Mr. Dewar: For one hopeful happy moment, I thought that I was about to be compared with the late J. Stalin. As a former Chief Whip, I might have thought that a compliment.
May I say to the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question.] I will answer the question, which takes me nicely on from the precedent argument to the status of the Bill. We could dance on the head of a pin about whether this is a constitutional Bill, but one thing cannot be denied: it is not a Bill that seeks to alter the constitution. That is the key point.
In a particularly pained contribution last night, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose sincerity about these matters I have genuinely admired for many years, talked about this Bill in terms that made it clear that he was classing it with the devolution Bill that may follow if the referendums approve the Government's proposals. If we were talking about that Bill, we should be in a very different situation, but this is a paving measure which deals with organising the ballot and putting in place the machinery for counting votes. It is a simple Bill that follows almost exactly the precedents of the 1975 European referendum and the 1978–79 devolution referendums. Other than paving the way for an expression of opinion by the people of Scotland and Wales, it does not in any way alter this country's constitution. The comparison with the devolution Bill itself is false and mistaken.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist giving way.
Mr. Jenkin: Which of us is the more resistible?
Mr. Dewar: I give way to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).
Mr. Jenkin: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is only a minor paving measure, why did he bother to have the Committee stage on the Floor at all? Will he undertake that the main measures will be taken on the Floor with a timetable agreed with Her Majesty's Opposition, to ensure that the whole Bill gets proper scrutiny?
Mr. Dewar: We are damned if we do, damned if we do not with the hon. Gentleman. He is a most contrary man, although often entertaining. We decided to take the matter on the Floor. We thought that it would please
194
Conservative Members and ensure that we made proper progress to allowing the Bill to move on to another place. I hope that we can advance to the sort of test of consent that I thought that the Opposition approved of, and which they certainly called for often enough in the pre-general election period. We should not be open to criticism because we are allowing—(Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is turning modest. I do not think it a criticism that we are taking the Bill on the Floor, where he, too, can take part without any inhibitions. I am sure that he will.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Jopling Committee, on which there was a substantial Conservative majority, considered not only the precedents, but how the House could more expeditiously deal with such business? Its report stated:
"The evidence given to us on timetabling of bills was almost without exception in favour of its more general use."
More importantly, it stated:
"The arguments in favour of the proper scrutiny of all parts of a bill are compelling; and timetables applied from an early stage after second reading are probably the best way".
I note that the former Conservative Leader of the House strongly favoured that recommendation.
Mr. Dewar: I am well aware of the Jopling report and that we have moved some way to meeting some of its recommendations. It suggested that the timetabling of all Committee stages would be a sensible approach to the business of the House, which would allow good order and better government, and which would let people know exactly where they were and when matters of interest were likely to arise. That is a matter for further consideration. It would not be fair for me to pray it in aid, except spiritually, on this occasion. I am sure that the matter will be discussed by the Select Committee on parliamentary procedure, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes to have operating shortly. The recommendation points the way forward and is interesting in the context of this argument.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dewar: I must move on. I promised to be quick, but I have taken many interventions.
My first point was simple. This is a paving Bill for the purpose that I described. The second is that in discussing our way forward, we relied on the realities and the common sense of the situation. We have a Bill, which no doubt hon. Members who have the staying power to have stayed for so long will have looked at carefully. They will have seen that it is a modest measure dealing with the mechanics of the referendum. It runs to six clauses and two schedules. It has attracted 250 amendments plus 25 new clauses and 12 new schedules. I congratulate the Opposition. They are obviously in a rather machismo stage of their political development on the Opposition Benches. In all fairness to them, they have got organised. It is clear that there was an agreement that they would attempt to dig in and obstruct this measure.
I make no complaint about that. I have been involved in that sort of exercise in my time. I do not live in the unreal world of imagining that that is beyond

195
the competence or wit of even this Opposition. I am sure that it is not, and we shall probably see plenty of evidence of their ability to engage in such an exercise in future.
I do complain, however, that the Opposition should try to pretend that it is terrible when the Government, recognising what is happening, take steps to deal with what is afoot and to preserve proper progress for their business. That seems to be common sense and something that should cause no surprise to anyone who is being frank about his expectations on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman has made much of the fact that the proposed legislation and the devolution legislation to follow it will follow closely the precedent established in 1977 and 1978. Is he able to confirm that the motion before us allows no time for debating the thresholds for the necessary majority, which ended up as such an important part of the future of the earlier legislation to which I have referred?
Mr. Dewar: I suspect that what we manage to debate will depend entirely on how much time we spend on these matters. The sooner we get on with the real debates, the better I shall be pleased.
We were faced with an organised move to block and obstruct. We decided that it was better to go for a timetable motion. We thought that there was an additional advantage in taking that course, in that rather than having a chaotic passage of arms over an indefinite period, we would try to arrange the motion in a way that at least allowed for a number of the important issues related specifically to the referendum to be properly ventilated. That is what we have tried to do.
I do not think that anyone will be over-anxious to discover that a number of the more esoteric amendments have fallen by the wayside. We have tried to ensure that the matters that are relevant to the referendum are debated and that there is not simply a reprise of what will be extensive debate if and when we reach the devolution Bill. That is exactly what we have tried to do, and it is what a responsible Opposition would do.
It is significant—I do not want to put too much of a burden on the Opposition's shoulders—that often when there is talk about bulldozing democracy and oppressing minorities, the smaller parties understandably find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. It is significant also that at least in broad terms, the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and so on have indicated—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dewar: I say to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that I have a broad embrace and take in all the parties. I am happy that we have the broad support of the smaller parties on this matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). After all, he has returned to the House.
Mr. Fallon: Will the Minister confirm that no more than half of the amendments tabled have been selected?
196
Is he not now enunciating a rather dangerous doctrine that it is the job of the Leader of the House or himself, rather than that of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to decide which amendments should be accepted and included in debate, or squeezed out by the terms of a timetable motion?
Mr. Dewar: I suppose that that is an argument, but one that I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would want to endorse, for banning any form of timetable motion. The selection of amendments is not a matter for me and certainly not a matter for me to comment on. I should be in hot water very quickly if I presumed so to comment and I have no intention of running that self-evident risk.
I accept, of course, that a framework restricts. If we want to avoid that, we should avoid the exercise that has clearly been mounted against this small, technical Bill. It is an exercise in obstruction.
Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
Mr. Dewar: Let me finish, because I promised to be brief. I have argued that there are precedents in plenty. The Bill would not alter the constitution: it is not a constitutional measure, which is how it has been represented. I point to the overwhelming evidence that an organised attempt has, perfectly legitimately, been made—and equally legitimately met—to obstruct the Bill as distinct from properly debating it.
I should remind the House, even if I do not receive a sympathetic hearing, that our manifesto pledge is important to us. When challenged by Michael Forsyth and by opponents of constitutional change in Scotland who said that we should not shelter behind a general election result, given the multiplicity of reasons for the way in which people vote, we said that we would deal with the matter head on and would run the risk of putting it to the people. We are confident of the outcome, but we may be wrong, so let the people decide. We made it clear that that test of opinion would be an advisory note to Parliament when it came to consider the main questions, and we want to hold to that.
I am sorry to tell the House that I came to the conclusion, in conjunction with my colleagues, that if we did not move down this road, the timetable would slip and we would not have the test of public opinion that I think is in everyone's interest and in the interests of direct democracy. On that basis and for that combination of reasons, I do not believe that the motion is unreasonable. It is in the interests of direct democracy and good government.
3.56 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: The first duty of the House is to debate legislation. It is by discharging that duty that we hold Government to account and serve our constituents. A delicate system of checks and balances has grown up in Parliament over centuries. [Interruption.] The need for strong government is balanced against the importance of effective opposition; the right of the majority against that of minorities; the call of party discipline against the conscience of individual Members.
Those arrangements rest, to a large extent, on convention, compromise and fair play. Observers from abroad, where government depends on codified

197
constitutional arrangements, are often astounded by the spirit of fair-mindedness that permeates our parliamentary procedure. [Interruption.] In stifling discussion on the Bill—
Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if hon. Members on the Government Bench below the Gangway would pay attention to what is being said.
Mr. Howard: In stifling discussion on the Bill, the Government display their contempt for decency, for convention and for Parliament itself. The guillotine motion is the most drastic way of silencing debate known to Parliament. On allocation of time orders, "Erskine May" says:
"They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."
There can be few clearer examples of the guillotine being abused than the motion now before the House.
The Bill is of major constitutional significance, and the Committee stage has not even begun. To quote "Erskine May" again:
"An allocation of time order is not usually moved … until the rate of progress in committee has provided an argument for its necessity."
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that what staggers Labour Members is that hardly any Conservative Front-Bench Members spoke on Second Reading? The Opposition were short of Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members: there was a sea of green on the Conservative Benches. However, when the time came to table amendments, there was an organised filibuster. A vast number of amendments have been tabled, some of which are clearly frivolous. The Conservative party's inability to find Back-Bench Members or Front-Bench spokesmen—I have never experienced a debate on a major Bill for which the Opposition have not put up a Front-Bench spokesman—makes it difficult for us to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument seriously.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Of course we dealt with Second Reading from the Front Bench. I know of no convention in the House that suggests that those who do not take part in a Second Reading debate are in some way barred from taking part in debates in Committee; that has never been the way in which we have proceeded.
The Government Front Bench and, indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), claim that the Bill would be delayed, but there is no evidence whatever of such delay. Indeed, by killing discussion before the Committee stage has even started, the Government have not allowed the question whether there would have been a delay to be tested. The Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that there was one precedent for constitutional Bills to be subject to allocations of time: the guillotine motions on the Scotland and Wales Bills in 1977. We should remember, however, that when the then Leader of the House, Mr. Michael Foot, proposed the guillotine motion for the Scotland Bill, in a manner that could be
198
described only as apologetic in the extreme—a far cry from the manner in which the Secretary of State introduced the motion this afternoon—he used the occasion to remind the House that there had already been 30 days of debate on the legislation. The House should compare that with the arrogant and dismissive way in which the Government have tabled this motion.
Mr. Garnier: In the 1976, 1977 and 1978 Sessions, when the House was dealing with the Wales and Scotland Bills, not only was there plenty of debate beforehand, but the timetable motions allowed for 20, 17 and 11 further days of debate respectively on those Bills.
Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend is right.
We make such points only because that was the precedent relied on by the Secretary of State. It is no use Labour Members saying that there were differences. That is the precedent on which the right hon. Gentleman relies—the only precedent for the guillotining of a Bill of constitutional significance before the Committee stage.
After just a month in office, the Government have already demonstrated their contempt for Parliament. Disregard for the House runs like a thread through their actions. We have seen the cutting of Prime Minister's questions to one session a week, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's failure to announce his changes to the Bank of England in the House. As for the Government's legislative programme, the proposals in the Queen's Speech amount to a massive transfer of powers from the House to bankers, judges, devolved assemblies and Brussels bureaucrats. Never has there been such a comprehensive assault on the sovereignty of the House—and, more important, on the sovereignty of those who send us to this place.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of the concern of those who send us here. Has he received any representations from his constituents in Folkestone and Hythe about the Bill, and has he consulted Conservatives in Scotland and Wales? Of course, he could not do so in the House, but has he done so anywhere else?
Mr. Howard: Certainly I have consulted Conservatives in both Scotland and Wales about the legislation. As for my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe, they know how much importance I attach to the legislation—as they do—because it featured prominently in my election campaign.
By asking the people of Wales and Scotland to vote before seeing the devolution legislation, the Government are in any case resorting to an anti-parliamentary device. The pre-legislative plebiscite, which is wholly alien to our British traditions, is intended to curtail parliamentary debate and to silence parliamentary criticism. We now learn, however, that we are to be denied a full debate even on the mechanism by which the referendums are to be organised. The Government's distrust of Parliament extends to both the end and the means.
The Prime Minister is not the first politician to speak warmly of constitutional change, while distrusting parliamentary accountability. That path was first trodden by that great reforming socialist Robespierre, who, like the Prime Minister, had a substantial fondness for the guillotine.

199
As a result of the guillotine motion, we are to be denied a debate on the amendments relating to the publication and form of the ballot papers, on the procedures for the conduct of the referendums, on the financing and organisation of the referendums, and even on the vital question of the necessary majorities and whether there should be thresholds. Those questions cannot be debated at all under the motion. Apparently, they are regarded by the Secretary of State for Scotland as being in the category of esoteric amendments. That was how he described the amendments for which the motion makes no provision for debate, but they are at the heart of the Bill, which we shall debate in such curtailed form.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Could the shadow Home Secretary point to a Front-Bench Tory amendment on the amendment paper that deals with the issue of thresholds?
Mr. Howard: It has long been the custom and practice of the House for Front-Bench spokesmen to speak on Back-Bench amendments. I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I should have thought that he would be the first to rise to protest against any invasion of the liberties of Back Benchers. It is of great importance that Back-Bench amendments cannot be debated under the motion.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: Not at the moment.
Of all the questions that I have identified, the last is perhaps the most scandalous effect of the motion.
When it was put to me this morning on the "Today" programme, on which I preceded the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the guillotine motion would allow time for debate on questions such as the voting threshold and similar issues, I said that I simply did not know, because the timetable motion had not yet been published. Mr. James Naughtie was incredulous. "Surely," he said, "the motion might limit the time for debate, but it would not deny the possibility of debate altogether." How wrong he was. Fundamental questions at the heart of the Bill, at the heart of what ought to be the debate on the measure, cannot be discussed at all under the terms of the motion.
Much has been made of the importance of establishing
"the settled will of the Scottish people",
to use the late John Smith's famous phrase. Is a bare majority on a low turnout to be described as
"the settled will of the Scottish people"?
On that, the Government are not prepared to allow debate at all.
Mr. Dewar: I should have rather more sympathy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument if he suggested that the referendum would be binding on Parliament rather than advisory. As he does not seem to be saying that, his argument is greatly undermined.
Mr. Howard: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our argument is that the referendum should take place after
200
the legislation, that it should take full account of it and be based on a specific question relating to it. The choice that the right hon. Gentleman puts to me is not one that I acknowledge at all. We think that it is fundamentally wrong for the referendum to take place before the legislation.
The question remains: what are the Government frightened of? Why, with a majority of 179, are they determined to suppress any criticism? Could they be worried that, during a debate, the absurdity of expecting people to vote without seeing the legislation would be exposed? Might there have been some concern about the threat that the proposals pose to the long-term unity of our country? I should like to use another quotation:
"The timetable motion is an abuse of power. No one can deny the wish of a Government to secure progress for their business, but that must be balanced against the need for adequate debate and discussion of a measure … Guillotines can be justified only where an Opposition have filibustered a Bill, where they have refused all reasonable suggestions to agree a timetable, or where there is no possibility of the Government getting their business through at reasonable speed without a guillotine."—[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 757.]
Those are not my words. They are the words of the present Home Secretary.
The Bill touches on the affairs of every person in the United Kingdom. If implemented, it and the devolution legislation to which it is the precursor will bring about a tectonic change in how this island is governed. It contains all the elements necessary for an acrimonious breakdown among the nations of the United Kingdom, yet the Government are determined to choke off discussion. If the referendums were carried, that would be their excuse to still further debate in the House, and any attempt to raise those matters now is to be cut off by the guillotine.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend concede that, in response to a Liberal Democrat intervention, the Secretary of State for Scotland used the Jopling proposals to justify what he has done? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept from me, a perennial Back Bencher, that the Government of the day always want to get their business through as easily and as quickly as possible, that the House should pay more attention to the genuine interests of Back Benchers and that the Jopling proposals were in fact a weapon of the Government and disadvantageous to Back Benchers' interests?
Mr. Howard: There is much force in the point made by my hon. Friend, and of course it is not simply a question of protecting the role of Back Benchers, important though that is. At the heart of the question that we are debating is the responsibility of Parliament and the fact that we are sent here by our constituents to expose legislation to proper scrutiny. It is that opportunity which we are being denied by the motion.
When they were in opposition, Labour Members spoke of the need for more open government. The British constitution, they complained, concentrated power in the hands of the Executive. Ministers, they said, had been made arrogant by their tenure of office. What then do they suppose the motion constitutes? Its every provision bears witness to a contemptuous, imperious attitude to Parliament, and this is a Government at the beginning of their term, dewy-eyed with reformist fervour.

201
This shabby measure reflects very badly on the Government and it reflects worst of all on the Leader of the House. She has a special responsibility to the House. It is a responsibility which she has woefully failed to discharge. In the annals of the House, there can be few, if any, holders of her office who have so conspicuously fallen short of what is expected of them so early in their term of office.
We are determined to resist the Government's devolution proposals, not only as the party of the nation, but as the party of the constitution and of Parliament. Our resistance to the Government's plan rests on our conviction that it runs contrary to the genius of this country and breaks every constitutional principle and precedent. By their action today, the Government have confirmed us in that conviction. It is the action of an arrogant Government who hold Parliament in contempt and that is why we shall oppose them with all the energy at our command.
4.12 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: For 18 years, some of us sat on the Bench behind where the former Home Secretary spoke from, so perhaps he will have some inkling of our feelings about the introduction of the guillotine. It is perhaps a bit salutary for some right hon. Gentlemen, who were very happy to see guillotines used on other occasions, to endure, if I may put it that way, some of the medicine that they dished out.
I have no qualms about supporting the Government on this occasion, because in my view the amendment paper of the House of Commons has been cheapened by a flood of frivolous amendments. Some of the amendments are undoubtedly extremely important, but some of them do the reputation of Parliament no good whatever. This matter is far too important to be the subject of frivolous, wrecking amendments. What concerns us is the need to have serious discussion.
Short speeches have been requested, but I must make one point. I hope that attention will be given to what we might call the Gary McAllister problem—the problem of the Scottish football captain—who is earning his living in England and cannot take part in a referendum. Like thousands of others working in England, however, he has a moral right at least to be considered. I say that not in a wrecking sense but because I think that there is a proposal for consideration. Consideration should be given to allowing those Scots in England who apply, bona fide, to take part in the referendum to do so.
Another problem is what might be called the Paul Lambert question. A number of Scots are working in the European Community, often for the Government or for the great firms of this country. It is indisputable that they feel that they should take part in a referendum, regardless of how they may vote. I want Ministers to give serious consideration to what can be called the Gary McAllister or Paul Lambert problem because there are thousands of people in their position.
4.15 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: On several occasions during her response to questions last night the Leader of the House referred to the small number of Members present on Second Reading—the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) made a similar point—as
202
if that justified her action. That is a novel doctrine and it does not stand up, particularly as the guillotine is being introduced before the Committee stage has even started.
During my time as a Minister, I introduced a range of Bills and on some occasions the Opposition Benches were not full. I did not think that the Opposition's view was that in those circumstances a guillotine could be introduced automatically after Second Reading.
There is great irony in the Leader of the House referring to the Second Reading debate because, immediately following it, the Government had arranged a debate on the modernisation of procedures in the House of Commons. The right hon. Lady said:
"I hope that by holding this debate so early in the Parliament, we have proved our serious intent in terms of facilitating improvements in the workings of Parliament."—[Official Report, 22 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 901.]
There is no point talking about the Government's serious intent to modernise Parliament to enable more scrutiny of legislation and to set up pre-legislation Committees, only for her to show their true intent by guillotining a constitutional Bill before its Committee stage begins. The only precedent that is claimed for this occurred under the previous Labour Government.
Conservative Members know that if my right hon. Friend the former Member for Braintree had been Leader of the House at this time, there is no way that he would have given way to the pressure that is being put on the Leader of the House by Ministers.
The Leader of the House is not even proposing the motion on the guillotine; I cannot remember a time when the Leader of the House did not propose such a motion. As the Secretary of State for Scotland said, this has been decided not by her, but by the Ministers responsible for the legislation.
Mr. Mike Hall rose—
Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way.
The Leader of the House is wrong for several reasons. First, there is no doubt that this is a constitutional Bill—one has only to read the explanatory memorandum to understand that. It is absurd for the right hon. Lady to argue, as she did last night, that it is a Bill of no great consequence. She described it as a simple, straightforward Bill of only six clauses. Surely we all accept that it is substantially more important than that. The Liberal Democrats' going along with her argument is a sign of what we had already guessed—that they will be as ineffective in opposition in this Parliament as they were in the last.
The second reason why the guillotine is wrong is that what the Leader of the House calls a simple, straightforward Bill contains important issues of principle—for example, who is enfranchised and what information is issued at the time of the referendum. It might be inconvenient for the Government, it might even take a few hours of debate, but surely no one can argue that the Bill is not important.
Thirdly, the right hon. Lady should stand up against her colleagues because it is clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, Ministers sitting at the Cabinet table have only one interest—getting their legislation through. They do not give a fig about

203
the rights of Parliament, and, quite frankly, Government Departments care and understand even less. That is why to have a strong Leader of the House, able and willing to stand up for the rights of Parliament, is so important.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, what is of great concern—this is a Commons matter—is that, step by step, power is being taken away from this House. There was no consultation on the change to Prime Minister's Questions. It was pushed through for one reason alone—not for the benefit of the House, but to make the Prime Minister's life easier and to save him facing the scrutiny that he would otherwise have faced twice a week. Policy announcements have been made outside the Chamber—
Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman would never have done that when he was in government, would he?
Sir Norman Fowler: No, I would not. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to find an instance of my doing so.
Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman knows that on many occasions his ministerial colleagues—
Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman challenged me.
Mr. Wallace: Did the right hon. Gentleman, as chairman of his party or as a member of the Cabinet, ever acquiesce in his colleagues doing so?
Sir Norman Fowler: I asked the hon. Gentleman a straight question, to which he has given me a typical Liberal answer.
The guillotine motion is a further step in the Government's attempt to make the House of Commons a rubber stamp. That should offend not only Conservative Members, but anyone who regards the Chamber as important. One of the most revealing features of last night's statement was the reaction of Ministers. I speak not of the Leader of the House, but of her colleagues, who gave a sniggering response to questions. There was palpable self-satisfaction in a group who clearly felt, "We are the masters now." Well, they are the masters now and they will get their guillotine; there is no question about that. However, their triumphalism and arrogance are already sowing the seeds of their destruction.
4.23 pm
Mrs. Betty Williams: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to make my maiden speech so early in this Parliament, especially in a debate on a matter very close to my heart and the hearts of many of my colleagues.
I am privileged and truly honoured to be the first woman to represent the most beautiful constituency of Conwy in north Wales. For almost 27 years, it was represented by Sir Wyn Roberts, who retired at the general election. I am aware that he is held in very high regard by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I should very much like to be associated with that view.
204
To describe my constituency requires superlatives that I may not have mastered in the English language. I would feel more at home in my native tongue of Welsh, memorably described as "iaith y nefoedd" by Gruffydd Robert Milan over 400 years ago in 1567, I believe. For those not versed in the Welsh tongue, "iaith y nefoedd" means "the language of heaven".
The Conwy constituency includes not only the beautiful town of that name but several other major centres. Tourism is a major industry. Exemplified by that queen of resorts, Llandudno, tourism encompasses the whole of the constituency, providing natural attractions of mountain and sea as well as historic buildings.
Industry and commerce are less well represented in my constituency than I would wish, and it will be my hope that this Parliament will be able to provide encouragement to their development. Indeed, I welcome the comments made last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales when he said that he wants a new focus for the Welsh Development Agency and to see more jobs created in the valleys and in western and north-western Wales. Such development is vital if we are to reduce the scourge of unemployment. In my constituency, youth unemployment is unacceptably high, and our young people will most certainly find encouragement in the Gracious Speech.
The old slate quarrying town of Bethesda has a special place in the hearts of trade unionists and of members of my party. It is not quite 100 years since the workers of Penrhyn quarry stood up to the might of their employer for three long years. Bloodied but unbowed by that struggle, they would welcome the Gracious Speech, as do their descendants today, for what it offers for a fairer society.
The majority of those quarry men and their families were members of Welsh chapels. Our chapels and eisteddfodau were crucial in the religious, political and cultural development of the Welsh nation. It was by pennies collected through the chapels and from house to house that Bangor gained its "Coleg ar y Bryn"—"the college on the hill". Now it is a constituent college of the university of Wales and enjoys worldwide fame for its academic excellence. I should perhaps declare an interest in my affection for Bangor. I was born there, and it is where—two years ago, as a mature student—I obtained my degree.
The tradition of local collection continues to the present day. So when the need was identified for a new cancer treatment unit at the Ysbyty Gwynedd hospital in Bangor, it was local people who dug deep into their pockets to finance the building of it. I hasten to add that contributions were made not only by the people of my constituency but by those of surrounding constituencies, represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The magnificent sum of £1.25 million was collected through the dedicated efforts of many volunteers, spearheaded by Dr. Jim Davies. I applaud their efforts, and am confident it will not be long before building begins.
The academic standards of our university, excellent as they are, will be greatly improved by raising standards in primary and secondary education. A reduction in primary school class sizes and the improvement in training for head teachers are important steps in that direction. It will,

205
I believe, be a great encouragement to all those in education, from primary through to university level, to know that the Government's No.1 priority is education.
In such a diverse constituency, it has been particularly gratifying to me to appreciate how much the Gracious Speech reflects the wishes of so many for devolution. It is significant to note that, on the occasion of my predecessor's maiden speech, in 1970, he looked forward to
"a general devolution of power from central Government",
and said that the people of Wales would then feel that they would
"have a greater voice in the conduct of their affairs."—[Official Report, 9 July 1970; Vol. 803, c. 893.]
I hope that I am not being too controversial for this occasion to express the view that since 1970, over a period of 27 years, his wishes have not been achieved. During the past few weeks, however, Sir Wyn Roberts, having retired from this House, has once again expressed his support for devolution. I welcome his comments.
Of course, the Labour Government of 1974–79 offered devolution to the people of Wales. I supported those proposals and campaigned for them. I am delighted that, as a Member of Parliament, I shall have a further opportunity—a real opportunity—to campaign for devolution. I am particularly pleased that the Government have moved so quickly to fulfil the election commitment to establish a Welsh Assembly. It is the best possible demonstration of our will to ensure that the people of Wales are democratically governed with proper accountability. As that is perhaps a new concept for many people, it will be for those of us in this House who respect and believe in the democratic system to campaign with vigour to ensure that the people of Wales understand the opportunity and, more important, that they grasp it.
I am sure that many hon. Members have, like me, spent many years in local politics at community, district and county levels, dealing at first hand with local problems and issues. So often, those problems were my problems and we worked with the local authorities to solve them. It was called partnership. Government should be as close to the people as possible; it should be a partnership. This will be an historic decision, and it is vital that local people take up the opportunity to establish a Welsh Assembly. It will bring decisions closer to the people in Wales and end rule by unaccountable quangos. Power will be decentralised as much as possible, which can only be good for jobs, good for health and social services, good for education, good for other public services and good for the people of Conwy and the people of Wales.
We are on the threshold of history. That is why, in the coming months, I shall campaign hard for a large yes vote in the devolution referendum. Diolch yn fawr iawn—thank you very much.
4.31 pm
Mr. James Wallace: It is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) on a very eloquent maiden speech. I am sure that all hon. Members who listened to her gained not only an insight into an attractive and diverse constituency but a feel for the spirit of the constituency and its people. I congratulate the hon. Lady and look forward to hearing the many contributions that she will no doubt make to debates on devolution.
206
It was also refreshing to be reminded of the commitment of Sir Wyn Roberts to the decentralisation of power in 1970. The House will recognise and acknowledge the hon. Lady's tribute to him. It is refreshing that the issues on which Sir Wyn, and probably many other Conservatives, campaigned in 1970 will be brought to fruition.
I shall try to be brief because the less time spent debating the timetable motion, the more time there will be to deal with the first batch of amendments, and perhaps even to have more than one vote, although that is probably a triumph of hope over experience.
I do not accept that we are debating what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) described as a first-class constitutional Bill. As the Secretary of State for Scotland reminded us, we are debating an advisory referendum; there is nothing in it that will affect in any way the sovereignty of Parliament—if, indeed, we accept that Westminster is sovereign. That is a point of difference between us and the Labour party. Those of us who signed the Claim of Right in Scotland do not necessarily accept that principle.
It is also right for the Secretary of State to point to the precedents. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has reminded me of the guillotining of two Bills in one debate in December 1993—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill. That move provoked such antagonism that the official Opposition broke off pairing arrangements. On that occasion, there was a guillotine before the Second Reading of both Bills and a special motion to allow Committee amendments to be tabled before Second Reading. Although we think that the referendum for Scotland is unnecessary, at least it will give a say to the people. Those Bills gave Ministers considerable power to introduce secondary legislation that would have a pecuniary impact on many businesses, particularly small ones.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said earlier, the timetabling of proceedings on Bills was recommended by Jopling. I think that it is better to timetable before the start of Committee proceedings than to do so part way through, after drawn-out debates on a limited number of clauses and amendments, which often results in the clauses and amendments in the second half—or not even the second half, but the remaining two thirds or five sixths—of the Bill being given very cursory consideration. Parliament has often not done its job properly because it has not had adequate opportunity to scrutinise the latter stages of a Bill.
My party's publication, "A Parliament for the People—Proposals to Reform the House of Commons", suggested an all-party legislative steering committee to consider the programming of Bills to ensure that all parts are properly scrutinised. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the proper timetabling of Bills during her inquiry into the reform of the procedures of the House. We can do much more on that.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that that argument is not peculiar to the Liberal Democrats? It was

207
advanced by the legislative committee of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, chaired by the distinguished Conservative Lord Rippon of Hexham.
Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. The Jopling recommendations commanded broad support on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) earlier repeated the frequently made argument that guillotines are the enemy of Back Benchers. I am not sure that that is right. There will be an opportunity for proper debate of the amendments tabled by those of us who are not in the official Opposition and those tabled by the official Opposition. That would not necessarily have been the case otherwise.
Mr. Luff: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a significant number of important amendments tabled by the minority parties cannot be debated under the terms of the motion, including an important amendment on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Wallace: The point that I had just finished making was that the timetable allows for debate of the minority parties' arguments. We have tabled amendments to consolidate the two questions in Scotland into one. The Government do not agree, but we have a legitimate argument and there will be time for that debate. The Scottish National party wants a third question in a multi-option referendum. I do not agree with that, but I accept that it is a legitimate issue for the House to debate and is relevant to the referendum. There will be time to debate that.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked the shadow Home Secretary why the official Opposition had not got round to tabling amendments about the threshold. For once, the hon. Gentleman was not accurate. New clauses 22 to 25 provide for a threshold by requiring a 65 per cent. turnout. However, those new clauses are all starred. The Conservatives did not get round to tabling them until yesterday, suggesting that the leadership collective could not make up their minds on the issue.
The timetable motion was tabled because of the host of frivolous amendments on the amendment paper. I use the word "frivolous" advisedly. I have just appeared on "Westminster Live" with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who admitted that some of the amendments were frivolous.
Mr. William Hague indicated dissent.
Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He did, however, mention the frivolous amendments to which I have referred. I will describe some of them.
Mr. Hague: I actually said that if any amendments were frivolous, they would not have been selected for debate by the Chair.
Mr. Wallace: If the right hon. Gentleman gets a transcript of the programme, he will find that he did
208
describe some of the amendments as frivolous. One example is amendment No. 240, in the name of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), which says of Scotland:
"No referendum shall be held on any day other than St. Andrew's Day."
This year, St. Andrew's day is on a Sunday, but that does not matter because we also have amendment No. 184, which says:
"No referendum shall be held on any day other than a Sunday."
Mr. Luff: That amendment has not been selected.
Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman says that the amendment was not selected. My point is that those amendments are an insight into the mindset of those who tabled them. The amendments are on the amendment paper and the hon. Members concerned cannot run away from the kind of amendments—
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You, like me, have been a Committee Chairman for many long years. You know very well that no Chairman can dictate what is or is not tabled. You equally know that no Chairman would select a frivolous amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Selection is done, I hope, on an objective basis that stands the test of time.
Mr. Wallace: I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, show much more good sense in the selection of the amendments than do those who tabled them.
My point concerns the kind of amendments that were tabled. Amendment No. 186 says:
"No referendum shall be held for a period of less than two days."
That amendment was tabled by the same person, the hon. Member for North Essex, who said that the referendum should not be held on any day other than a Sunday. We would need to have a month of Sundays, or perhaps the suggestion is that the referendum should be held on two consecutive Sundays, like the French elections.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Tory Members who tabled the frivolous amendments will take an active part in the referendum campaign in Scotland or in Wales, or will they leave the active campaigning to their hon. Friends in Scotland and in Wales?
Mr. Wallace: There is a difficulty in that those Tory Members do not have any hon. Friends in Scotland or in Wales. As the—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have many voters.
Mr. Wallace: The words used were "hon. Friends". The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that the Conservatives were the party of the nation. One nation Conservatism is now England, and only part of that. No longer does the Conservative party speak for the nation in Parliament, which is an important point to remember.

209
Last night, I referred to amendment No. 189, which says:
"Voting in the referendum shall only take place during daylight hours."
That is a travesty. What about the men and women of the night who would not be allowed an opportunity to vote if such an amendment were accepted?
The timetable motion allows for debate on some important issues. It would be better to go on from here and to have proper programming of legislation. I hope that we shall achieve that in this Parliament. That is the way to achieve the proper scrutiny of Bills rather than leaving it to chance—
Mr. Dalyell: On the question of proper scrutiny, are the hon. Gentleman and his collective colleagues, if I may use those words, in favour of proper scrutiny of the crucial devolution White Paper?
Mr. Wallace: I have no doubt that there will be a debate on the White Paper. More importantly, we would certainly expect proper scrutiny of legislation flowing from that White Paper. I do not see how, except in a one-day debate, we could have scrutiny of a White Paper. The House would, however, expect proper scrutiny of any legislation that followed. I believe that the House will get proper scrutiny.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wallace: I had concluded my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has concluded his remarks.
4.43 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams). All Conservative Members will have appreciated her kind remarks about our old friend and colleague, Sir Wyn Roberts. The only advice he would have added to what she said was that if she addresses the House in a prolonged way in the native language of which both he and she are rightly proud, she may not always be addressing a Chamber quite as well filled as this. I congratulate her, however, on a speech that was well delivered with a nice light note and we look forward to much more from her.
I have been out of the House for five years—what is delicately known as broken service. I hope, therefore, that I may be indulged if I make one or two remarks about my predecessor, Sir Peter Hordern, who represented Horsham with great dedication for more than 32 years. He did great service to his constituency where he is still very much loved and I know that he attracted a lot of affection and admiration in the House.
Sir Peter never sought high office; he believed that representing his constituents in the United Kingdom Parliament was high enough privilege in itself, as I do. He believed that it was the function of this House to scrutinise legislation and to act as a proper check on what
210
the Government did. He always did that, whether he sat on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches. That is what is important in this debate.
When I first came into the House 14 years ago, I, too, was part of a landslide. I came in when the Conservative party had a majority of 144, yet we did not believe then that we owned the House of Commons because we had had a big election victory. We believed that the House of Commons had its rights and that those rights had been fought for for centuries and were to be preserved, even at the Government's inconvenience.
The Government have become a little confused on some specific points. There seems to be some confusion about whether they consider the Bill to be a constitutional Bill. The Prime Minister does—or did. In his speech during the debate on the Gracious Speech on 14 May, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked him to give an undertaking that
"any constitutional measures"—
my hon. Friend was not referring specifically to this Bill—
"will be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House",
the Prime Minister replied:
"As I have said before to the hon. Gentleman, the referendum Bill will of course be taken on the Floor of the House."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 67.]
The Prime Minister clearly thought that the Bill was a constitutional measure.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office also thought that the Bill was a constitutional Bill. When he wound up the debate on Second Reading, he specifically referred to it as being a constitutional measure. He said:
"The Government want to ensure that debates are properly scrutinised and have the maximum participation"—
words that must be sticking in his craw at the moment—
"of every part of the House."
The hon. Gentleman was not talking about general constitutional measures; he was talking about this Bill. He said:
"That should be the case when we are dealing with serious constitutional issues."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 804.]
We need to know whether the Government believe this to be a constitutional Bill. If it is a constitutional Bill, how can it be right, before we have even embarked on the Committee stage, for the Government to act in this way to gag debate? If it is not a constitutional Bill, but it is, as the Leader of the House said last night and as the Secretary of State for Scotland said today, merely a technical or paving Bill, why is it being taken on the Floor of the House at all? The House is entitled to have answers to those questions.
Whatever the answer, the House is being denied the opportunity for proper scrutiny. It is being denied the opportunity for detailed consideration of amendments and clauses, sometimes at inconvenient length, in Standing Committee because the Bill is being considered here, where there is more pressure on time. Having discussed the Bill here on the basis of its being a constitutional Bill—or not, we do not know because no light has been shed on the matter—the opportunity for maximum debate in all parts of the House, as the Minister of State promised, has been removed.

211
It would be helpful if the Minister who is to wind up the debate could shed some light on another matter. Will the full, substantive devolution Bill be published before the referendums take place? Again, we have had conflicting messages on that. On 14 May, the Prime Minister was challenged on the subject by the leader of the Scottish National party. The Prime Minister said:
"Of course the Bill will be published in time for the referendum, because the referendum will take place on those proposals."
That is the last we have heard of that suggestion. Since then, all the talk has been merely that the White Paper will be published before the referendum. The question is not just dancing on the head of a pin, because the sequence matters.
The sequence that is now proposed is the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill; followed by a White Paper; followed by the referendum; followed by the devolution Bill if the referendum is favourable; followed by implementation. We all know—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made it clear, and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has also made the point—that there can be great differences between the aims and aspirations of policy set out in a White Paper and how they are translated into practice and into hard statutory fact when a Bill comes before Parliament. That fact makes a difference to the Bill we are considering today, because of the effect of the referendums. A referendum that has been held on a published Bill, albeit not yet enacted by Parliament, will have a different effect from one that has been held on a mere set of policies set out in a White Paper.
Mr. Dalyell: May I clarify the right hon. Gentleman's reference to me? Whatever happens, it is my personal view, for what it is worth, that a final referendum should be held on the one meaningful question that can be asked, which is "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997—or 1998—as passed by Parliament?" That would mean another referendum.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman puts it very well and I do not want to add to or subtract from that point. A final referendum is desirable. It is what he has argued for and the way that it was done last time. It may be that that unhappy experience is carved deep on the minds of Ministers and led them to come up with this procedure. The dynamic of the procedure matters a great deal.
Mr. Dewar: I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to labour mightily under a misapprehension. It is clear from the passage that he quoted, if one reads the whole passage, that it was a reference to the White Paper, and everybody understood that. To avoid all doubt, we propose that the White Paper should be published before the House rises—
Mr. Fallon: And debated?
Mr. Dewar: Yes.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Not guillotined.
Mr. Dewar: Someone is showing his grasp of parliamentary procedure. I wish to make it clear that a
212
White Paper will be published before the House rises. It will set out the scheme in some detail and the referendum will be held on the basis of the proposals in the White Paper. We will go on from there, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) would expect.
Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am under a misapprehension, but if so it is a widespread one. What the Prime Minister said was very clear. He was asked in terms by the leader of the Scottish National party:
"Can he tell the House exactly when he expects to publish the Scottish devolution Bill?"
The answer was:
"Of course the Bill"—
not the White Paper—
"will be published in time for the referendum".
That was not just a casual remark, because the Prime Minister went on to say:
"because the referendum will take place on those proposals."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294. c. 64.]
He did not say it will take place on the White Paper. That matters because all the unanswered questions that lie in the morass that the Government are in must be resolved. They cannot be resolved only in the White Paper: they must be resolved in hard statutory fact by a Bill.
Mr. Salmond: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that that was what I asked the Prime Minister and that that was his answer, and it is in Hansard. I also remind him that the Prime Minister has not always recently shown himself to be fully in command of this subject.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may think that: I could not possibly comment. The Prime Minister must answer for himself. If he got it wrong, he should come to the House and say so. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that that is a pompous suggestion, but the Prime Minister made that apparently considered remark to the House of Commons. I happen to think that the House of Commons matters and that the Prime Minister should consider what he says to us to be important.
Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman may criticise and make his point, but I do not want him to be under a misapprehension. If he has been following the debate with care, including speeches made on several occasions and other statements by the Government, he will understand that the situation is straightforward and well understood, certainly by most of my hon. Friends. He is in danger of making myths.
Mr. Maude: I do not think so. I cannot say whether the Prime Minister was not in command of his brief or whether the policy has been changed and made on the hoof, as has happened so often in this tawdry saga. If the Prime Minister made an honest mistake, as the Secretary of State suggests, let him come here and tell us. The House of Commons deserves no less.
The point matters because of the dynamic of the sequence of events. The Government propose to publish some proposals in a White Paper that may—or may not, we do not know—deal with the great unanswered questions that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and others

213
have raised, including the West Lothian question, and others about scrutiny of the spending of money raised by this House but disbursed by the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. How will that money be controlled and what will happen to the funding formula? Those are substantial and important matters, and they must be resolved. Will they be dealt with satisfactorily in the White Paper? I do not think so.
Those matters must be set forth in a draft Bill so that the people of Scotland and Wales can make a mature and considered judgment about whether they like the look of the creature that is offered to them. If they do not, as I suspect they may not, that should be tested fully. Otherwise, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, the people will be offered a pig in a poke. It may be accepted because the details will be unclear, but the questions will remain unanswered.
If the proposals are accepted, the Government will claim that they have a mandate. They will claim that they have not only the endorsement of their fabled manifesto in the general election, but the endorsement given by the referendum. They will say that they do not need to bother with any more tiresome business in the House of Commons and they will just bang the proposals through. If the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks that that is scaremongering, he should remember what the Prime Minister said on the issue, in his first debate as Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire:
"There will be ample time for debate"—
on the substantive devolution Bill—
"but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that if the firmly established will of the Scottish and Welsh people is demonstrated in the referendums, the people will not expect us to be game-playing here—they will expect us to legislate."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 67.]
That is a chilling indication of what is to come. The Government will bang through this wretched Bill without proper debate, seek a popular mandate in the referendums, then come back here and say, "Tough luck House of Commons, we have got our mandate. You can go hang." That will not do.
I said at the outset that I first entered the House as part of a landslide victory. I remember the feeling that that induced. We had a majority—not quite on the grandiose scale of the Government's, but not far off—but we did not believe that a big election victory translated into the Government owning the House of Commons. Indeed, rather than blasting through measures that reduced the House of Commons' power, one of the first things we did after winning in 1979, was to enhance it and make life more difficult for the Executive. We introduced Select Committees, which have been an adornment to the House—not always convenient to those of us who have been Ministers, and often a nuisance—and have enhanced its ability to hold Ministers to account.
The Government are only a month old, yet a pattern is developing—a pattern of thinking that they can take the House of Commons for granted, feeling that, because they have most of the seats in the House, they own it. Well, they do not. This House has been here for much longer than this Parliament or this Government and it will be here for a long time afterwards. Its powers may be reduced as a result of this legislation and what the Prime Minister decides to hand over in Amsterdam in a few weeks' time, but it will continue to take seriously its historic task of holding the Government to account.
214
I hope that the Government will at least do the House the courtesy of answering some of the questions that have been asked. Will the devolution Bill—if we get to that stage—be debated on the Floor of the House in Committee? Unquestionably, it is a major constitutional measure, yet all we have heard so far has been waffle and prevarication: "Well, it will all have to be looked at; it is all very difficult. Who can tell?" If it comes about, it will be one of the most important constitutional measures this century. If it is not to be taken step by step, clause by painful clause and amendment by amendment on the Floor of the House, it is difficult to envisage what should be.
The second question to which we need an answer today is: when it is debated on the Floor of the House—I do not believe that even this Government, with their breathtaking arrogance, will refuse to allow that—will a guarantee be given that no more timetable motions will be tabled and that, unlike today, proper time to debate will be provided? If, at the end of this debate, Ministers fail to answer those questions, they will have damaged their reputation even more.
5.2 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Home Secretary, at the outset of the debate is worth repeating. He quoted from "Erskine May". Describing guillotine motions, it says:
"They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."
The guillotine is not lightly used and not applied without reason. The usual reason is to counter delaying tactics, actual or threatened, amounting in the Government's view to obstruction.
If I have to take responsibility at all as an Opposition Back Bencher, I must accept the general rebuke of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—it is not worth pretending otherwise. Some silly amendments have been tabled in the sense that they would not lead to much light being thrown on the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Which particular ones?
Mr. Garnier: I do not want to confuse the right hon. Gentleman; he is not a man of great thought. Nor do I want to delay the debate.
As the Secretary of State for Scotland admitted, on occasion, Opposition Back Benchers table amendments which they know are unlikely to draw favour from the Chairman of Ways and Means. The important point, however, is that, among the amendments tabled, plenty of subjects that deserve sensible debate are raised. As a consequence of the timetable motion, a raft of those important issues will not be debated. They include the publication and form of the Government's proposals, procedures for the conduct of the referendums, the name and tax-raising powers of any Welsh Assembly, the financing and organisation of the referendum campaign

215
and, perhaps most important, the required majorities—the threshold question. None of those is to be debated. Whether the Government like it or not, those issues are entitled to be debated, yet by virtue of the timetable motion, they are unable to be debated, let alone voted on.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, in partly pooh-poohing the subject of precedent—which was interesting for a lawyer—attempted to draw comfort from the proceedings on the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill in 1977. He said that, under a Labour Government—some precedent that—guillotine motions were moved before the Bills went into Committee. What he failed to say was that the timetable motions permitted, under the Scotland Bill, 17 further days of debate, and, under the Wales Bill, 11 further days of debate—not the two very limited days with which we are presented today.
As an Opposition Member of a party that has been badly defeated, I must accept that the arithmetic of the House means that the timetable motion and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill will go ramming through and that we will have what I gather is now called an advisory referendum in due course, whatever that may be. That is a fact of life with which I must come to terms. Nonetheless, the Government are seeking to stifle arguments that ought to be deployed and arguments that my constituents want to be deployed.
The attitude to opposition and argument is informed by comments made by those who now sit on the Treasury Bench. It is instructive to read an article that appeared in The Western Mail on 23 April—during the election campaign. The new Secretary of State for Wales was asked about the devolution Bill. After making some rude remarks about the then Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord MacKay, pooh-poohing his ability and right to hold views on matters of political interest, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The Labour party will have a very clear mandate, and it's offensive to any democrat to countenance the unelected House of Lords interfering in the democratic process."
It just so happens that, under our constitution, the House of Lords is very much part of our democratic process and constitutional arrangements. How one gets there is another matter and, perhaps, for debate another day. Huge chunks of debates that we may or may not be having over the next few days will lead to the Bill going to another place without many of the issues being considered.
The Secretary of State for Wales went on to say in The Western Mail article:
"The process by which the devolution legislation that will be passed through the House of Commons will be a matter for the House of Commons …The next House of Commons will decide its own procedure. The Labour Party has included in its manifesto very precise details of our intention of a referendum. If we have a Labour Party elected on its manifesto, it will have a very clear and precise mandate and, in compliance with the Salisbury convention, the next Labour government will brook no interference from people who speak for no one but themselves and their own vested interests."
The House should notice the language. It is the language of the Lord Protector, the control freak. [Interruption.] Notice how Labour Members smirk and snigger when they are brought to understand. Not everybody agrees with them. Of course the Government have a majority. Let them smile and smirk at it. On behalf of our constituents, we as Opposition Back Benchers are entitled to expect to be listened to with some respect in the House.
216
Ministers may disagree with us and think that we are out of date and wrong and have nothing to say. They may sit there smirking, as the Secretary of State for Wales is doing; last night, all around him, sat his little friends, the Stepford wives, who have been told not to say anything for fear that they might offend him or the Chief Whip or the Minister without Portfolio—let alone the Excalibur information system that we now have to contend with. Ministers sit there smirking, saying, "We are the masters now." Has not the language become totally Orwellian? Servants now equals masters.
Who else can we turn to for instruction about the way in which the Government now operate? The Secretary of State for Scotland, as Opposition Chief Whip, was on the BBC programme, "Analysis", on 24 April
Mr. Ron Davies: It says here.
Mr. Garnier: It does indeed, and it is worth repeating. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like it, but I intend to say it several times so that people outside know what sort of Government we have to cope with
The then Opposition Chief Whip said that we would have "adequate scrutiny and debate". If he thinks that this timetable motion leads to adequate scrutiny and debate, when in fact it denies the opportunity to debate a series of most important issues, he has a most interesting idea about the English language. He went on:
"We want to talk with other parties about the best way of achieving this".
Did Ministers talk through the usual channels to the Opposition? I do not know about the other parties, but I doubt whether they bothered to listen to the official Opposition.
When pressed on the point, the right hon. Gentleman continued:
"if you look at, for example, enormously important constitutional bills recently, the biggest single transfer of sovereignty to the European Union was the Single European Act. That was put through by this Conservative government, and they did it with a timetable motion in double quick time."
Let us examine the facts. There had been three days' debate on one clause of the Single European Act in a Committee of the whole House before the guillotine was introduced. That guillotine debate was not confined to the usual three hours but was given additional time. A good deal more time was allowed following the guillotine motion for debate on that issue.
The Secretary of State said:
"I don't want to abuse the House. I certainly don't want to abuse people's right to scrutiny and debate and we will make very sure that this is done adequately and this is done properly."
Is that what he has done on this occasion? Is that what this timetable motion allows for? I do not think so.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garnier: I shall finish this quotation and then I shall certainly give way. The Secretary of State said:
"If we have a bill that has been endorsed at a General Election and in this case, the double lock of being very very specifically endorsed in a referendum in both Scotland and Wales, then clearly

217
it would be very silly for a government to say that a minority which is honourably but in our view mistakenly opposed to it, should be allowed to hold it up interminably."
Nobody is suggesting that the Opposition intend to hold up the Bill interminably, but there are some important issues that are being denied debate and a vote. That is why it is not far-fetched to suggest that the language used by the then Opposition, the new Government, is the language of Orwell and the Star Chamber.
Mr. Maclennan: The moment has almost passed, but I wanted to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he really thought that an advisory referendum such as we are considering in this debate has any resemblance whatever to the transfer of powers under the Single European Act which the Conservative Government countenanced and indeed forced through with a rather tight guillotine.
Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman sadly misses my point, which is that the way in which the then Opposition Chief Whip and the then shadow Secretary of State for Wales were speaking informed the way in which they have approached this timetable motion. They do not seem to care about what Opposition parties have to say. They do not want a debate; they find it inconvenient. They have 200 Back Benchers who are getting fidgety, and whose time they would prefer to be spent elsewhere, rather than getting cross with their Whips.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made a powerful speech and spoke most kindly about his predecessor, who served the House extremely well for many years. During that speech, he quoted my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and the Prime Minister's reply. The second part of that reply is yet further evidence that the Government have no idea about the rights of Parliament and the need to debate fully. They sit there smirking and turning round to their hon. Friends, nudging and winking and saying, "We are the servants—which really means the masters—now."
The Prime Minister said:
"There will be ample time for debate, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that if the firmly established will of the Scottish and Welsh people is demonstrated in referendums, the people will not expect us to be game-playing here—they will expect us to legislate."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 67.]
Quite frankly, he is saying, "Stuff Parliament; what we say goes, and we will ram it home." It is a case not only of game-playing but of the Prime Minister and the Government taking the whole deck of cards off the table and sweeping the stake money away with it.
I do not believe that the House has ever seen a more disreputable motion. Regardless of whether one agrees with the Bill, after today's and last night's performances, the Government should be ashamed of themselves.
5.15 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I listened with great care and interest to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Before any comments are made, a la Leader of the House last night, let me say that I sat through one and a half days trying and failing to get into the debate on Second Reading, so I feel it fully legitimate that I should speak on the motion.
218
Normally, one enjoys crossing swords with the Secretary of State for Scotland, as Conservative Members in particular have great respect for his skills and intellect and, not least, for his sincerity. Knowing that he was previously Opposition Chief Whip, I do not want to ruin any prospects of promotion, so I shall say that his sincerity is a deep-rooted veneer. I suspect that that will help him more than anything else.
Last week, the Secretary of State said that the measure was "of great importance". The fact that it is being debated on the Floor of the House shows that it is a constitutional measure. We can debate all day about whether it is a constitutional measure of the first importance; but the fact remains that it is a constitutional measure.
I urge the Government to think carefully about that, because the reason for so many amendments being tabled is the obscurity of what will follow. What follows is an open book: we have no idea what the detail of the devolution legislation will entail.
What we are being asked to enact is not a simple advisory measure, as we are told. The Secretary of State for Scotland made great play of the advisory point, saying that we would merely be asking the people for their opinion. What we are in fact asking the people in Scotland and Wales for is a blank cheque; we are asking them to say that the Government may do anything that they wish and that they have their approval.
Such a device has been used many times. It is alien to this country, but in other places, where people want absolute authority, it is used as a rubber stamp for what they may do subsequently. It is alien to the House and the country simply because we have always relied on the scrutiny of Parliament to get into the details.
I make no bones about this, because, although I have heard many comments from my hon. Friends about what should or should not happen on guillotines, I sat on the Government Benches throughout the Maastricht debates, believing quite legitimately that that legislation was wrong, and went through the line-by-line detail many times; I attended all the debates, which is something that many Labour Members did not do.
One or two of the minority parties may recall that, when we got into the detail of the Maastricht treaty, we found how deeply flawed the legislation before us was. Had we guillotined that legislation—as, sadly, I accept was done with the Single European Act—and forced it through the House, many of the things that we warned about would not have been spotted and could not have been rectified. Indeed, many cannot be rectified. None the less, they were spotted. I warned about the social chapter opt-out and was told, "You don't know what you are talking about. We will deal with it. It works." It did not work. The 48-hour working week was brought straight in.
I said all that at the time—but as a new Back Bencher, I would never have managed to speak if there had been a guillotine. I sat for hours waiting to contribute to many of those debates, and on clause after clause I failed to do so. Had there been a guillotine, I would never have made it.
The House is about the awkward squad, because it is the awkward squad that goes into the detail of legislation. I have heard Members from the minority parties talk about how good it is to timetable legislation. I am amazed and horrified by the idea that they, of all people, think that we should let any Government—it does not matter of which

219
party; I opposed my own Government on detailed constitutional legislation—have their way on such a matter without debate.
The reason why so many amendments were tabled to the Bill is that we know not what will follow. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made that point many times. For example, among the amendments that I have tabled is No. 142, which would add to the back of the Bill a little device allowing the Scottish and Welsh people to say whether they thought that there should be a second referendum after the detailed devolution legislation had been enacted.
My amendment has not even been selected, so it will not be debated, and such a device is unlikely to be used. Yet surely only when the detailed legislation has been passed by the House can we go to the people and say to them, "Is this what you said you wanted? Because it does not work—or at least, some of us think that it does not—and here are the reasons why." That must be the right device. The reason why there was so much outrage—it was not synthetic outrage—about what happened last night was because, behind closed doors there was a debate in Cabinet. [Interruption.] Oh yes, we know that there was a debate, and we probably know that the Leader of the House said, "This is not the way to go."
However, the others must have replied, "Don't worry. We have a big majority and we can do anything we like. The House of Commons doesn't matter. What the heck does it matter? We can shut it up any time we like. Let's do it now, before that lot are organised, before they can get themselves sorted out. Ram it through, no problems. When it comes to the vote, they won't know what they are voting on, and will probably say, 'Yes, yes, let them have it. We don't have to worry about the devolution debate. Don't worry, just pass it. Then, we can say that the devolution legislation doesn't have to be taken on the Floor of the House, because the people have said, basically, that they want it. Furthermore, for that same reason—because the people have said that they want it—the legislation should go through at great speed." That would be the beginning of a serious abuse of authority, which I predict will happen as a result of the measures that we shall pass in the next few weeks.
There are many unanswered questions about thresholds, and about the disfranchisement of people such as my parents. Until five years ago, they lived in Scotland, and they voted in the previous devolution referendum. For reasons of ill health, they had to move to another part of England, but their hearts still lie in that country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Another part of England?"] Yes, they moved to another part of England.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is Scotland a part of England?
Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I did not refer to that. I said that my parents moved to another part of England, having previously at one stage also been there. The hon. Gentleman must be careful about how he interprets words.
Mr. Wigley: So must the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The reality is that those who have their hearts in a particular country, and have a view and
220
a reason to vote, will have no say. We can argue not one jot on that, or on the levels that will be taken during the course of the devolution debate.
We are seeing an arrogance, not because what is being done has not been done before, but because of the way in which the Government are driving the legislation through Parliament. I say to the Back Benchers who sit on the Government side, silent as the grave, nodding quietly in acquiescence with their Government, that in due course they will find that their Government will act against their interests.
Every day that those Back Benchers watch their Government wind this place up, they watch them wind away their chance to debate or to change things on behalf of their constituents. I say good luck to them, but I add, "Don't come back to us and apologise in a year's time."
5.23 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: With all due respect to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), I think that most hon. Members know that the reason why there was no guillotine on the Maastricht legislation was simply that the Government could not carry a guillotine motion on the Floor of the House. It was not because of any principle on their part.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said that, when he was in a position to manage such matters, he would never have countenanced such an action. However, when the right hon. Gentleman was chairman of the Conservative party and the Maastricht legislation was running into trouble in the House, there was no guillotine simply because such a motion would not have been carried.
Once we remove the whiff of humbug that the Secretary of State for Scotland described earlier—large lumps of House of Commons humbug would be a better description—the truth is that if Members of Parliament are in favour of particular legislation they support guillotines, but if they are against the legislation, they are fiercely against the guillotine.
I make an honourable exception for the Liberal party, because I understand that although, it is against the legislation—if I interpret Liberal Members' statements correctly they intend to vote against the referendum legislation—they are still sympathetic to the guillotine.
In 10 years in the House, I have voted for only one guillotine motion, so I suspect that I have voted for fewer guillotines than almost any other Member now in opposition. My experience is that people's support or otherwise for guillotines is basically determined by their support or otherwise for the legislation concerned.
The humbug arises because of the identity of the Members making the charges of arrogance and insensitivity. The Government have been guilty of arrogance in their short period in office; there is no doubt about that. However, the charge comes from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who, during his time as Home Secretary, was not noted for his humility in his approach to a whole variety of public business.
There are some colourful characters in my constituency who occupy the sheriff courts day in and day out, but I do not know any one of them who has had as many court

221
judgments against him as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did during his term of office as Home Secretary. For such a charge to come from the Conservative Front Bench takes some stomaching for the rest of us, who over the past few years have been subjected to guillotine after guillotine by those self same people.
I think that the Government should have waited until the debate had started. They should have let the filibuster become clear before they introduced the guillotine. The guillotine motion should have been looser, too. They have over-restricted debate, especially at the end of the debates on some of the amendments.
However, in response to the sort of amendments that have been tabled over the past 10 days, let me say that, basically, I support the timetabling of the Bill. Some of the amendments have been called frivolous. They are more than frivolous, they are insulting. Do Conservative Members not realise that it is insulting to the people of Scotland and Wales to table St. Andrew's day amendments and daylight hours amendments?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Those were not selected.
Mr. Salmond: No, but they were tabled by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. Surely the nature of those amendments tells us something about the nature of many Conservative Back Benchers' approach to the legislation.
Serious issues arise on the Bill, such as whether it is needed at all. In my view, it is at best an unnecessary delay, and at worst a dangerous gamble. Another serious issue is the number of questions that should be asked. The Liberal Democrats' amendment, which we may debate later, is perfectly valid.
In Scotland and in Wales, the idea of a multi-option referendum is a big issue, and there is massive support for one, with a majority in every party supporting the concept. I noted that one of the contenders for the Conservative leadership is also on the record as supporting a multi-option referendum. He is in opposition now, of course. The present Secretary of State for Scotland, too, supported such a referendum when he was in opposition, but the concept seems to grow somewhat distant when people are in government.
Those issues will be debated and voted on. I do not think that sufficient time has been allowed, but none the less, they will be debated and voted upon.
The shadow Home Secretary chose to highlight as one of his major objections the issue of thresholds. He told the House that that was a key issue, and therefore the guillotine motion was not appropriate. Rightly, in view of the likely timetable, he said that that issue would not force a debate or a vote.
At an earlier stage in our proceedings, I challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that precise question, and asked him whether the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen would table blocking devices, involving 40 per cent. rules—or even 50 per cent. rules, which another of the contenders for the Tory crown has been talking about recently.
The shadow Home Secretary replied:
"The hon. Gentleman will have to restrain himself. In due course, he will see exactly what amendments the Opposition table".—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 735.]
222
As the Liberal Democrats have pointed out, as of yesterday, Opposition Front-Bench, as opposed to the Back-Bench, Members had tabled no amendments whatsoever on the matter. From Tory Back Benchers we have had 33, 40 and even 50 per cent. rules, but, until the amendments tabled yesterday and the starred amendments that appear on the Order Paper today, we had had nothing from Opposition Front Benchers. Even when new clauses 23, 24 and 25 were tabled yesterday, they were not about 40 or 50 per cent. rules but referred to the percentage of people voting—the turn-out in the referendum. I am glad that those amendments are not going to be treated seriously by the House. The reintroduction of that concept into politics disfigures democratic debate.
The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office is sitting on the Government Front Bench. He will remember from the previous referendum that the 40 per cent. rule was eventually attacked by both sides in the debate because it disfigured the way in which the debate was conducted. The idea that people could stay at home and influence the result of a democratic ballot was deeply disabling to democracy.
Mr. Wigley: People could even die.
Mr. Salmond: As the hon. Gentleman says, people who died at an inconvenient time would have been counted as against in the 1979 referendum in Scotland. In 1979, I was registered twice, once as a student and once at my home address. Because the registers of postal ballots were not published, I was not able to vote by post in St. Andrews. One of my potential votes was therefore counted against in the 1979 referendum. I legitimately appeared twice on the electoral roll but was entitled to vote only once. All those complexities were introduced by manipulation of the ballot and the 40 per cent. rule.
Internationally, if there had been a 40 per cent. rule in the Maastricht referendum in France, it would never have passed. Greenland would still be in the European Union. Perhaps we can understand now the objectives behind the Tory Back-Bench attempts to secure 33, 40 and 50 per cent. rules. More appropriately for the Conservative party, if we convert the Tory vote in Scotland to a percentage of the total electorate, the figure does not even reach the dizzy heights of 17 per cent.; it is 12.5 per cent.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The same applies to the hon. Gentleman's party.
Mr. Salmond: It does not. Firstly, we got more votes, but, more importantly, I am not arguing from the dizzy heights of a mandate of 12.5 per cent. of the total electorate that there should be a 33, 40 or 50 per cent. stipulation in a referendum Bill. If there had been a 40 per cent. rule in general elections, no UK Government would have been elected since the second world war—and a good thing too, many of my constituents might say.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to do everything to assist the break-up of the United Kingdom, which is why he supports the guillotine. I accept that he has views on the amendments, but who is he—who is anyone—to say that we should not even debate new clause 19, which deals with thresholds? I would be prepared to withdraw all my other amendments to get a proper debate on that measure.
Mr. Salmond: If that offer had been communicated to the Government earlier, perhaps we would not be having

223
this debate. I have already said, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, that the guillotine should have been looser and that the debate should have started before the guillotine was introduced. However, no intelligent layman looking at the nature of the amendments could come to a conclusion other than that Conservative Members were involved in a deliberate wrecking mechanism aimed at immersing the Bill in parliamentary procedure for a long time.
Mr. Jenkin indicated dissent.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman underrates his wrecking powers. He was parliamentary private secretary to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, who argued for such a referendum. It seems strange that those of us who did not want a referendum want the Bill to go through or, at least, not to be bogged down in parliamentary procedure, while he now declares that he is fiercely opposed to the whole process.
Humbug is on display from both Labour and Opposition Members. The House has come to adopt arguments for convenience. Members who favour legislation are, by and large, sympathetic to guillotines. If Members are against a Bill, they invoke all sorts of constitutional arguments as to why the Government should not do something that they would have most certainly have done in government if the position had been reversed. I suggest that we will reach a position where we can make progress for Scotland and Wales, and do so in reasonable time.
5.34 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a good attempt at debating new clause 19, which he deplored and said should never have been tabled. A great deal of humbug, to use his term, has been talked about the frivolity of the amendments. It is important to nail this one. No Committee Chairman—the Secretary of State for Scotland can smile as much as he likes—chooses wrecking or frivolous amendments. If he sought to do so, he would be dissuaded by the excellent advice of his Clerks. The fact that there are amendments on the amendment paper that may be described as frivolous is neither here nor there. They have not been selected, so they will not be debated. The argument is totally false.
I have voted against guillotines proposed by my party when in government. I deplore the foreclosure of legitimate debate by whomsoever it is proposed. I remember once saying in a guillotine debate when we were in government that we should never do things that we would not wish to be done to us. That has always been my maxim in this place.
Sensible timetabling is one thing, but a draconian timetable is very different. I have always favoured sensible timetabling of debates. I remember once leaving the Chamber in disgust when an important Bill was being discussed and it was not possible to debate many of its key aspects. That is always deplorable. The Government are doing that to the House, and doing it quite needlessly. They could have entered into an agreement for sensible timetabling through the usual channels. The shadow
224
Leader of the House made that plain in his first comment last night. We would then have had adequate debate on all the Bill's essential aspects.
I lay aside for the moment the question whether the threshold should be debated. Personally, I think that it should be. In any case, no one could deny that, central to the Bill, is the additional question on the ballot paper. I have tabled an amendment on that. The leader of the Scottish National party and I agree about the importance of that, although we come at it from different angles. I am a passionate believer in preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom; he takes a different line. I respect his view, although I profoundly disagree with it. Most profoundly of all, I disagree with the fact that the House will have only an hour and a half, including probably little more than an hour of Back-Bench speeches, to discuss that vital matter. That is to treat the House with disdain approaching contempt.
Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: In a moment. On Second Reading a fortnight ago, I said that I felt that the seeds of our troubles were sown when we got a very large majority in 1983. I quoted with some approbation the remarks of the much-castigated Lord Pym. I told Labour Members that, having understandably indulged in some euphoria, there was a danger that they would allow that euphoria to lapse into arrogance. We are already seeing that.
The House should not be treated with contempt by any Government, and especially by a Government who have many Back-Bench Members who will not, during the course of this Parliament, have any other opportunity to develop or deploy their talents than in the Chamber. Many of them will not be able to aspire to ministerial office; many of them will not become members of Select Committees; many of them will have only one place in which to exercise their talents, and that is the Chamber. That is no bad thing, in a way, because the Chamber should be the cockpit of the nation. It should be the place where we truly, properly and thoroughly discuss issues of great moment.
If, however, the Government are to pursue the course on which they have embarked this afternoon, they are delivering a blow that will lead to a cancerous frustration among their own Back-Bench Members. They are not allowing adequate and proper debate. If we had had four days to consider the Bill rather than two, I would have considered that a reasonable allocation of time. There would then have been a proper opportunity for reasonable debate on all the outstanding issues that are before us.
The Government would have suffered not at all. They would not have lost their legislation. We must be realistic enough to accept that the Government will get their legislation. At least their legislation would have been subject to some proper debate and more real scrutiny if we had been given four days rather than two. Those responsible for that legislation would have had to answer detailed and critical questions arising from the amendments at the Dispatch Box. What is more, there would have been a proper chance to vote on a number of amendments. That is a chance that we are being denied by an extremely ungenerous timetable.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Surely the parallel with the remark made or warning given by Lord Pym about the

225
abuse of power by a party with a huge majority is entirely inappropriate to the Bill that is before us. Indeed, there is no parallel. Lord Pym was warning us about a Government bent on centralising power, who had a very large majority to enable them to do just that. The Bill before us is about decentralising power. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways and accuse the Government of being arrogant about giving away some of their powers to the people of Scotland and Wales and subsequently, subject to referendums, to Assemblies and Parliaments in Scotland and Wales.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. I am warning about the arrogance of a Government, bolstered by an enormous majority, who feel that they can act as a juggernaut or steamroller and push everything through this place without adequate debate. It is—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can sit in his place and shout as much as he likes. He can blow his top as often as he wants.
Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, these are issues that arouse passion and real differences of opinion in this country. When I say "this country", I mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is "this country" as far as I am concerned.
I have referred to the honourable difference of opinion that I have with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the leader of the Scottish National party. He passionately wants to see a fully independent Scotland. That is a legitimate aspiration and a reasonable ambition for him to hold. I have always respected the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) knows. The hon. Lady and I debated against each other during the devolution debates in the 1970s. I respect their position, but I profoundly disagree with it.
The motion before us annoys me because we are not being given an adequate opportunity to debate important issues in the Chamber. We know that the Government will not withdraw their allocation of time motion, but I beg them to be more sensible and sensitive when it comes to the substantive devolution legislation, which will come before us later this year. It is crucial that it is taken properly on the Floor of the House.
It follows from what I have already said that I do not object to a sensible and structured timetabling arrangement, but it must be one that does not prevent or stifle debate. It must provide adequate opportunity for us to test the various issues. To my mind, it is an insult to Parliament that we are not debating that legislation before we have the referendum. I entirely agree with what the very hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the need for a further referendum after we have passed, assuming we do, devolution legislation.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: That is Michael Forsyth's position.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Indeed, that is Michael Forsyth's position. Sadly he is not here to argue it—would that he were.
I am aware that there are other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. That being so, I shall conclude my remarks by reiterating what I consider to be the most important point that I have sought to make this afternoon,
226
which is that the Government are treating the House with disdain approaching contempt. If they continue so to do, they will be sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
The Government should remember that on their Benches are serried ranks of new Members. They are glad that they are here and understandably rejoicing in the often unexpected triumphs that brought them to this place. They are men and women who will want to play a proper and structured part in debates on legislation that is put before us. If the Government deny them that opportunity, they will breed a resentment from which they will rightly suffer.
5.45 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am glad that I was returned to this place in the recent general election, if only because I have heard for the first time—I knew that it would happen—a Conservative Front Bench spokesman speak against the guillotine. I have lived within these premises for nearly 18 years, and I have watched the Conservative Front Bench turn the guillotine into a constitutional device for destroying debate and the free expression of the people of this country.
We reached the position where we devised even more ways in which we could screw down public debate. We anticipated even Second Readings by insisting on a guillotine before they took place. We guillotined a new constitutional innovation. We guillotined Lords amendments before they had even come before us. That was the effect of our guillotine legislation. To hear my Front-Bench colleagues say that the guillotine is inappropriate cheers me and a wider circle of people who believe in Conservative trust, worthwhile government and honest principle.
As I said that, the then Opposition Members rose, as indignantly as I have heard Opposition Members today, to oppose every measure that came before us, including what became the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the anticipatory legislation that was introduced before the 1992 general election. Legislation was taken on a shovel. That is what we reduced the House to.
The danger of that approach is that it creates cynicism. By moving from one side of the Chamber to the other, we have the same rubbish thrown back at us. Let us not be in any doubt that the Bill is a major constitutional issue. It is inappropriate to introduce a guillotine because the Bill touches on the most delicate and important of all flowers in this nation of ours—and that is our Union. We have the absurd position of the Scottish National party, which, on the one hand, wants full integration with the union of Europe, but, on the other, wishes to smash the only Union that is of importance to many many of us.
What do I mean by "many many of us"? The 1991 census told us that 680,000 or 690,000 Scots-born people over the age of 18 were living in England. Similarly, about 500,000 Welsh-born people are living in England. Are they to be casually disfranchised? It is difficult to express the passion that brings together nearly 290 years, as it will be this year, of consanguinity and common language

227
If we hear rage and concern, it is because there is extremely deep concern that in the turning of this particular key and the opening of this door we walk through to something that is of profound importance and will be to the disadvantage of the Union.
Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of us on the opposite side of the Chamber have respected him greatly in these debates. But what rights does he think that the Scots in Aldridge-Brownhills have to participate in the proposed referendum? I should be extremely interested in his answer.
Mr. Shepherd: I was trying to explain, and I am sorry that I did not inform the House well enough. I am saying that we, each one of us, as part of a Union have a right to express our view on the nature and shape of that Union.
I wanted to move on to the second proposition. If we are to nationalise parts of the Union and bring back the feeling of Scottishness, Welshness and Englishness, how can we leave out of the equation, in the great affirmation of Scotland, the reason why I, who was born in Scotland, should be denied a vote on the future of the country for which I have sentiment and feeling, and which I believe should be part of an integral United Kingdom?
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may remember that a few years ago members of the Politburo in the old Soviet Union believed that referendums such as those in the Baltic states should have been conducted across the whole of the Soviet Union. Did the hon. Gentleman support that view at that time?
Mr. Shepherd: I have not often come into contact with the honourable leader of the Scottish National party, but it is absurd if Scotland is reduced to such trivia when dealing with these important matters. I am talking about consanguinity: no one has suggested that the Soviet Union was an area of consanguinity. We have been united by marriage and blood over several centuries.
Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
Mr. Shepherd: No, I want to explain why I want to attack the guillotine motion.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shepherd: No, I said no. The hon. Gentleman has spoken. I want to explain why I oppose this measure.
Almost half a million Welsh men and women live in England. Very few hon. Members could not trace a line to some part of the United Kingdom, which gives us a locus in equality on this matter. But that has been cast aside and we shall not even be able to discuss these issues.
I want to refer to the reputations of Governments. There were three guillotine motions during the Attlee Government and another three up to 1971, while in the 1980s under Mrs. Thatcher there were almost 60. Until circumstances reduced him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) instituted the course that was taken by the previous Government, to which I referred in my opening remarks. Such practice slowly
228
changes the nation's mind. People perceive Governments as arrogant or not sensitive enough to the basic political questions of the age. The Labour party is the great beneficiary of that.
The Government should not knock the genuinely expressed anxieties about the future of the Union. The simplicity of some of our amendments may not be to the satisfaction of some hon. Members, and they may have been excluded by the Chairman of Ways and Means, but they are not criticisms of substance; they are anxieties that have been raised. The House should be able to discuss familiar and important matters: that is the purpose of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We should consider the sensitivities and difficulties of English representatives who are trying to ensure that the referendum consolidates and does not break the Union. Many hon. Members want to preserve the Union. If that is the Government's ambition, I share it.
My fear is that we will not have sufficient time to reflect on people's niggles and anxieties. My mother lived in this country for 50 years. The Scottish nationalists may ask, "What does she know about Scotland?" It is a fact that, because of our language, we are informed about each area of the Union.
I ask the Government to reflect on this small measure, as they put it, because however persuasive the Secretary of State for Scotland may be, we fear that it is perhaps the beginning of the unravelling of what I call the most important Union for everyone in the House. Please listen to what we are saying, and reflect on the fact that the process by which the measure is achieved is important to the standing of the new Government and to the regard in which they are held.
5.53 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: I have listened to the debate, and I am astounded and stunned by the thoughts expressed by Conservative Members. We have had 18 years of Tory rule, and we have fought the general election. I have been in the House for 10 years, and I can safely say that during that time hardly a week or a month went by without the people of Scotland saying, "When will we get rid of the Tories? When will we have a Scottish Parliament of our own? When will our destinies be in our own hands?" The Tories have not learnt that lesson, and they have been wiped out in Scotland.
I have great respect for the hon. Members for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack): they are men of integrity and have made many speeches in the House. I do not like the guillotine any more than they do. However, the people of Scotland are sick and tired of waiting. They have been waiting for a devolved Parliament for more than 20 years. They are desperate, and they think that there has been enough talk. They want to see the establishment of that Parliament in Scotland; they want to participate and they want the services that a Scottish Parliament will decide on and deliver. It is not for us to continue the never ending story. If we talk, talk, talk, the people of Scotland will go for another 50 years without a proper Parliament.
I should have liked to debate the issues, but 240 nonsensical, wrecking amendments were tabled. Conservative Members could have tabled 20 amendments and spoken for an hour on each. Hon. Members should remember that this debate is being watched by the people

229
of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. People in other countries are also watching it, and they will not see us fail to deliver what we promised to the people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Graham: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a minute.
Do hon. Members seriously think that the people of Scotland are half daft, and that we are still living in the days of the Picts and go about painted? We are not. We are educated people, and we can see quite clearly when the Opposition are out to wreck a measure for which the people of Scotland have spoken. There is not one Labour Member who did not put into his election address that he wanted a Scottish Parliament. We did not kid anyone in Scotland: we told them clearly that we want a Scottish Parliament.
We also came up with a referendum. The Labour party argued about whether it was for or against a referendum: yes, yes, no, yes, no. The Tories had a meeting in Scotland in a big tent. They had a pow-wow in a wigwam, but they could not smoke the peace pipe because they had broken it. They do not have a clue. They still do not understand that in a democracy we must listen to the people. The people of Scotland have put their cross on the ballot paper: they want a Labour Government and they want the House to deliver a Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Surely the point is that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends stood in the general election on their belief in devolution. Does he not agree that the problem is that we are putting the cart before the horse? If the Government put the devolution argument and then asked the people of Scotland to decide, we would not have this problem. The question could be put through the House quickly and then the people of Scotland could be asked. Why not have it that way?
Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman would make a fortune in the Glasgow Playhouse. That was comedy at its worst. The people of Scotland have said clearly that they want a Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again, I will be happy to listen to him.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My point is that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends stood on a platform of devolution and a Scottish Parliament. Why do the Government not debate the devolution legislation on the Floor of the House? With their majority, it would no doubt be passed. They could then ask the people of Scotland whether that is what they want.
Mr. Graham: How long has the hon. Gentleman been in the House? I have been here 10 years. The Tory Government never listened to us. We asked them to come up with a devolved Parliament and an Assembly: we pleaded with them, and we tried to do deals to ensure that it would happen. So did the Scottish National party, which has wanted their question on independence. I would not deny them. When the Tories had the opportunity, they did nothing for the people of Scotland.
The people of Scotland have done the business, so the House should also do the business. We have binned the Tories, and the only way back for them is to start listening
230
to the people of Scotland and to take steps to come into line and ensure that we have a meaningful Scottish Parliament.
I am sitting here listening tonight, but Conservative Members do not listen to the message that is coming from Tories in Scotland. They are dumb, and when they are dumb they cannot think. Certainly, they are not speaking on behalf of Scottish Tories. They have given that up. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has integrity; if we do not have such integrity in Scotland, the United Kingdom will be split asunder. The Tories should not run away from the argument. They should say that, if the people of Scotland want a Parliament, we should all work together to deliver the goods.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: May I make a simple point? We are expressing outrage about a guillotine motion. I think that we all want to engage in the subsequent development of the argument; it is the guillotine on discussion that we oppose. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there may be a settled will in Scotland.
Mr. Graham: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I understand where some other Opposition Members are coming from, but I know that the rest, deep down, want a mechanism to stop the process in its tracks because their view about Scottish devolution is so deeply entrenched. I have read some of the nonsense that has come from those who used to be Ministers.
I could be here all night, but I shall not be. I believe that the people of Scotland want devolution now, and I believe that the guillotine motion is appropriate. There has been enough talking. We want a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, serving the needs of the people of Scotland. It is time that the Tory party realised that; otherwise, it will never again play a part in global politics in Scotland.
6.1 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: I regret the terms of the motion, but I deplore even more the arguments that have been assembled in favour of it.
First, we were told that this was somehow not a constitutional Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) blew that argument right out of the water. The Prime Minister thought that this was a constitutional Bill. Replying to me earlier, the Secretary of State described it as a small technical measure; yet on Second Reading his own Minister of State said that these were "not technical measures", and that after the referendum the Government would act in accordance with the results. I urge Government Front Benchers, if they want to retain any credibility in the matter, to say once and for all today whether or not this is a constitutional measure.
Secondly, the Government tried to justify the guillotine motion in a way in which I have never heard any timetable motion justified, speaking of the need to eliminate amendments that were either frivolous or esoteric. My amendment No. 121, which will be eliminated by the timetable motion, proposes arrangements for service men serving overseas to vote in the referendum. The amendment is not phrased in my own words, but precisely reflects the wording of an amendment making special arrangements for service men that the then Labour Government tabled to the last referendum Bill back in

231
1975. There are many Scottish service men serving in Scottish regiments overseas who will not be able to vote in the referendum because my amendment will now not even be debated, let alone voted on.
The suggestion that the timetable motion is needed to eliminate amendments that are frivolous or esoteric goes further: it usurps the function of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Clerks who advise him. The whole point of selecting amendments is that those that they regard as frivolous are not selected for debate. Furthermore, the timetable motion itself is unnecessary, because of the selection that the Chairman has made. Because of the way in which he has grouped amendments—in large groups, by large subjects—it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to secure their business by, if necessary, moving closure motions after two or three hours of debate on each group.
Finally, the Government have argued that there is a need for speed, not because of some legislative log jam, not because this is the last Session of a Parliament, not because of any special legislative requirements in terms of Scottish legislation—oh no. In the heat of the moment, the Leader of the House gave the game away last night, justifying the need for speed in the following terms:
"If we did not take steps to ensure that there was a referendum in Scotland and one in Wales in the autumn we would be breaking a manifesto commitment."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 132.]
That is the start of a slide towards an elective dictatorship, putting the doctrine of the mandate ahead of the authority of the House. We should reject the motion today, and we should reject even more firmly the arguments advanced to sustain it.
6.5 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) by asking, why the rush? When we wonder why the Government will not answer that question, we need to consider what is the source of the referendum in the first place. All those Members on the Government side now arguing in favour of a referendum originally never had the idea of a referendum in their heads. The referendum policy was thought up to serve as a sticking plaster to cover the splits in the Labour party over devolution, which were emerging when it was still in opposition.
What we want now is a referendum—that is the Opposition's policy, if these proposals are to be put to the Scottish people—but after the legislation has been passed. We want a referendum that will really establish what is the settled will of the Scottish people. The Government want this rush because the last thing that they want the Scottish people to do is seriously to consider the content and meaning of the referendum proposals. Let me tell the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) that that is what happened last time: they thought about it. The hon. Gentleman was elected on a mandate for a referendum, not a mandate for a Scottish Parliament. Whatever he personally may believe, there is no mandate for a Scottish Parliament—only a mandate for a referendum.
The referendum should consider all the issues, and all the details of the legislation. It should not be a referendum on a general question that will be thrown at the Scottish
232
people while the Government are still enjoying their honeymoon, and what the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), described as a loyalty vote in the new Labour Government.
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said earlier. Frustration will be stored up among Labour Members who really want to speak out on the issue. I remember the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), describing the programme for devolution as the Balkanisation of Britain. It is no surprise that the Scottish nationalists are supporting the proposal: they know that a headlong rush to settle the question as quickly as possible, before people have proper time to consider it, is the best way to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why we are so angry about the way in which the guillotine motion has been tabled. We need to debate the issues seriously, and to debate all the issues that arise in the amendments.
Mr. Ian Davidson: If the hon. Gentleman seriously wants a genuine debate, why does he table so many frivolous amendments?
Mr. Jenkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know the nature of the probing amendment. Moreover, he well knows that the process of submitting amendments can be something of a lottery, because hon. Members never know which will be selected. We tabled many respectable amendments and some of them have been selected for debate. The hon. Gentleman does not dare to discuss them because he knows that the longer the Scottish people have to think about the proposals, the less enamoured of them they will be. He is involved in stifling the debate and he hopes to rush the measure through without proper thought because that is the only basis on which the referendum was acceptable to him.
The decision to have a referendum was taken not in Edinburgh or Glasgow but by the Islington branch of the new Labour party, much to the consternation of many Labour Members. It is about the management of the Labour party. The new Labour Government are desperately trying to contain their massive majority before their Back Benchers become restless and unhelpful. The Government know that the devolution measures could turn out to be their Maastricht if they allow them the consideration that they deserve.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: No doubt the hon. Gentleman's remarks are highly coloured by his probing adventure into Scottish politics. He will recall the number of votes that he received on that occasion. He talks about respectable amendments. Is the amendment calling for the referendum to be held on a Sunday respectable?
Mr. Jenkin: It is certainly reasonable to discuss the day on which a referendum might be held. I am surprised that the hon. Lady should remember my modest foray into Scottish politics. I am glad that I left such a good impression.
6.11 pm
Mr. William Hague: The debate was graced by the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), who spoke well of he

233
fascinating constituency. I came to know it quite well and I share her admiration for it. She said that she would have been more comfortable speaking in the language of heaven, which is her native tongue. She spoke well in her second language and we all welcome her to the House. The hon. Lady's speech was a good advertisement for Parliament, and it was a relief to hear such a speech from a Labour Member.
The House heard the first speech following his return to the House of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). We welcome him back. He reminded us that hon. Members have roles and rights and that the House has rights. He said that democracy involves not only the majority having its way, but the minority having its say. He told the House that Ministers have said that constitutional issues would get maximum debate and that there would be maximum participation. There has been no sign of the Government honouring that commitment.
Another colleague who has returned to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), said that his amendment was about the voting rights of service men. He dispelled the excuse for the guillotine that has been peddled by the Government, that the amendments are frivolous trivia. That argument is indefensible in the light of my hon. Friend's speech.
The Secretary of State for Scotland was reduced to saying that the Bill will not alter the constitution, but will simply try to pave the way for doing that. Is not the way in which we conduct referendums part of our constitution? Are the rules, procedures and arrangements for them not an important part of our constitutional arrangements? Precedents from 1977 and 1978 were quoted. Do not they remind us that every referendum shapes our unwritten constitution? Labour Members propose endless referendums without any thought for their consequences on the constitution. The holding of a referendum in advance of legislation is in itself a regrettable change in constitutional practice.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Bill was a modest measure which could easily be guillotined. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) who reminded us that two weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman said that the measure was of great importance. Now it has become modest, and we are told that we need not worry too much about debate on it being curtailed. If the measure is so modest, why will the Committee stage be taken in the Chamber? The Government cannot have it both ways, but the right hon. Gentleman spoke about a modest measure as if the Government were asking for permission to hold an opinion poll. He said that it was modest because it was short, but not everything that is short is modest, otherwise there would be much more modesty in the Chamber.
The Bill raises fundamental questions about our constitution and about the use of referendums. It also raises important questions about whether people should be presented with proposals that have not been subjected to detailed scrutiny; about what happens when Parliament is told that such scrutiny is unnecessary because a referendum has been carried; about who should vote in
234
referendums; and about whether the question in a referendum should be specific or the kind of vague generality that the Government want to put to the people.
Mr. Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: No, because I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
The Bill raises important questions about whether there should be agreed procedures for the conduct and financing of referendums. However, there are to be short debates or no debates at all on all those issues.
In opening the debate for the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that the first duty of Parliament was to debate legislation. He reminded us that when Michael Foot guillotined devolution Bills in the 1970s, he did it after 30 days of debate. His complaint was that hon. Members had already spoken too much. One of the complaints of Labour Members now is that not enough Opposition Members have spoken in the debates so far on these matters.
There is no precedent that Labour Members would like to look at in detail for the action that they propose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe showed that the guillotine is not simply about limiting debate, but about denying it. The effect of the motion will be that the referendum procedures, the possibility of asking the people of Wales about tax-raising powers, the financing of the campaigns and the issue of a majority threshold cannot be debated. Are those trivial and esoteric questions which can easily be cast aside? Are they not worthy of being debated for at least an hour or of a single comment by the Government? Do they not deserve cursory examination by the mother of Parliaments?
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the Gary McAllister question. I suspect that that will join the West Lothian and Bury North questions and become part of our political language. The hon. Gentleman asked questions that Ministers have not answered and propose to skate over.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) took issue with the assertion that the merits of a guillotine could be determined by the number of hon. Members who were present on Second Reading. At the end of Second Reading there were still some hon. Members waiting to take part, and among them was my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. He reminded us that if the Government were truly intent on modernising our procedures, they would do it with the interests of hon. Members in mind rather than solely the interests of the Government. He said that it is the duty of the Leader of the House to stand up for its rights and to strike a balance between the Government's wish to get its business through and the need for Parliament to give that business proper scrutiny.
The behaviour of the Leader of the House on this matter has been a disgrace. After she had made her statement yesterday evening, she scuttled out of the House while points of order about it were still being raised. She has not managed to scuttle back in to hear the winding-up speeches. Within a month of taking on her responsibilities, she has been bullied into surrendering rights of the House by the Secretaries of State for Scotland

235
and for Wales. I have never seen the Secretary of State for Scotland as a bully and I am disappointed in him. However, we all know that the Secretary of State for Wales is a bully and the right hon. Lady should have seen him coming. She should have known that she would have to resist such attacks when she took on her responsibilities.
If the Leader of the House believes in a timetable, why was one not offered to the Opposition? If she desires the orderly passage of business with adequate debate, why did she not discuss the terms of the timetable with the Opposition? The excuses that the right hon. Lady gave last night were pathetic. She said:
"It is a simple, straightforward Bill with only six clauses."
If it is so simple and straightforward, how come Ministers have not yet managed to answer most of the simple, straightforward questions about it? [Interruption.] Here she is; now she can deal with some of these herself. She said about the Bill:
"The Government also have a clear mandate for it."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 123.]
However, what she forgot and what she is paid to remember is that hon. Members all have a mandate to scrutinise legislation and to ensure that it receives proper debate. Does she not realise that the confidence of the House in a Minister, above all the Leader of the House, is not automatic but has to be earned? She has done nothing to earn it in the way in which she has abdicated her responsibilities in this matter.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed to some of the dangerous language used by Ministers on this subject: the Secretary of State for Wales had said that he would brook no interference in dealing with these matters; and the Prime Minister had said that it would be game playing not to legislate with all possible speed on the matter. The language that the Government have used is deeply unappealing to people who believe in open debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) reminded us that sensible timetabling is one thing, but draconian timetabling is another. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills(Mr. Shepherd) spoke powerfully of the inappropriateness of guillotining a Bill that may have lasting consequences for the Union of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) reminded us that the only reason why the Government are in a rush to hold referendums and to secure the Bill is that they fear the consequences of sustained debate about the detailed proposals that they have yet to produce for the benefit of this Parliament and of the people of this country.
What that adds up to is a growing streak of arrogance in the Government's behaviour. What seemed like carelessness in the first few days they were in office has turned into a habit of overweening arrogance. We saw it with the decision about the Bank of England, which was made without even consulting the Cabinet, in the changes to Prime Minister's Question Time to try to turn it into a weekly yawn, in the changes to questions to other Departments, as was raised at points of order earlier today, and in the huge increase in political and personal appointments by Ministers. Now we see it in the cavalier
236
use of the power to guillotine. It adds up to the arrogant abuse of power. The Government may enjoy it for the moment, but they will certainly regret it in the end.
That arrogance is all the more disturbing when accompanied by Ministers being unable or unwilling to answer clear questions about the implications of the legislation that they have brought to the House. How many of the questions that we asked on Second Reading are still unanswered? A great many. How many will still be unanswered when we finish these curtailed debates in Committee? A great many. The Government have not begun to answer the questions about how devolved systems of government would work. They cannot even answer satisfactorily how the voters in a referendum can assess their answers.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham reminded us, the Prime Minister said that the Bill would be published for people to examine before the referendums were held. Now it has been turned into the White Paper. Are we not to believe what the Prime Minister says in the House? The Government are not able to say how extensive, informative or conclusive that information will be. They are not able to answer the most basic and fundamental questions about their proposal.
We believe that it is right to hold referendums on these proposals, but we believe that the Bill entails holding referendums at the wrong time and in the wrong way, and that it asks voters to approve proposals that are unclear or may be changed afterwards, with the House of Commons being told that it must pass the measure without a fuss because a referendum has approved it.
The use of a referendum to gain a general mandate rather than approval for specific proposals is the use of a referendum as an anti-parliamentary device. Our protest is that the Government are coupling the misuse of one constitutional innovation with the abuse of another. They are bringing about one procedure unsuited to parliamentary democracy by employing another. No wonder so few Government Back Benchers have had either the courage to oppose nor the confidence to voice support for the measure. In the end, they will be the losers, but it is a pity for all concerned that the functioning of the House is the loser in the meantime.
6.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Despite the last comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, I am sure that there is a general understanding in the House that the Government are proceeding in the correct way. [Interruption.] I think that there is. I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for the support that the Liberal Democrats have given to the Government on this matter, and the Scottish National party for its somewhat qualified support for the proposition. I also know that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who represents Plaid Cymru, is well disposed to the motion.
It is a sad reflection on the state of the Conservative party that it has learned nothing in the past month. It was comprehensively defeated at the general election a month ago and was wiped out in Scotland and Wales. All it is doing is resolutely refusing to recognise that, on the central issue of the way in which Scotland and Wales are governed, it was wrong and is wrong. The Conservative party resolutely clings to the status quo when that status quo is totally discredited.

237
I remind the shadow Secretary of State of the time when he was Secretary of State for Wales. There are powerful currents running towards democratic government in both Scotland and Wales. The people of Scotland and Wales want to give expression to their national aspirations and to decide their own local priorities in public services. People in Scotland and Wales, and no doubt in the regions of England, wish to find out how best they can develop their own regional economies.
I remind the shadow Secretary of State that there are some Conservatives, certainly some in Wales—the more progressive of them—who do understand the need to modernise our constitution. Let me draw his attention to the remarks of his colleague, the former right hon. Member for Conwy, Sir Wyn Roberts. I take this opportunity to pay my personal tribute to him. He was a witty, dedicated and patriotic Welshman who served his constituency with great distinction. He is the longest-serving Welsh Office Minister we have ever had and, within weeks of leaving that office and leaving government, he recognised that it was time, and that there was a need, to rethink policy on devolution.
That brings me to Sir Wyn's successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), whom I particularly welcome. She treated us to a marvellous maiden speech. It was passionate and articulate. I know of her love for her new constituency and share her admiration for the beauty of her part of Wales. She spoke eloquently of her native language and our shared culture, and I welcome her determination to democratise our government in Wales. She will be a staunch ally in the referendum campaign that will shortly come.
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that there need not necessarily have been a guillotine motion before the House this evening. The Bill that is the subject of the guillotine is, of course, a short Bill. It contains six straightforward clauses and two schedules, but, somehow or other, within the space of a few days, that short Bill has attracted 250 amendments, 21 new clauses and 12 new schedules.
Those amendments, new clauses and new schedules were designed not to improve the Bill, but to wreck any chances of an orderly and considered debate. I think that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was absolutely right when he accused Opposition Members of overkill. Let me refer the House to new clause 8, which I am sure was not tabled to improve debate. It says:
"Nothing in this Act shall derogate from—

(a) the Union with Scotland Act 1706, The Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707, The Succession to the Crown Act 1707, The Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711 or The Demise of the Crown Acts 1702 to 1901 or any Act of Parliament affecting the Crown;

(b) The Wales Act 1535;

(c) The Act of Settlement 1700."

Is the shadow Secretary of State for Wales or the shadow Home Secretary telling us that that new clause is tabled to bring about an orderly, logical and rational debate on the proposition before us? I do not believe that it is.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but time does not allow.
238
I must ask the House what the Government are supposed to do under those circumstances. The Government are doing precisely what the shadow Secretary of State for Wales and his party would do were they still in government. The choice is quite simple and there should be no misunderstanding. Either the Government would have had to allow a completely uncontrolled filibuster, which would have implications for not only this piece of legislation but all the Government's legislative programme, or they had to act now to ensure a proper timetable for a rational debate and time for all the key issues to be debated.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
Mr. Garnier rose—
Mr. Davies: I listened patiently to both the hon. Members and I want to reply to some of the important points that have been made.
Mr. Jenkin: There is never enough time, is there?
Mr. Davies: No, unfortunately there is not, but we do have a guillotine motion before us.
The Opposition know that their indignation on this matter is entirely synthetic. I shall remind them of the views of Michael Portillo when he was speaking from the Dispatch Box:
"It is known in the House that the reality is a choice between many hours in Committee characterised by filibuster and slow progress, and a number of hours in Committee in which we make reasonable progress."— [Official Report, 12 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1046.]
The timetable motion will allow the House to have an ordered, rational and sensible debate. It will provide for four key debates. I know that many hon. Members have raised the issue of the franchise. When the timetable motion is accepted, there will be an opportunity for a calm, rational and brief debate on the franchise.
Mr. Cash: Brief.
Mr. Davies: Of course the debate will be brief. The Government accept that the alternative is to allow the Conservative party to reduce the proceedings in the House to a degenerate rabble. That is the Conservative party's intention, but the Government will not allow that to happen.
There will be a further opportunity for a debate on the second Scottish question. I understand the position of many of those in the Scottish Liberal Democrat party and the Scottish National party who do not share the Government's view that there should be a second question dealing with tax-raising powers. When the timetable motion is accepted, there will be an opportunity for that debate, so that hon. Members can put their case and a Division can take place.
If and when—[Interruption.] The issue of thresholds has been raised from a sedentary position. That issue has been raised in various amendments and Madam Speaker has been responsible for the selection. If the debates on the franchise are brief and the House reaches an early conclusion, there will be an opportunity for a further debate on those matters. It is entirely in the hands

239
of Opposition Members. If they wish to use the time available to debate the franchise at length, there will not be time for a debate on thresholds.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I have only a few minutes left and I must finish this point.
The Government's view is clear. We believe that there is no room in the referendum for the artificial introduction of the sort of thresholds that have been mentioned.
Mr. Hague: The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be plenty of time to debate the franchise and the second Scottish question and that there will also be time to debate lots of other things. He cannot hold both those views simultaneously. The guillotine means that there cannot be a debate on the procedures of the referendum, on the arguments about thresholds or on whether the people of Wales should be asked about tax-raising powers. Does he think that that is right?
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru will allow for a referendum with a range of options. It will provide the multi-choice option. If that amendment is successful, that multi-choice option will be put before the people of Wales. It will presumably include the sort of Parliament that they wish to see, with a range of legislative powers and, presumably, with tax-raising powers. It is precisely so that we can move to a rational debate on those issues that the Government have tabled the timetable motion.
The motion will allow four main debates. There will be one on the franchise, one on the second Scottish question, one on the multi-choice option for Wales and one on the multi-choice option for Scotland.
I want to reply to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), which is why I did not give way to him. He suggested that there was a choice and that, had there been an offer from the Opposition's business managers, the Government should have accepted it, to ensure that there was no need for a guillotine. The Government would have co-operated with the Opposition if there had been a reasonable prospect of coming to an agreement. It was made clear by the Conservative party's representatives that no guarantees could be given.
The Government have been quite reasonable in allowing two days on the Floor of the House for a debate in Committee on this brief Bill. If the Opposition are not prepared to guarantee that the business will be concluded within those two days, the Government have no option but to proceed with the motion.
The Government have to accept their responsibility to the House of Commons to ensure an orderly debate. During its time in office from 1979, the Conservative party introduced 61 guillotines. There are many precedents for this pre-Committee stage guillotine. This is the first big test of the Conservative party in opposition and it has failed. It has failed to come to terms with its election defeat and failed to understand the consequences of being wiped out in Scotland and Wales.
240
The Government are determined to modernise the British constitution, and devolution is part of that process. This timetable motion will ensure that the people of Scotland and Wales are given a chance to have their say in that modernisation process. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 420,Noes 154.

Division No. 8]

[6.36 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Casale, Roger

Ainger, Nick

Cawsey, Ian

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

Chaytor, David

Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

Chidgey, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

Church, Ms Judith

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Clapham, Michael

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Ashton, Joe

Clark, Dr Lynda

Atherton, Ms Candy

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Atkins, Ms Charlotte

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Austin, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Baker, Norman

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Barron, Kevin

Clelland, David

Bayley, Hugh

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Beard, Nigel

Coaker, Vernon

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Coffey, Ms Ann

Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

Cohen, Harry

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Coleman, Iain

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

(Hammersmith & Fulham)

Bennett, Andrew F

Colman, Anthony (Putney)

Benton, Joe

Connarty, Michael

Berry, Roger

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Best, Harold

Cooper, Ms Yvette

Betts, Clive

Corbett, Robin

Blackman, Mrs Liz

Corbyn, Jeremy

Blears, Ms Hazel

Corston, Ms Jean

Blizzard, Robert

Cotter, Brian

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Cousins, Jim

Boateng, Paul

Cranston, Ross

Borrow, David

Crausby, David

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bradshaw, Ben

Cummings, John

Brake, Thomas

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Brand, Dr Peter

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

Breed, Colin

(Perth)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

Brown, Rt Hon Nick

Dafis, Cynog

(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Dalyell, Tam

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

Darvill, Keith

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davidson, Ian

Burden, Richard

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Burgon, Colin

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Burnett, John

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Burstow, Paul

Dawson, Hilton

Butler, Christine

Dean, Ms Janet

Byers, Stephen

Denham, John

Cable, Dr Vincent

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Caborn, Richard

Dismore, Andrew

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dobbin, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Donohoe, Brian H

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Doran, Frank

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Dowd, Jim

Canavan, Dennis

Drew, David

Cann, Jamie

Drown, Ms Julia

241

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

Hurst, Alan

Edwards, Huw

Hutton, John

Efford, Clive

Iddon, Brian

Ellman, Ms Louise

Illsley, Eric

Ennis, Jeff

Ingram, Adam

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Fatchett, Derek

Jamieson, David

Fearn, Ronnie

Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Fisher, Mark

Johnson, Ms Melanie

Fitzpatrick, Jim

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Flint, Ms Caroline

Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

Flynn, Paul

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Follett, Ms Barbara

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Jones, Ms Jenny

Foster, Don (Bath)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Foulkes, George

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Galbraith, Sam

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Galloway, George

Keeble, Ms Sally

Gapes, Mike

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Gardiner, Barry

Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Keetch, Paul

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Kemp, Fraser

Gerrard, Neil

Kennedy, Charles

Gibson, Dr Ian

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Khabra, Piara S

Godsiff, Roger

Kidney, David

Goggins, Paul

Kilfoyle, Peter

Golding, Mrs Llin

King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Kingham, Tessa

Gorrie, Donald

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Graham, Thomas

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Grant, Bernie

Laxton, Bob

Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

Lepper, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Leslie, Christopher

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Levitt, Tom

Grocott, Bruce

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Grogan, John

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gunnell, John

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Hain, Peter

Linton, Martin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Livingstone, Ken

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Livsey, Richard

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Hancock, Mike

Uwyd, Elfyn

Hanson, David

Lock, David

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Love, Andy

Harris, Dr Evan

McAllion, John

Harvey, Nick

McAvoy, Thomas

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

McCabe, Stephen

Healey, John

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Heath, David (Somerton)

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

Hepburn, Stephen

Macdonald, Calum

Heppell, John

McDonnell, John

Hesford, Stephen

McFall, John

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hill, Keith

McIsaac, Ms Shona

Hinchliffe, David

McKenna, Ms Rosemary

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hoey, Kate

McLeish, Henry

Home Robertson, John

Maclennan, Robert

Hood, Jimmy

McMaster, Gordon

Hoon, Geoffrey

McNulty, Tony

Hope, Philip

MacShane, Denis

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mactaggart, Fiona

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

McWalter, Tony

Howells, Dr Kim

McWilliam, John

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hughes, Ms Beverley

Mallaber, Ms Judy

(Stretford & Urmston)

Mandelson, Peter

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Marek, Dr John

242

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Marshall, David (Shettteston)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Martlew, Eric

Singh, Marsha

Maxton, John

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Meale, Alan

Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

Michael, Alun

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Milburn, Alan

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

Mitchell, Austin

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

Moore, Michael

Snape, Peter

Moran, Ms Margaret

Soley, Clive

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Spellar, John

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Moriey, Elliot

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Steinberg, Gerry

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Stevenson, George

Mountford, Ms Kali

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mudie, George

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mullin, Chris

Stinchcombe, Paul

Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stott, Roger

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Norris, Dan

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stringer, Graham

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

Olner, Bill

Stunell, Andrew

O'Neill, Martin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Opik, Lembit

Swinney, John

Organ, Mrs Diana

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Osborne, Mrs Sandra

(Dewsbury)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Perham, Ms Linda

Taylor, Matthew

Pickthall, Colin

(Truro & St Austell)

Pike, Peter L

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Plaskitt, James

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pollard, Kerry

Timms, Stephen

Pond, Chris

Tipping, Paddy

Pound, Stephen

Todd, Mark

Powell, Sir Raymond

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Touhig, Don

Primarolo, Dawn

Truswell, Paul

Prosser, Gwyn

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Purchase, Ken

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Quinn, Lawrie

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Radice, Giles

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rammell, Bill

Tyler, Paul

Rapson, Syd

Vaz, Keith

Raynsford, Nick

Vis, Dr Rudi

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Wallace, James

Rogers, Allan

Walley, Ms Joan

Rooker, Jeff

Ward, Ms Claire

Rooney, Terry

Wareing, Robert N

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Watts, David

Rowlands, Ted

Webb, Steven

Roy, Frank

Welsh, Andrew

Ruane, Chris

White, Brian

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Wicks, Malcolm

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wigley, Dafydd

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Ryan, Ms Joan

(Swansea W)

Salmond, Alex

Williams, Dr Alan W

Sanders, Adrian

(E Carmarthen)

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Sawford, Phil

Willis, Phil

Sedgemore, Brian

Wills, Michael

Shaw, Jonathan

Wilson, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Winnick, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

243

Wood, Mike

Wyatt, Derek

Woolas, Phil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Greg Pope.

Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

NOES

Amess, David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Arbuthnot, James

Hunter, Andrew

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Baldry, Tony

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bercow, John

Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Key, Robert

Blunt, Crispin

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Boswell, Tim

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brady, Graham

Lansley, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Leigh, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Letwin, Oliver

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Burns, Simon

Lidington, David

Butterfill, John

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Cash, William

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Chope, Christopher

Loughton, Tim

Clappison, James

Luff, Peter

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

McIntosh, Miss Anne

(Rushcliffe)

MacKay, Andrew

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Collins, Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Colvin, Michael

Madel, Sir David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Major, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

Malins, Humfrey

Curry, Rt Hon David

Maples, John

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Mates, Michael

Davies, Quentin

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

(Grantham & Stamford)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Day, Stephen

May, Mrs Theresa

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Merchant, Piers

Duncan, Alan

Moss, Malcolm

Duncan Smith, Iain

Nicholls, Patrick

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Evans, Nigel

Page, Richard

Faber, David

Paice, James

Fabricant, Michael

Paterson, Owen

Fallon, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Flight, Howard

Prior, David

Forth, Eric

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Robathan, Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Fraser, Christopher

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gale, Roger

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Garnier, Edward

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Gibb, Nick

Ruffley, David

Gill, Christopher

St Aubyn, Nick

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Sayeed, Jonathan

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Gray, James

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Green, Damian

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Grieve, Dominic

Soames, Nicholas

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hague, Rt Hon William

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Spring, Richard

Hammond, Philip

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hawkins, Nick

Steen, Anthony

Hayes, John

Streeter, Gary

Heald, Oliver

Swayne, Desmond

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Syms, Robert

(Old Bexley & Sidcup)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Horam, John

Temple—Morris, Peter

244

Thompson, William

Wilkinson, John

Tredinnick, David

Willetts, David

Trend, Michael

Wilshire, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Viggers, Peter

Woodward, Shaun

Walter, Robert

Yeo, Tim

Wardle, Charles

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Waterson, Nigel

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Tellers for the Noes:

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Peter Ainsworth and

Wddecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill:—
Committee
1.—(1) Proceedings in Committee shall be completed at the sittings this day and tomorrow.
(2) At the sitting this day, proceedings on any amendments to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would amend that Clause at any place before the word 'Scotland' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill,

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

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would leave out the word 'Scotland' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in its place,

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

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would leave out the words 'and tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament' at lines 6 and 7 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in their place,

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

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would leave out only the words 'tax-varying powers' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in their place,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Six o'clock.
(6) At the sitting tomorrow, the remaining proceedings on Clause 1 and proceedings on any amendments to Clause 2—

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would amend the Bill at any place before the word 'propositions' at line 7 of page 2 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at a quarter past Six o'clock.
(7) At the sitting tomorrow, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 2—

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would leave out the word 'propositions' at line 7 of page 2 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.
(8) At the sitting tomorrow, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Eight o'clock.
(9) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
Report and Third Reading
2. The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting tomorrow and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
Conclusion of proceedings
3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive Clauses and Schedules, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Clauses and Schedules.
(3) If at the sitting tomorrow

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, and

(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time,

the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings at that sitting in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion;
246
and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to remaining proceedings that day on the Bill then being considered.
Order of proceedings
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
Dilatory motions
5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time
6. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour—

(a) proceedings under paragraph 3(1) or (2);

(b) proceedings to which paragraph 3(3) applies;

(c) proceedings under paragraph 8(1).

Business Committee
7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Supplemental orders
8. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
(2) If at the sitting this day or tomorrow the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1 or 2, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Recommittal
9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Orders of the Day

  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
    Clause 1

      REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND
      6.56 pm
      Mr. William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, line 6, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 140, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'the persons' and insert 'those United Kingdom citizens'
      No. 4, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'persons' and insert
      'citizens of the United Kingdom'.
      No. 120, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
      'were born in Scotland or who have a parent or grand-parent of Scottish birth and who would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election if they were resident in Scotland and the persons who'.
      No. 148, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
      'are included in a central register to be established in accordance with Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Scotland)] or who'.
      No. 82, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'local government' and insert 'general'.
      No. 238, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'local government' and insert 'parliamentary'.
      No. 5, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 83, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
      'and the citizens of the United Kingdom who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom, who were born in Scotland.'.
      No. 149, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
      'except that citizens of the European Union who are not also British citizens shall not be entitled to vote.'.
      No. 225, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
      'who have been registered as local government electors in any Scottish local government register for the past five years or since they were 18, whichever be the shorter period'.
      No. 236, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
      'or have been entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland in the previous twenty years'.
      No. 121, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
      '() Notwithstanding subsection (3) above, an Order in Council under this section may make or enable the Secretary of State to make special provision with respect to persons, or any description of persons, who are members of the forces (as defined in section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949) or spouses of such
      248
      members, and may do so differently with respect to different cases; and any provision so made—

      (a) may permit persons to whom it applies to vote in a referendum notwithstanding that they are not duly registered under the Representation of the People Acts, and, if they have or have had an address in Scotland, notwithstanding that the conditions of those Acts as to residence are not satisfied; and

      (b) may enable persons to whom it applies to vote at a date earlier than that appointed under subsection (1) of this section and may also enable them to vote at a polling station set up in accordance with that provision or by post.'.

      No. 138, in page 1, leave out from beginning of line 14 to end of line 3 on page 2.
      No. 7, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'for Scotland'.
      No. 213, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 151, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'local government area' and insert 'parliamentary constituency.'
      No. 9, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'Scotland', and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 152, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'shall himself act as Counting Officer for electors registered in the central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Scotland)] and shall also set up and maintain that register.'.
      No. 13, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 191, in page 2, line 3, at end add
      'and for each Parliamentary constituency publicly at the end of each count.'.
      No. 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 141, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'the persons' and insert 'those United Kingdom citizens'
      No. 17, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'persons' and insert
      'citizens of the United Kingdom'.
      No. 160, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
      'are included in a central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Wales)] or who'.
      No. 18, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'at' to end of line 12 and insert
      'a local government election in any electoral area in the United Kingdom'.
      No. 239, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'at' to 'in' in line 12 and insert 'a parliamentary election'.
      No. 84, in page 2, line 11, leave out
      'an election for a county council or county borough council'
      and insert 'a general election'.
      No. 217, in page 2, line 12, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 85, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
      'and those citizens of the United Kingdom who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom, who were born in Wales.'.
      No. 161, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
      'except that citizens of the European Union who are not also British citizens shall not be entitled to vote.'.
      No. 226, in page 2, line 12, at end insert

      249
      'who have been registered as local government electors on any Welsh local government register for the past five years or since they were 18, whichever be the shorter period'.
      No. 237, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
      'or have been entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Wales in the previous twenty years'.
      No. 139, in page 2, leave out lines 13 to 25.
      No. 218, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 21, in page 2, line 16, leave out
      'county or county borough in Wales'
      and insert
      'local government area in the United Kingdom'.
      No. 165, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'county or county borough' and insert 'parliamentary constituency'.
      No. 219, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 164, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
      'and shall himself act as Counting Officer for electors registered in the central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Wales)] and shall also set up and maintain that register.'.
      No. 25, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 28, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out
      'county or county borough in Wales'
      and insert
      'local government area in the United Kingdom'.
      New clause 11—Counting—

      '—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Chief Counting Officer for the United Kingdom.

      (2) The Chief Counting Officer shall appoint a Counting Officer for each local government area in the United Kingdom.

      (3) Each Counting Officer shall—

      (a) conduct the counting of votes in the area for which he is appointed in accordance with any directions given by the Chief Counting Officer, and

      (b) certify the number of ballot papers counted by him and the number of votes cast for each proposition.

      (4) The Chief Counting Officer shall certify the total of—

      (a) the ballot papers counted, and

      (b) the votes cast for each proposition
      for the whole of the United Kingdom.'

      Amendment No. 132, in schedule 1, page 4, line 2, leave out 'IN SCOTLAND'.
      Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      Amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      Amendment No. 133, in schedule 2, page 5, line 2, leave out 'IN WALES'.
      Amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      New schedule 2—Central register of electors for referendums (Scotland)—
      A central register of electors shall be set up and maintained for electors only eligible to vote in the referendums. It shall be open to any person in the following categories to be included in that register up to thirty days before the date of any referendum.
      250
      Such persons may vote by post, by proxy or in person at polling stations provided specifically for the purpose in such centres as the counting officers deem necessary. Persons eligible to be included on the central register are:

      (i) persons who are resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland but who could claim a vote in Scotland by reason of their previous residence there were they living outside the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts;

      (ii) persons who, under the provisions of the Immigration Acts could claim British citizenship by descent where that claim derives from a father or mother whose place of birth, naturalisation or residence is in Scotland;

      (iii) persons born in Scotland but living elsewhere in the United Kingdom;

      (iv) persons not born in Scotland but who have lived in Scotland for more than ten years and now live elsewhere in the United Kingdom and who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Scotland to live permanently;

      (v) persons owning residential property in Scotland but not being on a local government electoral register who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Scotland to live permanently.'.

      New schedule 3—Central register of electors for referendums (Wales)—
      A central register of electors shall be set up and maintained for electors only eligible to vote in the referendums. It shall be open to any person in the following categories to be included in that register up to thirty days before the date of any referendum.
      Such persons may vote by post, by proxy or in person at polling stations provided specifically for the purpose in such centres as the counting officers deem necessary. Persons eligible to be included on the central register are:

      (i) persons who are resident in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland but who could claim a vote in Wales by reason of their previous residence there were they living outside the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts;

      (ii) persons who, under the provisions of the Immigration Acts could claim British citizenship by descent where that claim derives from a father or mother whose place of birth, naturalisation or residence is in Wales;

      (iii) persons born in Wales but living elsewhere in the United Kingdom;

      (iv) persons not born in Wales but who have lived in Wales for more than ten years and now live elsewhere in the United Kingdom and who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Wales to live permanently;

      (v) persons owning residential property in Wales but not being on a local government electoral register who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Wales to live permanently.'.

      Amendment No. 37, in title, line 1, leave out 'in Scotland'.
      Amendment No. 38, in line 3, leave out 'in Wales'.
      Mr. Cash: We are debating a first-class but a third-rate constitutional Bill which is being treated in an unprecedented manner; and we have been debating not so much a guillotine motion as a lethal injection.
      The Leader of the House said that it was not a constitutional Bill—a statement which should in itself disqualify her from that office. The Bill is a constitutional Bill—a major constitutional Bill. Moreover, it includes tax-varying powers that go to the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of Parliament. As hon. Members

      251
      have already said, debate on previous constitutional Bills has lasted for as long as 30 days, whereas we will be given as few as one or two days to debate this measure.
      We are debating a Bill which has been conceived in a cuckoo's nest of a Cabinet that is controlled by a Scots cabal of Ministers of the Crown, representing the biggest takeover of the United Kingdom since the Union, in 1603, of the Crowns of Scotland and England. A quarter of all Ministers are Scots—19 of the 89 Ministers are Scots. I mentioned a Scots cabal, and I should explain that I define "cabal" as something representing conceit, arrogance, bombast, aggression and lies.
      The plain fact is that the Bill represents the views that were expressed by the Prime Minister in the general election campaign and in the Labour party manifesto. However, his euphoria will be dashed—as was that of the Stuarts, in 1649, when Charles I lost his head because of his folly and his arrogance. It is worth remembering that, in its title, the Bill is a successor to the 1979 devolution legislation, which led to the fall of the Callaghan Government. It has been well said that, eventually, they shall reap as they have sown.
      The Bill is a part of a policy that is inside out and upside down, with principles on the outside and precedents on the downside. It is an outrage that the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill precedes the White Paper and the devolution Bill itself, and it is a deceit to say that it stands on its own. Even in 1975, Harold Wilson insisted on a White Paper before introducing legislation on a European referendum.
      As I said to the Secretary of State for Scotland—although my remarks apply to Wales as much as to Scotland—on Second Reading, the Bill necessarily involves not so much the West Lothian question as the United Kingdom question.
      Referendums should not be confined to Scotland and Wales; they should encompass the United Kingdom as a whole. Given the Bill's tax-varying proposals, the electors of my constituency and all those of the United Kingdom, including those of England and Northern Ireland, are involved. That will be the case whether taxes are increased, decreased or varied. The Government promised that any tax-varying powers would be defined and limited, but that is not what the Bill or, indeed, the question on the ballot paper says. The question on the ballot paper is therefore a cruel fraud perpetrated on the voters.
      7 pm
      A further point of great concern to many Opposition Members relates to the United Kingdom. Our manifesto and all the utterances of the former Prime Minister put the issue of the Union, let alone the European Union, at the very heart of our campaign. I cannot understand why the shadow Cabinet has not decided to have a formal Whip on my amendment to clause 1, which would extend the referendum franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be entirely consistent with our manifesto and the policy of the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition.
      Mr. James Wallace: If it is now the official policy of the hon. Gentleman's party that the franchise should be extended to the electorate of the UK
      252
      as a whole, is it also its policy that any settlement in Northern Ireland would be submitted to a referendum of the UK as a whole?
      Mr. Cash: Speaking as a Back Bencher, there is every reason why any referendum involving the dismembering of the United Kingdom should be referred to the United Kingdom as a whole. That has the merit of logic and common sense. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions, but with the encouraging proviso that Back Benchers are free to vote, according to the Whips, for my amendment if they so wish.
      Sir Robert Smith: In 1979, did the Conservative party take the same stance and say that the referendum should have involved the UK as a whole?
      Mr. Cash: I am delighted to be able to say that we are always making progress. I must add that the impact of a Bill of this importance, with its tax-varying powers, puts it in the category of the first constitutional status which I would regard as not dissimilar to the European referendum of 1975, which was dealt with by the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Hon. Members should consider these important points affecting the United Kingdom question.
      As I said, in 1975 there was a clear recognition that what was then the Referendum Bill, which was of similar importance to the internal domestic interests of the United Kingdom as this Bill is now, affected the United Kingdom as a whole. There was a national counting procedure because many Scots live and work in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. There are those who live in Scotland who qualify for a vote but who come from other parts of the world. The Bill is riddled with inconsistencies, injustice and contradictions.
      Why, but for the draconian discipline imposed by the Prime Minister on his Members of Parliament, is there no resistance among Labour Members from the north-east and north-west as there was in 1977 and 1979 and who, under the terms of the Bill, will be profoundly damaged by the establishment of a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers? It would, in any event, damage the rest of the United Kingdom, and Scottish Members of Parliament would lose most of their moral authority in the Westminster Parliament.
      There are at present 72 Scottish Members of Parliament. Some 30 years ago, the Kilbrandon commission on the constitution recommended that the number should be reduced and, indeed, one of my amendments proposes that it should be reduced to 45, which is, appropriately, the same number as when the Act of Union 1706 was passed. Furthermore, the Bill leaves in limbo the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which, given his remarks today, is no doubt what he deserves. It is essential that it is clearly reaffirmed, just as the sovereignty of the United Kingdom should also be reaffirmed in the Bill.
      I noticed the Secretary of State for Wales making light of the fact that amendments had been tabled to preserve the Crown and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Anyone who thinks that the Bill does not go to the heart of the future of the United Kingdom should not be sitting in this House as a Minister. We should repudiate any

      253
      possibility of the Bill being a trojan horse for reducing the component parts of the United Kingdom to provinces within the European Union and reaffirm the direct accountability, whether in Scotland or Wales, of Ministers of the Crown exclusively to the United Kingdom Parliament. These matters are all part and parcel of the United Kingdom question.
      It is inconceivable that we can proceed with a Bill of this kind when it contains arrangements that are so vague that it is impossible for us to know what the role of the Secretary of State would be and the extent to which Ministers of the Crown would be responsible to this Parliament. Would they be responsible to a Scottish Parliament? What would be those Ministers' functions? The Bill leaves so many questions unanswered and puts the House in an impossible situation.
      The amendments propose a solution to the problems that I have outlined and, indeed, to the West Lothian question. There is an answer to it, although it may not be very congenial to Scottish Members. I suggest that when matters arise in this Parliament that affect only those parts of the UK other than Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament shall, by Standing Orders of the United Kingdom Parliament, speak but not vote.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: That is highly unrealistic. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Treasury has a relationship with spending Departments. One can imagine what would happen if the spending Departments were in the hands of one party and the Treasury in the hands of another—it is absolutely unreal.
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but that is not the case, and for this very good reason. The West Lothian question, which is often attributed to him, but which, as he has generously acknowledged, was posed by Mr. Enoch Powell, goes to the very heart of the dismembering of the United Kingdom and, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out repeatedly in his distinguished career, presents the House with the impossible contradictions inherent in the present situation. If the Bill proceeds, and if the hon. Gentleman and other members of his party do not carry forward their opposition to this Bill and the devolution Bill as they did before, we shall face not only the dismembering of the United Kingdom but the question that he has just put to me—and we are going to have to resolve it. It is not enough to say that it is unreal. The situation is real because it has arisen. It has been presented by the Government, not the Opposition.
      Let me put it another way: how would Scottish and Welsh Members react—or, more to the point, how would Scottish and Welsh citizens react—if we set up an exclusively English Parliament but with a full complement of English Members who would continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters? That is the obverse of what the Bill is dealing with.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, particularly over the past 18 years, when Parliament was dominated by his party, legislation designated solely for Scotland was voted in by English Members, not by Members from the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party,
      254
      which were the dominant parties in Scotland? His argument is illogical because legislation was imposed by him and his colleagues.
      Mr. Cash: I take it that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that they had no opportunity to speak or vote. They may have been outvoted—
      Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman said speak and not vote.
      Mr. Cash: I said speak and not vote in the new circumstances. My answer to the West Lothian question, which I pose as the United Kingdom question, is that after the creation of a Scottish Parliament, it would be reasonable for us to propose changing our Standing Orders so that Scottish Members would be entitled to speak and not vote in the circumstances that I have described.
      Mrs. Ewing: No problem.
      Mr. Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Lady says that that is no problem, because it helps to relieve some of the difficulties inherent in the question posed so diligently in the past by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am certain that the Scottish and Welsh people would not want the situation to continue if we held pole position in the United Kingdom Parliament and they were constantly affected by our decisions.
      Refurbishment has not been mentioned so far. The issue is tucked away in a subtle and devious fashion in one of the last clauses in this wretched Bill. It says that we in this Parliament are expected to pay for the refurbishment of the buildings to be set up for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, even before the passage of the Bill on devolution or the publication of the White Paper—which definitely should precede that Bill, with the referendum coming afterwards. That is outrageous. It is equally disgraceful that we are not being allowed to debate this Bill properly, but the discussion on that has now taken place.
      As I have said, within the past 30 years, the Kilbrandon commission suggested that Scotland should have fewer Members. We should also give proper consideration to the threshold for the majority if there is to be an effective referendum. I dare say that other hon. Members will want to refer to that, so I shall not enlarge on it. I simply point out in conclusion that I have suggested a figure of one third in my amendments because I should like to know the Foreign Secretary's reaction, given that he proposed that in 1978–79. I should be happy with a threshold of 50 or 60 per cent., but as we are dealing with a Labour Government with a vast majority—
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for displaying his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Given the probability of the Bill becoming an Act, does he intend to campaign actively in the referendum campaigns? If so, where will he devote his energies—in Scotland or in Wales?
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. I shall certainly campaign. I shall be in England, but I am near enough to Wales to be able to go there from time to time.

      255
      The Bill is an outrage. It has been introduced outrageously and should be rejected, but I should like as many hon. Members as possible to consider my amendments and vote for them.
      Mr. Dalyell: Because of the time constraints, I should like to ask just one succinct but practical and urgent question that goes back to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) in the previous debate. It is particularly relevant to the forces vote, but also to other bona fide Scots working in Europe or in England.
      7.15 pm
      During the recess, I had the privilege of being asked by my national service regiment, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, to spend time with them on their operational duties in Bosnia. I can put the problem best by asking the same question that I was asked there. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are based at Fallingbostel in Germany, but many of them are registered at Catterick, Winchester or other military bases. Many of them regard themselves as fully fledged Scots, just as Scottish as any Scottish Members of Parliament. They asked, "Are we going to have our say in the referendum?" What is the Government's thinking on that?
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has asked a difficult question. I am glad that he has asked it of his Front Bench rather than us.
      I have a simple point to make. It is beyond dispute that the creation of a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales is of interest to the entire United Kingdom, affecting the whole country. The United Kingdom is a unique constitutional entity, created from four parts, bound together by a single sovereign Parliament. Combined with our unwritten constitution, that has created an unusual entity that, nevertheless, works well in practice.
      Anything that threatens to alter one part of the Union is of concern to all. That was recognised at the creation of the Union. Two separate sovereign Parliaments came together in 1707 to create a new Parliament for Great Britain, which was itself a new constitutional entity. It follows that any measure that affects that constitutional entity, such as the creation of a new Scottish Parliament, is a matter for all the citizens of Great Britain, now joined by Northern Ireland.
      Annual Government expenditure in Scotland is over £800 per head greater than the figure for the whole United Kingdom. In Wales, the gap between what is raised locally in taxation and what is spent there by the Government is even larger. Both Scotland and Wales have a large fiscal deficit. That is a matter of considerable controversy. My constituency looks over the Bristol channel to Wales. Many of the grants and subsidies that Wales gets transfer jobs from my side of the Bristol channel to Wales. The matter is controversial, but it is a price that many English people feel is worth paying for a successful Union.
      Mr. Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what he is referring to? Is he referring to identifiable public expenditure per capita? What is the £800 figure?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the annual publications produced by the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. One is called "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland", the other "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Wales". The most recent figures I have are for 1994–95. From those publications I get a figure per head in Scotland of £839 more than for the United Kingdom as a whole. For Wales, the figure is less, but the other side of the equation—the revenue side—is much less, so the fiscal gap between revenue and expenditure is even wider for Wales than it is for Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt about it. From the figures available to all hon. Members, it is clear that both countries run large fiscal deficits which are made up by subsidies chiefly from the English taxpayer.
      I personally am willing to accept some of that deficit as a price worth paying for a successful Union. What I do not accept is that, in addition to the large fiscal transfers, it is now proposed that there should be a Parliament for Scotland and an Assembly for Wales which will, of course, be used to attract even more money, powers and privileges to those parts of the United Kingdom at the expense of the English counties.
      The Bill provides a small but significant example of what I am talking about. Let us look at who will pay for the costs of the referendum and for the preparatory work involved in setting up the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales. Clause 5 makes it clear that the money will come from the Consolidated Fund. In other words, it is overwhelmingly—again—the English taxpayer who will pay for all of this while having no say at all in the outcome and no vote in the proposed referendums.
      I will take another well-known example—the over-representation of Scotland and Wales in this House compared with what those two parts of the United Kingdom would be entitled to on a strictly pro rata population basis. I accept that there is a case for allowing the extremities of any country some over-representation to make allowances for the sparsity of population and for the difficulties of communication and travel, but that does not apply to the very small constituencies in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.
      If the proposals go through and if the referendums proceed as planned by the Government, in addition to that over-representation, Scotland and Wales will have their own Parliament and Assembly. The extra Westminster Members will continue to come to this Parliament. They will have nothing to do in their own constituencies because all the powers that they presently have over matters such as health and education will have been transferred to the local Parliament and the local Assembly. They will, however, apparently continue to come to this Parliament in the same numbers in order to interfere in matters that apply to England, and to my constituents in particular.
      The two examples I have given—the subsidies that flow to Wales and Scotland and the parliamentary over-representation—make one simple point.

      257
      The referendums and their outcome are not matters simply for Scotland and Wales; they are of crucial interest and importance for the entire United Kingdom. I support amendment No. 2 because it would insist that the questions posed in the proposed referendums should be available to all the citizens of the United Kingdom and not simply those in Scotland and Wales.
      Mr. John McAllion: It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the speeches we are hearing from Conservative Members are basically anti-Scottish. All the talk of Scotland being over-represented, of fiscal transfers and of the English taxpayer paying for the services provided for the people of Scotland is, frankly, racist. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) introduced the debate in an offensive manner. It is offensive to have the ability of Cabinet members questioned on the basis of their ethnic origin. If the hon. Gentleman does not find that offensive, he should not be in this place, which is meant to be the mother of Parliaments and the home of democracy. There would have been demonstrations in the streets against such racist talk from any Member of Parliament in the 1930s. It is a disgrace and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
      Some hon. Members have spoken of the extension of the franchise to the rest of the United Kingdom, which is covered by this group of amendments. Most of the United Kingdom is already included in the franchise; everyone in Scotland and Wales will get the vote. During the general election, the English knew very well that that would be the case. The hon. Member for Stone said that in the general election, the Conservative party put preservation of the Union at the very heart of its campaign. I remind him not only that the Conservatives were wiped out in Scotland and in Wales, but that they did not do very well in England either. Some 61 per cent. of English voters voted for either the Labour party or for the Liberal Democrats, both of which made it clear that referendums would be held only in Scotland and in Wales. We have a mandate from the English people and we speak for the English people, unlike Conservative Members who try to build a case on that basis.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: On the basis of the argument that the hon. Gentleman appears to be putting forward at the moment, I assume that he would not expect any Labour Government supported by Members of Parliament from Scotland, England or Wales to have any say on matters affecting Northern Ireland.
      Mr. McAllion: I never interfere in Northern Ireland's affairs; I have learnt that it is wise not to do that. I suggest that hon. Members who do not know much about Northern Ireland should not raise the matter of Northern Ireland casually. There is a very sensitive situation there and we should not blunder into it or make false analogies. It is typical, however, of Conservative Members to do that.
      The proposals that will be in the White Paper, and then in the Bills that introduce the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, will change the government of Scotland and of Wales. They will not change the government of England. As far as I know, England will continue to be governed as it has always been governed—by this place. I look forward to the day when the English come to their senses and say that it is time that they had an English
      258
      Parliament. Many Conservative Members continually assume that this is an English Parliament with wee bits of Scotland and Wales added on. We are a big inconvenience. We cause debates, we cause trouble and we take taxpayers' money. That is the tenor of debate from Tory Members.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am confused about why the hon. Gentleman supports the Bill as he resigned from the Labour Front Bench when it was announced in London that the Scottish Labour party would have to put up with the idea of a referendum. Why does he now support the Bill?
      Mr. McAllion: It is quite simple. The Scottish Labour party subsequently endorsed the decision to hold a referendum and the Scottish voters then endorsed that decision at the general election. As a good democrat, I recognise when I am beaten and I accept that decision. I wish that Conservative Members would recognise when they are beaten in Scotland and that they would accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament because the Scottish people want one.
      Amendment No. 120 causes me some concern. It deals with people who were born in Scotland but no longer live there, and suggests that they should be allowed to take part in the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has, as usual, come up with a very appropriate name for it: he calls it the Gary McAllister-Paul Lambert amendment. For Conservative Members from England who do not recognise those names, they are Scottish internationals. One plays in Leeds, other in Dortmund. They have made their choice to leave Scotland and to seek fame and fortune elsewhere. They earn big money for living outside Scotland. If that is their decision, one of the penalties they have to pay is that they cannot vote in elections in Scotland. That is an important distinction. Whoever you are, if you choose to leave your country, you choose to leave the democracy in that country.
      7.30 pm
      I am worried about the ethnic nature of some of the amendments, as if where someone was born, or where their father and grandfather come from, qualified them for the franchise. We have only one franchise in Scotland—if someone lives in Scotland, they have the franchise no matter what their ethnic origin or which country they came from. That is the only franchise we recognise. The speech by one hon. Gentleman earlier caused me great concern. He was very passionate—I do not know his constituency so I cannot refer to him—and he had an almost mystical faith in the Union, which we frequently hear from Opposition Members. He used words and phrases such as consanguinity, marriage and the blood that ties us together. He stopped short of saying kith and kin, but that is what he meant. That is the language that the Tories used to use about the empire and the other parts of the world that England used to control. The Tories still think in those terms about Scotland and Wales, but those days are over. The fact that they have not recognised that those days are over is why they were wiped out electorally in Scotland and Wales. Democracy is changing. Power has been decentralised and the Bill is part of that process. It will strengthen the links between Scotland and England, not worsen them.

      259
      Amendment No. 120 would extend the franchise to those whose grandparents were born in Scotland. On a similar basis, I could take part in the election in the Republic of Ireland next Sunday because my grandparents were Irish. That shows what nonsense the suggestion is. I should not take part in an election in another country that has nothing to do with me now.
      Mr. Garnier: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that, under the Irish constitution, he would not be allowed to take part in next Sunday's election?
      Mr. McAllion: I have just said that. I said that if the amendment applied in the Republic of Ireland, I would be able to take part. It is right that I should not be allowed to take part in the election; and nobody who lives in America, Germany, France or anywhere else in the world who has a grandfather or grandmother who happened to be born in Scotland should be allowed to take part in the referendum. That is not a qualification for the franchise.
      A later amendment—I think it is amendment No. 149—would exclude citizens of the European Union from the referendum. Under amendment No. 120, a Scot who lives in the Republic of Ireland could take part in the referendum, but under amendment No. 149 he would be disqualified as a citizen of a member country of the European Union. That is nonsense.
      As for the Tories' threshold argument, the only reason to introduce thresholds into a referendum is to ensure that the referendum does not succeed. That is what happened in 1978. The people who introduced and supported the threshold did not want a Scottish Assembly. That was the last throw of the dice to stop it happening; it was not about democracy but about blocking the creation of a Scottish Parliament—and it is the same today.
      Mr. Cash: What about the Foreign Secretary?
      Mr. McAllion: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was a very bad man in 1978, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I have no truck with their position then. I opposed them then and if they did it again I would oppose them again. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has learned his lesson. He was wrong in 1978 and we in Scotland have paid a heavy price because we did not have a Parliament in the past 18 years to protect us from the policies of the hon. Member for Stone and his colleagues. Do not tell me that any Tory is interested in democracy in Scotland or in the Scottish people. The Tories rammed the poll tax down the throats of the Scottish people a whole year before they introduced it in any other part of the United Kingdom. There was no referendum then. Nobody asked whether the Scottish voters should be given the franchise.
      The Tories reorganised local government in Scotland. People in Dundee are still suffering because of the butchery of Scottish local government by the last Tory Government. There was no referendum on that. Local authorities in Scotland had to organise a referendum to stop water privatisation, like that in England and Wales, happening in Scotland. The Labour local authorities organised that referendum, not the Tory Government. We are not fooled by Opposition Members who say that they
      260
      are worried about parliamentary democracy or the sovereignty of the people. They worry only about their skins and about power being devolved across the United Kingdom. A different political structure will make them into what they really are—a bunch of dinosaurs.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wish to address the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in support of amendment No. 2. I am surprised that he, a member of a party that used to be called a unionist party, should favour a measure that would sow, if it were carried, the seeds of great disunity in the United Kingdom. If I understand amendment No. 2 aright, it would extend the referendum to England.
      Mr. Cash: To the United Kingdom.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop making comments from a seated position. He should know better.
      Mr. Maclennan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has worked it out, but if the referendum were to be held throughout the United Kingdom and a different result were marked up in England—I say that advisedly—from that registered in Scotland, he would have created a revolutionary situation. He would certainly do so if he sought to translate such a result into a justification for the failure of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to implement the clear and settled will of the Scottish people to have a Parliament.
      The argument of the hon. Member for Stone has a second leg. He is not satisfied that the House of Commons can adequately determine the issues that would flow from a positive vote in the referendum. As the hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that is never slow to emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament—a view that distinguishes it from my party, because we believe that sovereignty rests with the people—it is strange that he should think that Parliament is not capable of deciding the issue. Of course, the outcome of a referendum in Scotland will have an impact on the United Kingdom as a whole. Our fates are linked and our constitutional arrangements should take account of a decision to establish a Scottish Parliament. Clearly, some of the questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) must be addressed at some point.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: That is the nub of the question. At what point will the anxieties of, or the knock-on effects on, the people in England be addressed? According to the way in which the proposals have been made, those anxieties and effects will be brushed under the carpet and ignored. Those of us who believe in the Union and want it to survive are concerned that devolution will lead to an explosive situation. We want to prevent that. Those issues should be addressed now, in this debate—if not on the amendments before us, then on some others.
      Mr. Maclennan: Those issues have been addressed and have been in order; otherwise the amendments to which the arguments were tied would not have been selected. They have not been ruled out of order and I do

      261
      not suppose that they will be. The question is what weight they should be given, not whether they are in order. I submit that we should not attach great weight to those arguments now in determining whether to establish the machinery to hold a referendum to put beyond peradventure the view of the Scottish people on whether they want a Scottish Parliament along lines that will be set out in a White Paper to be published before the House rises for the summer recess. It seems that that is a relatively limited question.
      When substantive legislation implementing the will of the Scottish people as expressed in a referendum is brought forward, I grant that there will come a time for considering whether it is right that the House of Commons should remain constituted as it is and whether Scottish membership of the House should in some way be reduced, and by how much. It would also be right to consider whether the Scots would have not only the right to speak, but to vote not only on United Kingdom matters but on matters affecting parts of England for which they do not have direct responsibility or responsibilities which are discharged, as far as Scotland is concerned, in the new Scottish Parliament.
      All such matters are certainly appropriate for debate and certainly ought to be debated, but I question their relevance to the Bill. I question whether it makes sense to invite the English—again, I say that advisedly—or those living in Northern Ireland to contribute their views on whether the Scots have a settled mind on wishing to have a Scottish Parliament.
      I do not doubt that the English and those living in Northern Ireland have views, but my guess is that, if the English were consulted separately in, as it were, a separate constituency, they would most likely agree that, if the Scots wanted a Parliament, they should have it. There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence that Conservative Members of Parliament who have addressed meetings in England on this subject have encountered that answer from English audiences. I do not think that that need delay us.
      Mr. Dalyell: Who does the hon. Gentleman think ought to pay for the Scottish Parliament—the Scots alone or the United Kingdom taxpayer?
      Mr. Maclennan: That is an interesting question, which I will be happy to discuss when we consider the system and the scheme, either in the debate on the White Paper or the debate on the substantive legislation. I do not, however, believe that it is in the least germane to the issue before us.
      My party is by no means in favour of the referendum, but the facts are clear. The referendum is a Government commitment. They put it before the Scottish people and had it underwritten and endorsed, and it is simply unreal not to recognise that. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether we are right in assuming that the mind of the Scottish people is settled. The referendum will give us the chance to put that question beyond any further argument. The issue is quite simple, and most of the amendments are a distraction from the central question about machinery and enabling us to put the question quite beyond doubt, which is at the heart of the Bill.
      I understand the arguments for holding referendums in other ways. I remember the debates that we had in 1978 about post-legislative referendums. All those matters will
      262
      no doubt be discussed again in future, but tonight we have a relatively simple question before us. I do not think that in opposing amendments such as that tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, extending the question to other members of the United Kingdom, we are in any way denying that what would be done in Scotland would have its impact on others in the United Kingdom—of course it would. People had an opportunity to register that fact in a general election, and overwhelmingly supported parties that were committed to the course that the Government are now following. No doubt they will have further opportunities to express their views.
      Let the hon. Member for Stone and his hon. Friends recognise that they lost the argument. Let them recognise that they will have a further opportunity to return to the issues at the right time. They will be listened to with respect in so far as they are not seeking to destroy the wish of the Scottish people.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Michael Fallon: I shall speak specifically to amendments Nos. 120 and 121, which are in my name. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that, if he wishes to test the opinion of the Committee on the wider issue of the United Kingdom franchise, I shall certainly be in the Lobby with him. It is, however, the nature of the grouping of the amendments that if that first and more sensible amendment to leave out "Scotland" and insert "United Kingdom" were to fall, we would then be driven to consider a more narrow extension of franchise along the lines proposed in amendments Nos. 120 and 121.
      Amendment No. 120 deals with what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has christened the Gary McAllister question. I would prefer to call it the Rob Wainwright question. I find it hard to understand why someone who is able to play rugby for Scotland should not be able to vote in a referendum on Scotland's future. The amendment therefore extends the franchise, should it not be extended to the whole of the UK, to those Scots who are not currently resident in Scotland.
      There is a precedent, and it was considered by the previous Labour Government during the passage of the Referendum Bill authorising a referendum on the European Community. Lord Glenamara, then Lord President of the Council, suggested a number of conditions on which franchise might be extended. They were not being on the electoral register, having the right of abode, having resided at some time in the United Kingdom—in this case that would be in Scotland—being in occupation, service or employment abroad—not simply having retired to live elsewhere but being occupied or serving Scotland or the United Kingdom abroad—and having declared some intention to return, which was what he called
      "a vital assurance of continuing connection with this country".—[Official Report, 22 April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 1344.]
      In the end, the scheme was not proceeded with, although Lord Glenamara made it clear to the House that it would be so possible to extend the franchise.
      I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution will address himself to the concern expressed in amendment No. 120. A great number of Scots—some

      263
      of them indeed serving the state—will not be able to vote in the referendum, yet it would be perfectly possible, were the Government so minded, to allow them to do so.
      Mr. Wallace: On the basis of the link between taxation and representation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of a Scottish Parliament having tax-varying powers, such people should also be subject to tax? Does not that underline the huge anomaly and nonsense of what he is proposing?
      Mr. Fallon: No, it does not, because the referendum is a one-off decision. We have been told that constantly. It is a constitutional decision, setting up quite different constitutional arrangements. That is indeed why a referendum is proposed to decide it.
      Mr. Dalyell: Lord Glenamara—Ted Short as he then was—who was the most candid and straightforward of men, really did believe that it was practical and sensible to extend the franchise.
      Mr. Fallon: That is what the Hansard reports of the relevant debates make clear. It was perfectly practical and sensible and, even though time was short, the Government of the day actively considered it. Why should Scots living outside Scotland be disenfranchised on this major constitutional issue?
      Amendment No. 121 deals with service men serving abroad. I believe that it, too, has the support of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The Government in 1975 acted on the issue and introduced a special clause specifically allowing those service men who were not on the electoral register to vote in the European referendum. They accepted the argument because service men at that point in the year—the spring of 1975—could not have known the previous October that a referendum was to be held, since the proposal was not made until January 1975.
      The same argument applies today. Those who might well have wished to make special arrangements to register their vote would have done so had they known last October that this special constitutional vote was coming up. The Government have always recognised that special arrangements need to be made for the service vote, and I do not see why it is not possible to make such arrangements in this case. There are many service men who would otherwise, perhaps, be stationed in Scotland and be able to vote there, but who are serving their country at very short notice in far-flung places. Their service should be recognised with some special arrangement.
      Sir Robert Smith: The register that would be used for a referendum is the one that was compiled from a census last October, and people deciding whether to register then would have been deciding whether to enfranchise themselves for the United Kingdom general election. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people who had chosen not to register for that general election would be missing out on the referendum vote?
      Mr. Fallon: What I am suggesting to the Committee is that people could not have known last October that they
      264
      had to be on the register then to qualify for a referendum that they did not know would be conducted this September. That is the point. It is only fair, particularly for service men, that we recognise that point, and I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to think again about how Scottish service men are able to vote in the referendum.
      Mr. Peter Luff: I assure the Committee that amendments Nos. 83 to 85 are serious amendments intended to address the anomaly identified by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his interventions earlier in the debate. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 relate to the enfranchisement of Scots living outside Scotland, and amendments Nos. 84 and 85 relate to Welsh men and women living outside Wales.
      The amendments are, in a way, slimmed-down versions of new schedule 2, which was tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, and of amendment No. 120, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and others. They represent a serious attempt to solve a serious problem that has been brought to my attention by Scots men and women in my constituency who want to be able to vote in the referendum.
      I am disappointed by the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who introduced an unnecessarily confrontational note into a debate on a serious problem that is of concern to Scots men and women living outside their native country.
      The problem is complex, and yet rather simple. The Government of the day used the general election register in the 1978 referendums, but the present Government intend to use the local government register this time, thus allowing temporary European Union residents, including English men and women living in Scotland or Wales, the right to vote in referendums on the future of those countries, but denies a vote to Scots and Welsh people, temporarily absent from their countries—whether just across the border in England, or overseas serving their country in whatever capacity—who would be able to register as overseas voters for a general election.
      I want not to attack the Scots, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggested that Conservative Members were seeking to do, but to defend the rights of Scots men and women living in my constituency. The Worcester Evening News, perhaps a trifle flippantly, summarised the situation as the Government intending to give a Greek waiter temporarily working in a backstreet cafe in Edinburgh the right to vote in an election about Scotland's future, but denying it to a Scottish journalist working here in Westminster for The Scotsman. That is an extreme version of a real anomaly.
      Mr. Salmond: I am not sure which journalist from The Scotsman the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and whether he is absolutely convinced that that journalist does not have a residence in Scotland. Is he incapable of understanding why I, as leader of the Scottish National party, am perfectly comfortable with the idea of people from England, Wales, France, the rest of Europe, or Timbuktu, who are resident in Scotland and contribute to the community there, voting on the future of the country? Is he totally incapable of understanding why residents who contribute to a community should have rights of determination, regardless of where they are from?
      Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I wish that we could have a serious debate on

      265
      the matter. It is a shame that the guillotine makes that difficult to do. There are two separate issues: whether we should give temporary residents in Scotland from other European countries the right to vote in the referendum; and whether we should give Scots people temporarily absent from their country that same right.
      I think that the questions hang together and that there is an injustice in denying that right to a Scots person who is temporarily absent while granting it to a person who is there for only a short period and has no interest whatever in the long-term future of the country. That is my view, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) disagrees, but the two questions are separate and should both be addressed at greater length than is the case in this scandalously truncated debate.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why should the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—the Earl of Ancram—for example, have a vote on Scotland's future, when he deserted his native land to seek his fortune with the Tory party south of the border?
      Mr. Luff: I will leave my right hon. Friend the Earl to speak for himself, and I am sure that he will do so most eloquently. I am concerned about the points raised by my constituents—Scots men and women, born in Scotland, most of whom intend to return to Scotland later in their lives—who feel that they are being denied their right to express a view about their birthright. I do not know how they would vote—for all I know, they could be the most ardent pro-devolutionists—but that is not the point. It is an outrage to deny them their birthright.
      I find it surprising that Labour Members are laughing at that important point. They are laughing at Scots men and women who are seeking to exercise their right to have a say in their country's future. I find myself in the strange position, as an individual who opposes the legislation and the concept of devolution, at least on the basis proposed at present, of defending Scots people's rights in the face of the Government's hostility. I find that surprising. I am sorry that Labour Members are scoffing, because I intended to make a serious point and I would like a serious response.
      Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by temporary residents? I met the mother of an old friend, who was born in Glasgow in 1910 and moved to Oxford in 1936. If she now moved back, should she have the right to vote?
      Mr. Luff: My experience of Scots men and women living outside their country, whether in England or elsewhere, is that they have a deep sentimental attachment to Scotland that is often more powerful, I am ashamed to say, than that of English men and women to England.
      Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Luff: No. I want those on the Front Benches to have time to wind up, and I am taking too long over these remarks.
      Why are the Government insisting on using the local government register? My suspicion is that they are seeking to exclude overseas visitors who are eligible to vote in parliamentary elections and will probably be able
      266
      to vote in the elections for a Scottish Parliament. I do not understand why, and I urge the Government to think again about the rights and wrongs of that issue.
      There is a strong test of residence in law. In 1970, in the Fox v. Stirk case, Lord Denning gave the following judgment:
      "a person may properly be said to be 'resident' in a place when his stay there has a considerable degree of permanence".
      I would say that the Scots men and women in Worcestershire who are temporarily absent from their homes, and Scots people working overseas for IBM, for the Government, or whatever, have a more "considerable degree of permanence" about their attachment to Scotland than the people whom the Government intend to enfranchise in the referendum.
      I urge the Government to take the issue seriously. There is a real sense of grievance among Scots men and women—and, I suspect, among Welsh men and women, too—about the way in which the Government are approaching the measure. I plead with them not to deny Scots men and women their birthright to have a say in their country's future, when they are giving a say to people who have no interest in the future of Scotland.
      It is a great shame that the Report stage will come so quickly after the Committee stage, because that will not give the Government time to table amendments to address the issue. However, I hope that they will do so in another place.
      8 pm
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I shall be brief. In response to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I can say that we all agree that if the proposals are to proceed, they should do so on the basis of the consent, the "settled will", of the Scottish people. However, the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to me to convey the message, "Let's just ask the question, and not confuse the voters with the facts." Unless we address all the questions and issues now, that is what will happen.
      I have great sympathy with amendment No. 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), because it emphasises a simple point—that the Union of Scotland and England is a voluntary union of two parts. We would not expect one member of a club to be able unilaterally to change the rules of the club, to the detriment of the other members. Yet that is what is being proposed.
      It is fine for Scotland to have its own Parliament, but it is quite another matter for Scotland to have its own Parliament while remaining a member of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the complexity of those arrangements are not dealt with by confining the franchise to the local government register.
      It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to call the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) a racist for raising what he calls the Gary McAllister question. There is also the converse of that question, which we might call the Terry Butcher question. The idea that an English football player playing for Glasgow Rangers would have a vote on the future of Scotland, although Gary McAllister would not—
      Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jenkin: I shall not, because I want to be brief.

      267
      To describe those arguments as racist ill-becomes the debate, and may reflect more on the sentiments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East about the English than on anything else.
      I wish to talk in particular about amendments Nos. 238 and 239, which I tabled, which propose to extend the franchise at least to the parliamentary rather than the local government register. I shall finish with a plea, to which I hope those on the Government Front Bench are listening.
      My constituency surrounds Colchester, and living in that town are the Royal Scots, the finest and the oldest infantry regiment in the British Army—all Scots, to a man. The Royal Scots recently came down to Colchester from Fort George, and they have a deep loyalty to their country. Why can they not have a vote on the future of that country? Will the Minister confirm that his proposal means that those men will not have a vote on the future of the country for which they are prepared to fight and die? That makes nonsense of the Bill.
      Mr. Garnier: I shall be extremely brief, and speak only to my amendments Nos. 140 and 141, which relate to clause 1, subsections (2) and (3), and deal with the franchise. I want the Bill to be changed so as to read:
      "Those entitled to vote in the referendum shall be those United Kingdom citizens who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland."
      That makes a slightly narrower point than that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). I seek to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that the Bill would allow European Union citizens to vote in Scotland and Wales, while not allowing equal rights to the other interested citizens throughout the United Kingdom.
      Furthermore, the arrangements in the Bill conflict with what appears to be the law in other European Union countries. We do not have equivalent rights in other European countries. For example, under the Irish constitution, only citizens of Ireland can vote in referendums in Ireland. In France, only French citizens, and in Denmark, only Danish citizens, can vote in referendums under the constitutions of those countries. The same applies in Sweden, Spain, Norway and Italy, and there is an equivalent procedure in Belgium.
      Why on earth are we allowing European Union citizens to vote in Scotland and Wales on the future of the United Kingdom, when the other European countries do not allow us the same rights in their referendums on constitutional matters? That seems wholly illogical.
      Mr. Michael Howard: The amendments deal with one of the most serious flaws in the Bill—the arbitrary restrictions and limitations on the franchise. I think that it is common ground that the question that needs to be addressed with regard to the referendum is how it is properly and effectively to establish, in the late John Smith's phrase, the "settled will" of the Scottish people and the Welsh people?
      We therefore need answers from the Minister to the many questions that have been asked about the arbitrary definitions proposed in the Bill. Earlier today, we started with the question asked by the hon. Member for
      268
      Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—the Gary McAllister question. That is a serious question, which cannot be brushed aside by some of the rather contemptuous observations that have been made by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members.
      Indeed, that question has been reinforced by some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said that it was the reverse side of the Terry Butcher question. Behind it lies the real difficulty encountered by those who happen temporarily to be resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom, who are to be given no voice on a matter that touches not only on the government of Scotland and Wales but on the administration of the whole of the United Kingdom.
      When the Secretary of State for Scotland moved Second Reading—he was here a moment ago and he may return—he treated the House to a little joke about peppery Scotsmen in Kuala Lumpur who still take an interest in the old country. I do not share his hilarity. Scotland and Wales have never been inward-looking nations, and the world has been enriched by the talent and energy of Scotsmen who have carried their work abroad. The Secretary of State may find them figures of fun, but I think that most of his constituents would take considerable pride in those people's achievements.
      The amendments that we are discussing concern not peppery old chaps in Kuala Lumpur, however, but the rights of Scots and Welsh men and women living and working in our own country. The epitome of that point was put by my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for North Essex, and it was set out clearly in amendment No. 121, which deals with those who are temporarily away from their homes in Scotland because they are serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. The Labour party likes to present its devolution proposals as patriotic, but I cannot begin to see any genuine patriotism in disfranchising those Scottish and Welsh soldiers who form some of the finest regiments in the British army.
      Yet without any reciprocity, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has pointed out, the Bill denies a say to many natives of Wales and Scotland, while giving a say to citizens of the European Union who happen to be residing temporarily in those countries. So in some cases there will be a vote for people born in Athens but not in Arbroath, a vote for people born in Samos but not in Stornaway, and a vote for those born in Grasse but not, alas, in Gorseinon. Many questions spring from those propositions and call for answers.
      Why is the franchise to be determined by entitlement to vote in local government elections? Why should it not be entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections? What is the reasoning behind that? What considerations led the Government to that view? Why not establish a central register of electors for the precise purpose of establishing those who are to participate in the decision that will be taken as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland?
      Why not have provisions to make obtaining the vote impossible for people newly arrived in Scotland who are only temporarily resident? Such people may have arrived only a couple of weeks before the due date but fulfil the qualifications and may be entitled to vote. Why not have a time limit? Why not say that the person concerned must

      269
      have been resident in Scotland or Wales for a period of three or six months so that they have a legitimate locus standi for taking part in the decision?
      Mr. Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend is delicately tripping around the amendments. I have been driven to notice that he has not referred to the lead amendment. What does he think about the proposal to extend the franchise to the whole of the United Kingdom? If he is not minded to vote for it, why not?
      Mr. Howard: I know my hon. Friend far too well to think that I could get away without addressing his question. I promise that I shall come to it before I sit down.
      I have asked some of the questions to which I hope that we shall get serious answers from the Minister before we are subjected to the arbitrary fall of the guillotine. It is a reflection of the mischief of the guillotine procedure that we have not been able to examine such serious questions in detail. We should have been able in Committee to canvass in detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of a franchise based on local government elections or parliamentary elections or a central register. There are serious arguments for and, no doubt, against each of those options. If the Government had not been so heavy-handed, we would have been able to address those questions fully and effectively and so come to a conclusion that would have enabled the outcome of the referendum to be seen much more genuinely, properly and effectively as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland.
      I hope that the Minister will deal specifically with amendment No. 121, which the Opposition Front-Bench team would certainly have supported had it come to a vote. I do not know whether the question to which it gives rise will go down in history as the Sevenoaks question, the Bosnian question or, indeed, the North Essex question, but it is important and deserves a comprehensive answer.
      I have much sympathy with the thought that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to move amendment No. 2. I understand why he moved it and why I imagine that he will press it to a Division. We have given some consideration to the matter and do not think it right at this stage to support it. That does not mean that the proposals do not have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom which may warrant wider consideration in due course.
      We have yet to see whether the Government will provide any sort of answer to the West Lothian question, or whether they will begin to address the over-representation of constituencies in Scotland. We have no idea whether the Government will take seriously the financial implications of their proposals, not least the question that will arise in due course of what would happen to the contribution made by the rest of the United Kingdom to the financing of services in Scotland if, however unlikely it may be, a Scottish Parliament decided to use its tax-varying powers to reduce the burden of taxation on the people of Scotland. Those fundamental questions go to the heart of the legislation. If satisfactory answers are not provided, we may well have to revisit the question whether those who reside in other parts of United Kingdom should have a say on the outcome of the proposals.
      270
      For the moment, we await the answers that I hope that we will get from the Minister on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and to the other important and legitimate questions raised by my Friends in this all-too-brief debate. If the Government's proposals are to acquire real legitimacy—which must be their objective, and we do not seek to challenge it—they must provide convincing answers. I look forward to hearing what answers the Minister will provide.
      8.15 pm
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am delighted to respond to the debate and will certainly take up the challenge put forward by some Conservative Members on important issues. I am struck by the fact that we spent three hours on a previous motion on timetabling discussing our inability to have a debate. We have had 10 speeches, including some excellent contributions that were concisely put. Perhaps it is an exemplar of the way in which the House should conduct itself in other matters, and in respect of the rest of the Bill.
      Mr. Luff rose—
      Mr. McLeish: I shall not give way at this stage. As always, I shall allow interventions later.
      I am impressed by the fragile fraternity that exists among Conservative Members in respect of their coherent approach to the submission of amendments. That is a problem for the Opposition, not for Her Majesty's Government. In passing, I am sure that Labour Members and other hon. Members are a bit sick of being lectured about damaging the Union when this measure is designed to strengthen it. Patriotism is not the preserve of the Opposition when uttered in the way that it has been. All hon. Members take great pride in the House; it is one of the binding qualities that keep us here arguing so coherently.
      I have some useful advice for the Opposition. It is only four weeks since the rout, but, at some time, they will have to acknowledge the debate that is taking place in their party in Scotland. That is friendly advice. As has been said, in Wales and Scotland the Tories need some nurturing by the Westminster-based parliamentary party. [Interruption.] It is my style to be helpful to the Opposition. [Interruption.] It is not patronising—it is sound advice which I hope that the Opposition will take.
      Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it appropriate in a debate that has been guillotined for the Minister to make such patronising general observations instead of responding to the questions that he has been asked?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I must allow the Minister to make his speech in his own way.
      Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised an important issue. Things have moved on since the 1975 referendum. If hon. Members had gone to the Library, they would have found the relevant clause. Service voters can make a service declaration for an

      271
      address in the United Kingdom. It may be their home address or another, for example, that of their parents—whatever would be their residence in the UK if they were not serving abroad.
      Clearly, it is not possible this evening to specify answers for individuals without knowing personal circumstances. I confirm that service personnel who are resident in Scotland will not lose their votes by virtue of serving abroad. To be helpful, I shall spell out the current position in detail. There is no need for further provisions in the Bill because the facility already exists, and we guarantee that it will be exercised in respect of this referendum.
      Mr. Fallon: I am extremely grateful to the Minister of State for what he said. I would wish to study his words. Does he mean that a service man who has been posted from Scotland to Catterick and then from Catterick, as part of the brigade, to serve in Bosnia, will be deprived of his vote because originally he was resident in Catterick?
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I would wish to respond to it specifically. My understanding is that the situation that he has outlined would be covered. We are talking about the residency issue in Scotland in terms of the declaration that would be made by service men and women who are not operating in their employment in Scotland. With the approval of the Committee, that is one of the issues with which I should like to deal specifically, and I certainly will.
      Mr. Luff: When? The Minister is on his feet. Deal with the issue now.
      Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised an interesting point on the Gary McAllister question.
      Mr. Luff: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. McLeish: No, I have made the point.
      Mr. Luff: When will you deal with the issue?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way. I ask hon. Members to cease interrupting while the Minister is addressing the Committee.
      Mr. McLeish: When Ministers are trying to be helpful I think that some courtesy should be extended to them.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. McLeish: No, I am not giving way. I want to deal with the questions that have been asked. On the one hand, Members want answers, but, on the other, they want to continue to filibuster.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made an interesting contribution on the so-called Gary McAllister question, a matter with which I wanted to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised the Paul Lambert and John Collins questions. I can
      272
      tell hon. Members, whether it entertains or worries them, that there will be a Paul Gascoigne factor. I am sure that he will have a vote in the referendum if the Bill passes through the House of Commons.
      The purpose behind the large group of amendments that is before us is to change eligibility to vote in a variety of ways. Some amendments are designed to allow people who are resident in any part of the United Kingdom to vote in the referendum, while some amendments are designed to change the franchise from local government to parliamentary status. Others are designed to enable people with only a tenuous claim to Scottish or Welsh roots to vote. That procedure is usually reserved for filling football teams. Other amendments have been tabled with a view to requiring a pledge hand on heart for potential Scottish or Welsh residents that they will move to those countries. None of these amendments is acceptable to the Government.
      Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. McLeish: No. I want to make some progress. I shall, however, allow the hon. Gentleman back into the debate later.
      The questions whether there should be a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly are primarily for the people in Scotland and Wales as they are most affected by devolution.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Would it be in order for the Minister to write to hon. Members with the details of the answers that he currently does not have time to give us? I am no clearer now than 20 minutes ago whether the Royal Scots in Colchester will get a vote in the referendum.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Writing to Members is a matter for the Minister and not one for the Chair.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is a point of order.
      Mr. Cash: It is, Mr. Martin. It happens that I tabled the lead amendment. I have attempted to get the Minister to answer the question that I have posed. It is a convention of the House of Commons that a Minister is expected to deal with the question raised within the terms of the first amendment in the group. The Minister has not responded to it yet.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Continual interventions will stop a Minister or any other Member from responding to questions. The Minister will not give way, and that is a Minister's privilege.
      Mr. McLeish: My usual style, Mr. Martin, is to give way to interventions. I am trying to balance the fact that only eight minutes are available to me in which I might try to answer some of the questions asked against continual interventions that are of no particular substance.
      I have answered the question of service registration. I think that it is sufficient to leave the matter there for the present. I shall be writing to those hon. Members who have raised the issue.

      273
      Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 would add to the electorate any person born in Scotland and Wales who is entitled to vote in a general election in any part of the United Kingdom. That would allow someone born of English parents who has lived all his life in England and has no connection with either Scotland or Wales to vote in a referendum because, by chance, he happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. Why should such a person have any more right to vote than, say, a Scot who is now living in England?
      Amendments Nos. 148, 152, 160, 164 and new schedules 2 and 3 are attempts to set up a central register of electors for the referendum. That register would allow five additional groups to vote in the referendum. Members might wish to read the new schedules to learn exactly what hon. Members have in mind for their fair franchise. Perhaps those concerned would like to explain just how their fourth and fifth categories of voter would take their so-called oath of allegiance, promising to live permanently in Scotland. Would they have to take the oath standing on the Stone of Destiny? Would squads of Scots police pursue absconders south of the border and drag them, kicking and screaming, back to their hielan' hame? Hon. Members will have to do better than that if they want their amendments and new schedules to be taken seriously.
      The key criterion for deciding who should vote, in terms of our proposals, must be residency. Many hon. Members have confirmed today that that is the sensible, logical and effective way in which to proceed. I accept that people in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland and Wales will have a genuine interest. As hon. Members who have promoted the amendments have demonstrated by their own actions, eligibility to vote must depend on more than just interest.
      The principle has been well established in previous referendums. For example, in 1973 the people of Northern Ireland voted on the constitutional status of that part of the UK. In 1975, people in all parts of the UK voted on continued membership of the EC. In 1979, the people of Scotland and Wales voted on the devolution plans of the time. On each occasion, the principle of residency was applied.
      The Bill has, of course, been debated by the UK Parliament, as will be the Bills to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, subject to the outcomes of the referendums. These debates will provide ample opportunity for the interests of people in all parts of the UK to be taken into account through Members of the House of Commons. That seems to strike the right balance between seeking the consent of those most obviously affected by the proposals and ensuring that the interests of the UK as a whole are taken into account.
      As an aside, looking ahead to a possible referendum on Europe, would hon. Members suggest that as the UK's membership has an effect stretching well beyond its borders, citizens of all other member states should be entitled to vote on UK membership?
      Those who support amendment No. 121 have raised an important issue. Obviously, we want to ensure that service voters have the right to participate. I have tried to reassure the Committee that that is the case. As a courtesy, I want to explain in detail the current position so that hon. Members are left in no doubt that it is the reality. We shall ensure that it is operational when the referendum takes place.
      274
      The current arrangements are apparently working well and it seems important that we should allow them to continue to do so.
      Amendment No. 120 would, if accepted, stretch some of the points raised this evening even further. I do not seek to be frivolous in any way, but the amendment could allow someone born in, for example, Bolivia of Bolivian parents, who has never visited Scotland, to vote in the referendum merely because his granny was a Scot. What sort of fairness is that in relation to what we are attempting to do on franchise?
      Obviously and understandably, Conservative Members have tried to range wide in our discussions today. However, the substantive Scotland and Wales Bills will come before us later in the Session. It is important to remember that, despite the timetabling motion, we shall have an opportunity to raise at a later stage some of the issues that have been highlighted by Conservative Members this evening. At present, we must remain within the strict terms of the timetable motion if we are to keep in order.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister has still not attempted in any way to answer the main question that has been raised this evening. Will he answer a simple question: why are the Government not prepared to extend the franchise under these referendums to the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he answer that simple question?
      Mr. McLeish: I have already answered that question. I have said that the issue of the referendums is primarily one for Scottish and Welsh voters. It must be recognised, however, that the House of Commons, in discussing the Bill during its various stages, will have the chance to reflect the views of everyone living in the United Kingdom. It is vital that that is emphasised. It seems that despite attempting to curtail comments on the timetable motion there is the view around that in some way the House of Commons will be deprived of the possibility of looking in depth at the proposals.
      I want to go some way to allay the fears of Conservative Members, if they are genuine fears. We intend to publish a substantial White Paper, and there will be a debate in the House. The White Paper will inform the campaign before the referendum takes place. That is vital, because we want Scottish and Welsh voters to know what they are voting on.
      The White Paper, informed by the results of the referendums, will form the basis on which we shall develop the Bill. That will give us ample opportunity to ensure that every sector of the United Kingdom is represented through individual Members of Parliament. That is a reassurance, and we intend to make it a reality.
      Mr. Garnier: In the final few minutes, will the hon. Gentleman condescend to address amendments Nos. 140 and 141?
      Mr. McLeish: I have responded to the franchising issues. We believe that we should resist the amendments.
      It being half-past Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 80, Noes 411.

      Division No. 9]

      [8.30 pm

      AYES

      Bercow, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Loughton, Tim

      Brady, Graham

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Brazier, Julian

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Mates, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Merchant, Piers

      Butterfill, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cash, William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Paice, James

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Paterson, Owen

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Collins, Tim

      Robathan, Andrew

      Colvin, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Cran, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Day, Stephen

      Ruffley, David

      Duncan, Alan

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Evans, Nigel

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Faber, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Fallon, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Spring, Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Swayne, Desmond

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Syms, Robert

      Fraser, Christopher

      Tredinnick, David

      Gale, Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Garnier, Edward

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick

      Walter, Robert

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Wardle, Charles

      Gray, James

      Waterson, Nigel

      Grieve, Dominic

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Whittingdale, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Wilkinson, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Willetts, David

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Wilshire, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Woodward, Shaun

      Lansley, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Lidington, David

      Mr. Christopher Gill.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beirth, Rt Hon A J

      Ainger, Nick

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Benton, Joe

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Berry, Roger

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Best, Harold

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Ashton, Joe

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Blizzard, Robert

      Austin, John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Boateng, Paul

      Banks, Tony

      Borrow, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Barron, Kevin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Beard, Nigel

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Breed, Colin

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      276

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick

      Doran, Frank

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Drew, David

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burgon, Colin

      Edwards, Huw

      Burnett, John

      Efford, Clive

      Burstow, Paul

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Butler, Christine

      Ennis, Jeff

      Byers, Stephen

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Fatchett, Derek

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flynn, Paul

      Cann, Jamie

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Chaytor, David

      Foulkes, George

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Galbraith, Sam

      Church, Ms Judith

      Galloway, George

      Clapham, Michael

      Gapes, Mike

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Gorrie, Donald

      Cohen, Harry

      Graham, Thomas

      Coleman, Iain

      Grant, Bernie

      (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Connarty, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Grogan, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Gunnell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hain, Peter

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cranston, Ross

      Hancock, Mike

      Crausby, David

      Hanson, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Harvey, Nick

      Cummings, John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Healey, John

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      (Perth)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Dafis, Cynog

      Heppell, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hesford, Stephen

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Darvill, Keith

      Hill, Keith

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hoey, Kate

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Home Robertson, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Hope, Philip

      Denham, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Hughes, Ms Beverley

      Donohoe, Brian H

      (Stretford & Urmston)

      277

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hurst, Alan

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hutton, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Iddon, Brian

      Maxton, John

      Illsley, Eric

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Ingram, Adam

      Meale, Alan

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Michael, Alun

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Jamieson, David

      Milburn, Alan

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Miller, Andrew

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Johnson, Ms Melanie

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Mullin, Chris

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Keetch, Paul

      Norris, Dan

      Kemp, Fraser

      Oaten, Mark

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Khabra, Piara S

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Kidney, David

      Olner, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      O'Neill, Martin

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Opik, Lembit

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Kingham, Tessa

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Pickthall, Colin

      Laxton, Bob

      Pike, Peter L

      Lepper, David

      Plaskrtt, James

      Leslie, Christopher

      Pollard, Kerry

      Levitt, Tom

      Pond, Chris

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Pope, Greg

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Pound, Stephen

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Linton, Martin

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Livsey, Richard

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Lock, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Love, Andy

      Quinn, Lawrie

      McAllion, John

      Rammell, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rapson, Syd

      McCabe, Stephen

      Raynsford, Nick

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Rogers, Allan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Rooker, Jeff

      McDonnell, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McFall, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Rowlands, Ted

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Roy, Frank

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Ruane, Chris

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McLeish, Henry

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McNulty, Tony

      Salmond, Alex

      MacShane, Denis

      Salter, Martin

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McWalter, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mandelson, Peter

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      278

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Todd, Mark

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Touhig, Don

      Singh, Marsha

      Truswell, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

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

      Wallace, James

      Soley, Clive

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Spellar, John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Watts, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Webb, Steven

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      White, Brian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Whitehead, Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stott, Roger

      (Swansea W)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Williams, Dr Alan W

      Stringer, Graham

      (E Carmarthen)

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wills, Michael

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wilson, Brian

      Swinney, John

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      (Dewsbury)

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, Matthew

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      (Truro & St Austell)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Timms, Stephen

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 1, line 6, leave out
      'and tax varying powers of a Scottish Parliament'
      and insert
      'of a Scottish Parliament with tax—raising powers.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 111, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'tax—varying'.
      No. 145, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'varying' and insert 'raising'.
      No. 112, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'Parliament' and insert 'Assembly'.
      No. 88, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'papers' and insert 'paper'.
      No. 203, in page 1, line 10, leave out '1' and insert '(Referendum in Scotland (No. 2)).
      No. 200, in page 1, line 22, leave out from 'certify' to second 'the'.
      No. 89, in page 1, line 22, leave out
      'for each of the two forms of ballot paper.'.
      No. 90, in page 1, line 25, leave out
      'for each of the two forms of ballot paper.'.

      279
      No. 92, in schedule 1, page 4, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert
      ': FORM OF BALLOT PAPER'.
      No. 95, in page 4, line 6, after 'Parliament', insert 'with tax—varying powers'.
      No. 93, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
      'WITH TAX—VARYING POWERS'.
      No. 94, in page 4, line 12, at end insert
      'WITH TAX-VARYING POWERS'.
      No. 76, in page 4, leave out lines 13 to 22.
      New schedule 8—Referendum in Scotland (No. 2)—

      Part 1
      FORM OF FIRST BALLOT PAPER
      Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament.
      Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box:
      I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT WITH TAX—RAISING POWERS'.
      OR
      I DO NOT AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT WITH TAX—RAISING POWERS.'.
      Mr. Wallace: The amendment would adapt the Scottish referendum. It would no longer involve two separate ballot papers, one asking the electorate whether they agreed with the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament and the other asking whether they agreed that that Parliament should have tax-varying powers. The purpose of the amendment—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.
      Mr. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
      The amendment seeks to consolidate the two questions into one. The people of Scotland would be asked in a referendum whether they agreed that there should be a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. Obviously, there would be only one ballot paper, but the single question would reflect the content of the two questions that the Government wish to put to the Scottish people.
      On Second Reading, I explained why Scottish Liberal Democrats were not persuaded of the need for a referendum in Scotland. We have voiced our opposition to the second question. I have been asked many times by Mr. Kenny McIntyre, Mr. Brian Taylor and Ms Kirsty Wark what I would do about the second question and I have said, "If it comes to it, I shall table an amendment to delete it." I am trying to fulfil that commitment.
      The origin of the second question may be linked to the origin of the referendum. It is our perception that Labour was nervous about the taxation issue. I negotiated and worked with Labour in the constitutional convention, and I do not doubt for a minute that the party is persuaded of the merits of a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers. However, it was clear in the run-up to the general election that the word "tax" was slightly frightening the party, and that effect was perceived not least in the Chancellor of
      280
      the Exchequer and his Treasury team, and especially in the Minister without Portfolio, who did his utmost in the years leading up to the election to make sure that the word "tax" became neutral.
      Labour said during the election campaign that there would be no increase in United Kingdom tax rates during the lifetime of this Parliament. My hon. Friends and I took the view that the strategy of not frightening the natives or the horses with the word "tax" could be undermined if Conservatives pointed north of the border and said, "There is the real Labour party because it proposes to establish a tax-raising Parliament." Labour had to try to neutralise that.
      The press floated some ideas of what Labour might do. For example, it said that a Labour Government might incorporate a 75 per cent. voting threshold in a Scottish Parliament for tax powers to be implemented, or that there might be a provision in the Act to allow the taxation powers of the Parliament to be activated only in its second term. Labour came up with a referendum that made specific reference to tax powers so that the party could say to middle England, "Labour is not a taxation party at all. We have even given the Scots the choice about whether they want a Scottish Parliament to have taxation powers."
      It has been said that the referendum was foisted on Labour by Islington. That is at least two miles better than the distance from which the Conservatives worked because they foisted things on Scotland from Downing street and Whitehall. The Scottish Labour party executive, which, when it comes to a head count, is a large vocal minority, strongly opposed the referendum and the tax powers. However, when faced with the reality of what it was being asked to do by London, it went one better and had a second referendum agreed with three questions. Under that, the taxation powers of the Scottish Parliament could not have been activated without a further referendum, in which the Parliament would have said, "We are about to use the tax powers. Do you want us to use them?" That is like giving turkeys the power to vote for Christmas.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: At one stage, I think that there was a proposal for a third referendum, in which people would have been asked, "Are you absolutely sure?"
      Mr. Wallace: That sounds like a Northern Ireland referendum.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: Am I right in thinking that the second proposed referendum was described by the Prime Minister, who was at that time the Leader of the Opposition, as the mature and sensible decision of the Scottish executive committee?
      Mr. Wallace: I think that I mentioned that on Second Reading. The "mature and sensible decision" that was proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was disposed of seven days later by the now Secretary of State for Defence, who had come to his senses in the meantime.
      During the election campaign, there were signs that, notwithstanding the fact that tax powers might be agreed by the Scottish people in a referendum, Labour would still

      281
      be reluctant to use them in its first term. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to have second thoughts. We are not dealing with a principle; nor do I think that Labour ever sought to argue the issue on principle. It is a tactic and, to be fair, it has served Labour well. The issue of tax was neutralised and Labour successfully kicked it into touch.
      As I said, our single question would refer to the tax-varying powers of the Parliament. I emphasise that, because in the context of our proposals for setting up a Scottish Parliament, we are not afraid of the tax issue. There is no need for us to apologise for the fiscal powers that we and the Government want for that Parliament. Tax establishes the nexus of accountability between those who are elected and those who elect them. People will be elected to the Scottish Parliament to make decisions about political priorities in Scotland, and they must not be allowed to hide behind a shield or to create a scapegoat by saying, "We were not allowed to raise the money for this."
      In the general election, we argued for 1p on the standard rate of tax to fund education. The Liberal Democrats did extremely well in the election. We doubled our number, but we did not quite make 331, so we are not able to implement that policy. That is a pity in terms of investment in education. If the Scottish people want to vote to put a party in the Scottish Parliament that will make a greater investment in education, they should be able to do that. If Scotland wants to lead the way, as it often has, not least in education, it should be able to do so. That is why we believe in the importance of the flexibility that taxation powers will confer.
      Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps we could be clear on exactly who is to be taxed. For example, should Scots who spend more than half the year working in England be taxed?
      Mr. Wallace: Such issues are important, and I have no doubt that the legislation will address them in detail. I have always understood that there are clear residency rules for taxation in the United Kingdom. By simple analogy and application, the same situation could apply in Scotland. For example, I do not think that Gary McAllister lives for more than half the year in Scotland. There is no question of his not being taxed, even on the bonus that he will receive when Scotland qualifies for next year's World cup finals in France.
      Mr. Garnier: Forgive me if I am being a little obtuse, but is it a prerequisite of voting in the truncated or one-question referendum ballot paper that the hon. Gentleman envisages that the voter must be a potential taxpayer, or may non-taxpayers also vote?
      Mr. Wallace: Of course non-taxpayers will also vote. The fact that we have tax thresholds means that a number of people do not pay tax because their income, regrettably, is insufficient. They will be eligible to vote, as will people who are on social security and do not pay tax. As you are aware, Mr. Martin, from having sat through a large part of our earlier debate, the referendum franchise will essentially be governed by residency and, unlike that for parliamentary elections, it will include peers and European Union citizens who are in Scotland. Of course, peers and EU citizens resident in Scotland pay tax, but taxation is not the basis of the franchise; nor is it the basis of the franchise for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament.
      282
      The point I was making was that taxation powers are critical to the Scottish Parliament, to give it flexibility and accountability. Indeed, the absence of tax powers was identified by Conservatives and others as one of the weaknesses of the Scotland Act 1978. People may recall that, when the Bill was going through another place, Lord Home said that the Scottish Assembly had to have some ability to raise revenue, or we should be "asking for trouble".
      Those of us who were involved in the referendum campaign may remember that the great promise to the Scottish people, at the behest of the late Lord Home, was that, if they rejected the proposals, an incoming Conservative Government might offer them something better. Of course, that never materialised. Many of us saw through that ploy at the time, but it is important to remember that the absence of tax powers was seen as a weakness. Many of my hon. Friends who were in Parliament at that time agreed with that, but thought that half a loaf was better than no loaf at all. We would certainly now take the view that tax powers are absolutely essential.
      9 pm
      The other argument that is put against the tax powers is that having tax rates in Scotland that varied from those in the rest of the United Kingdom would cause substantial problems. Many businesses have come to Scotland. Inward investment in Scotland has been significant over recent months and years, and that is by companies that have known that there was a distinct possibility—indeed that it was increasingly likely—that a Scottish Parliament would be established with tax powers. That has not turned them away. I suspect that fluctuating exchange rates and the pace of technological change and innovation are much more influential in determining investment decisions than the fact that Scotland may have a different tax rate, plus or minus 3p, from the rest of the UK.
      Already there are significant differences, even in personal taxation, within Scotland and within the UK. Council taxes vary from local authority to local authority. The siren voices coming from the Conservative party tell us that, because Scotland might conceivably—of course this would happen only if the people of Scotland had voted for it—have a higher tax rate, perhaps by 1p in the pound, people are going to flood out of Scotland and go to work in England. By the same token, because Shetland has the lowest council tax rate in Scotland, I am surprised that there has not been a huge influx of people from all over Scotland, indeed from other parts of the UK, to live in Shetland, not only for the privilege of paying a lower council tax, but for the many other privileges that go with living in Shetland. Clearly, there are a number of reasons why people decide to invest in a particular place.
      Because the council tax bands in Scotland are materially different from those in England and Wales, similarly valued houses in Carlisle and in Dumfries can have different council tax rates. Because of the banding, the council tax for a house in Dumfries can be much higher than that for a similarly priced house in Carlisle, yet there is no evidence of a drain of people from Dumfries and Galloway into Cumbria. Because I was born and brought up in those parts, I know that companies recruit from both sides of the Borders, and in recent times

      283
      that has never been identified as a problem in terms of recruitment. Therefore, the case for the tax powers is considerable.
      As I said, we wish to consolidate the two questions. Why not have the two questions? In many respects, although the Labour Government, perhaps anticipating the next debate, will say that they are against a multi-option referendum, with the two questions, they are offering a variation on the multi-option referendum. We shall have the status quo as one option. Another option will be the scheme proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention—a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers—and the third option will be a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers. The odd thing is that no serious person within the home rule movement in Scotland currently advocates a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers.
      I understand that, in a recent interview, the Minister of State said that, if the outcome of the referendum were yes, no, the Government would be prepared to legislate for a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers—indeed, for a Parliament that no one is campaigning for. I have no doubt that the Government's good faith and commitment is to a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers. I am sure that they believe that that is in the best interests of Scotland. However, that raises an interesting question, which I hope that the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. Why are the Government prepared to contemplate, at least in theory, and prepared to put into practice—they have indicated that they would—legislation that they believe would be less than in Scotland's best interests?
      I know that the Conservative party believes that it is not in Scotland's best interest to have a tax-varying Parliament, but I believe that it should have a tax-varying Parliament and I know that that is what the Government believe; we must be concerned that they are prepared to legislate for something less than that. The Government must answer that question.
      We are elected to exercise our judgment in the best interests of our constituents and our country. If our judgment is that Scotland should have a Parliament with the full taxation powers proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, we should be wary of trying to legislate for anything less than that.
      I fear that if a Parliament does not have taxation powers, that could be the recipe for the break-up of the United Kingdom and for an unstable Parliament. If, for example, the Parliament could not deliver a new hospital in Arbroath or a new school or school refurbishment in Greenock, it would be easy for a Member of the Scottish Parliament to say that there was not enough money, because Westminster would not provide it, and to complain that the Parliament did not have the power to vote any money for itself. That could lead to instability.
      Another possible outcome of the multi-choice option is that there could be a no, yes vote. Some people say that they do not want to risk a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers, so they will not provide a blank cheque by voting yes on the first question. However, they may want to ensure that if there is a Parliament, it will have taxation powers, so they will vote yes on the second question. I have heard some Conservative supporters say
      284
      that they do not support a Scottish Parliament, but that if there is to be one, it should have the proper accountability that comes with taxation. That would give a no, yes outcome. No one has told us what will happen if we get a no, yes outcome.
      Another point of concern to my hon. Friends is that there is the possibility of unstitching a key part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme. I know that that is not what the Government wish, but it is what they are positing as a possibility. During the general election, the present Prime Minister said that even English parish councils have tax powers. Some people took advantage of that and said that he was comparing a Scottish Parliament to an English parish council. I understood him to mean that if an English parish council can have tax powers, a fortiori, a Scottish Parliament should have tax powers. We are being asked to accept the possibility of a Scottish Parliament without tax powers. If it is good enough for an English parish council, it must be good enough for a Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that parish councils in England are not subject to a limitation on the amount of taxation that they can raise within the tax area that they are granted? In fact, if we take the Prime Minister's analogy a little further, it would be appropriate to remove the upper and lower ceiling on the variation of revenue-raising powers which it is now proposed to give to the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Wallace: That was a helpful intervention. I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of English parish councils. I thought that the powers were more limited, but I am interested to hear those points. It strengthens the case. If English parish councils have that degree of flexibility and the accountability that goes with it, it is even more worrying that the Government would be prepared to countenance the possibility of losing the more modest and limited powers proposed for a Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: Is not it even more extraordinary that the Government are not even prepared to consider such options for Wales?
      Mr. Wallace: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the absence of tax-varying powers from the Welsh proposals. I am sure that some of my Welsh colleagues will wish to make that point.
      I want to make it clear that if we were to lose the amendment in a vote tonight, my party would enthusiastically support the campaign for a yes, yes outcome. We want a Scottish Parliament. That has been Liberal policy for the best part of a century and we want it delivered. There is a real expectation in Scotland that, this time, it will be delivered.
      I ask the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, the merits of consolidating the two questions. In many respects, that would honour the commitment that the Labour party made in its manifesto, as it would be a question on the Scottish Parliament itself, with the clear highlighting of the fact that that Parliament would have tax-raising powers. By consolidating the questions, we would not run the risk of causing some of the problems that I mentioned.
      One reason for the opposition in Scotland to a referendum when the Labour party announced its proposal last June was that people identified it in their minds with

      285
      the 1978–79 wrecking tactic, especially the 40 per cent. rule. I do not believe that the Government want to wreck the process. It is clear from what has been said and from the passion with which the Secretary of State put the case this afternoon that that is far from the Government's intention. However, as those who know the history of home rule in Scotland are well aware, there has been many a slip in thinking that a full-blooded Scottish Parliament is in our grasp and then letting it slip away through some fault of our own. We do not want that to happen now.
      We believe that by asking the single question that we have proposed, all concerns can be embraced. I have every confidence that we would get an overwhelming yes vote, and then we could get on with the real business of creating Scottish and Welsh Parliaments for the next millennium.
      Mr. Ancram: I want to deal with some of the amendments grouped with amendment No. 87, and thereby broaden our debate.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on his courage. After four weeks of total adulation of the Labour Government, he has at last been brave enough to be mildly critical of their proposals. We hope that it is the forerunner of many other occasions when the new Liberal Democrat party will behave more as a part of the Opposition than as an adjunct to the Government.
      The aim of the amendment is to consolidate the proposed two questions into a single question on a single ballot paper. Although I cannot support the wording, which would create something inimical to the Opposition's views, it may avoid certain distortions and anomalies that could arise from having two papers. I understand that some people—I hope that I do not do the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) an injustice in including him—take the view that they might say no to a Scottish Parliament, but that if there were to be one anyway they would wish it to have tax-raising powers. Under the Bill, there could be a no vote on the first question of a simple Scottish Parliament and a yes vote to one with tax-raising powers. If that is a broad response, it could produce the most extraordinarily distorted result. I hope that the Government will consider that point carefully. If they are trying to assess the opinion of the Scottish and, indeed, the Welsh through a referendum, the last thing they want is a result that makes no sense.
      I want to broaden the debate because it goes to the heart of one of our objections to the way in which the Bill is framed and is being taken through the House. The Bill attempts to lull the electorates in Scotland and Wales by asking the questions that Ministers think will be the least likely to create fear in the hearts of those electorates and, therefore, the least likely to be rejected.
      The achievement of that objective was why we saw such an extraordinary parade of proposals. The Labour party first proposed one referendum, then one referendum with two questions, then two referendums, and then, once again, one referendum with two questions. It was Labour's attempt to present the formula that it believed would create the least offence and fear in the minds of the people of Scotland. Conversely, the Opposition have forcefully argued that a referendum should take place only after all the information is available to the people of Scotland, so that they can make a valid judgment on whether to say yes or no to the proposals.
      286
      9.15 pm
      The question that is currently proposed is anodyne. It states:
      "I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament",
      but does not even suggest whether a Scottish Parliament will be established as specified in a White Paper or in legislation. The prelude to the questions on the ballot paper, in schedule 1, mentions.
      "the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament",
      but it does not state what those proposals will be or mention a Command Paper. The real questions are left hanging in the air. As I said in a previous speech, a question such as, "I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament", would not even necessarily mean establishing a devolved Parliament within the United Kingdom, because it could mean establishing a Scottish Parliament within an independent Scotland.
      The second question states:
      "I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers".
      "Varying" is a wonderful word of comfort. In amendment No. 87, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland included the words "tax-raising", and he was right and honest to do so. Like all hon. Members, he knows that, if we establish a Scottish Parliament and provide it with all sorts of powers to do all sorts of things, it will be looking for the resources with which to do them. If we provide a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, the almost inevitable consequence will be that those tax-raising powers will be used and that the Scottish people will consequently be financially disadvantaged.
      Sir Robert Smith: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks would happen to his party's fortunes in an election to a Scottish Parliament. I have contested local elections in which the Conservative candidate has stood on a platform of cutting expenditure and tax. Does he not believe that, in elections to a Scottish Parliament, the people of Scotland might vote for Conservative candidates who stand on such a platform?
      Mr. Ancram: If that hypothesis were correct, a very interesting question would arise. As we know, Scotland is financed by a formula block, which is provided by the UK Parliament and Government. If there were to be a tax reduction, we would need to know, before a referendum, whether it would be paid for by the English taxpayer through taxation that is paid into the Scottish block, or deducted from the Scottish block, with a consequent reduction in services for people in Scotland. I do not know the answer to that question, because I am not making the proposals. If there is to be a genuine and valid referendum in which people can make a judgment, that is precisely the type of question that will have to be answered.
      Mr. Fallon: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that the Government do not know the answer to that question? This is the first referendum Bill that does not

      287
      bear the name of any Treasury Minister—neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has signed it—among its list of supporters. Is that perhaps because, as we read two weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
      "has gone very cool on devolution"?
      Mr. Ancram: That is a very interesting question, which we can include on the list of questions that we should like the Minister to answer. Given our experience to date, however, we are unlikely to receive answers to any of those questions. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking his question.
      A referendum is being proposed on questions that are so anodyne and so ambiguous that the people of Scotland will not be able to make a valid judgment. They will not, therefore, be able to provide an answer on which we can proceed with confidence.
      There are a vast number of unanswered questions, such as that asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about who will pay the tax because, presumably, the rate at which it is set will depend on who pays it? Will a higher tax in Scotland lead to an increase in overheads in Scotland and therefore a loss of competitiveness because people ask for higher wages to make up for the fact that they pay higher taxes? Will that be a disincentive to people working in Scotland? I come originally from the borders where it would not be difficult for people to move across into England to work if they thought they would pay lower taxes. That would greatly disadvantage those who live in the borders and the economy of the area.
      We are asked to decide on the Bill and on the referendum but we do not know the details of the proposals. We are told that we shall see the White Paper before the House rises for the summer. We are told that we shall have a debate on it but not how long that debate will be or how detailed the White Paper will be.
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution said in the debate on the previous group of amendments that we would be able to consider the proposals in depth. If that is correct, and if the Minister is referring not only to the White Paper but to the proposals in the form of legislation, does it mean that we shall be able to have a debate on the Floor of the House? The Minister went on to say that such a debate would be the opportunity for people from all parts of the United Kingdom, through their elected representatives, to examine the proposals. Is he therefore saying that the proposals will not be sent to a Scottish Standing Committee but that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom will be able to participate in the Committee stage? We need to know the answers. It is not enough for the Minister of State to shake his head and say that he cannot provide those answers. If we are to allow the Bill to proceed, answers to such questions are germane to the decision that we must take.
      We are debating whether taxes will go up or down, so we need to know what the Scottish Parliament is likely to be able to do. We need to know the answer to questions such as what will be the remuneration of members of the Scottish Parliament? How many staff will be required to run it, and what will be the costs involved? How will the Scottish Parliament be funded—out of the Scottish block or, more widely. from United Kingdom funds?
      288
      What effect will the Scottish Parliament have on the Scottish block grant? Will the Scottish Parliament have powers of spending over education, the national health service or agriculture in Scotland? What powers will it be able to exercise in relation to the police, transport and planning in Scotland? Whether taxes are likely to go up or down depends on the answers to those questions. If the people of Scotland are to make a reasonable judgment, they need to know the answers before they vote in a referendum.
      What powers will the Scottish Parliament have to provide housing in Scotland? Who will be liable for the taxes levied by the Scottish Parliament? Such questions must at least form part of a White Paper, and if they do they will have to be debated at length and in depth so that no question mark is left in the minds of the people of Scotland when they vote.
      As we have heard, in previous referendums of this sort it has always been the practice to have the legislation in place before the referendum, precisely so that the people who vote know the answers to their questions and can make an appropriate judgment. I know, and I am sure my colleagues know, that the reason why the Government are fudging the issue is that at the last referendum, despite the fact that for years the opinion polls appeared to show great demand for devolution in Scotland, when the relevant legislation was introduced and examined and its implications for Scotland became known, support for devolution dropped dramatically and opposition to it increased dramatically. It is to avoid that danger—[Interruption.]The Secretary of State for Scotland arrives at precisely the right moment—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should resume his seat while I am talking. He should direct his remarks to the amendment. I am reluctant to interrupt his speech but it is going wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: I thought that I was addressing the amendment. Our amendment No. 145 requires the leaving out of the word "varying" and the insertion of the word, "raising".
      The First Deputy Chairman: The amendments, including the right hon. Gentleman's, are about tax-raising powers. That is what he must discuss. The wider issue of devolution is not up for debate. It is not my fault that the amendments are so restrictive, but he must stick to them.
      Mr. Ancram: I accept your ruling, Mr. Martin. My difficulty, which I am sure that you share, is whether tax-raising powers are likely to be used. That will be in the minds of voters at a referendum. For them to be able to make a judgment they will need to know what powers a Scottish Parliament is to have. My point—I hope that I am not transgressing—is that if that question is to be posed in that way and is to make any sense to voters at a referendum, they will require that extra information. I am suggesting—within the limits of the amendments, I hope—that the Government have approached the issue as they have because they know that providing that information in detail, or even accepting the substitution of "tax-raising" for "tax-varying", suggested by the hon.

      289
      Member for Orkney and Shetland, would damage their chances of getting their proposals accepted in a referendum.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the least that the people of Scotland need is a clear undertaking that the favourable grant formula, which is very beneficial to Scotland, would not be affected by the tax-raising powers? Is it not vital that there should be a yes or no from the new Secretary of State on that point before any referendum?
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing another question to add to my list of important questions that need to be addressed if people are to make a reasonable choice in the referendum. The Secretary of State arrived a few minutes ago and raised his eyebrows, but he had not heard the debate. I think that he and I were in the same studio in 1979 when the results of the referendum came through. He arrived in the morning triumphant, expecting an overwhelming vote in favour of devolution. At the end of the day, I think that the figures were 33 per cent. for and 31 per cent. against, with the rest not bothering to vote. That was because the people of Scotland had the information on which to make the judgment. If we are to take seriously his assertion that the referendum is a democratic exercise, we need the information that I have asked for. If the amendments are passed, we shall be able to get it.
      Mr. Dalyell: I wonder whether we could have some clarification, perhaps tonight, on who is to pay the tax. Is it to be anyone domiciled in Scotland? Some of us want an early statement on that, because, as I said during the debate on the Queen's Speech, part of the difficulty is that in international taxation, state borders provide the touchstone for separating the taxing rights of one fiscal regime from those of another. Where the border is not real, the imposition of tax by reference to the familiar tests of residence, domicile, source of income and location of trading operations is likely to be complex and expensive at best and unfair and a major brake on business in Scotland at worst.
      We must face up to the issue. I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). If we are not careful, England will be, de facto, a tax haven, given that the border is not real in the way that federal states have real borders.
      The hon. Gentleman could say that the Liberal Democrat solution is a federal one, but that would be different. If the argument is that there should be a federal state, my difficulty might arise less strongly because in a federal state the border would be far more real. However, given the Government's proposals, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we must face up to the question of the border because of the creation of a de facto tax haven. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking for a warning of this point, it was made at column 292 on 16 May.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is raising an important point which, when we come to the White Paper and the devolution Bill, will rightly be dealt with in
      290
      considerable detail. I am interested in what he says about the border and the advantages of federalism. I believe ultimately in a federal solution for the United Kingdom. What we are debating—the subject matter of the referendum—is a step towards that. I do not understand one point, however.
      At the moment, we have a border that is a legal border because there are important differences between living in Carlisle and living in Dumfries in terms of criminal law and juvenile justice. At the moment, we have a meaningful border. Although there are many advantages in federalism, the border issue will not necessarily be any more clear cut with a federal state than under the proposals that we are debating.
      Mr. Dalyell: These are complicated matters. I reply partly in terms of a problem that the hon. Gentleman raised—the problem of Scots who may spend a considerable time, possibly more than half the year, working outside Scotland. That point is not just an Aunt Sally; it is the problem of those who have rotating jobs. The matter was raised in acute form the other day by one of the major employers, Mr. Stewart of Scottish and Newcastle, who said that it was a real problem for the company's many executives and middle-rank employees. There should be early clarification of the matter because the more information we have the better and the healthier the debate will be.
      We must get clear the residency rule. What about those who are on temporary secondment? That is a very real issue because there are lots of people on temporary secondment, which operates in both directions. It is no good saying that this is an arcane issue. For my sins—I do not know whether the Secretary of State has had the same experience—I was a member of nine Finance Bill Committees. One learns that one is legislating not for people of good will or for the mass of people who want to do the right thing, but for those who want to exploit the law to the fullest extent in order to get maximum benefit for themselves. That is part of the reason why laws have to be so tight in this case.
      Mr. Fallon: Is it, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's position that we cannot finalise the details of either clause 1 or the shape of the ballot paper until we receive answers to those questions?
      Mr. Dalyell: I have always taken the view—I have to be totally candid about this—that the meaningful referendum is on the question, "Do you approve of the 1997–98 Scotland Act as passed by Parliament?" Incidentally, throughout the election, that was the answer I made crystal clear to anyone who cared to ask. I am saying nothing in June that I did not say in March and April. I make that quite clear.
      The Secretary of State courteously gave me a response in our previous debate on the Barnett formula—on the key question of whether the Barnett formula is to be preserved. I looked carefully at the response and I wish to ask the Minister who will wind up whether he is in a position to add anything to the answer that I was given the last time I asked the question.
      Mr. Salmond: I was interested, as always, in the speech made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow

      291
      (Mr. Dalyell). I suppose that he had some reason to speak on the issue; he was once described as a lonely and isolated figure—because he supported a referendum—by the previous spokesman for the Labour party in Scotland. Things have moved on; the hon. Gentleman may still be lonely and isolated, but not because of his support for a referendum.
      Mr. Dalyell: It never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that it would be a pre-legislative referendum. My constituent in Linlithgow, if I may so refer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), is right to say that I was described as lonely and isolated. Various other comments were made at the same time, but we will stick at lonely and isolated. Never did I dream of anything other than a post-legislative referendum on the final outcome of the parliamentary discussions.
      Mr. Salmond: I happily accept the designation as the hon. Member 's constituent. I did not vote for him—after much reflection, I decided to vote in Banff and Buchan—none the less, I am well represented in the House by the hon. Gentleman's efforts, and if I ever have a problem I will beat a path to his door.
      I accept that if we are to have a referendum on the proposals, it is more logical to have a post-legislative referendum. That is a reasonable point to make. I would like an assurance from the Minister that, if he has his way in the pre-legislative referendum, we will not also have a post-legislative referendum.
      Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
      Mr. Salmond: I see a helpful shake of the head from the Minister. Given the litany we heard from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) of the permutations that the policy has gone through in the past year, I am sure that the Minister will accept that we need his firm assurance on that point, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the Conservatives but to the great relief of the rest of us.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: What happens if the referendum vote is yes and, as a result of our debates, major changes are made to the legislation, so we end up with something very different from the White Paper that the Scottish people will consider this summer? Is not that possibility one reason for having a post-legislative referendum?
      Mr. Salmond: If the House were to decide that independence for Scotland was a much better way forward, as I have always argued, that would be a substantive change and I would argue for an independence referendum. The hon. Gentleman does not seriously believe that there will be such a radical change, but if he has hopes that I can nourish I would be pleased to hear them. We cannot anticipate both a pre-legislative and a post-legislative referendum, because that would try the patience of this Scottish electorate beyond reasonable endurance.
      I make a diametrically opposed interpretation of the Bill to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). He argued that the Government's intention in suggesting
      292
      a two-question referendum was to buttress the referendum and devolution proposals. I reached the opposite conclusion. I think that the reason for the referendum, without going through the full route march of the explanation, was to buttress the Government's prospects in the general election. The intention was to remove aspects of the constitutional proposals from the general election campaign.
      The former right hon. Member for Stirling is but a distant memory, and has been replaced by the much more amenable hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who is in her place as I would expect. Some people in Scottish politics felt a year or so ago that the tartan tax campaign being waged by the then Secretary of State for Scotland was successful. I never shared that opinion: the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, who was replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), had a much better tactical campaign in the 1992 election. He kept his major arguments until the immediate onset of the campaign. It struck many of us that the former right hon. Member for Stirling fired too many of his bullets on the tartan tax far too early.
      I have no doubt that the decision to go for a two-question referendum was a direct result of fears about what the tartan tax campaign was doing to Labour's prospects not on the devolution proposals but in the general election. Those fears were misplaced, as we all probably agree in the comfortable aftermath of the general election. Unfortunately, they have left the House and the Scottish people with a proposal that does not make serious sense when it is analysed.
      Such analysis has been extremely well conducted by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who pointed out that, in effect, one referendum, two questions produces a multi-option referendum. It gives us not the multi-option referendum that has been generally supported at one time or another across Scotland by many Labour Members, but one that offers a choice between the status quo, which was soundly rejected—it came third in most of the constitutional polls over the past few years—and a Parliament without tax-raising powers, which is not supported by any serious body of opinion in Scotland or, indeed, through the proposals of the Government or the Liberal Democrats. How can it be right to offer people a multi-option referendum through the device of two questions but not offer a proper, serious multi-option referendum of a choice between independence, devolution and the status quo?
      Isolating the tax-varying power as part of a referendum is the worst possible thing to do if one is serious about a devolution proposal going through. In the 1992 general election, the campaign for which the Secretary of State for Scotland and I remember extremely well, the issue of a tartan tax was not raised to nearly the same extent—because it was then part of the convention proposal for what was called assigned revenues. The tax-varying power was part of a wider taxation remit. There was not the same isolation of part of the proposal, which is extremely weak and vulnerable to attack and criticism.
      I cannot conceive of how anyone who is serious, optimistic and genuine about a devolution commitment thinks that extracting the weakest part of the devolution scheme and subjecting it to a second question, as opposed to doing so with, for example, a more popular aspect of it such as proportional representation, is in the interests

      293
      of constitutional change. That is an extremely dangerous, gambler's move on devolution. I nourish the deep suspicion that some of those who thought that that was a good idea—I excuse the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench of this entirely—did not sincerely wish the second question to be endorsed.
      As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, what would happen if we got a yes, no result? The Liberal Democrats have been long-standing supporters of Scottish self government, yet in such circumstances, as they signalled in interviews, they would find themselves perhaps voting against a self-government proposal. What logic is there to a proposal that probably or possibly risks losing the votes of part of the coalition in favour of devolution as a result of a two-question referendum?
      My party's main interest in the proceedings is to secure a genuine multi-option referendum to allow real free choice between the concepts of independence, devolution and the status quo—the referendum which is overwhelmingly supported in Scotland and which has been supported on both sides of the House. It was, incidentally, first a Liberal idea in the 1960s, proposed by the soon-to-be Lord Steel, so it has been supported by all parties and is still the right referendum to have, if we are to go through a referendum process.
      It would be an improvement to subtract the second question. It would be in the interests of not confusing the electorate and of those of us who want constitutional progress in Scotland. In tomorrow's debate I intend to force the issue of a multi-option referendum; in the present debate I am inclined to support the amendment.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), because I recall that, more than 20 years ago, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a rector of Edinburgh university and invited the right hon. Gentleman and me to become members of a commission to consider the workings of the university and, among other things, the repercussions on the university and on higher education in Scotland in general of the then Labour Government's proposal to set up a Scottish Parliament. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman was a keen supporter of the principle of a Scottish Assembly at that time and that he wanted to extend the powers proposed by the then Government to include the power to legislate on Scottish higher education.
      Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not setting out intentionally to mislead. I was a supporter of devolution in 1968 and until about 1972, when I suddenly realised the cost of it to the Scottish people. Certainly, by the time I served on that commission with him, I had seen the light.
      Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite history. He should read the manifesto on which he stood in Berwick and East Lothian at the general election in 1974, when the Scottish Tory party had a clear commitment to set up a Scottish Parliament, or Assembly, as it was called at the time. No wonder the voters of Berwick and East Lothian turfed him out; he then sought refuge in Edinburgh, South, and the people there turfed
      294
      him out, after which he sought refuge in Devizes and in Belfast—he has been all over the place, trying to get power and a safe seat in his precious United Kingdom.
      I listened with more respect to what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who were, and still are, our partners in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill, because I would far rather we spent our time on legislation to set up a Scottish Parliament instead of pussyfooting around and wasting time with this legislation.
      The Government are clearly determined to hold a referendum, but I fail to understand the need for two propositions to be put to the people of Scotland—one on the principle of a Scottish Parliament and another on whether that Parliament should have revenue-raising powers.
      There is no meaningful Parliament in the world that does not have revenue-raising powers. Even the smallest authority in Britain—if we do not want to talk about English parish councils we could mention the smallest local authority in Scotland, Clackmannanshire council—has revenue-raising powers, of which the last Tory Government approved. Of course, the Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful than any local authority.
      Mr. Salmond: But not in terms of control over its own revenue. Clackmannanshire council controls approximately 10 per cent. of its revenue. With the tax-varying powers, the maximum that a Scottish Parliament can control will be 3 per cent.
      Mr. Canavan: I take that point. Some of us argued within the convention that there should be more revenue-raising powers, including a case, perhaps, for all the revenue-raising within Scotland to be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman and his party boycotted the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Had he not done so, he might have been there to lend his support to that argument, which was advanced by others as well as by me.
      Mr. Garnier: To follow through his argument, could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what the Welsh people have done to offend the Labour party, that they are not allowed a revenue-raising Assembly?
      Mr. Canavan: I shall leave it to hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies to put the case on behalf of their people.
      I was saying that the Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful—
      Mr. Stunell rose—
      Mr. Canavan: I think that we are running out of time.
      The Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful than any local authority because it will have a budget of about £1 4 billion per annum. It will also have the power to legislate on matters such as housing and the national health service in Scotland, as well as education, tourism, and aspects of industry and the economy.
      If the people of Scotland want to spend an extra 1p or 2p on income tax for a better national health service, or for better educational opportunities for their children, surely that should be their basic democratic right.

      295
      If the Scottish Parliament had no revenue-raising powers, it would be completely dependent on the revenue-raising powers and votes of this Parliament. It would have no fiscal autonomy or responsibility. So it is not very clever to separate the Parliament from its revenue-raising powers by asking two separate questions on, as I understand it, two separate ballot papers.
      I still see no need for a referendum, especially after the mandate that we got from the people of Scotland and Wales at the general election. Even so, a single-question referendum is better than a two-question referendum, so even on the principle of the lesser of two evils, the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has considerable merit. It does not exclude specific reference to tax-varying powers, but puts the matter in a single simple proposition, to be determined by the people of Scotland.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: For the first time in my parliamentary career, I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I hope that, on reflection, hon. Members will vote for the amendment, because if we do not have that wording, it would be outrageous to propose to the people of Scotland an Assembly without tax-raising powers.
      For reasons that hon. Members well know, I oppose the principle of a Scottish Assembly, or Parliament, altogether. However, we can be sure of one thing—that a Parliament without tax-raising powers would be a disaster for Scotland and its people, and for the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Bearing in mind the fact that Scotland is a nation in which people are conscious of their aims and objectives, if everything were going wrong in Scotland—all the hospitals and schools did not have enough resources, the road programme was not working, and so on—it would be blamed on the British Parliament in London, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament would be sitting there. That would simply stoke up the demand for independence and help to break up of the United Kingdom.
      I hope that the Government will avoid putting before the people of Scotland what might appear a nice option—a Parliament that will not cost them anything. The second advantage of specifying tax-raising powers would be to remind people that a Scottish Parliament would cost them a great deal of money.
      Before the previous referendum, I found that one of the reasons for the move against devolution during the campaign was that people had not previously been aware of the full cost of the operation. It would have included not only the cost of all the new Members of Parliament and their offices, with all the expenses involved, but the substantial additional bureaucracy.
      The third advantage of mentioning tax-raising powers is that it would allow a debate on how we support Scotland. I had the privilege many years ago—probably before most hon. Members were born—of being a Minister in the Scottish Office before I had to resign when the Prime Minister signed the treaty of Rome. Every year we had to negotiate a formula or grant whereby we got cash for Scotland. There was then a differential by
      296
      comparison with England of about 14 per cent.— a substantial amount. People in Scotland are not fully aware of the substantial additional funding they receive.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: Rubbish.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: It is not rubbish. I negotiated the figures. I assure the hon. Gentleman that although the nationalists have different views, the plain fact is that there is substantial additional funding.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: My final point will answer the hon. Gentleman's question; I know what it will be. As he was about to propose, the best question for the referendum would be to ask the people of Scotland whether they want to be fully independent. A referendum on devolution could lead to over-government, extra spending and huge waste and uncertainty.
      There is no middle way between independence for Scotland and the present situation. Precious few powers are left in the assembly in Westminster. Hon. Members know well that we constantly make speeches about things over which we have no control. Hon. Members shout about the fishing industry when, effectively, all the power has gone. They complain about the cruelty involved in the export of live animals, but their power has gone. If we set up a new, separate Parliament in Scotland, in addition to the county and district councils and this Parliament, it will create a mess of over-government. It would be infinitely better for the people of Scotland if they were not misguided by misleading questions and made up their minds about whether Scotland as a separate nation should be independent. I therefore hope that the House will consider the amendment because it is more realistic, truthful and sensible. Irrespective of the question, I hope that the people of Scotland will have the common sense once again to reject this costly nonsense, which will do no good to them, to Scotland or to the United Kingdom. For the first time in many years, I support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the Tories, 4,500 quango members ran Scotland at a cost of nearly £15 billion? Surely it is time for democratic control by elected members.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I will form a popular front with the hon. Gentleman to get rid of quangos and get back to democracy. Sadly, if he looks at the Labour manifesto, he will find that the new Government will create lots of new quangos that will cost more and employ a great deal more bureaucracy. If he and I can work together to fight quangos and support democracy, I will be glad to form a new popular front with him and the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Garnier: Several questions must be asked about this part of the Bill. The questions raised by the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) are pertinent. It is a pity that the Government have ignored them.

      297
      The Government propose to impose pre-legislative referendums on the people of Scotland and Wales. People will be invited to discuss before the referendums many questions to which they will not be provided with answers. What will be the remit of the Scottish Parliament? What will be the constituencies? If it is to be elected by proportional representation, will it use a list system, a partial list system or the additional member system? What will be the pay, conditions and allowances of its Members? My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East asked what it would cost. When and how often will it sit? What will be its hours? Will it sit one month out of 12 or will it be a full-time body? Will it be a condition of membership that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not also be Members of the United Kingdom Parliament? Will they also be allowed to be Members of the European Parliament? May they be members of district, regional or island councils? Will the tax raised by the Scottish Parliament go to the United Kingdom Treasury? Will it go to some new Scottish Treasury? Or will it go into some other basin into which to pour the largesse of the people of Scotland? Who will pay the tax, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked? What will happen to the Scottish grant that we have heard so much about? It is not good enough for those on the Treasury Bench to talk about the residence tax for the taxation system; it is a far more complicated matter than that. Will it be examined at any stage during the debate on the referendum?
      The only sensible referendum question is that proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the leader of the Scottish National party, and that is to offer the Scottish people full independence or nothing. If they vote for—
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
      Ordered,
      That the Lords Message of 20th May relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Resolved,
      That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Ordered,
      That the said committee do meet with any committee appointed by the Lords on Thursday 5th June at half-past Four o'clock.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mrs. Ann Taylor relating to Modernisation of House of Commons Procedure not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and the said Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Mr. Michael Fallon: Object.

      Bahrain
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      10.1 pm
      Mr. George Galloway: I begin by warmly congratulating the Minister of State his appointment. He will know that I predicted high office for him when I served under him as a humble foot soldier on an obscure Bill in Committee, which was considered in a room along the Committee Corridor some years ago. My hon. Friend has not disappointed me. With his progressive record and his deep and genuine commitment to liberty around the world, he will form part of a Labour Foreign Office which I believe will be a beacon of hope for the powerless and the downtrodden in all countries.
      The Government have started in such an inspiring way on the domestic as well as the international scene and nothing that I shall say this evening should be taken by my hon. Friend as any kind of criticism. Rather, I want to probe the way in which the Government intend to practise in their policy towards Bahrain what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary so eloquently preached in the Foreign Office mission statement, which has resounded to this country's credit throughout the world.
      I am well aware that no country's foreign policy can afford to be entirely selfless, and the first priority of any Government is the well-being of their own citizens, their own economy and their own strategic interests. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said, however, we all of us are citizens of the world and misery and turmoil in one place inevitably have consequences for the rest of us.
      One such area is Bahrain. Since the emir ordered the suspension of the constitution in August 1975 and closed down the Parliament, extreme instability has enveloped the island, with repression, arbitrary arrests, torture, forceable exile and the shooting down of peaceful demonstrators demanding nothing more than the restoration of their Parliament.
      In 1994, a petition signed by more than 25,000 people—Sunni and Shi'ite, men and women, people of the left, right and centre—was to be presented to the emir. One might think that that was routine, but the response of the Bahrain Government was far from routine. The leaders of the popular movement were arrested, as were thousands of others. That was followed by more oppression, more deaths under torture and further exile.
      Bahrain became the first country in the world to deport its own citizens and demand that other countries refuse to give them asylum. In January 1995, I met three of that unique class of deportees in the Palace of Westminster, where I hosted a press conference for them. The last person to speak to them as they boarded the plane into exile was a British security agent, who was working under Colonel Ian Henderson: a man at the very heart of the darkness in Bahrain.
      No sooner had those deportees arrived in this country than the Bahraini Foreign Minister flew to London to demand—successfully to date—that the three be denied political asylum. I know that the Minister is aware that those interested in human rights in this country and the Bahraini people are watching closely to see the outcome of the claims for asylum by Sheikh Ali Salman, Sheikh

      299
      Hamza al-Dairi and Sayed Haidar al-Sitri. My first request is that the Minister draws to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the keen interest that there is in that asylum application and the need for its fair and swift adjudication.
      Torture is commonplace in Bahrain—of that there can be no doubt. The Minister's predecessor, the former right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes, said several times in response to questions from me and other hon. Members that he had raised the issue of the abuse of prisoners with the Bahraini authorities. The United States State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other international human rights organisations have produced veritable mountains of documentary evidence of such abuse and torture.
      My hon. Friend the Minister has raised those concerns with the Bahrainis in the past and more recently, but I must ask him an obvious question. If, in the teeth of all that evidence, of international opprobrium and expressions of concern from my hon. Friend and his predecessor, the Bahraini people are still being shot like dogs in the streets by security forces led by British mercenaries and are still being abused on the torture tables in the dungeons of the regime, has not the time come when merely raising concerns is not enough?
      Thanks to the new Labour Foreign Office mission statement, we have an opportunity to move beyond mere rhetoric towards practical, internationally co-ordinated measures to bring pressure to bear on persistent and unheeding offenders against basic human rights, of whom Bahrain is undoubtedly one.
      It is clear that the Bahraini dictatorship is nervous about the Foreign Secretary's mission statement. That can be measured by the intensification of contacts sought by the Bahrainis. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's notice that the very first visitor from the Arabian Gulf to arrive on his doorstep was the Bahraini Minister of Transport. Nor will he have missed seeing in the respected Arabic daily Al-Hayat the photograph of the son of the crown prince, grandson of the emir—it is not so much a one-party state, more a family business—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at their meeting last week. The report has the Bahraini Minister reviewing the deep relations between this country and Bahrain, and in particular our security and defence co-operation.
      I am sure that I would not be the only person to be grateful if the Minister were to elaborate on the precise security and defence arrangements between our two countries. How deep are they, and how are they affected by the arrogant refusal of the Bahraini dictators to listen to their friends in Britain? I am not alone in wanting to know what safeguards have been built into that co-operation to ensure that no equipment, no training and no British personnel are used in any way against the civilian population of Bahrain. After all, even the previous Government, whose mission statement was deafening in its silence about human rights, had very clear safeguards on the sale of Hawk trainer aircraft to the Indonesian Government.
      I am not asking for the cancellation of British-Bahraini defence co-operation; nor, for that matter, are the leaders of the Bahrain opposition in London, one of whose
      300
      distinguishing characteristics is their moderation. However, despite their moderate and peaceful character, it has been brought to my attention and, I suspect, to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister that the movements of the London-based opposition are now being monitored by agents of the regime. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to take this opportunity to assure the House of the Government's commitment to the well-being of those opposition leaders while they are here in exile.
      The Bahraini opposition are not asking for a change of government in Bahrain; they are not asking for the overthrow of the emir; they are not asking to form a Government in Bahrain; they are not even asking for full Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. All that they are asking is for the emir to restore the Bahraini constitution that he suspended in 1975.
      My next request to my hon. Friend the Minister is that he place clearly on record this evening that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government—Her Majesty's Labour Government—that the suspended constitution be reinstated in Bahrain. I believe that, as an interim measure, we should impress on the regime the urgent need to begin dialogue with the opposition. The political leaders must be released, in particular Sheikh Al-Jumri, without whom no such dialogue could possibly be achieved. I believe that my hon. Friend should cause our ambassador in Bahrain himself to meet the opposition, both as a sign of our support for human rights and constitutional government and to send a clear message to the Bahraini Government that we mean business when we raise our concerns with them.
      There is ample precedent. In dictatorships all over the world, past and present, our officials maintain regular contact and dialogue—if only for information purposes—with those who are struggling for basic human rights in their own countries. What reason would there be for not doing the same in Bahrain?
      Yesterday, while preparing for the debate, I had the doubtful—because distressing—privilege of a visit from one of the victims of the repression to my office in Westminster. I shall call him Mohammed. He is 19 years old, and in another time or another place he would have been a normal young student. In my office, he took off his shirt to display a body hideously pock-marked by gunshot. All over his back and down his left arm, pieces of shrapnel nestled under his agonised skin. What was his crime? To be in a demonstration by school students who were protesting at the emir's refusal to receive the petition that I mentioned earlier.
      Mohammed, however, is merely one in thousands. More than 5,000 people on that tiny island have been detained just in the past three years, and at least 1,500 such detainees remain in gaol without trial, undergoing or fearing torture. Many are held under the infamous state security law, which empowers the Minister of the Interior to order the detention of political suspects for up to three years without charge.
      Such trials as have been held are frequently taken by the state security court, often in camera. In those trials, evidence usually rests solely on confessions extracted from defendants under torture. No appeal is allowed against its rulings, and, more important, death sentences passed by the court are subject to no appeal.
      The Bahraini Government promised the last British Government that they would cease to use the state security court for such trials. They have broken that promise,

      301
      and continue to use the SSC to date. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that Bahrain's state security court is an affront to all international norms of justice, and should be suspended immediately.
      According to a report in The Guardian on 13 May, a detainee was tortured in Bahrain in a dungeon fitted with British-supplied torture equipment. Have the Government had time to investigate that allegation, and if not, will my hon. Friend undertake to do so? If it transpires that that torture equipment originated in this country will the Minister refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecuting the British companies that are involved?
      The Bahraini Government refuse all requests by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for permission to visit Bahrain and investigate reports of the ill-treatment of detainees. I am sure that the Minister will join me in demanding that reputable and respected human rights organisations should be allowed access to Bahrain.
      I said that I would return to the person who is at the heart of the darkness of the Bahraini regime. I am sad to say that he is a British citizen and sadder still to say that he is a Scotsman, Colonel Ian Henderson. Henderson might have walked from the fevered pages of a Graham Greene novel. He was an interrogator of the Mau Mau during colonial rule in Kenya in the bitter struggle for independence. So brutally efficient were his methods that, on obtaining independence for Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta tried to re-engage him in his own security apparatus. So notorious was Henderson that a demonstration was mounted by his victims and the whole affair became so scandalous that Kenyatta was forced to deport him. Via Ian Smith's Rhodesia, he ended up as the right hand man of the Al-Khalifa.
      In the Gulf, Henderson is known as the butcher of Bahrain. He is the head of the security services and director of intelligence and has gathered around him the kind of British dogs of war, mercenaries, whose guns and electric shock equipment are for hire to anyone who will pay the price.
      It has been commonplace for previous Ministers to brush off criticism of Henderson with the claim that they have no responsibility for his actions, but I do not think that that is entirely true. After all, the House rightly made it possible to pursue, try and punish the British sex tourists who pollute the Philippines and Thailand with their paedophile proclivities. How much more have we responsibility similarly to pursue people who torture and murder for money and who carry Her Majesty's passports?
      The House rightly made it possible to try people in this country for war crimes that had been committed in Ukraine or Belorussia more than 50 years ago. I have legal advice which says that the United Nations convention against torture places an obligation on Britain to arrest or attempt to extradite Henderson. Lord Avebury said in another place that, should Henderson return here, having eaten his fill at the trough of the dictatorship, he will face a battery of civil actions for damages from victims of his crimes.
      That is not enough. Ian Henderson is Britain's Klaus Barbie. The European Parliament has called Britain to prosecute Henderson and there is another fundamental point that cannot be gainsaid about Henderson's provenance. Britain's relations with the island of Bahrain
      302
      have been warm, close and special for 150 years. Ian Henderson was appointed as deputy director of security on the island in 1966, which was five years before the British left and the territory became independent. Therefore, he was appointed by a British Government, I regret to say by a British Labour Government, to his position in the secret state apparatus of Bahrain.
      Of course, the Minister would be right to say that Ian Henderson is not an employee of ours and has nothing to do with us. That is true up to a point, but the Minister must know that that is not how it looks to the man on the torture table looking up at Henderson. It is not how it looks to the demonstrators who are falling in the streets in a hail of gunfire that is directed by him, and it is not how it looks to the wailing families as they bury their dead, people who have been killed by Henderson's forces for the crime of demanding democratic reform.
      We as a people have a clear duty to repudiate the conduct of one of our citizens in the service of a foreign power who stands condemned of crimes against humanity. I hope that I have done enough in the debate to make the case that, while of course we must continue to do business with Bahrain and engage constructively in the process of offering its people help and assistance to build out of that autocracy, it cannot be business on the same basis as before. The Bahraini Government must know that Britain now has a Minister and a Government who mean what they say and say what they mean, a Government who really believe in human rights and democracy.
      10.19 pm
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on introducing this short but important debate on human rights and the specific question of Bahrain. His interest not just in Bahrain but in the broader topic of human rights is well known. He has raised some specific issues. If my hon. Friend is agreeable to this, I should like to make a few general points about human rights, deal with his specific questions and, I hope, sum up by talking about our approach to Bahrain in the future.
      There has been much interest in the House and elsewhere on the issue of human rights. My hon. Friend is right to point out that on a number of occasions, both in written and oral questions, I have raised my concerns about the human rights regime in Bahrain. I did that in opposition and it is natural and important that what we have said in opposition should colour and shape our policies in government. Let me therefore give the first commitment to my hon. Friend: there will be continuity in terms of the values and approach that we adopt.
      I remind my hon. Friend that in his speech on 12 May my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that this Government value an ethical dimension in their foreign policy and that we shall give substantial priority to human rights and try to pursue that agenda through international forums, bilateral relationships and other means available to us.
      In relation specifically to Bahrain, I have already had the opportunity to meet the Bahraini ambassador. My hon. Friend referred to one or two items already in my diary and I suspect that he may have some predictions as to future meetings. I took the opportunity of that meeting to raise our concern about human rights. I stressed a number

      303
      of issues. Our discussion was frank and the atmosphere was one in which it was possible for me to engage in a constructive dialogue, which I was keen to do.
      I welcomed recent visits to Bahrain by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, but I also strongly emphasised to the Bahraini ambassador that transparency in human rights is crucial. I emphasised the need for Amnesty International or any similar organisation to be involved in monitoring the situation closely. I shall continue to take up that commitment and I have suggested to the ambassador that it might be a sensible approach for him and his Government to get in touch with Amnesty International.
      I give a clear commitment to my hon. Friend and to others who have taken a keen interest in the matter that when we feel that there is a need to address these issues with the Bahraini authorities we shall not hesitate to do so constructively. I will talk about our overall approach in relation to human rights, but I can say to my hon. Friend that our commitments are clear and our style and approach will be clear, not just on this issue, but on others as well.
      Last week, when I was in the middle east, I was asked about the Government's approach to human rights. I said at that stage that our approach would not be a la carte: it is a universal principle that we are trying to promote and we will promote it in each case and take each opportunity.
      May I raise one issue that I thought my hon. Friend might raise and did not? As he knows, there has been much publicity with regard to the treatment received by Sheikh Abdul Amir Al Jamri, a senior Shia cleric and spiritual leader who has remained in detention in Bahrain since January 1996. The Government of Bahrain have always stated that allegations such as those about the lack of family visits and the sheikh's maltreatment were unfounded. In my recent meetings with the Bahraini ambassador, I addressed that question. I have been assured that Al Jamri was in good health, that there was access to medical attention whenever he needed it and that he was visited by his family on a regular basis. This is an area on which I pressed for openness and transparency because the best way for the Bahraini authorities to remove fears about Al Jamri and others is to have independent international monitoring of the human rights regime. Amnesty International or any other organisation with a similar reputation could play a valuable part in that.
      My hon. Friend raised some important specific issues and I shall try to address the six main points raised in his speech.
      I can assure my hon. Friend that the asylum applications are under consideration. Naturally, they are confidential between the parties concerned. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of the views expressed by my hon. Friend.
      There was also the question whether defence equipment exports would be used in internal repression in Bahrain. I remind the House that on 22 May my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the initiation of an urgent review of the detailed criteria used in licence applications for the export of conventional weapons. New criteria will be made available to the House as soon as
      304
      that review is completed. We will then look closely at any evidence that British companies within our jurisdiction may be involved in supplying materials or expertise for the purposes of torture or any other human rights violations. I give my hon. Friend that clear commitment.
      That clear commitment applies also to the points that my hon. Friend made about the article in The Guardian on 13 May. He will appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on the specific allegations, simply because we do not have the material on those allegations. However, if my hon. Friend or anyone else is able to provide that material, we will look into the points made. We shall certainly investigate the matter further on the basis of the article in The Guardian. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be writing to him in the near future with our response to the points made.
      My hon. Friend also raised the question of the safety of Bahraini exiles in the United Kingdom. Over the past year or so, I have had the opportunity to meet some of the Bahraini exiles and some of those leading the Bahraini opposition. I share my hon. Friend's view that those responsible for the opposition in this country are moderate people with a moderate set of demands. Therefore, we would be concerned about the safety of any individual exile. We would view with the utmost concern any suggestion of a specific threat against anyone in the United Kingdom. Where specific complaints are brought to our attention or to the attention of any hon. Member, we will investigate them further. If there is any specific evidence in that respect, we will pursue the matter. We will give the utmost priority to the safety of those in exile here.
      My hon. Friend referred to the state security court. One of the points that we have already stressed and will continue to stress to the Bahraini authorities is the need for due process of law in all criminal cases. That is an important element in any human rights regime and we shall continue to make that argument.
      My hon. Friend referred in some detail to the case of Mr. Ian Henderson and made a number of disturbing allegations in relation to the activities of Mr. Henderson. If those allegations are true, they would be viewed with great concern and dismay by Her Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend talked about the possibility of legal action being taken against Mr. Henderson on his return. That is a matter for others. However, I wish to make it clear that the Government would take a strong negative view of any action along the lines suggested in relation to Mr. Henderson. We deplore those actions if the allegations are true.
      In the two minutes remaining to me, I want to consider Bahrain and the human rights points raised by my hon. Friend within the context of a more general view of the Government's principles and the way in which we intend to promote human rights.
      This country is entering a new period of foreign policy. Wherever I have travelled, and with whomsoever I have engaged in debate, there has been a tremendous interest in the Foreign Secretary's remark that there should be an ethical dimension to foreign policy. That involves important tactical questions about how we pursue that

      305
      ethical dimension. In the vast majority of cases, we will strive for a constructive engagement. We will do that with Bahrain. Putting it crudely, there are sticks and carrots and there are difficult tactical choices to be made. We will engage with Bahrain over a range of commercial, political and regional issues. That was the policy of the previous Government and we intend to continue it. Within that framework of engagement, we are keen to ensure that, as an important agenda item, there will be discussion of human rights.
      We have had a short but important debate tonight. It has been the first opportunity for this Government to talk about the new ethical dimension in foreign policy. I hope
      306
      that my hon. Friend will see that there is a difference and that there are changes. I have attempted, in a way that I have not always noticed in Adjournment debates, to answer the specific questions raised—
      Mr. Galloway: It has never happened before.
      Mr. Fatchett: Indeed, it may never have happened before. I hope that, in that sense, I have set two precedents—the moral dimension to foreign policy and answering questions in an Adjournment debate.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the backlog of cases for each of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's divisions on 5 May. [795]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The latest available information relates to the end of April 1997 and is given in the table.

  Cases outstanding1 in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at 30 April 1997

  2Number

  After Entry and Appeals Directorate3

  20,400

  Asylum Directorate4

  52,400

  European Directorate

  3,300

  Nationality Directorate

  61,500

  Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate5

  19,200

  Finance and Services Directorate6

  6,700

  1Includes unactioned cases and work in progress.

  2 To the nearest hundred.

  3 Including referred entry clearance applications and appeals awaiting preparation of statements.

  4 Cases awaiting an initial decision and asylum appeals awaiting validation and preparation.

  5Excluding just over 20,000 cases where illegal entry papers have been served but there is an outstanding asylum appeal/application; these cases are included in the Asylum Directorate figure.

  6Items of correspondence (mainly passports, letters and new applications being sorted and allocated to caseworkers).

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received during the last 12 months on wheel clamping; what action he proposes to take to regulate wheel clamping; and if he will make a statement. [1080]

  Mr. Michael
  Over the last 12 months, the Home Office has received proposals on wheel clamping from the Automobile Association the British Parking Association, and Legislation on Car Clamping. There have been four Parliamentary Questions, letters and suggestions for specific action to deal with the problem from 37 Members of Parliament, two letters from local authorities and 60 letters from members of the public. The Government consider the present situation on wheel clamping on private land to be unsatisfactory, and we will take a fresh look at the options for dealing with the problem.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to abolish the present structure of police authorities; and if he will 118
  introduce measures to make police authorities (a) more representative of and (b) more accountable to local communities. [1552]

  Mr. Michael
  No. There are no national plans at present to change the structure of police authorities. However, in London we are considering arrangements for establishing a new police authority for the Metropolitan Police.

  Interpol (Drugs Squad)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources his Department has given to Interpol's drug squad in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [1549]

  Mr. Michael
  Although a significant proportion of its work is in facilitating international drugs inquiries, Interpol does not have a drugs squad.

  The Home Office does, however, contribute to the cost of running and staffing the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU), the European Union centre for the exchange and development of criminal intelligence on drug trafficking and other forms of serious trans-national crime.

  The Home Offices's contribution to these costs has been:

  £000

  1993–94

  68

  1994–95

  479

  1995–96

  924

  1996–97

  803

  Some additional costs were incurred by the Home Office as a result of staff time spent on representational, liaison and other duties associated with the work of the Unit.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for facilitating the implementation of CCTV crime prevention schemes by local councils. [457]

  Mr. Michael
  I am considering the future of the closed circuit television Challenge competition as part of our review of existing expenditure programmes. I want to ensure that the resources available for measures to promote community safety are used to best effect. A decision on whether there will be another round of the competition in 1998–99 will be made later in the summer.

  Youth Offender Teams
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources will be available to youth offender teams; what percentage of their funding will be met from local authority budgets; and if he will make a statement. [1577]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are committed to a wide ranging reform of the youth justice system. Our proposals include establishing a National Youth Justice Board and local multi-agency youth offender teams to help ensure high standards and consistency in the delivery
  119
  of youth justice services. We are currently developing the details of these proposals and will announce these over the coming months.

  Prisons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prisons(a) currently under construction and (b) being planned indicating when they will be completed, how much each will cost, and how many inmates they will take; and if he will make a statement. [1579]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Three new prisons are currently being built under the Private Finance Initiative.

  Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse will be a 600 place prison. It is planned that its first prisoner will be received on 1 December 1997. Its Net Present Value (NPV) is £247 million. The NPV covers the costs of construction, finance and operation in terms of fees over the lifetime of the contract.

  Her Majesty's Prison Parc will be an 800 place prison. It is planned that its first prisoner will be received on 17 November 1997. Its NPV is £266 million.

  Her Majesty's Prison Lowdham Grange will be a 500 place prison. It is planned that its first prisoner will be received on 16 February 1998. Its NPV is £130 million.

  The Prison Service plans to provide a further 2,400 places at new prisons over the next three years. Planning approval has been given to re-build Her Majesty's Prison Pucklechurch, near Bristol, as a 400 place prison for males under 21 years old. Plans to build an 800 place prison at Agecroft in Salford are subject to the outcome of a planning inquiry, expected shortly. The remaining 1,200 places will be provided by two more prisons once suitable sites have been agreed.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Agenda
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contribution he intends his Department to make to the presentation and delivery of the Government's agenda. [2076]

  Dr. David Clark
  I intend to publish a White Paper in the autumn on our programme for the regeneration of government. This will set out our unified approach to providing accountable government which is attuned to people's interests and concerns. I have already announced my intention to publish a White Paper on Freedom of Information before the Summer Recess. I will bring forward proposals on the accountability, efficiency and transparency of Departments, Executive Agencies, and other public bodies. I will develop our commitment to more efficient and effective public services. My Department will consult widely with the general public on our plans to transform the existing programme of charters to deliver what people want from public services; to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from the daily lives of citizens and small business; and to use Information Technology in the delivery of enhanced and accessible services to the public.
  120
  My Department will be taking a coherent and energetic approach, looking across departmental boundaries, to realise our aim of accountable, accessible, responsive and efficient government.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chickens
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many broiler chickens slaughtered in the United Kingdom have been rejected as unfit for human consumption since 24 April 1996. [1120]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total throughput

  Unfit for human consumption

  Percentage

  Great Britain

  695,243,052

  8,394,463 (to 27 April 1997)

  1.2

  Northern Ireland

  58,091,168

  611,814 (to 24 March 1997)

  1.0

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what means his Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1677]

  Mr. Morley
  The following material is available in special formats for those with impaired vision or hearing:

  The new microwave labels:

  Braille booklet

  Large print booklet

  Audio cassette.

  Healthy eating for older people:

  Audio cassette

  Large print booklet.

  These were produced in association with and distributed through the RNIB. The large print booklets are, in addition, available free of charge from MAFF's storage and distribution house.

  Food safety in the kitchen: Video in British Sign Language.
  Healthy eating: Video in British Sign Language.

  These were produced in association with and distributed through the British Deaf Association.

  Social Model (Disability)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to adopt a social model of disability in framing all future and amending previous relevant legislation and guidance; and if he will make a statement. [1678]

  Mr. Morley
  Within the Ministry, those with responsibility for the development or review of policies or practices are required to consider the potential effect on any particular group, including those with a disability, and consult as appropriate. These requirements reflect the definitions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and will be reviewed in the light of any relevant amendments.
  121

  Scrapie
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of scrapie have been confirmed since it became a notifiable disease. [2075]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following table shows the number of cases which have been confirmed as positive since January 1993 when scrapie became a notifiable disease.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997 (until end of May)

  Confirmed

  328

  235

  254

  453

  213

  positive

  Cases are greater in each year than those previously reported on 19 February 1997, Official Report, column 635, owing to the inclusion of cases from research studies which have not been previously reported.

  Public Access (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total acreage of uncultivated open land and moorland in Lancashire to which the public are denied access solely by reason of ownership. [1017]

  Ms Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no information about the extent of uncultivated open land and moorland in Lancashire, nor is there any information about landowners who have been approached about opening up their land to the public.

DEFENCE

  White Paper
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the 1997 White Paper on Defence. [1274]

  Dr. John Reid
  As the Strategic Defence Review will be conducted during 1997, it would not be appropriate for the Department to publish this year a forward-looking statement of policy in the form of the Statement on the Defence Estimates (SDE). Factual material on the activities of the Department and the Armed Forces in the last year, which is usually contained in the SDE, will appear in an expanded MOD Performance Report which the Department plans to publish in the Autumn.

  Pricing and Quality Services Organisation
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the Pricing and Quality Services Organisation within the MOD Procurement Executive; and if he will make a statement. [2013]

  Mr. Spellar
  A new Defence Agency, formed from the Pricing and Quality Services (PQS) elements of the Procurement Executive, was established on 1 June 1997. The agency will be known as Specialist Procurement Services (SPS). The Chief of Defence Procurement will be the Owner of the Agency and the current head of PQS will be the first Chief Executive (CE); subsequent CEs 122
  will be appointed through external competition. The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets for the first year of operation:

  1. Establish Service Level Arrangements (SLAs) with customers, covering the activities of the following business units; Pricing, Quality Assurance and Cost Forecasting.

  2. Develop/implement methods of measuring customer satisfaction.

  3. Offer Cost Forecasting advice on 90 per cent. of Category A and B equipment projects identified within the agreed Equipment Approvals Committee (EAC) programme.

  4. Develop a programme for accreditation to the Investors in People (IIP) standard.

  5. Audit 95 per cent. of core accounts in the first year and 100 per cent. of major accounts over a three year period with respect to Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).

  6. Develop an efficiency and business improvement programme.

  I will arrange for copies of the Agency's Framework Document and Corporate Plan to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teaching Staff (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of(a) teachers and (b) lecturers come from ethnic minority backgrounds; and what initiatives he proposes to increase their number. [1042]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect the information required. The Teacher Training Agency has introduced various initiatives to attract ethnic minority entrants to teaching, including targeting recruitment advertisements. The Agency is responsible for allocating student numbers to teacher training institutions, based on the quality assessment of the institution. Within any given quality category, trainers with special features, including their record in recruiting people from ethnic minorities, may be given priority over others.

  Performing Arts Graduates
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the numbers of students graduating in the performing arts in each year more nearly equates to the employment opportunities available to them. [1345]

  Dr. Howells
  None. Individual universities and colleges are responsible for the allocation of places on performing arts courses in the light of demand from suitably qualified applicants, whose numbers may be influenced by job opportunities.

  Salaries (University Vice-chancellors)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list in rank order the salaries of the vice-chancellors of United Kingdom universities indicating for each institution the number of students enrolled; [1443]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of setting a salary scale for university vice-chancellors; [1470]
  123
  (3) what factors underlie the range of variation in the salary and benefits packages offered to vice-chancellors by United Kingdom universities. [1469]

  Dr. Howells
  Universities are independent bodies and it is for them to determine levels of pay for their staff, including the vice-chancellor, in the light of their own particular needs and requirements. Other than requiring that universities take account of the Government priorities for public sector pay, the Department plays no part in considering or setting academic salary scales and does not collect information about the salaries of vice-chancellors.

  The Higher Education Funding Councils for England, Scotland and Wales and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland require universities to disclose the salary levels of senior staff. This information is published in the annual accounts of individual universities. Information on student enrolment is published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) in its reference volume series: Students in Higher Education Institutions.

  Departmental Computer Systems
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that his Department's computer system will be millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [1248]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's plan for ensuring that all its computer systems will be millennium compliant by early 1999 are well established. A project has been set up which has already identified all the Department's computer systems which will be affected by the Millennium date change. A detailed impact analysis in under way. This project will provide detailed costings covering all the work needed up to the Millennium. We will take forward those changes where they are cost justified.

  Funding (Further Education and Tertiary Colleges)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to reform the funding of further education and tertiary colleges; and if he will make a statement. [1461]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 it is the statutory responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council for England to give financial support to the governing bodies of institutions in the further and higher education sector for the provision of further education. My right hon. Friend has no plans to change that arrangement.

  Training Costs Estimates
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department has made of the amounts currently spent by employers on training; and if he will list equivalent figures for 1987 provided by the Training Agency in the study, Training in Britain (1989); and if he will make a statement. [1233]

  Dr. Howells
  Employers in the UK are estimated to have spent £10.6 billion on formal training courses and supervised on-the-job training in 1993. This estimate is the latest available and was published in the report `Employer Provided Training in the UK 1993'. An equivalent figure is not available from the 'Training in 124
  Britain' study because of differences in survey methods and the definitions of training used. The study estimated that total expenditure by employers in Great Britain in 1986–87 was £14.4 billion.

  Estimating employers' total expenditure on training is inherently difficult. While the latest survey provides a more accurate estimate of expenditure than that previously available, on its own the estimate does not convey much about training behaviour. More significantly, the survey shows a rising trend in the number of employees receiving training, both on and off-the-job. However we know that many companies—especially smaller ones—face difficulties in obtaining the training their businesses need. That is why we have pledged to help them, particularly by making the Investors in People Standard more accessible to small firms, and through the development of a University for Industry.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means his Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1681]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department produces several of its information leaflets and booklets in Braille, on audio tape and in large print. The majority are unpriced and are available from the Department's mailing houses on request. The priced ones are available from The Stationery Office.

  The availability of Braille, audio tape and large print is normally publicised by a reference in the standard printed version of the publication along with a telephone number for those wishing to place orders. We also send specimen copies to organisations representing blind people for wider dissemination.

  Unemployment (Young People)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons aged 16 to 18 years are not in employment, full-time education or on Government programmes. [1648]

  Dr. Howells
  In Autumn 1996, there were 300,000 16 to 18 year olds not in employment, full-time education or on government programmes in the UK, according to the Labour Force Survey.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to review the role and function of the Equal Opportunities Commission. [2023]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Against the background of this Government's firm commitment to equal opportunities and the practice of quinquennial policy and financial management reviews of non-departmental public bodies, the Department will conduct a thorough review of the Equal Opportunities Commission during 1997–98. The first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study with the following terms of reference:
  125

  1. To review the functions of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the effectiveness with which they have been carried out and the likely need in future for these functions.

  2. To consider the case for the continued existence of the Equal Opportunities Commission and how its functions can be best fulfilled.

  3. To consider the powers, constitutional status, membership and terms of reference of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  4. The review will have regard to the Government's equal opportunities policies and to the duties of the Commission as laid down in statute.

  5. To report the outcome of the review by 11 September 1997.

  This study is now underway and I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments, which may be made public unless respondents specifically request otherwise, should be sent, by 4 July, to:

  Jane Anderson

  Divisional Manager

  Sex and Race Equality Division

  Department for Education and Employment

  Room 401

  Caxton House

  Tothill Street

  London SW1H 9NF.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people are currently undertaking modern apprenticeships; what is his assessment of the contribution of the scheme to redressing the skills balance; and what plans he has for its further extension. [1698]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: In February 1997 (the latest date for which figures are available), there were 76,300 young people in training on Modern Apprenticeships.

  The initiative is making a vital contribution to raising skills. Evaluation studies have consistently shown that Modern Apprenticeships are highly popular, of high quality, and are meeting the expectations of both employers and young people.

  We want to sustain and build on this success and intend to develop Modern Apprenticeships in every sector where there is a demand. There are currently 69 frameworks approved with a further 10 expected in the next 12 months. There is every sign that employers' demand for Modern Apprentices will continue to grow and we and Training and Enterprise Councils will consider how best to respond to that demand.

WALES

  Development Orders
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review planning policy in 126
  Wales in regard to the existence of outstanding interim development orders; and if he will list the non-time limited planning permissions currently in force. [857]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend and I currently have no plans to review outstanding interim development orders in Wales. There are no non-time limited mineral planning permissions currently in force.

  Devolution
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the need for changes in the role of the National Audit Office in relation to public expenditure in Wales in the event of Welsh devolution. [1090]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  A Welsh Assembly would be subject to rigorous standards of audit and accountability. We will set out our detailed proposals on these and other matters in the White Paper to be published in the summer.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that all departmental expenditure in support of the Government's campaign for devolution is separately identified. [1087]

  Mr. Davies
  All Welsh Office publicity expenditure related to the proposals for a Welsh Assembly will be separately identifiable.

  Beef Production
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit farms engaged in beef production in Alyn and Deeside. [1305]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend and I hope to visit farms across Wales when the opportunity arises.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will raise problems faced by beef farmers in Alyn and Deeside with EU officials; and if he will make a statement. [1307]

  Mr. Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend and I will ensure that the interests of farmers throughout Wales are considered when we prepare for such meetings.

  River Dee Bridge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects both the new River Dee Bridge and Connah's Quay to be open to traffic. [1301]

  Mr. Hain
  Flintshire County Council are responsible for this scheme. They estimate completion late this year.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his estimate of the real level of unemployment in(a) Merthyr Tydfil and Ryhmney and (b) Wales; [1231]

  (2) if he will assess the findings contained in the report, "The Real Level of Unemployment", by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam university, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement. [1234]

  Mr. Hain
  The Office for National Statistics is currently conducting a public consultation on labour market statistics. I welcome this review because I am
  127
  extremely concerned at the high levels of joblessness in Wales not measured by the claimant count. I will write to my hon. Friend when the review is concluded.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to take people off benefit and into(a) work and (b) training; and what will be the role of further education colleges in such plans. [1258]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 21 May 1997,Official Report, column 75. The Government's Welfare to Work programme for unemployed young people "the New Deal" will have four options. Three of these: working with employers, voluntary organisations and the environmental task force, will involve accredited training for a day a week. The training could include college based courses and on the job training. The fourth option is full time study towards an approved qualification. I would expect Further Education Colleges to make a significant contribution to the success of the programme.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to promote the film industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [1331]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh Office Officials are currently talking to people in the industry about its potential for economic growth. Financial support for the industry is being channelled through the Arts Council of Wales, Welsh Development Agency and Cardiff Bay Development Corporation who are providing grant aid to the new Media Agency for Wales. The Arts Council has also distributed some £1.5 million of Lottery money to film projects throughout Wales.

  Open Government
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to enhance openness in government. [1263]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  We intend to introduce a Bill to strengthen data protection controls and a White Paper will be published on proposals for a Freedom of Information Bill. I shall shortly be announcing improvements to the meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he estimates money saved from the assisted places scheme will become available for local education authority schools; and if he will make a statement. [1255]

  Mr. Hain
  Subject to Parliamentary approval to the Education (Schools) Bill, savings through the phased abolition of the Assisted Places Scheme will start to become available in the 1998–99 financial year.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future role of local education authorities. [1259]
  128
  Mr. Hain
  We value the contribution made by LEAs and look forward to working in partnership with them.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many small businesses there are in Wales. [1265]

  Mr. Hain
  Official statistics on small business numbers are not available separately for Wales. The available data relate to VAT-registered enterprises only and therefore exclude many firms with a turnover below the VAT threshold. These figures show that in 1996 some 60,000 VAT-registered enterprises in Wales had a turnover of less than £250,000.

  Child Labour
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure the enforcement of existing legislation to outlaw the illegal employment of school age children. [1541]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Government are considering how the existing system for protecting children who work might be improved.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Wales will have the option of setting its own minimum wage following devolution. [1809]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Our plans for a Welsh Assembly do not entail its having powers of primary legislation. On this and other issues, it would operate within the statutory framework applying to the whole of England and Wales.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Youth Court System
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the Government expenditure on the youth court system in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [1576]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have figures for the magistrates courts system of which the youth court is a part. No separate expenditure figures are published for the youth court alone. However the following estimates are based on total revenue expenditure on magistrates courts apportioned to youth court work in proportion to the total of youth court work to aggregate magistrates court work for each year, measured by the weighted caseload system.

  1992–93: £16 million

  1993–94: £15 million

  1994–95: £18 million

  1995–96: £21 million

  1996–97: £24 million.

  Over these five years the number of defendants dealt with by the youth court has doubled.
  129

  Departmental Computer Systems
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans there are to ensure that his Department's computer systems are millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [1238]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department, the Court Service, the Public Trust Office, the Public Record Office and the Northern Ireland Court Service have established Year 2000 compliance projects. Their programmes of work follow the recommended approach identified by the Central Information Technology Unit and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, recognising their milestones for the completion of key tasks. The Chief Land Registrar will be replying directly to the Question on behalf of the Land Registry.

  Letter from Stuart Hill to Mr. Nigel Jones, dated 3 June 1997:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION-MILLENNIUM COMPLIANCE
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning plans to ensure that the Land Registry's computer systems are millennium compliant.
  The Registry set up a project early in 1996 to identify potential problems and manage any necessary changes. An investigation has been undertaken in respect of mainframe software to identify all potential problems and the solutions required. The results indicated

  Scheme

  Outline business case submitted

  Outline business case approved

  Full business case approved

  Tender accepted

  Start on site

  Freeman

  Pathology Computer Replacement

  October 1995

  January 1996

  1—

  —

  —

  Additional Cardiac Catheterisation Lab

  Suite

  October 1995

  No—January 1996

  n/ap

  —

  —

  Reconfiguration of X-ray room 2

  October 1995

  No—January 1996

  1—

  —

  —

  Development of Non-Invasive cardiology

  facilities

  October 1995

  No—January 1996

  n/ap

  —

  —

  Newcastle Strategic Review Fast Track schemes

  January 1996

  February 1996

  2—

  —

  —

  Newcastle City Health

  Improving Old Age Psychiatry Services

  October 1995

  Conditional—February 1996

  Awaited

  —

  —

  Kenton Clinic

  Development

  October 1995

  Conditional—February 1996

  —

  —

  —

  Special Care Services

  October 1995

  Conditional—February 1996

  —

  —

  —

  North Tyneside Adult Mental Health Services

  October 1995

  No

  n/ap

  —

  —

  Stand Alone Acute Mental Illness Unit

  October 1994

  December 1994

  April 1997

  To be sought July 1997

  August 1997

  Newcastle Strategic Review—Fast Track Schemes—Diabetes Centre

  October 1995

  February 1996

  February 1996

  July 1996

  July 1996

  Newcastle Electrical Infrastructure Improvements

  October 1995

  December 1994

  December 1994

  January 1995

  work completed 1995

  RVI and Associated Hospitals

  Upgrading of Dermatology Accommodation

  October 1995

  No

  n/ap

  —

  —

  Replacement MRI Scanner in Neurosciences

  October 1995

  August-96

  Awaited

  —

  —

  130
  that 3 per cent. of the software may require attention. Further investigations are also being carried out on our smaller PC based systems and software is tested for use throughout the Registry.
  External suppliers of Registry mainframe software have also been contacted to supply information regarding their own plans for millennium compliance. Contract documentation to be used in all future procurements has been revised to ensure that the problem will not be perpetuated in any newly purchased products.
  It is our aim that all Land Registry computer systems will be millennium compliant by 1 April 1998 to allow at least one full financial year of operation.
  Please let me know if you require any further information.

HEALTH

  Capital Developments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital developments for which business cases have been submitted since 1 April 1994 in(a) Newcastle City Health Trust, (b) RVI and Hexham Trust, Newcastle and (c) Freeman Hospital Trust, Newcastle, indicating in each case when it was submitted; where (i) NHS Executive and (ii) Treasury approval was given; when tenders were accepted; and when work started on site. [1334]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table shows the schemes for which an outline business case has been formally submitted to the National Health Service Executive and where capital costs are above the Trusts' delegated limits.
  131

  Scheme

  Outline business case submitted

  Outline business case approved

  Full business case approved

  Tender accepted

  Start on site

  Hexham General Hospital

  November 1995

  November 1996

  Awaited

  —

  —

  Multi-Storey Car Park

  May 1994

  July 1994

  February 1995

  n/av

  September 1996

  Newcastle Strategic Review—Fast Track Schemes— Reconfiguration of Medical Services

  June 1996

  3—

  —

  October 1996

  November 1996

  Newcastle Strategic Review—Fast Track Schemes— Reconfiguration of Elderly Services

  June 1996

  3—

  —

  July 1996

  August 1996

  1 Schemes adapted where required, progressed using Trust capital allocation (block capital).

  2 Schemes being progressed individually within the overall review.

  3 Single stage business case review (June-September 1996).

  n/ap = not applicable.

  n/av = not available.

  Lariam
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy relating to the use of the anti-malarial drug lariam. [1485]

  Ms Jowell
  Mefloquine (Lariam) is a highly effective drug in both preventing and treating malaria. It is particularly valuable where malaria is resistant to other medicines. The Department's policy relating to the use of mefloquine is outlined in the memorandum "Health Information for Overseas Travel" a free copy of which has been provided to all general practitioners. Further information was included in the Chief Medical Officer's Update 10 (May 1996) which was sent to all general practitioners. As with the use of all medicines, the benefits have to be weighed against the risk of adverse reactions.

  We are aware of public concerns about the safety of mefloquine, particularly about the nature of the suspected serious adverse reactions reported. Guidelines for health professionals on the use of malaria prophylaxis, including mefloquine, are prepared by an informal group of experts convened by the Malaria Reference Laboratory of the Public Health Laboratory Service. The guidelines are published, most recently in the British Medical Journal in 1995. The group is presently producing a new set of guidelines which, once the consultation process is complete, will be published as soon as possible.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid in fees to general practitioner fundholder managers in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and if he will break down the figures by health authority. [1801]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally. General practitioner fundholder managers are paid from the Practice Fund Management Allowance (PFMA) but their salary is not identified as a separate item within total PFMA allocations. The total PFMA expenditure for 1995–96 was £109.6 million and allocations of PFMA for 1996–97 were £153.3 million.

  Children (Employment)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure the enforcement of existing legislation to outlaw the illegal employment of school-age children. [1542]
  132
  Mr. Boateng
  We are considering how the existing system for protecting children under minimum school leaving age who work might be improved.

  Prisoners (HIV/AIDS)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department is responsible for funding the treatment of prisoners with HIV/AIDS. [1154]

  Ms Jowell
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Missions (Parking Fines)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many parking fines were incurred by diplomatic missions in London during 1996. [2029]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  During 1996 the London diplomatic missions incurred a total of 1,676 unpaid parking fines, which is slightly more than the 1995 figure of 1,586. In February this year this department wrote to all diplomatic missions to give them an opportunity to pay off all outstanding parking tickets, or appeal to have the ticket cancelled. Since then payments totalling £48,640.00 have been received, compared with £11,600.00 in 1996. The table below shows only missions which have 11 or more fines outstanding.

  Unpaid parking fines

  1996

  1995

  Diplomatic mission

  1 Malaysia

  71

  32

  2 Bangladesh

  62

  19

  3 Pakistan

  61

  22

  4 Thailand

  50

  20

  5 Egypt

  49

  20

  6 Ghana

  47

  66

  7 Turkey

  45

  17

  8 Cameroon

  44

  13

  9 India

  43

  83

  10 Qatar

  42

  20

  11 Hungary

  40

  11

  11 Cuba

  40

  6

  13 Philippines

  39

  31

  13 Oman

  39

  22

  133

  Unpaid parking fines

  1996

  1995

  15 Morocco

  37

  6

  16 Jordan

  36

  16

  17 Russian Federation

  35

  15

  18 Kenya

  34

  15

  19 Romania

  33

  27

  19 Cyprus

  33

  16

  19 Bahrain

  33

  5

  22 Uganda

  30

  18

  23 Zimbabwe

  26

  15

  23 Portugal

  26

  4

  25 League of Arab States

  24

  26

  25 Azerbaijan

  24

  13

  27 Tunisia

  23

  7

  28 Algeria

  21

  19

  29 Tanzania

  20

  14

  29 Jamaica

  20

  7

  31 Poland

  18

  12

  31 France

  18

  11

  31 Afghanistan

  18

  8

  34 Mexico

  16

  4

  35 Japan

  15

  9

  35 El Salvador

  15

  1

  37 Spain

  14

  8

  37 Brunei

  14

  7

  39 Greece

  13

  20

  39 Peru

  13

  5

  39 Armenia

  13

  2

  42 Albania

  12

  14

  42 Liberia

  12

  3

  44 Mauritius

  11

  1

  44 Belgium

  11

  0

  1,340

  710

  International Organisations

  1 Commonwealth Secretariat

  20

  16

  Consular Fees
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to change consular fees. [2021]

  Mr. Fatchett
  An order in Council was made on 20 May which reduces both the cost of a 5 year multiple entry visa and the cost of a certificate of entitlement and completes the 3 staged increase in settlement visa fees designed to achieve full cost recovery in this category. The Order also abolishes the fee for the confirmation of the right of abode (now obsolete). The Order will come into effect on 10 June.

PRIME MINISTER

  Question Time
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the annual reduction in the number of visitors to the Strangers' Gallery during oral questions to him consequent upon the change to their timing. [958]

  The Prime Minister
  Admission of the public to the Strangers Gallery is a matter for the House authorities.

  Disability
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will nominate a Minister in each Department to 134
  help identify and to overcome obstacles to ability, employment, education and mobility among people with real or apparent disability; [1227]

  (2) what considerations and consultations led him to do without a Minister with overall responsibility for disability issues. [1226]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government place great importance on ensuring equal opportunities for all groups, including disabled people. By moving the disability portfolio from the Department of Social Security to the Department for Education and Employment the Government has signalled a move away from treating disabled people as recipients of benefit towards a culture which will value their wider role in society as people willing and able to take advantage of education, training and employment opportunities.

  My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Equal Opportunities now deal with disability issues.

  My right hon. Friend will act as a focal point across Government for disability issues and will be working with Ministerial colleagues in their Departments to ensure that the needs of all disabled people are addressed as policies are being developed. In this way, my right hon. Friend will have an input into policy as it affects disabled people whilst responsibility for implementing specific areas will remain with the relevant Departments.

  Podiums and Backdrops
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister how much each Department has spent since 1 May on podiums and backdrops. [1224]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for the individual departments. No central records are kept.

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the role of the Minister without Portfolio; and for what reason he is excluded from the rota for oral questions. [1225]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend's role is to assist me and my Ministerial colleagues in implementing Government policy and presenting it effectively.

  My hon. Friend is not in charge of a Department. Therefore—in line with the practice of the Minister without Portfolio in the previous administration—he will not have a slot on the rota for oral questions.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to attend the hand-over ceremony in Hong Kong. [1467]

  The Prime Minister
  His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will both attend the hand-over ceremony in Hong Kong. I am still considering whether I will be able to attend.
  135

  Horse and Dog Racing
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department has ministerial responsibility for horse and dog racing. [1717]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: Such Ministerial responsibility as there is for horse and dog racing arises from the sport's close links with betting. The Home Office is responsible for the betting legislation.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public relations firms awarded Government contracts in each year since 1992, indicating the nature and value of the contract in each instance. [1639]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally for all Government Departments.

  Voluntary Organisations and Charities
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 121, on the transfer of responsibility for charities and voluntary organisations, if he will publish the responses and a summary of the responses to his policy document, "Building a Future Together", relating to the specific issue of transferring responsibility for voluntary organisations and charities to the Home Office. [1716]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The Labour Party Policy Document published in March and the covering letter invited organisations and individuals from the voluntary sector to make their views known on how Government should structure its responsibilities for the voluntary sector. No one argued for responsibility for the sector to remain at the Department of National Heritage and views expressed to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) before and after the election were that there should be a clear focus for Government activity to support, nurture and work with the sector. Representatives of the voluntary sector and other respondents positively welcomed the return of the responsibility to the Home Office.

  Medical and Dental Officers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the Armed Forces. [2096]

  The Prime Minister
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has made recommendations on the pay of medical and dental officers in the Armed Forces. The Review Body recommends that the daily rate of basic pay should be increased by an average of 3.4 per cent. from 1 April. They have further proposed some significant changes to the pay structures of Service medical and dental officers which will see many forms of additional payments, such as consultant pay, consolidated into basic pay. The Review Body also mentioned that it welcomed the fact that the Ministry of Defence was, in future, proposing to base the pensions of Service medical and dental officers on representative rates of their own salaries rather than that of their combatant counterparts. These changes will 136
  serve to give a greater degree of comparability between the pay of Defence Medical Staff and their counterparts in the NHS.

  The Government has decided to accept the Review Body's recommendations. Along with the earlier recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and the recommendations of the other Review Bodies, these will be staged, with 2 per cent. of the award being back dated to 1 April, and the remainder being payable from 1 December.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Indemnity Undertakings
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many indemnity undertakings were given by departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six-month period ended 31 March; and what was the value of(a) any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remain outstanding as at 31 March, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remain outstanding as at 31 March and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remain outstanding at 31 March. [2027]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan—for example through a scholarly publication.

  In the six month period ended 31 March 1997, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Numbers

  Department of National Heritage

  469

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  66

  Welsh Office Education Department

  65

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  28

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at anytime under section 16 and which remained outstanding at 31 March 1997 is:

  Department of National Heritage: £1,337,264,837

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department: £38,701,845

  Welsh Office Education Department: £60,611,806

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland: £10,678,989

  137
  The value of non-statutory Government Indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding at 31 March 197 is:
  Value: £9,000,000

  The value of non-statutory Undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding at 31 March 1997 is:
  Value: £100,327,077

  National Newspapers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for new regulations covering the ownership of national newspapers. [1822]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: I have been asked to reply. My Department has no immediate plans for new regulations covering the transfer of ownership of national newspapers, however the Department of National Heritage is maintaining regular monitoring of the impact of various factors and policies on the media, including control of cross-media ownership.

  Disability
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to adopt a social model of disability in framing all future and amending previous relevant legislation and guidance; and if he will make a statement. [1666]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I shall be seeking to ensure that any proposed relevant future legislation and guidance issued by my Department reflects our manifesto commitment to establishing:"comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work, developed in partnership with all interested parties".

  It will also reflect, as appropriate, the outcome of the consultation being undertaken by the Department for Education and Employment on the issue of the definition of disability.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy with regard to the funding of Scottish Homes for the remainder of the present financial year. [87]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]: I can confirm that Scottish Homes grant in aid for 1997–98, as set out in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1997–98 to 1999–2000", is £264.899 million.

  I am making an additional £1 million available for the Scottish Rough Sleepers Initiative this year. Because this Initiative is funded through Scottish Homes, this extra money will be added to Scottish Homes' grant in aid.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about Government policy on private finance initiative for school building programmes. [1083]
  138
  Mr. Brian Wilson
  A number of education authorities are considering the potential of the private finance initiative and public private partnerships to assist their school building programmes. We are committed to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of that process and will be offering authorities practical advice and assistance to that end.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to set up the independent body to be established under the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 to consider cases of alleged miscarriages of justice. [1275]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend supports the establishment of an independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in principle, but further preparatory work will be required before a decision can be taken on implementation of the relevant provisions of the 1997 Act. He cannot at this stage say precisely when the Commission might be set up.

  Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation he will initiate before seeking to bring into force those provisions of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 which require his consent or subordinate legislation. [1276]

  Mr. McLeish
  We intend to consult the judiciary and other interested parties, as appropriate, before making orders under section 65(2) of the 1997 Act.

  Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about performance targets for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency for 1997–98. [2011]

  Mr. Dewar
  For the financial year 1997–98 I have set the following targets:

  Aerial surveillance percentage of hours flown on task: 85 per cent.

  Aerial surveillance cost per aircraft sighting: £82

  Marine surveillance utilisation of effective patrol days: 96 per cent.

  cost per boarding: £2,685

  Marine surveillance number of boardings at sea: 2,2001

  Sea Fisheries inspectorate cost per logsheet check: £65

  landing declarations checked against actual catches 40 per cent.

  80 per cent. of cases for prosecution to be reported within 6 weeks of offence being detected and 95 per cent. within 8 weeks

  Number of cases where court proceedings are taken as percentage of offences reported to prosecuting authorities: 80 per cent.

  1This target is 400 less than that for 1996–97 and reflects the reduction from 300 to nil of Royal Navy patrol days contracted from the Ministry of Defence.

  In order to ensure that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency uses its resources efficiently, I have set it a target to achieve cash releasing efficiency gains of 2.0 per cent. during 1996–97.
  139
  The Chief Executive will be directly accountable to me for the achievement of these targets, which will be reported in the Agency's Annual Report.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. [2010]

  Mr. Dewar
  My predecessor reappointed Dr. Charles M. Glennie CBE and Professor Urlan A. Wannop to the Boundary Commission for Scotland from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997.

  The other members of the Commission are:
  Madam Speaker—ex-officio, Chairman.
  The Hon. Lady Cosgrove, appointed as Deputy Chairman by the Lord President of the Court of Session from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1999.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what means her Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1679]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  In discussions with the RNIB and other interested organisations, the Department seeks to ensure that its publications are accessible to the visually impaired.

  To this end, our consumer advice on metrication changes in 1995 was published and distributed in Braille by the RNIB on behalf of the Department. More recently, audio advice about tactile danger warnings and about risks of carbon monoxide poisoning have been made available to those with visual impairment through COI's regular Sound Advice audio tapes, which are distributed to over 4,500 organisations dealing with blind and partially sighted people.

  Also guidance will shortly be issued within the Department aimed at making printed material easier to read for visually impaired people.

  The Department also has a range of information about its policies, programmes and publications on the Internet (http.\\www.dti.gov.uk\). It is possible to print all DTI pages from the Internet in large print; the pages are also available in audio to those who have access to a Talking Computer.

  Departmental Computer Systems
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to ensure that her Department's computer systems are millennium compliant; and if she will make a statement. [1244]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Following an initial impact assessment, my Department has initiated a programme of changes to its IT systems which will make them compliant with the Century date change. This programme is expected to be completed in the Spring 1999.

  Exports
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list on the basis of July to December 1973 = 100, the increase in United Kingdom relative export unit values in dollars for each year since 1970 together with United Kingdom share of volume of exports of manufactures by main manufacturing countries. [1556]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available. Data on relative export unit values are available only from 1975. Data based on 1990 = 100 between 1975 and 1996Q1 are available on the Central Shared Database which can be accessed from the Library. Data on the UK share of exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries for 1982 to 1992Q3 based on 1985 weights are published in the February 1993 Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations her Department has received in the last 12 months relating to the misuse of fireworks; what consultations her Department has undertaken on firework safety in the last 12 months; what action she proposes to take to regulate the(a) sale and (b) use of fireworks; and if she will make a statement. [1441]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My Department has received several hundred complaints from the public about the misuse of fireworks and I propose shortly to consult interested organisations on draft regulations to introduce additional restrictions on the types of fireworks which should be sold to the public, including some types of fireworks which feature in complaints of misuse.

  British Airways and American Airlines
  Sir George Young
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the proposed alliance of British Airways and American Airlines, following her meeting with Commissioner van Miert. [1505]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade met Commissioner van Miert on Tuesday 20 May for a preliminary discussion of the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines, and other competition matters. It is not the President of the Board of Trade's policy to make public statements about the merits of individual competition cases in which she will be responsible for making decisions.

  Bus Mergers
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the merger between FirstBus and SB Holdings and the implications for Midland Bluebird. [1153]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The MMC's report on the acquisition by FirstBus plc of SB Holdings Ltd. (SBH) was published in January 1997. In line with the MMC's recommendations, the then Minister for Corporate and Consumer Affairs, Mr. John Taylor, asked the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) to seek undertakings from FirstBus to divest the

  141
  business of its subsidiary Midland Bluebird, plus part of the Glasgow operations of SBH. In the event that FirstBus has not identified a firm buyer that has been approved by the Secretary of State by 24 October 1997, the undertakings which are being sought will provide for the divestment of SBH in its entirety without divestment of any of Midland Bluebird's operations. The DGFT will advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the outcome of his discussions with FirstBus in due course.

  Small Firms (Definition)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what definition he will use to describe small firms, in terms of number of employees and turnover, when he introduces the fair payment of commercial debts bill; and if he will make a statement. [1277]

  Mrs. Roche
  We will consult on the details of the Fair Payment of Commercial Debts Bill in the summer. We will ask businesses, their representative organisations and other interested bodies for their views about the extent and application of the legislation for a Statutory Right to Interest.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and percentage of deduction from earnings orders in force to recover arrears of maintenance assessments carried out by the Child Support Agency on absent parents(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1355]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about deduction from earnings orders (DEOs) issued by the Child Support Agency.
  I should first of all point out that although DEOs are mainly used as a collection method where the AP has not co-operated, they may be used as a preferred payment method by absent parents and are not solely used for collection of arrears payments.
  It is not possible to provide the regional breakdown you requested. However information has been collected on the number of DEOs issued since April 1993. The attached table shows the number of DEOs issued and how they compare with the Agency's live load.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Period

  DEOs issued

  Live and assessed caseload

  1993–94

  2,600

  180,000

  1994–95

  32,027

  368,000

  1995–96

  52,931

  462,000

  1996–97

  57,898

  579,000

  All live and assessed figures are for year end with the exception of the 1996–97 figure which is February 1997 data from Analytical Services Division Quarterly Summary of Statistics. This is the most recent data available.
  142
  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken by the CSA to complete an assessment review; and what action she intends to take to reduce this time. [1360]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency assessment reviews.
  The first part of your question asks about the average time taken to complete in assessment review. Under Child Support Agency legislation, there are a number of different reviews that can be requested by parties to an assessment. (which will include the absent parent, parent/person with care and child in Scotland). Any of the interested parties can ask for a review of their assessment by another child support officer if they disagree with the decision of the original child support officer. This is referred to as a second tier review. They may also request a change of circumstance review if a change has occurred that may affect their maintenance assessment. In addition, the Agency undertakes a periodic review of each case every two years.
  The Agency measures the number of individual reviews cleared within each of the time bands specified in Agency targets. The Agency does not measures average processing times for cases either within the time bands, or overall.
  The 1996–97 target for second tier reviews were;

  55%of second tier reviews to be cleared within 13 weeks;

  80% of second tier reviews to be cleared within 26 weeks;

  and no more than 15% to be older than 26 weeks as at 31 March 1997

  The Agency met all elements of this target and performance was as follows;

  66% of second tier reviews cleared within 13 weeks;

  88% of second tier reviews to be cleared within 26 weeks;

  and 10% that were older than 26 weeks as at 31 March 1997.

  The 1996–97 target for change of circumstances were;
  Of those change of circumstances cleared

  -50% to be cleared within 13 weeks

  -60% to be cleared within 26 weeks

  Again the Agency met both elements of this target as follows;
  Of those change of circumstances cleared

  -63% were cleared within 13 weeks

  -78% were cleared within 26 weeks.

  Even though these targets were exceeded last year, this does not mean that we are complacent in these areas. We will be seeking to ensure that this years performance improves further.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the average length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to complete a maintenance assessment(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1357]
  143
  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.
  The Agency does not collect information on average processing times, however, the Agency does have a Secretary of State target to clear 60% of new maintenance applications within 26 weeks, which has been in place for the years 1995/96 and 1996/97.
  In 1995/96, the Agency cleared 48% of new applications within 26 weeks; in 1996/97 the performance achieved was 54%. However in the last 2 months of 1996/97 the 60% target was exceeded overall A breakdown of the performance by Child Support Agency Centre is available for 1996/97 and is shown in the attached table.
  The intake of child maintenance applications is forecast to increase by 5% this year. Nevertheless, we will maintain this target.
  I hope this is helpful.

  1996–97 performance by Child Support Agency Centre

  Percentage of applications cleared within 26 weeks

  Dudley

  51

  Hastings

  49

  Falkirk

  53

  Plymouth

  53

  Birkenhead

  59

  Belfast

  55

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and percentage of Child Support Agency cases in which no moneys are being recovered from the absent parent(a) in total, (b) by regional office and (c) by gender of absent parent for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1356]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support cases where monies are not being recovered from absent parents (APs).
  The information you have requested by region and for all years of Agency operation, is available only at disproportionate cost. I hope the following details will be helpful to you.
  The attached table gives information on the current levels of compliance with maintenance assessments at Agency level. The data is taken from a 5% sample of live cases drawn from the child support computer system on the date shown. The Agency does not distinguish absent parents or parents with care by gender.
  144

  Compliance

  February 1997

  Full compliance

  Partial compliance

  Nil compliance

  Full maintenance assessments

  Number of cases

  52,200

  52,100

  61,000

  Percentage

  31.6

  31.5

  36.9

  Interim maintenance assessments

  Number of cases (i)

  600

  4,000

  51,700

  Percentage

  1.1

  7.1

  91.8

  Number of cases AP

  paying direct to

  PWC

  97,500

  —

  —

  The above compliance table only includes cases where the Agency collection service is used, and the absent parent (AP) has a full maintenance assessment and payment is via the regular payment account.
  Full compliance: All payments due to the regular maintenance accounts have been made and nothing is outstanding.
  Partial compliance: Some payment(s) have been made to the regular maintenance accounts during the last 3 months and there is an amount outstanding.
  Nil compliance: No payments have been made to the regular maintenance accounts during the last 3 months.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and percentage of maintenance assessments carried out by the Child Support Agency which are challenged by the absent parent(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1354]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.
  You have asked about the number of maintenance assessments that are challenged by the absent parent. The Agency records information on the number of applications for a second tier review (STR) received from any party to the assessment. Along with absent parents this includes parents with care, persons (other than parents) with care, and a child in Scotland. The STR is the means by which any of the interested parties can ask for a review of their assessment by another child support officer (CSO) if they disagree with the decision of the original CSO.
  The attached tables therefore give the number of STR requests received by the Agency since inception, set against the total number of maintenance assessments made in each year.
  I hope this is helpful.

  1993–94

  Number

  Total number of maintenance assessments

  205,442

  Total number of second tier reviews (STR) received

  10,804

  145

  A breakdown of STRs received by each Child Support Agency Centre is not available for the first year of operation

  Child support agency centre

  Second tier reviews received

  1994–95

  Dudley

  4,161

  Hastings

  3,568

  Falkirk

  4,256

  Plymouth

  5,843

  Birkenhead

  5,231

  Belfast

  4,236

  Agency total 1994–95

  27,295

  Agency total number of maintenance assessments

  250,836

  1995–96

  Dudley

  5,231

  Hastings

  3,812

  Falkirk

  5,440

  Plymouth

  7,746

  Birkenhead

  6,356

  Belfast

  4,977

  Agency total 1995–96

  33,562

  Agency total number of maintenance assessments

  127,876

  1996–97

  Dudley

  5,646

  Hastings

  3,554

  Falkirk

  5,637

  Plymouth

  7,237

  Birkenhead

  6,825

  Belfast

  6,349

  Agency total 1996–97

  35,248

  Agency total number of maintenance assessments

  129,255

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and percentage of Child Support Agency cases in which an interim assessment exceeded the actual maintenance assessment(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1358]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency interim maintenance assessments (IMAs).
  The Agency is unable to answer your question in the format requested, however set out below is an explanation of interim assessments together with the number we have imposed to date, I hope you find this helpful.
  An IMA is usually imposed where the absent parent, parent with care or their respective partners do not provide all the information required under Child Support legislation to make a full maintenance assessment (FMA)
  One of four different categories of IMA can be imposed depending on the nature of the missing information, ie category A, B, C or D IMA. Category A and D are intended to encourage compliance and will normally always be punitive and higher than the liability under a FMA. A category B may, or may not be punitive depending on the circumstances of the case, it generally will not take account of any new family. A category C IMA is non punitive and is imposed in self employed cases to allow the AP extra time to provide the necessary financial evidence.
  146
  Since April 1993 the Agency has imposed over 166,000 IMAs. I do not have break down by category, but the majority of IMAs will be category A where the liability is normally higher than the FMA.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hotels (Value Added Tax)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current relevant levels of VAT levied by hotels in each of the European Union countries in respect of(a) accommodation and (b) food purchase. [1363]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The VAT rates applied in European Union countries to hotel accommodation and meals are shown in the table.

  VAT on hotel accommodation and meals in the EU

  Percentage

  Country

  Hotel accommodation

  Hotel meals

  Austria

  10

  20

  Belgium

  6

  21

  Denmark

  25

  25

  Finland

  6

  22

  France

  5.5

  20.6

  Germany

  15

  15

  Greece

  8

  8

  Ireland

  12.5

  12.5

  Italy1

  10

  10

  Luxembourg

  15

  15

  Netherlands

  6

  17.5

  Portugal2

  5

  12

  Spain

  7

  7

  Sweden

  12

  12

  UK3

  17.5

  17.5

  1 The standard rate of 19 per cent, applies in both instances to luxury hotels.

  2A rate of 4 per cent. applies for hotel accommodation and 10 per cent. for hotel meas in Madeira and the Azores Archipelagoes.

  3A rate of 5 per cent. applies to hotel accommodation in the Isle of Man.

  Customs and Excise (Merger)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the findings of his review on the feasibility of merging Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. [1855]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A programme of closer working (but not merger) between Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue resulted from a review under their Fundamental Expenditure Reviews in 1994 of the boundary between the two departments. We intend to develop further this programme in support of Government objectives.

  Interest Rate
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list which of the economic indicators for which his Department receives data he will take into account when assessing interest rate policy. [1872]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]The Chancellor has transferred the operational responsibility for setting interest rates to the Bank of England.
  147
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at present levels of economic activity, at what amount interest rates would have to be set to achieve levels of inflation of(a) 2.4 per cent., (b) 2.3 per cent., (c) 2.2 per cent., (d) 2.1 per cent. and (e) 2.0 per cent. by the end of March 1998. [1871]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The mechanisms by which interest rates affect the inflation rate are quantitatively uncertain and may be influenced by unforeseen events reflecting the time lags involved. Therefore it is not possible to be sure about the precise level of interest rates required to hit an exact inflation rate ten months ahead.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 May,Official Report, column 508, what are his growth objectives for the British economy for its financial years 1997–98, 1998–99, and 1999–00; and if he will state his employment objectives, (a) numerically and (b) descriptivity, for the same financial years. [1864]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The Government's central economic objectives are high and stable levels of growth and employment. The Government do not intend to set numerical targets for growth and employment.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 May,Official Report, column 508, what are the numerical targets of the Government's economic policy for the key indicators to monitor. [1863]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The Chancellor will set out the Government's approach to monetary policy in his Mansion House speech on 12 June. The Government regard price stability as an essential pre-condition for high and stable levels of growth and employment. Sound public finances are also important for lasting economic stability. The Government's fiscal policy will be spelt out in the Budget.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means he proposes to resolve any incompatibility between the Bank of England's monetary policy objective of price stability and the Government's growth and employment objectives. [1865]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The monetary policy objective of the Bank of England will be to deliver price stability (as defined by the Government's inflation target) and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including their objectives for growth and employment. Price stability is the best way that monetary policy can contribute to achieving high and stable levels of growth and employment in the long run.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 May,Official Report, column 509, what is his definition of (a) extreme economic circumstances and (b) a limited period; and if he will make a statement covering both the numerical and descriptive aspects of these matters. [1869]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: Further details will be made available when the draft Bill is introduced into the House.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advisers employed in his office during his time in opposition are now working with him in the Treasury; what are their names; how old they are; what the terms and conditions are upon which they are now employed; how much salary they are each being paid; if that money is coming from public or private sources; and if he will publish a detailed curriculum vitae for each of the individuals concerned. [1732]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The Prime Minister has approved the appointment of Ed Balls, Charles Whelan, Edward Miliband and Andrew Maugham as paid Special Advisers to HM Treasury.

  The terms and conditions for Special Advisers paid from public funds were agreed by the Prime Minister on 19 May in the attachment to his letter to Cabinet colleagues. A copy is being placed in the Library of the House. No salaries for those employed in the Treasury have yet been agreed.

  It would not be appropriate for me to publish personal information about the individuals concerned, or to comment on their previous private employment arrangements.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the names of the political and special advisers appointed to his Department since the general election. [1626]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Prime Minister has approved the appointment of Ed Balls, Charles Whelan, Edward Miliband and Andrew Maugham as paid Special Advisers to HM Treasury.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many young people under the age of 25 years have been unemployed for over six months in(a) Great Britain, (b) England, (c) Manchester, (d) Trafford and (e) Wythenshawe and Sale East. [1643]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Goggins, dated 3 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question asking how many young people under the age of 25 years have been unemployed for over six months in (a) Great Britain, (b) England, (c) Manchester, (d) Trafford and (e) Wythenshawe and Sale East.
  The ONS produces two measures of unemployment. The first, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey, is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed, people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the past four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the UK administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as

  149
  unemployed and available to do any suitable work. All people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
  Both measures are described and compared in the ONS booklet How exactly is Unemployment Measured. Please find a copy enclosed with this reply.
  Information on length of time ILO unemployed is generally available from the Labour Force Survey, a quarterly basis down to county, or former county, level. The most recent information available is for autumn 1996. Some information for local authorities is available from the annual LFS Local Area Database (LAD). However, in order to protect confidentiality the database only includes key data items and length of time unemployed is not among them. If it were available the figure for Trafford would be less than the threshold for reliable estimates. No figures less than this threshold can be released. Further information on the Local Area Database is available in the May 1996 edition of Labour Market Trends (pages 239–246) which is available in the House of Commons library. No information about parliamentary constituencies is available from the LFS. The latest available figures are shown in the table below:

  Unadjusted claimant unemployment1

  ILO unemployed2

  Great Britain

  171,572

  246,000

  England

  145,266

  211,000

  Greater Manchester county

  8,089

  13,000

  Trafford LAD3

  413

  n/a

  Wythenshawe and Sale East PCA4

  426

  n/a

  Notes:

  1By duration of six months or more, April 1997.

  2For at least six months (unadjusted, autumn 1996 LFS).

  3Local authority district.

  4Parliamentary constituency area.

  Source:

  ONS.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to revise the method of calculating the unemployment statistics. [1092]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics is responsible for deciding the form, coverage and timing of release of statistics issued by his Office, taking into account the views of customers. ONS is presently consulting customers on the future presentation of labour market statistics; the consultation exercise was launched through an article in the Labour Market Trends published on 8 May. Comments on the proposals should be sent to ONS by 14 June.

  The proposals set out for consultation reflect the House of Commons Employment Select Committee recommendation that more prominence should be given to the measure of unemployment which is based on the internationally agreed ILO definition.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged 18 to 24 years who had been unemployed for more than six months found jobs in each of the past five years; how many people in that age group became unemployed for more than six months in each of the past five years; and how many such people on average were unemployed for more than six months in each of the past five years, [1631]

  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 a reply to be given.
  150
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Willetts, dated 3 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on unemployment of those aged 18 to 24 years.
  Please note that information on the destination of leavers from the claimant count is only available since January 1995, therefore this information has only been provided for the last two years. Also, this information only includes those claims that were terminated with a known destination. Approximately 25 per cent. of all terminated claims have an unknown destination.
  The results are shown in the attached tables.

  Number of people aged 18–24 years who had been claimant unemployed for more than six months, who left because they had found work, 1995–96, Great Britain

  Year

  Number of people (thousands)

  1995

  163.5

  1996

  152.2

  Source:

  JUVOS leaving marker file.

  Number of people aged 18–24 years crossing the six month duration threshold, 1992–96, Great Britain

  Year

  Number of people (thousands)

  1992

  479.8

  1993

  472.8

  1994

  402.1

  1995

  362.6

  1996

  327.4

  Source:

  JUVOS Cohort (April 1997).

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many persons aged 18 to 24 years are currently seeking and available for work; [1649]

  (2) how many persons aged 18 to 24 years who are currently registered unemployed have never been employed; [1651]

  (3) how many persons aged 18 to 24 years are currently registered unemployed; [1647]

  (4) how many persons aged 18 to 24 years who are seeking work are also undertaking part or full-time study. [1650]

  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 a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. James Paice, dated 3 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your four recent questions (1647, 1649, 1650 and 1651) about 18 to 24 year olds in the labour market asking how many are: (1) registered unemployed,(2) currently seeking and available for work, (3) registered unemployed who have never been employed (4) seeking work and also undertaking part or full-time study.
  The ONS produces two measures of unemployment. The first, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on an internationally-recognised consistent basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are:

  (a) without a paid job;

  151

  (b) available to start work within the next two weeks and

  (c) have either looked for work in the past four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the UK administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployed-related benefits at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. All people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving unemployment-related benefits.
  Both measures are described and compared in the ONS booklet How Exactly is Unemployment Measured?, a copy of which is enclosed with this reply. This booklet is also available in the House of Commons Library.
  A total of 421,656 18 to 24 year olds were registered unemployed (claimant unemployed) in the UK in April 1997. This compares with an estimate of 551,000 18–24 year olds ILO unemployed according to the autumn 1996 Labour Force Survey. The group you refer to in your first question "currently seeking and available for work" is broadly the same as the ILO definition of unemployment except that this also includes those who are waiting to start a job they have already obtained.
  No information is available from the claimant count about those registered unemployed who have never been employed. According to the autumn 1996 Labour Force Survey there were an estimated 179,000 18–24 year olds who were ILO unemployed and had never had a paid job. 38,000 of these were in full-time education and therefore not eligible to claim unemployment related benefits.
  An estimated total of 127,000 18–24 year olds not in employment had been seeking work within the past four weeks and undertaking full or part-time study according to the autumn 1996 UK LFS. Of these 95,000 were ILO unemployed (ie seeking and available to start work within the next two weeks or waiting to start a job already obtained). The rest are categorised as economically inactive because they were not available to start work within two weeks. 79,000 out of the above total of 127,000 said that they were looking for part-time work. It may be assumed that many of these would be planning to combine their studies with part-time work, although they cannot be separately identified.

  Advanced Corporation Tax
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for meetings with representatives of the Association of Consulting Actuaries about the impact of any changes in advanced corporation tax on pension funds and charities; and if he will make a statement. [1561]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: I have no plans to meet representatives of the Association of Consulting Actuaries.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the reasons for transferring departmental management from the Bank of England to the Treasury; and if he will make a statement illustrating the operational implications and benefits arising from this change. [1874]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The Chancellor's statement granting the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates means that it is important to separate full policy responsibility for the Government's debt and cash management from monetary policy. The separation is intended to ensure that debt and cash management decisions are taken in such a way as to minimise the cost of financing the Government's borrowing needs subject to risk and are not
  152
  influenced by short-term monetary policy considerations (and vice versa). The Treasury and the Bank are now engaged in working out the operational details of the transfer.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which other European Community Governments make use of advances from their central banks similar to the ways and means advances to Her Majesty's Government from the Bank of England. [1525]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No other Government of member states of the European Community operate an overdraft facility with their central bank similar to Ways and Means advances.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the manner in which ways and means advances from the Bank of England to the Government operate. [1531]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Government borrowing operations are conducted through the National Loans Fund. If the Fund is in surplus, the surplus is deposited with the Banking Department of the Bank of England. If the Fund is in deficit, the deficit is met by borrowing, known as ways and means borrowing, from the Bank's Issue Department. These arrangements enable any differences between the Fund's daily outgoings and its receipts to be offset without formality by changes in the deposit balance or ways and means borrowing.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors will be taken into account by the Court of the Bank of England when it reviews the performance of its Monetary Policy Committee; and if he will make a statement. [1867]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: In reviewing the performance of the MPC in meeting its monetary policy objective of price stability, the Court will have particular regard to whether the Bank is collecting proper regional and sectoral information. The Court itself is to be reformed to ensure that it is representative of the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the voting decisions of each member of his new monetary policy committee when actions are taken to achieve the Government's inflation target. [1866]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The Monetary Policy Committee meetings will be minuted, and the minutes, including a record of the votes, will be released no later than six weeks after the meeting.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the name of the new Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. [1489]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I will make an announcement in due course.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he defines as short-term gain in terms of the length of time an asset has been held for the purposes of capital gains tax. [1851]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The capital gains tax system does not define short-term gains.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to become a signatory to the stability pact as part of the preparation for a single currency. [300]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The principles and main elements of the stability and growth pact were agreed by Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Dublin last year. The informal Council of Finance Ministers at Noordjwijk in April gave political agreement to the texts, which have been sent to the European Parliament. The UK has maintained a Parliamentary scrutiny reserve on the stability pact proposals. The intention is that the European Council will endorse the stability pact texts at its meeting in Amsterdam on 16 June, including any amendments since the Noordjwijk ECOFIN, and taking account of the European Parliament's views.

  Departmental Computer Systems
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that his Department's computer systems are millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [1253]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My department has work in progress to identify and test its computer systems to ensure that they will operate correctly at the turn of the century. This work is currently within the model timetable set down by CCTA.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if domestic holidays are included under other recreations in the retail prices index; and if he will publish separate figures for the increase in the price of domestic holidays. [1444]

  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 a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 3 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the inclusion of domestic holidays in the Retail Prices Index.
  A price index for domestic holidays has been included in the Retail Prices Index since February 1994 under the published heading of United Kingdom holidays. This was on the recommendation of the 1992 Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee. These figures are given in Table 2 of the monthly Business Monitor MM23—Retail Prices Index a copy of which is in the House of Commons library.

  2001 Census
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that the 2001 Census includes questions relating to levels of income, poverty and wealth. [1543]

  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 a reply to be given.
  154
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 2 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent Parliamentary question concerning questions about levels of income, poverty and wealth in the 2001 Census.
  The Census Offices have been consulting users about the need for questions in the 2001 Census, and a number of new questions are being trialled in the 1997 Census Test which will be held in June. The Test questionnaire includes questions which would provide statistics related to poverty and wealth. In particular, the Test will include a question about banded individual gross income.
  The Government will publish their proposals for questions to be included in the Census in a White Paper in mid-1998. These proposals will be based on users' substantial requirements for information, and on evidence gathered in the 1997 Census Test on the public's reaction to the possible questions. The White Paper will invite comment.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy objectives underlie the Government's purpose in raising nominal and real exchange rates; and if he will estimate by how much the public sector borrowing requirement increased as a result of the increase in nominal and real exchange rates since 1995. [1528]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government do not have a policy of raising nominal or real exchange rates. The Government want a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, consistent with their objective of price stability. It is impossible to estimate the effects on the PSBR of the exchange rate appreciation since 1995, which will depend on the extent to which a higher exchange rate has affected the level and composition of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of rises in exchange rates on output and employment in(a) manufacturing industry and (b) the rest of the economy since 1994. [1558]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are many factors, in addition to changes in the exchange rate, which can affect output and employment in manufacturing industry and the rest of the economy; and it is difficult to isolate their separate effects. However, the Government are aware that the recent appreciation of sterling is making life difficult for manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the trade-weighted change in the value of (i) sterling, (ii) the dollar, (iii) the D-mark and (iv) the yen since 1985; and if he will indicate to the latest available date the corresponding changes in(a) the unit cost of labour, (b) producer prices and (c) consumer prices. [1564]

  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 a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 3 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the change in the value of Sterling, the US Dollar, the Deutschemark and the Japanese Yen since 1985; and also about Unit Labour Costs, Producer Prices and Retail Prices.

  155
  The information you have requested about exchange rates is published by the Bank of England in Table 26 of their publication Bank of England: Monetary and Financial Statistics. More historic data can be obtained from the publication Bank of England: Statistical Abstract.
  The information you have requested about Unit Labour Costs is published by the ONS in table 4.1 of Economic Trends. More historic data can be obtained from the Annual Supplement to Economic Trends.
  Producer Prices are also published by the ONS—in table 3.1 of Economic Trends. More historic data can be obtained from the same Annual Supplement referred to above. Information on Retail Prices going back to 1985 is available from table 11 of the ONS Business Monitor MM23—Retail Prices Index.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  The data published by the ONS is also available from the ONS Database. This can be accessed via the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effect of the appreciation in the nominal value of the pound between the fourth quarter of 1994 and the second quarter of 1997 on the rate of inflation, manufacturing output and employment. [1550]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are many factors, in addition to changes in the nominal value of sterling, which can affect the rate of inflation, manufacturing output and employment; and it is difficult to isolate the separate effects. However, the Government are aware that the recent appreciation of sterling is making life difficult for manufacturing industry.

  Audio-visual Goods (Prices)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the retail price of audio-visual goods has fallen since January 1987; and what has been the market share of British industry in the supply of such goods in the United Kingdom. [1557]

  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 a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 3 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions on the fall in the retail price of audio-visual goods since January 1987 and the market share of British industry for such goods in the United Kingdom.
  The fall in the retail price of audio-visual equipment since January 1987 can be calculated from the ONS database which may be accessed by the House of Commons library.
  The market share of British industry in the supply of audio-visual equipment in the United Kingdom is shown in the table below:

  Year

  Percentage of British market share

  1990

  30

  1991

  15

  1992

  10

  156

  Year

  Percentage of British market share

  1993

  20

  1994

  21

  1995

  115

  1Provisional.

  Property Costs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much(a) house prices and (b) the cost of dwelling insurance and ground rent, as measured by the retail prices index, have risen since January 1992; and if he will provide separate figures for dwelling insurance and ground rent. [1529]

  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. Austin Mitchell, dated 3 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how much (a) house prices and (b) the cost of dwelling insurance and ground rent, as measured by the retail price index, have risen since January 1992; and if separate figures for dwelling insurance and ground rent will be provided.
  House prices are not published in the retail price index and are obtainable from the Department of the Environment.
  Between January 1992 and April 1997 the cost of dwelling insurance and ground rent as measured by the retail price index has fallen by 2.5 per cent. Separate information for the specified categories is not published.
  There are no plans to provide separate figures for dwelling insurance and ground rent.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list on the basis of July to December 1973 = 100, the United Kingdom terms of trade for finished manufactures together with(a) the volume of imports and exports of finished manufactures and (b) the surplus/deficit on trade in manufactures at 1992 prices. [1539]

  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 a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 3 June 1997:

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question concerning UK trade in manufactured goods.

  The information is not available at 1973 or 1992 prices. However, volumes and information from which terms of trade may be calculated are available, using 1990 as the base year, from the ONS database which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library. Balances of trade in manufactures at current prices are available from the same source.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss matters relating to BCCI. [1488]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Governor and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor meet from time to time to discuss a range of matters.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to expand the number of domestic air services to islands in Scotland exempt from air passenger duty. [1285]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Decisions on the types of aircraft used for flights to the Scottish islands which affect whether air passenger duty is charged, are purely commercial decisions for the airline operators.

  Social Model (Disability)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to adopt a social model of disability in framing all future and amending previous relevant legislation and guidance; and if he will make a statement. [1685]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Our manifesto commits us to establishing "comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or work, developed in partnership with all interested parties". The Government will be consulting widely and developing proposals in partnership with disability organisations, employers, employers organisations, trade unions and others. It is not appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Global Warming
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has evaluated into the rise in global temperatures in the current year relative to the 1951 to 1980 average. [453]

    Mr. Meacher
    Monitoring by the Hadley Centre, supported by my Department, shows that in the first three months of 1997, global surface temperatures were 0.4 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to publish proposals to set up English regional development agencies. [454]

    Mr. Caborn
    We plan to bring forward legislation in the Autumn.

    Departmental Responsibilities (Scotland)
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities he has in Scotland. [455]

    Mr. Prescott
    My responsibilities are in the main for England. However, I do have a number of responsibilities in Scotland, particularly for transport matters. I have placed further details in the Library of the House.

    Pollution
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions he plans to take to reduce pollution from low-level ozone. [458]

    Mr. Meacher
    Ground-level ozone is a serious air pollutant and the Government are committed to eliminating episodes which may damage people's health. The control of ozone levels requires international action and the Government are playing a full and active part in developing ozone reduction strategies in Europe.

    Environmental Improvements (West Cumbria)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for schemes of environmental improvement in West Cumbria. [459]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    Environmental improvements are an important feature in all initiatives supported by the Departments of the Environment and Transport.

    Area Cost Adjustment
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the area cost adjustment element of the local government SSA formula. [460]

    Ms Armstrong
    We have commissioned research on the area cost adjustment in consultation with the Local Government Association.

    Oxfordshire County Council
    Mr. Baldry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the request by Oxfordshire county council to be designated to operate at a level above cap. [462]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Oxfordshire County Council was designated for capping on 22 May. The proposed cap requires the authority to reduce its budget requirement by £6 million.

    Housing (Chester)
    Ms Christine Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what impact the Government's proposals to phase release of capital receipts will have on the availability of affordable housing units in City of Chester. [463]

    Ms Armstrong
    We will ensure that resources released under the Capital Receipts Initiative are made available to local authorities to use in support of priority schemes which meet key objectives. We will be considering and consulting on objectives and the distribution of additional
    159
    spending over the coming weeks. It will be for local authorities to decide how to use any resources within the general objectives set.

    Water Disconnections
    Helen Jackson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards water disconnections to domestic properties. [464]

    Mr. Prescott
    At the "Water Summit" on 19 May, we announced the Government's intention to review the system of charging for water. That review will include the water companies' debt recovery arrangements, including disconnection.

    Derelict Land
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish a central register of derelict land. [465]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    A survey of derelict land in England was carried out in 1993 and published in 1995. My Department is currently exploring the possibility of establishing a national land use information system, which would include information on derelict land.

    Poverty
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to reduce poverty in the English regions. [466]

    Mr. Caborn
    Reducing poverty across the nation is one of the Government's key policy objectives. Our policies for the regions are aimed at tackling the root causes of deprivation and promoting economic growth. New regional development agencies will provide the means of securing effective, properly co-ordinated action at the regional and sub-regional level, to underpin our wider economic and social agenda.

    Air Pollution
    Mr. Butterfill
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take to reduce air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. [467]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government are committed to tackling global warming, acid rain and ambient air pollution by reducing emissions from the burning of fossils fuels. We are examining options for policies and measurers, their costs and other consequences, which will enable us to meet our challenging manifesto commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. Strategies to achieve these goals will include the development of an integrated transport system, and the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

    In this context the Government are considering carefully the proposals in the European Commission's draft Acidification strategy for strict new targets for emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ammonia and those in the proposed Auto Oil Directives for proposed fuel and vehicle standards.
    160

    Housebuilding
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to expand housebuilding. [468]

    Ms Armstrong
    The Government's Capital Receipts initiative will support the priority schemes of local authorities which meet key objectives. It will be for local authorities to decide how to use any resources within the general objectives set.

    Capital Receipts
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy in respect of the control of the capital receipts by debt-free local authorities. [469]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Debt-free local authorities have the freedom to reinvest capital receipts from the sale of their assets, according to their own priorities.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to carry out a review of MPG3; and what plans he has to enhance the role of local communities in the granting of permission for opencasting. [470]

    Mr. Caborn
    I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave in an Adjournment Debate on this issue on Monday 19 May,Official Report, columns 483–88. I have asked my officials to prepare urgently a plan of action to review the present stance of MPG3 on opencast coal.

    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister of state on 19 May,Official Report, column 488, if he will set out the timetable for the departmental plan of action relating to opencast coal mining; and how he plans to deal with planning appeals currently outstanding. [1211]

    Mr. Raynsford
    My officials are currently preparing a plan of action as a matter of urgency. Any outstanding appeals will be determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

    Household Waste
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will undertake discussions with Lancashire county council about proposals to tip household waste in Round "O" Quarry, West Lancashire. [471]

    Mr. Meacher
    It would not be appropriate for me to discuss the plans for Round "O" Quarry with Lancashire County Council at this stage. Proposals relating to the quarry are contained within the draft Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, which will be the subject of a public inquiry next year. The inquiry will provide objectors and supporters with an opportunity to put their views to the Inspector.
    161

    Household Growth
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on trends in household growth. [472]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The latest household projections for England were published in March 1995. The projections showed an increase of 4.4 million households from 1991 to 2016. Since these projections were published they have been subjected to considerable public scrutiny and are generally regarded as the best assessment that can be made with the currently available information. We are currently considering the responses to last November's Green Paper on the implications of the latest figures.

    London Government
    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timetable for the introduction of a strategic authority and mayor in London. [473]

    Mr. Prescott
    Subject to a referendum and the necessary legislation being enacted by Parliament, I expect that the new mayor and authority will be elected in May 2000.

    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to set up, support and fund an all party organisation to campaign in favour of a yes vote in respect of a referendum on proposals to set up a strategic authority for London; and if he will make a statement. [1498]

    Mr. Raynsford
    None. We are intending to issue a consultations paper on the establishment of a directly elected mayor and strategic authority in London by the end of July. We will subsequently introduce legislation to make provision for a referendum in London on this matter and subject to parliamentary approval it is our intention to hold the referendum in May 1998.

    Departmental Appointments
    Mr. Heseltine
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many appointments to his Department he has approved since 2 May; and if he will list them, setting out their responsibilities and stating their remuneration. [1091]

    Sir George Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the number of political appointments made in the departments for which he is accountable. [1502]

    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the names of the political and special advisers who have been appointed to his Department since the General Election. [1745]

    Mr. Prescott
    With the Prime Minister's approval, we have appointed 2 Special Advisers, Joe Irvin acts as my Special Adviser and Kate Davies acts as Special Adviser to the Minister for Transport.

    Salaries for the Special Advisers are being negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, within a pay range which is presently £24,349 rising to £73,484.
    162
    Progression up the range will be entirely performance related. Pension contributions are also paid in addition to salary.

    David Taylor, who is on temporary leave of absence from Lancashire Enterprises plc, is acting as an unpaid Special Adviser for a limited period.

    Housing Stock Transfers
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to issue advice to local authorities that are in the process of considering the large scale voluntary transfer of their housing stock, pending the Government's review of the law; and if he will make a statement; [1270]

    (2) what plans he has to review the law regarding the large scale voluntary transfer of housing stock; and if he will make a statement. [1271]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We are reviewing the policy on housing stock transfers. We are aiming to issue revised procedural guidance for housing transfers in the near future. My officials provide advice and guidance on housing transfers through their regular contact with local authorities.

    Departmental Computer Systems
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that his Department's computer systems are millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [1250]

    Mr. Prescott
    DOE, DOT and their Executive Agencies have projects underway to tackle the problem. Both departments are undertaking system audits and holding discussions with product and service providers to analyse the problem in detail in order to produce costed plans by October 1997. The audits of many major systems are complete and some corrective work has been done. In some cases systems are being replaced with compliant ones before 2000.

    Household Projections
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department's housing statistics division will have prepared household projections for 1996 and 1997 for local authority areas in Tyne and Wear on the same basis as the OPCS household projections; and if he will publish both sets of figures. [1330]

    Mr. Raynsford
    OPCS (now the Office for National Statistics) does not produce household estimates and projections which are the responsibility of my Department. These estimates and projections are, however, based, inter alia, on Office for National Statistics population estimates and projections. The latest household projections for mid-1996 for the five metropolitan districts of Tyne and Wear were published in March 1995 in "Projections of Households in England to 2016", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. These were compiled from the OPCS 1992-based sub-national population projections. Household projections were not produced for 1997. Planning has started for the next set of household projections, which
    163
    will be based on 1996 sub-national population projections that the Office for National Statistics expects to complete in late 1998. The associated 1996-based household projections should be available a few months afterwards.

    The Department also produces annual estimates of the number of households by local authority area. The latest estimates are for 1995 and the details for the Tyne and Wear area are as follows:

    Number

    Gateshead

    86,000

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    121,000

    North Tyneside

    84,000

    South Tyneside

    66,000

    Sunderland

    120,000

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive the results of the research and reviews of the robustness of future household projections; and if he intends to make those results available to the House. [1342]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The most recent household projections have been subject to considerable public scrutiny since their publication in March 1995, in particular by the Environment Select Committee in evidence for its report on Housing Need in 1996. Whilst generally endorsing the projections, the Committee recommended that the Department continues to examine the extent to which household formation is affected by economic and social factors. This is currently being addressed by the Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge University, as part of a wider research project for the Department on the modelling of the need for social housing. The project has been extended beyond its original completion date and should now be finalised by the Autumn.

    Last year, the Department also commissioned Heriot-Watt University to undertake a detailed literature review on household formation, with particular emphasis on evaluating the available evidence on the extent to which economic factors affect the propensity for new households to form. This work has recently been completed, and I expect to see the results shortly.

    As is the usual practice with external research commissioned by the Department, I would expect reports to be published as soon as practicable.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has evaluated into the impact of international passenger survey statistics, and large student populations, on household projections; and what conclusions he has reached. [1340]

    Mr. Raynsford
    My Department has undertaken no research as such on the impact of the International Passenger Survey statistics on the household projections. Projections of the future pattern of migration between England and the rest of the world are the responsibility of the Government Actuary's Department (GAD). In collaboration with other departments, GAD undertook a thorough review in 1992 of the methods used to set international migration assumptions. This led to a new methodology which was used for the first time in the 164
    preparation of the 1991-based national population projections. As with previous projections, the assumed level of migration over the projection period takes into account information from a run of previous years in order to even out the fluctuations from year to year. The robustness of sources of information on migration, including the International Passenger Survey, is kept under regular review by the Office for National Statistics.

    We are currently investigating the effects of large student populations on the household projections. However, any proposals for revisions to the methodology for handling students in the underlying sub-national population projections will need to be discussed with the Office for National Statistics before they can be implemented.

    Departmental Merger
    Sir George Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what savings he will make by merging the Department of Transport and the Department of Environment. [1501]

    Mr. Prescott
    I have been appointed Secretary of State to the two Departments. My priority is to realise the opportunities which will arise in areas of overlapping responsibilities. If organisational changes are necessary to maximise these benefits I will consider them, but they are not my starting point.

    Government Offices
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to alter the structure of the Government Offices for the regions. [1813]

    Mr. Caborn
    My right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment share with this Department responsibility for the Government Offices in the English regions. The network of Offices has an important part to play in advancing and implementing our policies, and we have no plans to change its structure.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. Curry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review SSAs. [456]

    Ms Armstrong
    We are reviewing SSAs in consultation with the Local Government Association.

  TRANSPORT

    Gospel Oak to Barking Line
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on service levels on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. [485]

    Dr. Strang
    Key services for the Gospel Oak to Barking line have been specified in the passenger service requirement for North London Railways, the operator of services on the branch.
    165
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received regarding services on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line. [482]

    Dr. Strang
    I have received no representations regarding these services.

    A34
    Mr. Baldry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of resurfacing of the A34 between Wendlebury and Peartree roundabout. [486]

    Dr. Strang
    I am advised that the surface of the A34 between Wendlebury and Peartree roundabout remains in good condition.

    Leeds Supertram
    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will review the contribution from public funds towards the Leeds supertram scheme. [487]

    Mr. Prescott
    I shall consider carefully any application West Yorkshire passenger transport authority makes for support for funding for Leeds supertram.

    Manchester Airport
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the expansion of Manchester airport. [488]

    Mr. Prescott
    The Government believe that the expansion of regional airports such as Manchester can make an important contribution to regional development and employment, but the environmental impact of particular proposals must be carefully weighed against their benefits.

    Cycling
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage cycling in urban areas. [489]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    We will support the objectives of the National Cycling Strategy and the aim of a fourfold increase in cycling by 2012, as part of an integrated transport policy.

    We shall be encouraging local authorities and others to improve conditions for cycling, particularly on urban roads. This will be done through the publication of information on good practice and through dialogue with the providers. We intend to play a full part in the National Cycling Forum, which has been set up to co-ordinate delivery of the strategy.

    London Underground
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to encourage greater private sector investment in London Underground. [490]
    166
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    We are developing a new public/private partnership to improve the London Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers. To this end my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is currently carrying out an urgent review of the Private Finance Initiative to see how it can be made to work better.

    Rail Regulator
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for meeting the Rail Regulator to discuss penalties for non-delivery of services. [491]

    Mr. Gerald Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the powers of the Rail Regulator. [496]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I have already met the Rail Regulator and made clear our view that the regulation of the rail industry, and the sanctions available to the regulator and the Franchising Director, need to be strengthened.

    We are conducting a thorough review of rail regulation to identify exactly what improvements need to be made.

    Transport Infrastructure Development
    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are his priorities for transport infrastructure development within the Thames Gateway region. [492]

    Mr. Prescott
    Our manifesto for London "Because London Deserves Better", recognised the need for modern transport links to enhance accessibility and support regeneration within the Thames Gateway; we are currently studying options and priorities.

    London Transport Policy
    Ms Abbott
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to visit Dalston Kingsland station to discuss a London transport policy. [493]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions nor I have arranged to visit Dalston Kingsland station to discuss a London transport policy, but I should be willing to consider such an invitation.

    Extended Franchises
    Mr. Skinner
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to refuse the applications by Stagecoach and others for extended franchises. [494]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Franchising Director has no powers under the Railways Act 1993 to extend franchises unless provision was made for this in the original franchise agreement or he is directed by the Secretary of State. There is no such provision in the South West Trains franchise agreement, and there are no plans to direct the Franchising Director to extend this or any other franchise.
    167

    Rail Electrification
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for expediting electrification and improvement of the railway between Holyhead and London along the north Wales coast. [495]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Government have no plans for the electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead line but Railtrack are also taking forward a strategy for improvements on the Crewe to Bangor section of the North Wales Coast line which will increase line speeds to 100 mph and are progressing the modernisation and upgrade of the West Coast Main Line, which the North Wales line links into at Crewe.

    Roads Programme
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the roads programme. [497]

    Dr. Strang
    We intend to discharge our manifesto commitment to carry out a strategic review of the trunk roads programme.

    A36
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for improving the A36 road through West Wellow. [498]

    Dr. Strang
    The second phase of a traffic calming scheme on the A36 at West Wellow will be completed this year. Design work for a third phase to provide a roundabout at Whinwhistle road is under way.

    Channel Tunnel (Safety)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what action the channel tunnel safety authority proposes to take against Eurotunnel following the publication of its investigation into the channel tunnel fire; [8]

    (2) what action the channel tunnel safety authority proposes to take to ensure that Eurotunnel carry out the recommendations in the report into the channel tunnel fire; and what sanctions are available to the Authority in the event of Eurotunnel failing to carry out recommendations; [58]

    (3) what time scale has been given by the channel tunnel safety authority to Eurotunnel for implementing each of the recommendations in its report into the channel tunnel fire. [57]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The channel tunnel safety authority made it clear in its report into the channel tunnel fire that it expected its recommendations to be taken into account at the highest level within Eurotunnel. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made the same point when he discussed the report with the company's Co-Chairmen. The majority of the recommendations were implemented before approval was given to the restart of HGV services and, as a pre-condition to that approval, the Intergovernmental Commission required Eurotunnel to provide a timetable, satisfactory to the safety authority, for the implementation of the remaining 168
    recommendations. The safety authority will continue to monitor implementation through the action of its specialist working groups, appointed safety inspectors and at its regular meetings with Eurotunnel.

    The Intergovernmental Commission has wide supervisory functions under the Treaty of Canterbury to issue directions to Eurotunnel to comply with recommendations from the safety authority.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent to which Eurotunnel is fulfilling its safety obligations in relation to the operation of(a) the Shuttle and (b) Eurostar services. [6]

    Ms Jackson
    Eurotunnel are required to comply with national and international laws including those relating to safe operation. It is their responsibility to ensure compliance or they face possible prosecution by national authorities or action by the intergovernmental commission on behalf of both Governments.

    Eurotunnel's organisation includes a health safety and quality directorate whose work includes internal audit to ensure compliance with safety regulations.

    The Governments have also appointed the channel tunnel safety authority to advise and assist the intergovernmental commission on all matters affecting safety in the construction and operation of the fixed link.

    The safety authority monitors Eurotunnel's shuttle operations and Eurostar services throughout the channel tunnel from detailed incidents reports and regular operational reports from Eurotunnel; from regular reports of inspections from safety authority appointed inspectors; from examination of detailed reports from its specialist working groups on investigations into incidents; from reports on the outcome of safety exercises; and through regular meetings with Eurotunnel.

    Road Repairs
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the regions if he will place in the Library a list of the roads his Department assesses to be most in need of repair. [1]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Highways Agency prepares an annual programme of capital maintenance works on sections of Trunk Roads, intended to be the most cost effective way of maintaining the Trunk Road network as a whole. At the moment, the Highways Agency plans major roads capital maintenance projects for 1997–98 ont eh following sections of roads:

    M1: J25–J26

    M5: J14–J15

    M5/M6: Ray Hall interchange

    M6: J14–J15

    M23: J8–J9

    M25: J23–24

    M27: J8–J10

    M42: J3–3A

    M42: J7A-J8

    M53: J9–J10

    M62: J11–J12

    A249: Westminster-Sheerness

    169
    This is in addition to capital maintenance carried out by DBFO operators. Comparable information for local roads is not available. These roads are the responsibility of local highway authorities.

    A6(M) (Stockport)
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the revised design for the A6 (M) route in the Stockport Metropolitan Borough area has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [1555]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    We will shortly be taking forward a strategic review of the trunk road programme, and expect that this scheme will be included within that review. It is clear however that as a result of the continuing examination to which individual schemes are subjected that there is a need for modification of this particular scheme. The details of any such changes are still to be considered.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of reducing the sulphur content of petrol and diesel on vehicle emissions of pollutants. [1879]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Department has not commissioned any research specifically aimed at determining the impact of the sulphur content of fuel on vehicle emissions since a number of studies have been carried out by a range of organisations that already enable assessments to be made. A comprehensive study was carried out by the European automotive and oil industries as an element of the Auto-Oil study undertaken by the European Commission. This has lead to proposals for 170
    tighter fuel quality and vehicle emissions standards to come into effect from the year 2000. The studies show that sulphur can have an adverse effect on vehicle pollutants arising primarily through its detrimental effect on catalyst efficiency. For petrol vehicles fitted with catalytic convertors reductions in CO, HC and NOx can be achieved when using reduced sulphur fuels. For diesel vehicles, reduced sulphur fuel can lead to a reduction in particulate emissions, but the effect is enhanced in vehicles fitted with catalysts by reducing sulphate formation within the catalyst.

    Ferry Subsidies
    Dr. Brand
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the subsidies currently provided by his Department to each of the United Kingdom's island communities in respect of their ferry services. [1769]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions does not currently provide subsidies for ferry services to island communities.

    A359 to A303 (Sparkford)
    Mr. David Heath
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what priority his Department affords the proposed A359 to A303 slip road at Sparkford; and when he expects construction to begin. [1565]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The A359 to A303 westbound slip road and connection is to be progressed as a Regional improvement and part of the Highways Agency's Network Enhancement Programme. It will be subject to the normal statutory procedures, including a public inquiry if there are objections to the draft Orders.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Spring Bank Holiday Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
>Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Antiquities: Illegal Traffic
2.40 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are content with the position that it is not an offence to import into the United Kingdom antiquities which have been illegally excavated in, and exported from, their countries of origin.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are concerned about the problem of antiquities which have been illegally excavated and exported from their countries of origin. This a highly complex issue. To have complete control it would need to be an offence to import such material and an offence to have stolen, illegally excavated or illegally exported it. We will be considering this over the coming months, alongside consideration of whether we should sign the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that constructive and thoughtful Answer. Is he aware that France has recently decided to ratify the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the illegal traffic of cultural property; that the United States did so some time ago; and that that appears to offer a legal framework of the kind to which he alludes? I hope that, as he indicated, the Government will give very serious consideration to ratification in particular of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, which will be apposite in view of the Government's recent decision to rejoin UNESCO.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his approval of the Government's decision to rejoin UNESCO, which was resisted by his own government for such a long time. He is right in saying that there has been some progress towards signing the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The trouble is that none of these international conventions covers all of the ground adequately. In some ways, the EC directive would be better because it is more precise about the definition of antiquities and works of art. That is one of the particular difficulties with the UNESCO Convention and the UNIDROIT Convention, which is perhaps more immediately relevant than the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does not my noble friend's question, in his mention of France,
564
beg the question that the first Napoleon possibly brought back to France more than any other country has brought back? Even the great Duke of Wellington, trying to be diplomatic after 1814 and 1815, failed to have more than a fraction restored to the original countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, none of the international conventions to which we have referred today would be retrospective in its action and therefore none would solve the problem to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that many great treasures have survived solely by reason of being exported from their country of origin? Will the Government be very careful not to sabotage that process along the lines suggested in my noble friend's Question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer is the same as I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton: none of these conventions would be retrospective in its action. The noble Lord is correct in saying that in certain circumstances there is more chance of conservation in a museum than on site.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the Minister completely sure about the legality of the export of the Parthenon Marbles by Lord Elgin?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not referring forwards but back to a discussion that we had two weeks ago. It is not correctly the subject of the present Question. Whatever decision we take about the UNESCO Convention, the UNIDROIT Convention or further enforcement of the EC directive, none would affect the position of the Parthenon statues.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, bearing in mind the substance of this Question, will the Minister agree that unless something is done and that one of those directives is followed, infinite damage will be caused to our art dealers, who enjoy a worldwide reputation for good business practice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are certainly concerned about the reputation of the UK art market. The problem is that there is a criminal element which is often outside the official organisation of the UK art market. If those criminals are allowed to get away with it, that causes damage to the art market as a whole.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what is the broad scope of the conventions which he suggested the Government may be signing in the near future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that that is a tall order, especially if one considers that the UNIDROIT Convention itself is probably half an inch thick. But in principle the UNIDROIT Convention in particular is concerned with control over illegal

565
excavation, theft and illegal export of antiquities. Those are the important considerations to which I referred in my first Answer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, without derogation from the good name of the art dealers, will the Minister consider the introduction of a period of perhaps three or four weeks between the publication of the catalogue and the sale? That then provides an opportunity for the countries from which goods have been stolen—I do not say "exported"—to make their claim. Will the Minister also consider the circumstances of the recent failed prosecution in the Knightsbridge Crown Court?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion; but I think that normally there are at least three or four weeks between the publication of the catalogue and the date of the sale. Therefore, if the noble Lord's objective is to be achieved, that time may need to be extended. Effective action on the second matter which the noble Lord raised, which I believe refers to the Bullrush case concerning antiquities from Egypt and China, would require implementation of certain sections of Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The Government are considering that matter and my department is in discussion with officials of the Home Office.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Scotland Yard's view is that to introduce the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 would be of considerable advantage in helping to end the abuses which we are discussing? Does he agree that it would be in everybody's best interest to get on with that as quickly as possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I indicated in my previous answer, we agree that it is desirable that criminal elements, which are responsible in the case to which reference was made, should not be allowed to damage the reputation of the UK art market. For that reason, officials from my department are in discussion with officials from the Home Office. The Secretary of State for National Heritage will be in contact with the Home Secretary on that matter.

Speech Therapists: Equal Pay
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support the principle of equal pay for equal work for all speech therapists, following the settlement by the Department of Health in the case of Dr. Pamela Enderby and Lesley Cogher.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am delighted that the first oral Question which I am answering as a Minister should be from my noble friend,
566
with whom I have worked so closely. My noble friend may, of course, be assured that we support the principle of equal pay for work of equal value where it has been proved.
My noble friend will be aware that the cases of Dr. Enderby and Mrs. Cogher, which were settled in March after protracted legal proceedings, are the tip of a large and complicated iceberg. The new Government are considering the possible implications of those cases for other claims for equal pay lodged by speech therapists. This dispute has dragged on for more than 10 years. We are now looking at all the possible options as we assess the position on the legal cases which are still in progress.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is the kind of answer that we did not receive until recently? It is really positive and constructive. I love opposing and criticising but in the light of that reply I have merely one question to ask. If the Government really support the principle of equal pay for equal value—and that is the principle on which Dr. Enderby won her case—will the Government agree to pay all speech therapists accordingly?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks about the positive nature of my first reply. I hope that he will be equally pleased to know that representatives of both sides in the issue have agreed to hold exploratory talks later this month, without prejudice for legal reasons, when the details of the cases will be discussed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House how much taxpayers' money the last Government spent in opposing such cases for over 12 years instead of negotiating a reasonable settlement with the union which would always have been open to them? Further, in view of the recent successes achieved by Dr. Enderby and her colleague, will my noble friend give consideration to ensuring that these speech therapists are entitled to back pay in respect of the losses they have sustained during the 12 years they have been waiting for a successful conclusion to such cases?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that the total as regards legal defence costs in such cases so far amounts to around £1 million. So far as concerns retrospective payments, I am sure that they will be the subject of the preliminary talks which, as I said in response to my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, it is proposed to hold later this month.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that fully trained speech therapists like Professor Enderby, formerly Dr. Enderby, are a very special and valuable resource and that one of the ways in which their lot could be relieved, as well as the issue of equal pay, is the support of a cadre of well-trained speech therapy assistants to whom could be delegated some of the work that is reconstitutive after the properly expert therapists have made the appropriate diagnosis?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion. As he said, Professor Enderby is an extremely distinguished member of her profession with an exceptional international reputation for both academic and practical work. I shall draw the noble Lord's suggestion about additional support to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for Health in another place who is looking in detail at the practical outcome of the issue.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the Minister was critical of the previous Government's action in contesting this case, would she like to assess the costs of the 1,000 withdrawn cases which were being promoted by the MSF and which the courts decided were no longer pertinent? Further, in her supplementary reply to her noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, was the Minister suggesting that this Government will be retrospectively compensating people for the Government's failure to foresee the future'?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those points. As I said in response to my noble friend, the details of such settlements, both for individuals and for the profession as a whole, are under general consideration and will be the subject of the preliminary talks, without prejudice, this month. I understand that there are still 1,500 cases remaining to be settled. Therefore, the question of their position will obviously be of crucial importance.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I rise simply to point out that I forgot to declare my interest in the matter as I am president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapy. I apologise to the House for that omission. However, is my noble friend the Minister aware that we will be monitoring the negotiations as they continue?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am absolutely sure that my noble friend will, as always, be acutely observant of everything that the Government are doing.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is especially important for children to be able to communicate properly? Does she also agree that there is a dearth of speech therapists and long waiting lists of young children needing their services? It is important that any problems children may have should be dealt with as quickly as possible as soon as they are diagnosed. Can the Minister expedite any negotiations so that young people are encouraged to train as speech therapists and thereby ensure that the number of such waiting lists can be cut?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Of course it is important that children should be helped as early as they can be through the professional activities of speech therapists. However, the relationship of that issue to the question of the pay claims is not direct. I shall draw the suggestions of the noble Countess for practical change
568
in the profession to the attention of my honourable friend in another place who is examining the question. I agree with the noble Countess that this longstanding dispute about pay has cast rather a pall over the profession of speech therapy and may have contributed to the problems she described.

School Playing Fields
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they consider it will be possible to restore the number of school playing fields which have been sold in recent years.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, it would not be practical to restore those playing fields which have been sold in recent years. But we intend to ensure that playing fields which schools and their local communities need are not sold in future. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for National Heritage are discussing this as a matter of urgency.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that those of us who are interested in the problem very much appreciate the new thinking on the sale of playing fields? However, if necessary, would the Government consider introducing legislation on the matter, although I appreciate that there would be difficulties associated with it? Is my noble friend further aware that the previous Government's disastrous record of selling literally hundreds of playing fields was opposed by the Sports Council, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association and many other organisations? Therefore, I hope that the Minister will realise that when the Government do take action they will receive overwhelming support.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. Yes, of course, I am aware of the concern on the part of many of those organisations which are concerned with sporting activities for young people about the previous government's record in selling off school playing fields. I believe my noble friend is aware that to ban all sales of school playing fields would require new legislation. With my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, we are looking at ways of ensuring that all school pupils have access to proper sports facilities. Perhaps I may add that proper sports facilities are more than just grass playing fields. We are also looking at ways to improve sports facilities generally for all types of school; for example, indoor facilities and all-weather pitches are particularly important for schools on restricted sites in built-up areas.
Lord Henley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is quite obviously a matter which would be best

569
left to the schools and the LEAs? Further, will the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that no school or LEA will be prevented from selling off surplus—and I stress the word "surplus"—playing fields where that money could then be used for proper educational advantage for the school or the LEA?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord opposite is fully aware that LEAs are free to dispose of school playing fields which they own in the same way as they are able to dispose of any other assets, provided that their schools continue to meet the requirements of the school premises regulations and that the needs of those schools and those of the local communities that they serve are properly met. That is what we aim to ensure.
Lord Howell: My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister has just indicated, most of the school playing fields were sold off in defiance of the school premises regulations, as amended in 1996. Therefore, will she give an undertaking that there will be a thorough review of those regulations, bearing in mind the fact that school use and community use should be written into them? Will my noble friend also bear in mind the fact that there is no provision to provide playing fields for any children aged eight, which is now an anachronism? Further—and most important in the minds of some of us—despite what my noble friend said about indoor facilities, most of the national games are played on God's good grass, which is under-prepared, not properly maintained and in many cases is a scandal and danger to the players. Will my noble friend the Minister kindly take all those matters on board in her review of the situation?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords; we are examining all the options. However, perhaps I may pick up one of the questions raised by my noble friend. My department is particularly keen to encourage schools to work closely with their local community. Many schools already actively welcome local people making use of their facilities, and we want to build on that. Before considering any land as surplus, schools really should look carefully at the needs of the communities that they serve.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, does she not agree that it might be appropriate to consider under what circumstances a playing field that is reasonably well maintained can be considered to have no benefit to either a school or a community? A well-maintained turf can always be used for some form of sporting activity, but unfortunately if a house is built on it it can never be used again.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course it is important to look at possible uses of all school playing fields. There may, however, be some occasions where it makes sense for a school to sell off a piece of land which is not terribly suitable for use as a playing field and then reinvest any proceeds it may make from that sale in the provision of alternative school sports facilities. That is one of the things we shall be encouraging.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that drug abuse and alcohol abuse among young people are a serious problem and healthy alternatives such as sport are of vital importance? Will she also consider that aspect and ensure that schools which now have no facilities are provided with good facilities in the future?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course we all need to address the serious problem of drug abuse. Some young people who have been seriously addicted to drugs may not find it easy to take part in active sports. We shall examine ways in which we can encourage young people who are at risk in this respect to participate in other more healthy activities than taking drugs.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, many of us are delighted with the answers that my noble friend has given this afternoon because they are much better than those we were given before. When my noble friend is considering this matter will she take into account not just the community but also the Sports Council and also local planning authorities as they can all play an important part in the preservation of playing areas?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The Sports Council now maintains a register of recreational land. That will provide us with a useful database covering all sports fields and not just those attached to schools.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will the Minister take into account in her deliberations the document entitled The State of Play which was published by the National Playing Fields Association for whom I speak, which referred to the school premises regulations? Will she also consider a new category of protected recreational open land for playing fields and children's playing spaces?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the review that we shall undertake with the Department of National Heritage we shall of course take note of what has just been said. We shall consider all the reports to ensure that we can benefit from their recommendations.

Mobile Phones and Pagers: Use in House
3.3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked the Chairman of Committees:
What are the rules governing the use of pagers and mobile telephones in the Chamber and within the precincts of the House; and whether he will refer this matter to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, at present the rules governing the use of mobile telephones forbid their use only in the Refreshment Department; they advise noble Lords who

571
use them in other areas to do so discreetly. There are no corresponding rules governing the use of pagers. I believe that the rules should be strengthened. I shall bring this matter to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee for consideration at its next meeting. I think the only rules likely to find favour in your Lordships' House would be ones which were quite strict.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for that objective Answer. However, he must be aware of an incident that took place in another place just before the election when the Speaker had to intervene as regards the use of a pager which gave one person an advantage over other people with whom he was dealing. Is the noble Lord aware that I am glad he is considering introducing strict rules in this matter? Will he ensure that, whatever takes place, standards in your Lordships' House are maintained and that we should make personal interventions and not become dominated by those who bring pagers into the House and use them to the disadvantage of other people? When he has considered the matter will the noble Lord explain his decision to the House to enable us to accept it as I believe that his decision would carry much more authority if it had the acceptance of the House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for raising this matter. He will forgive me if I do not comment on what has happened in another place because it would he rash for Members of your Lordships' House to do so from either of these two Dispatch Boxes. As regards your Lordships' House, I am not aware of any of the difficulties which have arisen in another place having arisen here. However, I do not believe your Lordships would look kindly on the use of pagers to prompt noble Lords, if I may put it that way—who are well equipped and need no prompting from outside—on the part of any supporters who may be outside the Chamber.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for his reply. Does he accept that for a number of your Lordships to have a pager or a radio telephone of some kind is a vital link when one may be on call or for other emergency purposes? Can we have the noble Lord's assurance that these may be used in designated places with discretion by Members of this House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, makes a valid point. Those are the sort of considerations that I hope will be considered by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee of your Lordships' House. There probably is a place for mobile telephones and pagers. In a sense pagers are a little more difficult in that the bleeping ones I suspect would not be acceptable to your Lordships, at any rate in the Chamber, whereas the vibrating ones might be acceptable in order possibly to remind noble Lords that they have not returned home to dinner during some of our more exciting debates. I do not wish to give the
572
impression that I am wholly in favour of the vibrating types. One would have to be a little careful which pocket one put them into. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with personal details of my habits, but I carry keys in two of my trouser pockets and coins in one of those two. I suspect that a vibrating pager might cause an unwarranted jangling sound if it went off as one rose to the Dispatch Box.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's previous remarks I shall not ask him to comment on the remark of Madam Speaker when a pager went off in the Chamber of another place. She said that it should not have been brought into the Chamber in that condition. But, purely coincidentally, might this House agree with that view?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as always the noble Earl, Lord Russell, tempts in the skilful way in which he puts his questions. Being skilful he will therefore appreciate why I shall not be drawn down that particular path. Without making any comment at all, I must say that I have some sympathy with what he has said.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees refers the matter to the sub-committee will he urge it not to take the easy way out and employ expensive consultants to produce a report which will tell it what it already knows?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that, as always, any committee of your Lordships' House will take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, says. I certainly undertake to do so. Consultants have already been used as part of the exercise, which is outside the scope of this Question, but fortunately they were not too expensive.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Chairman of Committees referred to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. I presume that its consideration would involve the precincts of the House rather than simply the Chamber. Am I right in thinking that the Procedure Committee of this House determines the rules which apply within the Chamber?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is possible—possible, although not necessary—that the Procedure Committee will have a role. However, the Administration and Works Sub-Committee has the prime role. If that committee decides to make recommendations, they will be considered by your Lordships' Offices Committee. If the Offices Committee decided to make recommendations, it would report them to your Lordships, who make the ultimate decision.
However, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to this extent. Noble Lords are not only concerned as regards the Chamber but, I suspect, also about the Prince's Chamber, the Peers' Lobby and the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, is concerned about that matter, and is in consultation with the librarian. I am grateful to the noble

573
Lord for chairing a working group considering some of these matters. I believe that those are points to be considered in due course.

European Communities: Select Committee
3.11 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee considers that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Ashbourne,

L. Barnett,

L. Bridges,

L. Elis-Thomas,

L. Geddes,

L. Gisborough,

L. Haslam,

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

L. Hoffmann,

L. Hussey of North Bradley,

L. Kingsland,

L. Marsh,

B. Ramsay of Cartvale,

L. Reay,

L. Tordoff (Chairman),

L. Wallace of Saltaire,

L. Walpole,

B. Williams of Crosby,

L. Willoughby de Broke;

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-Committees, but that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman for the purpose of particular enquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
574
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any Sub-Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee; and
That the Committee do meet this day at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I must apologise to your Lordships for a printing error on the Order Paper six lines from the end of the Motion where the word "from" has been omitted. The sentence should read,
"That the Committee have leave to report from time to time".
With your Lordships' permission I shall arrange to correct that at a later stage.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Dainton,

L. Dixon-Smith,

L. Flowers,

L. Gregson,

B. Hogg,

L. Howie of Troon,

L. Jenkin of Roding,

L. Kirkwood,

L. Perry of Walton,

L. Phillips of Ellesmere (Chairman),

L. Porter of Luddenham,

L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

L. Tombs,

L. Winston;

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-Committees:
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the Committee or any Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee and any Sub-Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out; and

575
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 10th June at half-past ten o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this short Bill is clear and specific. It is to break the gridlock in the NHS building programme which we have inherited. This Government want to see new hospitals built and the Bill before your Lordships today ensures that NHS trusts have powers to enter into PFI contracts. If enacted, the leading banks will have the confidence they need to provide funding for the most advanced hospital development projects. Building work can then begin as part of this Government's commitment to renew the National Health Service.
The Bill should also be seen as a first important step in our programme to develop new forms of public/private partnership—of which PFI is one model. These proposals were set out in a 12-point plan in our business manifesto which was so resoundingly endorsed at the general election.
Clearly, the NHS needs high quality facilities in order to deliver world class services. The private finance initiative has the potential to provide some of these facilities hut, regrettably, not a single major PFI hospital deal has reached financial close since the initiative was introduced in 1992.
The Government have always accepted that the principle of PFI is a useful one. In theory, under PFI the public sector does not pay to build a hospital; it pays for the delivery of a specified building to agreed quality standards. No payment is made until the building is provided. This is a concept whose benefits the public and private sectors have been quick to recognise.
But in practice PFI has manifestly failed to deliver the goods. A number of small schemes have been brought to fruition—for car parks, accommodation blocks, and so on—but the urgently needed major hospital building programme has been stopped dead in its tracks. Time and money have been spent wrestling with what seem to be apparently insurmountable problems.
The new Government draw no pleasure from the fact that the previous Administration were unable to make PFI work in the NHS. The people who suffered most were the patients in need of treatment, and the doctors, nurses and other health professionals who tried to work in inadequate facilities. In the past I have described in your Lordships' House attempts to make PFI work as "unproductive chaos".
But PFI need not be unproductive or chaotic; it can, if properly used, offer the NHS an important way of building hospitals. That is why the Government gave their manifesto commitment to overcome the problems that have plagued PFI in health at a national level. However, to achieve this we need to make changes. For
576
this reason, we have said that we will set priorities between projects, saving time and expense; we will seek a realistic allocation of risk between the partners to a project; and we will ensure that best practice is spread widely. My honourable friend in another place, the Paymaster General, has announced a rapid review of the present arrangements across the whole of government, taking as his starting point our 12-point plan for partnership which was in our business manifesto. The review, which is being carried out by Mr. Malcom Bates, chairman of the Pearl Group and a former member of the Treasury's PFI panel, has been widely welcomed by people active in the private finance world.
To complement this work, my honourable friend in another place the Minister of State, Mr. Alan Milburn, has announced an overall review of the workings of PFI in health. In the Department of Health we are committed to end the delays, sort out the confusion and develop new forms of public/private partnership that will work and protect the interests of the NHS. Noble Lords will be extremely concerned to learn that Mr. Milburn has discovered that to date £30 million has been spent by individual NHS trusts on legal and financial advice and other consultancy fees—without a single major contract being secured. In future much of the necessary expert advice will come from within the NHS. This should be quicker and save the money which has previously been spent on expensive consultants' fees.
Naturally, my honourable friend will be listening to the views of those closely involved with the PFI from both the public and the private sectors. The objective will be to identify how to make the best use of skills and expertise from both sectors.
The legislation before your Lordships today will remove the most significant obstacle in the way of the major pathfinding schemes. There is no lack of general support or interest from the financial community for PFI in health. Leading financiers who met the Secretary of State soon after his appointment expressed their willingness to provide the backing for PFI contracts in the NHS. But the banks are concerned that there may be some doubt about whether NHS trusts can legally enter into PFI contracts. The Department of Health's own legal advice is clear: the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which sets out trust powers, gives those trusts the power to enter into PFI contracts. However, it is true that PFI is not explicitly named on the face of the Act, and the banks remain concerned that they may not be able to recover their money if, at some point in the future, PFI contracts are found to be ultra vires the trust.
The banks have been chastened by their problems in other sectors and are unwilling to take what they perceive to be an excessive and unnecessary risk without further legislative cover. The possibility of a statutory instrument has already been explored with them, but it is clear that this would not resolve their concerns.
In the circumstances, primary legislation is necessary, and the Bill before your Lordships removes any doubt about the power of an NHS trust to enter into contracts under the private finance initiative. The banks concerned have seen and agreed the wording of the Bill and have

577
made clear that it satisfies all their outstanding concerns. As a result, they will be prepared to lend into the leading schemes once the Bill is enacted.
In retrospect it might have been much more sensible—and probably much more productive—if this issue had been resolved at the same time as the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill which was considered in your Lordships' House about a year ago. However, the new Ministers at the Department of Health have been assured by officials there that this particular stumbling block was only recently identified as a serious issue. Perhaps the expensive consultants missed an obvious trick. However, we are where we are, and this short Bill is now necessary to get things moving on hospital building.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the powers of an NHS trust include power to enter into agreements which are certified by the Secretary of State as externally financed development agreements, and specifies the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may give a certificate to that effect.
Clause 2 allows any corresponding provision made by Order in Council in respect of Northern Ireland to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
It will be apparent from the brevity of the Bill we are considering today that this is a straightforward and uncomplicated piece of legislation. It fulfils a manifesto commitment and its purpose is transparent: to remove any doubt about the power of an NHS trust to enter into contracts under the private finance initiative.
This Government are determined to get hospitals built rather than simply to talk about getting them built. I remind your Lordships that no hospitals planned under existing PFI schemes have yet reached financial close, let alone been built. By enacting this legislation we will then be able to start constructing the new facilities which the NHS so badly needs, and make clear our commitment to nurture and strengthen the health service.
This is a practical and essential measure. It will bring reality to what has sometimes seemed fantasy. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—
(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, although the Minister and I had a short skirmish at Question Time, this is my first formal opportunity to welcome her to the Dispatch Box. I do so with great pleasure—not only as one of the Government's Ministers for Health but also as the Deputy Leader of this House.
I know that the Minister and her colleagues do not have a great deal of patience with the hereditary principle, and this is certainly not the moment to enter that debate. However, I cannot help thinking that her most distinguished father must have passed on some very useful and relevant genes. That was evident when the noble Baroness, as deputy leader, with great mastery, summed up the fifth day of the debate on the Queen's Speech.
578
I congratulate the noble Baroness and her colleagues on choosing as their first piece of legislation this Bill—which I am informed is word for word the Bill drafted by the previous government, in fact lifted straight from the "must do" pile of our administration.
It is none the worse for that, but it does place me in a dilemma, for although I am well aware that the role of the Opposition is to oppose, with this particular Bill I am in wholehearted support. However, it is the support of members of the Government that concerns me, since in the past they vigorously opposed the private finance initiative.
My noble friends and I, particularly my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns who will sum up for these Benches—and I take the opportunity of also welcoming her to the Front Bench—will wish to probe the intentions of the Government. And we have good reason, for only on 2nd April, two months ago, Mr. Chris Smith, in his statement following publication of the Conservative manifesto, said:
"further promotion of the PFI can only lead to the privatisation of clinical services in the NHS".
Does the noble Baroness agree with her Cabinet colleague? If so, as she is promoting the Bill, where does she believe that the measure leaves the issue of clinical services within the NHS? Or perhaps the Minister applauds the perspicacity of the Prime Minister in appointing Mr. Smith to the Department of National Heritage, a department which is not so much concerned with the future but has responsibility for the preservation of old, redundant buildings.
When I became chairman of the Brighton health authority, 80 per cent. of the floor area of our 16 hospitals had been built in the last century. It was an issue I was determined to tackle. I failed. My successor failed; as did the one after that, and the one after that. The task is now in the capable hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, who as an advocate of the PFI has the very real possibility of achieving at the Royal Sussex County Hospital buildings suitable for modern medicine and fit for the next century. I wish her every success in her endeavours.
Brighton's history is not unique. All over the land promising young consultants were appointed in the knowledge that a new hospital was about to be built and yet have been lucky to see the foundation stone laid before their retirement party. The frustration has been considerable, and has often soured local relationships as people felt betrayed or did not understand the internecine intricacies of the Treasury mind. Fifteen years ago rigidity and red tape were the rule book.
The private finance initiative—our initiative—allows the NHS to by-pass these Treasury constraints and to harness the expertise of the private sector in the design, construction, maintenance and provision of buildings in order to deliver better quality patient care and better value for money.
As a result, 71 NHS PFI schemes have been approved since the launch of the scheme, bringing in private sector capital amounting to £626 million. Of those, 43,

579
with a capital value of £317 million, have reached contract signature stage—32 have been completed and 11 are still under way.
Larger schemes are now starting to reach contract signature: the Norfolk and Norwich new hospital project, with a capital value of £194 million, was signed in November 1996, although it has yet to reach financial close.
A further 150 schemes with a total capital value of about £2.1 billion are testing private finance options. They include 22 schemes worth over £10 million each that have got as far as appointing a preferred bidder. Their combined capital value has been some £1.7 billion.
But despite these considerable successes, it would be disingenuous of me to admit that there have not been some complications. On 21st May last year, when I introduced the Second Reading of the NHS (Residual Liabilities) Bill, I stated that any residual liabilities would be transferred to the Secretary of State. Although that has been the custom and practice throughout the life of the NHS, contractors were still unsure and wanted the Government, through legislation, to remove any element of doubt.
This we sought to do, albeit both we (the Government of the day) and the then Opposition thought it to be unnecessary—a point very forcefully put by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, during the debate. But that was before the banks became concerned. Their concern was generated by the activities of some councils. It will not surprise the House to know that these were Labour councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham. Those councils sought, with public money, to gamble on the money markets. The banks caught a cold and were justifiably wary that they should not catch another. Hence the necessity for this further piece of legislation. Bearing in mind that we now have a new Labour Government, I have some sympathy for the banks' concerns.
Anthony Hilton, the City editor of the Evening Standard, on 14th May drew our attention to the fact that here is a new Government on their best behaviour, yet willing to invent spurious reasons to impose a retrospective windfall tax on companies which have acted in good faith and within the law. It hardly bodes well for a committed and reliable partnership between the Government and the private sector; and this before the rigours of governing have been felt, and before the trade unions, always strong in the NHS, have reasserted their power. In three or five years' time things could look very different. So what guarantees can the Minister give to PFI partners that there will be no dawn raids on their assets, and no retrospective legislation or confiscation of their investment—for I am sure the experience of the past three weeks will not provide much comfort?
Currently the Government are reviewing the private finance partnership schemes. One Minister is quoted in the Financial Times of 14th May as saying:
"We want to see which are the priorities, region by region, for major capital projects and then test them to see whether they are susceptible to PFI".
Nicholas Timmins, the much respected public policy editor of the newspaper, goes on to report that Ministers stood by their,
580
"absolute cast-iron manifesto guarantee that clinical services will not be handed over to the private sector in any of these deals".
However, Mr. Timmins then goes on to say that the review has yet to decide whether radiology and pathology are to be included in the definition of clinical services which the private sector will not be allowed to take over. "We will have to wait and see", one Minister said; it remained "a grey area" which was still to be resolved in spite of a vigorous attack during the election campaign by Mr. Blair, then Leader of the Opposition, on plans by Sheffield's Hallamshire Hospital to include such services in its private finance project.
Perhaps the Minister could tell us who is right: a health Minister tackling the day-to-day realities of trying to run the NHS or the Prime Minister trying to win an election campaign. Bearing in mind this contradiction among Ministers, it is imperative that the Bill should clarify matters, but it does not. Clause 1(5) states:
"'facilities' includes—

(a) works, buildings, plant, equipment or other property; and

(b) services".

But, my Lords, which services? Can the Minister list them for us? For with the new Labour Government in power, we need to know.
Another area subject to procrastination and delay is the future of London's healthcare, for the Labour Government are undertaking yet another review. London's history is littered with countless reviews of its hospital services. The policy document, Making London Better, set out clearly the future healthcare needs of Londoners, the specialty services required, the issues surrounding world-class research and the paucity of primary care. In her speech on 13th December 1993 the noble Baroness introduced an Unstarred Question debate. She said:
"My Question is simply a plea for an end to uncertainty".— [Official Report, 13/12/93; col. 1221.]
I agree. Is it not time to get on with the job and ensure that those who seek to build their careers in London's centres of excellence get some security and certainty and to let Londoners know where they stand? Will the Minister tell us what the effect of a review upon a review will mean, both in years of delay and additional costs? How patient are patients expected to be before they see their services enhanced? How patient are private sector partners expected to be? Has the Minister in charge of the review met them and given assurances that the London review will not put back schemes in progress or about to start? What impact will further delay have on the costs of schemes, both for the private sector and for the taxpayer? The noble Baroness will know better than most the numbers of inquiries that have taken place into the health needs of Londoners. She will know the urgency of putting the existing plans in place. In 1993 she was impatient for progress. Where is this new dynamic Labour, about which so much is written? Are they simply a government of reviews?

581
Finally, we heard the Prime Minister say during the visit of the President of the United States that this Government are practical, not ideological. That is to be the new way. But to be practical, people who are ill are not really concerned about who built the hospital, who washes the sheets or even who pays the clinical staff, so long as doctors, nurses and all other staff are efficient, skilled and caring.
We were harassed, when in government, by the totally untrue assertion that we were privatising the NHS—which we were not. The new Secretary of State for Social Security, when she was health spokesman, said that the PFI was an initiative for privatising the health service. It is not. It is a means of improving the NHS, which was and still is our sole aim.
But if the Government (as the Labour Opposition) thought that the PFI was a means to privatise and that they were and are the only defenders of the NHS, we are right to ask: "What is this Government's purpose for the PFI'? What is their philosophy?". There seems to have been no thought put into the direction of policies. The Minister owes us an explanation. Surely the NHS is founded on a great ideal. Its philosophy is an ideology. It is absurd to think that the NHS can be wholly pragmatic. At its core is a belief that the health service should be free at the time of need and that its sole criterion should be need. These principles cannot be abandoned—dismissed as mere practicalities. The NHS is motivated by idealism. Without it, it will surely perish. Perhaps in her summing up the noble Baroness could address this most important of all issues, because it is a fundamental matter, relevant not just to today's debate but to the long-term future of the NHS—for we all know that without a vision, the people perish. Pragmatism is simply not enough.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on her arrival at the Dispatch Box. I have known her for a number of years and I am aware of the amount of time she has devoted to the health service. We could not have a better representative in her place. It is also a quite unusual experience for me to hear the Minister's immediate predecessor and the new Minister in this House in such perfect agreement about two Bills. I realise that the Bill before us today was produced and ready to go on the statute book had not the election interrupted the procedure.
However, I wish to question why it has been necessary, within the period of one year, to have two Bills. I understand why the first was introduced. It was because there was no assurance to any contractor about the residual liabilities that would arise if a trust collapsed. The reason for the present Bill is largely that one could envisage a position where a trust became no longer financially viable. If the Secretary of State closed it down, he would have to pay back the liabilities to the constructing company or the consortium running the hospital. So one could envisage that the bankers would be worried that the Secretary of State would not close
582
the trust down and therefore would not become liable for the trust's debts. We can understand why the Bill has come about.
The first Bill went part of the way. But the need for the two Bills in such a short time gives rise to a certain amount of scepticism about the viability of the PFI as it relates to the provision of hospital buildings. The question arises of whether the scheme was properly thought out before it was introduced.
When the private finance initiative was first introduced in 1992, it was publicised as a source of additional finance for the NHS over and above publicly financed projects. However, in the 1995 Budget the previous Chancellor announced a planned reduction in NHS capital spending of 16.9 per cent. in 1996–97, 5.4 per cent. in 1997–98 and 6.9 per cent. in 1998–99. That made it clear that the PFI is no longer additional finance for the NHS; it is now a substitute for Treasury funding.
So far as I know, no one in this country has subscribed in a democratic way to the proposal that the PFI should replace Treasury funding in the NHS. There may be a case to be made that the PFI would be cheaper and more efficient for the NHS, but, in my view, the case has not as yet been proved.
What worries us is that it is clear that the PFI saves the Treasury money on capital projects in the first instance. But it saddles the NHS with revenue expenditure over a period of 25 to 30 years. That is a long time in the life of a hospital and in the health service. In the end, the burden falls on the taxpayer. It may reduce the PSBR but it will certainly increase taxes in the long run. I ask the Government whether they will increase the revenue allocation to the trusts by the amount that they will have to pay, year in year out, as a rent for the building they occupy. There is also the danger that the length of the contract is likely to create rigidity in a service that we all know to be in need of flexibility as further advances are made in the delivery of health care. We therefore look forward with great interest to the publication of the Malcolm Bates report on 13th June.
I turn now to the Bill itself. Clause 1(3)(a) states that,
"in his opinion the purpose or main purpose of the agreement is the provision of facilities in connection with the discharge by the trust of any of its functions".
Subsection (5) says that "facilities" include,

"(a) works, buildings, plant, equipment or other property"; and

(b) services".

The word "services" gives cause for concern as it could include clinical services. I am aware that the Secretary of State made a promise in his address to the Royal College of Nursing annual conference that clinical services would always be the responsibility of the NHS. But the Bill does not make that clear. I do not doubt the word of the Secretary of State, but he will not always be there and once this Bill is on the statute book it is there. It should make perfectly clear what is included in the word "services" provided by an outside consortium. Probably at Committee stage we shall return to the matter in order to clarify that the word "services" does not include clinical services.

583
Another concern under the Bill is the question of accountability, when most services, including cleaning and catering, are run by the developer and the clinical services are provided by nurses and doctors. For many years now the NHS has employed outside contractors to provide some of those services but there was never any doubt that ultimate responsibility rested with the trust or the district hospital which were accountable for all the services they provided, whether contracted for or provided by themselves. Where does accountability rest under the PFI scheme? Is the housekeeper accountable to the consortium and the clinical staff accountable to the NHS trust? It does not take a lot of imagination to see that such a system could be open to great friction. We should like an assurance from the Government that the ultimate responsibility and accountability still rests with the hospital trust.
For those reasons we suggest that the Bill should be time limited while further research is undertaken and some experience gained in the working of the new system. The title preferably should be changed to the National Health Service (Private Finance) (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, expressed surprise that this Bill should come from the Labour Party. I suspect that it will be a bigger surprise to some members of the Labour Party. Some of the more hysterical comments heard recently—in the past 24 hours those on Camelot, for example—do not help in terms of getting confidence when trying to deal with the private sector. All I can hope is that the conversion to entrepreneurial capitalism—that is basically what it is—will spread. I am sure that it will. I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, supporting it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, unfortunately voiced doubt about the principles of the Bill. I certainly hope that it will not be a temporary Bill. I hope that it will grow wider in its application, because I believe that the principle is a very important one.
The NHS problem is part of one of the biggest and least publicised problems facing this country. There has been massively inadequate investment in public sector infrastructure, both in terms of capital and maintenance, over a century. One of the problems of parliamentary democracy is that the pressures of the "Today" programme and the inexorable approach of the next election are not conducive to systematic long-term investment programmes. All the pressure on government is to deal with matters of the moment, and in a democracy it is foolish to believe that a government can take a long-term view or stick to it if they do. Some of our most famous and prestigious hospitals are a classic example of the effects of that.
I remember when I first became chairman of the special trustees of Guy's Hospital and walked round that hospital. Parts of it were a slum; yet it was one of the great hospitals of the world. I remember visiting my mother in the Brook Hospital in Woolwich with a wife who had grown up in the Middle East and had never
584
before been inside a National Health Service hospital. She gibbered at the sight of patients on stretchers with nurses walking beside them holding blood bottles in the air and going down open corridors between the buildings. That was during the period when we not only had a private health service insurance but we had two.
This is a very good Bill indeed. I have heard it described by some people who are worried about the cost as "mortgaging the future". In my view that misses the whole point. There is nothing wrong with borrowing and repaying over a long period. There is an international market in sovereign debt using interesting financial instruments called Brady bonds which has already done more for the third world in terms of direct support than have all the resolutions of the UN put together. Over the years I have bought eight different houses. The first five of them were all financed by 25-year mortgages. Most people in this building would have done the same. It is a perfectly sensible thing to do. I believe that the Bill can make a significant contribution to more efficient and cost-effective investment within the National Health Service.
In support of that claim I should like to advance two main arguments. It is the result of a system (which has very good factors—I am totally in favour of parliamentary democracy for most of the time), not the result of lack of keenness on the part of Ministers, or that one political party wants a lousy national health service and one wants a very good national health service. No matter which party is in power, the government of the day inevitably will face problems with the public sector borrowing requirement every few years. Every time that happens, a Cabinet committee is formed and the Cabinet begins to discuss cutbacks. Prior to privatisation, under both governments—I served in the public sector under both governments—the first target was always the nationalised industry investment programmes. That was not because it was a sensible place to start but because it has the minimum short-term impact on the voters. It is politically much easier to cut investment and maintenance than to undertake almost any other fiscal measure in the hands of the government. In the longer term, the effect is always higher maintenance costs and in due course massively increased replacement costs. That is the problem in the National Health Service: the sheer scale of the investment required in bricks and mortar and the cost of maintaining it afterwards.
The involvement of private sector finance in a joint venture will not end that practice. All Chancellors will continue to look at the public sector to see where they can cut the investment programme because the punters will not notice it as they do other things. It will, however, make it much more difficult for governments to come in and take short-term measures. It was easy when there was a chairman of a nationalised industry—I speak from personal experience of this—to introduce what used to be known in the trade as the "lunch table directive". The Minister invited one to lunch and for the first time there was a decent bottle of wine available. He explained that it was all the chairman's responsibility, but then he would press enormous problems when he came to deal with the next thing you

585
needed in the running of the business. It will make cutting investment more difficult and less frequent, and will therefore provide a degree of stability in the programme, which is as important as the actual amount of money involved.
My second argument is that civil servants and public executives are not the best people to run what are essentially large and complex commercial projects. I do not want to be misunderstood on this point. I have the highest regard for the intellectual ability of the vast bulk of civil servants. I was lucky enough to learn a great deal from a small number of extremely eminent and able civil servants. But the public and private sectors have different cultures; they attract different people. There is no regular movement between the public and private sectors either way because they call for different skills and experience.
I spent five years heading up a nationalised industry which consistently lost £0.5 billion per year, as it had done under virtually all my predecessors. I enjoyed the job immensely; slept soundly each night, and in due course received a knighthood for my achievements. When I moved into the private sector I found myself heading up two very different start-up situations—companies whose capital involved other people's money and all of it at risk. Fortunately, both of them eventually made it and became profitable. However, for the first two years I spent a lot of time in the wee small hours wondering whether we were in danger of trading while insolvent and whether we should pull the rug. That is the sort of pressure that concentrates the mind and which is absent from the public sector. That is not a criticism; it is just a big difference.
A year ago I resigned from the chairmanship of Guy's Special Trustees—not to be confused with the trust. I had a group of extremely able colleagues, professionally qualified, effectively managing a portfolio of about £150 million which Guy's had inherited over the years. We were asked if we would provide pump-priming finance for phase three of the rebuilding of Guy's. After much discussion we agreed to provide £25 million for a project with an agreed end price of £60 million.
I shall not go into all the details except to say that some of the professionals who were working for nothing for Guy's Special Trustees were far more frequently right than were the people who were managing the project. But what happened? I do not know what the figure is today; the noble Baroness may be able to tell us. But the last I heard was that it was not £60 million; it was £150 million, and still going north. That is a sad and complex story which, frankly, can only be described as a near total shambles.
I do not believe that the Bill will produce perfect project management in the National Health Service; there is imperfect project management in the private sector as well. But I have no doubt that the principles which underlie the Bill—the direct involvement of private sector management and private sector capital sharing the financial risk—would have made the Guy's phase three saga far less likely and probably would have prevented it because those financing the project would
586
have moved in much faster. This Bill is important in principle. I hope that that principle spreads, and I wish it well.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, first, I apologise for the second time in two weeks for having to leave early. I shall not be able to hear the Minister's summing-up at the end. Some time ago I agreed to give a lecture in Boston and must catch a plane from the airport tonight. Secondly, I must declare an interest in that I am a practising clinician at a London teaching hospital and have some limited personal knowledge of the PFI in that we are trying, and have been for some two years, to arrange a PFI for the transfer of Queen Charlotte's Hospital to a new building on the Hammersmith Hospital site. In a way that is a small project which is covered financially and will clearly give significant savings to the health service and improve delivery of services. Yet that PFI has so far taken two years to reach the present stage and is not yet agreed. Hopefully it will be.
Clearly one must support the Bill. It is an important initiative of the Government to push the PFI forward in this limited way. However, like a number of your Lordships I have always had strong reservations about the private finance initiative. While I totally respect the knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in relation to genetics and agree with her comments on father and daughter, I remind her that in the debate on 21st May last year when the PFI was raised, she did not address any of the issues that I and a number of other noble Lords raised indicating anxieties about the PFI, which still stand.
Of course, our buildings are often in disarray. Perhaps I may distract your Lordships for a few seconds. I am reminded of the first time I went to the Hammersmith Hospital, which was then making its own radioisotopes for research. One of my colleagues was a senior consultant who was in the business of injecting a short-life isotope—it had a life of seven minutes—into a patient to image the parathyroid glands. That had to be done on the medical ward two floors up.
The isotope was made in the cyclotron building, dropped out of the window into a waiting fishing net below and handed to a cyclist who cycled across a courtyard, handed it to a PhD student who climbed a stepladder over a wall and dropped it into another net. It was then wound up by a fishing rod to the second floor where it was injected into the patient with at least four minutes to spare. I understand that the isotope worked very well and the patient survived, obviously with a little less radioactivity because of the time it took to deliver the drug. Hospital buildings are higgledy-piggledy, and that will always be in the nature of health service buildings.
The fundamental problem with the PFI is that it is a form of hire purchase agreement. Whether or not we like it, it is a way of avoiding the public sector borrowing requirement. Who can borrow cheaper than a government? Clearly, when a private financier is involved there must be some form of profit. The anxiety

587
of many noble Lords, which I share, is that here we have an example of where we might be hocking the family silver over a long period of time. It is clear also that it is an expensive process. In Hammersmith we have seen £30 million spent already on legal costs and so forth. It creates considerable delay, often with much needed projects. Thank goodness the Government have decided to press ahead with this limited measure this afternoon.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that there is nothing wrong with a mortgage. However, one must shop around to make sure that one obtains the cheapest possible terms for the mortgage. That encourages delay once one enters the private sector and that is a problem.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who made some important points. One of the issues I should like to pick up is the length of contracts. We must recognise that health service needs change increasingly rapidly because of the nature of technology. It is important that contracts are not put in place which, over a period of 20 to 30 years, become obsolete and end up being a millstone around the neck of a hospital, a trust or a health authority.
There is also a clear risk of fragmentation because of the financiers' need for profitability. Although that issue does not need to be directly addressed in the Bill, nonetheless I hope we look at it when we consider the issue of the provision of services—that they are maintained on the basis of need—when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. With the PFI it is important that there should be careful planning to ensure evenness of distribution of health service resources.
I was amused by the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about the heritage. It seems to me that the heritage is not about the past but about the future. It is about planning for Britain's future. If there were ever a case for the PFI it would surely be more appropriate in some ways for the national heritage than for the National Health Service.
There is great concern among many academics about academic medicine. As your Lordships will know, and as has been pointed out repeatedly, the universities are in very cruel straits indeed because of the difficulty of raising money for important capital projects such as laboratories. Those services are hand-in-hand with the health service. They provide 10 per cent. of our medicine in hospitals. It is vital that in the future that aspect is protected within the PFI. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, about lines 20 to 25 of the Bill with regard to the provision of services. What is meant by a "clinical service"? Are pathology services clinical? Of course they must be because they look after patients. So are radiology services and operating theatres. However, there is a risk that unless we look at this point very carefully they could be privatised in the wrong kind of way. That has to be taken account of at the Committee stage of the Bill.
It is sensible of the Government to move forward in this limited way. I am grateful to hear that they are to make progress because at the present time it is urgent that we get on with outstanding projects as this issue is causing a great deal of concern among clinicians and all support services throughout the country.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am left in some doubt as to the degree of support of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for the Bill. He has declared himself enthusiastic that the Minister and the Government have brought it forward but most of his speech seemed to damn it with less than faint praise. We shall watch with interest the amendments which he and his noble friends move at the Committee stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, gave an altogether too down-beat account of the progress of the PFI to date. I hope to be able to offer some comment as to why I think it would have been totally unrealistic to imagine that in the course of two or three years a large number of fully fledged schemes would have come on stream. It is not that kind of operation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I must declare an interest as the chairman of a National Health Service trust. It has undertaken one or two very limited PFI schemes but was frustrated in one rather larger scheme because it was impossible to get both sides to agree the terms.
I can deal with the Bill very briefly. It has a very limited purpose which was outlined to the House by the noble Baroness. If one takes Clauses 1(1) and 1(2) together, one has the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that the Government can certify an externally financed development agreement. Indeed, an externally financed development agreement becomes one only when it has been certified by the Government. It is rather like that splendid little clerihew quoted by Sir Robert Megarry in his wonderful book Miscellany-at-Law, in which he lampooned modern legislation:
"If anything shall seem
Then the Minister may deem;
A Certificate of Demption
Shall provide complete exemption".
It may be necessary, but the Bill is a wonderful example of that. I would have said the same had it been my noble friend on the Front Bench introducing it.
I wish to make three short points about the PFI and its relevance to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to the cultural difference between the public and private sector. I should like to develop that argument a little further. My second point is that the Government have a need, having regard to almost everything that has been said by the Labour Party about the PFI over the past four years, to set out to build the confidence of the private sector that they now mean what they say. Thirdly, I wish to refer briefly to the problems which my noble friend mentioned arising from the London NHS review.
First, on the clash of cultures, I do not think it is even now appreciated how profound are the differences in the cultures of the National Health Service and of the private sector. That became apparent to me many years ago when I was Secretary of State and led delegations of health industry businessmen to foreign markets in order to try to boost the sales of British products in those markets. I found that many of the industrialists who were selling abroad did almost no business with the National Health Service and that, correspondingly, many of the firms which had got themselves well dug

589
in to sell through the various purchasing arms of the National Health Service found themselves quite incapable of doing any business in any other market. One had a complete division. It made a profound impression on me as to just how unique is the NHS in the culture it adopts towards buying. The procedures are totally different, the processes are different and the requirements and standards are different. This meant that some firms which were big in the UK were unable to do any business overseas.
I have seen exactly the same phenomenon in the field of urban regeneration. Over the years a succession of initiatives by governments to try to build partnerships, often with considerable success, have had to overcome these huge cultural differences between the public and the private sector. If one looks at the considerable successes of City Challenge, one had different financial regimes between local authorities and private developers, different decision-making processes within the two different organisations and different timescales within which they operated. One saw the steep learning curves that were necessary. That is the point about PFI here. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, totally ignored that in her opening remarks apropos the criticisms of the lack of progress with PFI.
People have had this steep learning curve. That has nowhere been better stated than in a paper that was read to the Royal Society of Arts last January by John Owens, a very distinguished chief executive of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust. Referring to the clash of cultures—I am happy to adopt the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—he said:
"PFI forces the NHS and the private sector to recognise that there is a lack of understanding of one another's accounting procedures. Within the NHS, Trusts have been slow to recognise that it is no longer a bureaucratic process involving Health Authorities, the NHS Executive and Treasury before being given Public Sector funding. The Trust now has to persuade the private sector that their project is a viable long term case. In a number of projects, the private sector has withdrawn, not convinced that the business case assumptions and health authority support are viable in the long term".
If the noble Baroness has not already done so, I recommend that she reads Mr. Owens' paper because I believe that it is an extremely valuable critique and comment on the way that PFI has been working. However, there is a more recent article by a private sector lawyer seconded to the Government's PFI initiative, Mr. David Anderson, who is with Nabarro Nathanson. This article has only just been published. He said,
"I believe that the extensive work carried out to date, which can properly be described as both groundbreaking and pathfinding, has firmly established a position where the issues are not only understood, but are capable of practical solution in the light of direct experience".
Therefore, I believe that the Government have taken over PFI at a very fortunate stage. The learning curve is now largely behind the NHS and the private sector. I shall be bitterly disappointed if projects do not now come forward a good deal faster than they have done in the past. I apologise for the lengthy quotes, but they seem to express admirably an enormously important point about building understanding.
590
I can deal with my second point much more briefly. Labour's recognition of the merits of PFI, like so much else in the policy of New Labour, is a very recent and a very abrupt change of stance. Nonetheless, I suppose that it is welcome for all that. My noble friend mentioned one recent criticism. Two years ago the party opposite wrote,
"We will …do our utmost to discourage the signing of such contracts".
That was in a document called Reviewing the NHS which was published two years ago, in June 1995. I welcome the fact that the Labour Party has now been persuaded of the merits of PFI. But I say this to them. It will need to work hard to convince hard-headed businessmen of that. The Labour Party will need to show that it understands the process of transferring risk from the public to the private sector because in the last resort that is what PFI is about. The private sector comes in, accepts the risk of designing, building and operating under a contract and if things go wrong it is the private sector which will carry the can. The NHS itself has found this process quite difficult to grasp. I ask the Government to give a firm commitment that they will be prepared to help and encourage that learning process so that it can go forward.
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the London review. As of today, we know astonishingly little about what is in the Government's mind on this matter. Trusts and health authorities in London are being led to believe that it is not going to be another Tomlinson; that it will need to be a fairly speedy review; that the review will be a selective process, although it is totally unclear as to what is going to be selected. Many aspects of the NHS in London will not be covered by the review. I understand that the noble Baroness's honourable friend, Mr. Alan Milburn, is going to be in charge and that he is going to be advised by an advisory panel, but who are they to be? We simply do not know.
The relevance of that to this Bill is that the Government face a special challenge in London. It will be difficult both to conduct a review, presumably of decisions which have already been made or which are in the pipeline, and at the same time to keep the private sector PFI parties to the various negotiations going on all over London on board during the review process. I beg the Government to understand that that will be quite a difficult thing to do. If they are committed to a review, I suppose they must have one. But it could result in some very valuable potential PFI projects being abandoned as the private sector looks to less uncertain corners of the country in which to make its contributions.
All that is in addition to the more general obstacles to which I have already referred—the cultural change and so on—and I urge the Government to recognise the need for some solid assurances. Perhaps I may not inappropriately point out that every time Ministers are criticised from behind about a matter such as PFI, that undermines the credibility of what is being said from the Front Bench. No doubt the party opposite is well aware of that.

591
Over the years the NHS has survived only at the cost of under-investing both in new facilities and in maintenance. There can be few trusts—certainly mine would not be one of them—which do not face a huge backlog of maintenance. Though new investment in recent years has risen sharply—and this is a point which it is fair to make because it is now running at over 60 per cent. higher in real terms than when I first became Secretary of State for Health 18 years ago—there is still a long way to go before we have a properly housed and equipped National Health Service.
That the PFI is now seen by all parties as the best way forward is solid gain, and in its small way this Bill is a welcome reflection of that fact. But recognising and enthusiastically embracing this new culture will be an essential ingredient if PFI is to yield the level of new investment which is needed. I hope that we shall see in future a little more of that than we have seen today.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I speak on this Bill on the grounds that one of the projects concerned is the removal of the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital from its current site in the middle of Norwich to a greenfield site at Colney. That goes against what was said by the Minister of State in the Minister's department in another place when he referred to a project in Swindon. In referring to the health service and the project in general he used these words:
"It is clearly important that such a major proposal secures the confidence of the local people. As far as possible, open details should be made available to people in the area about the nature of the proposal. It is not the consortium's national health service; it is not even the trust's national health service; and it is not mine. It is the people's national health service, and we should never forget that—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/97; col. 272.]
The people of Norwich are beginning to think that somebody had forgotten. This point is not aimed generally at the current government, but at all those who have been involved in the process.
Tonight, at 7.30 p.m., at a meeting of Norwich City Council a motion will be tabled which condemns the siting of the new hospital. It will be backed by the controlling Labour group on the council, with the full backing of the Liberal Democrat opposition. There are no Tory members on the council. The motion is:
"To request an urgent review by the new Government of all decisions made with regard to new hospital provision in the Norwich area. This review to be held in public and 'transparent' in all details, including finance. The review to consider environmental impact, sustainability and access issues as well as economic impact".
At one point a petition containing 18,000 names was raised in a few days. That is approximately 10 per cent. of the population of Norwich. That petition was presented to the local health authority. In those circumstances something must have gone very seriously wrong. Going back over 10 years, the conclusion in effect—and it has been mentioned by many people in this debate already—is that it takes a long time to get new capital projects built. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, struck that nail squarely on the head by saying that no one liked shelling out for such projects. Over 10
592
years reviews have been carried out, and a split site was favoured, moving from the one city-centre site to the new site just outside Norwich.
After a series of changes, in 1992 it was agreed that everything should be moved without public debate and a public review process. It was agreed that there should be a new, extremely large hospital on a greenfield site outside the city centre. However, the site and the hospital have now "shrunk", and dramatically so. Not only are we to lose two hospitals in Norwich—the West Norwich and the Norfolk & Norwich—but they are to be replaced by a hospital with about 200 fewer beds.
There has not been any public consultation. Whenever changes have been made, it has been on the authority of a public inquiry which said that there should be a split site. The current site of the Norfolk & Norwich is slap in the centre of the city. Indeed, it is just under half a mile from the main bus station in Norwich. Anyone who looks at a map of Norfolk will see that Norwich appears to be at the centre of a spider's web of roads. Norwich has very good public access and very good public transport. It is said that one of the reasons for siting the hospital outside the city is that that will allow far better car parking facilities.
Salt has been rubbed into the wound of public disquiet in the area because it has recently been proposed that a new centre on the existing site could be developed at considerably lower cost—at anything up to £100 million less—and that underground parking could be provided. The Member of Parliament for Norwich, South (Charles Clark), pursued the issue throughout the election campaign and was finally told that the compensation that would be required (given the existing legal commitments with regard to the site) would be so great that it might outweigh even those savings. I have been confirmed in my original opinion that this Bill merely removes the last legal objection to acquiring the finance and the vires.
People are very bitter. I have run through the argument to try to amplify the fact that the people of the area do not feel that they have been consulted. There is tremendous resentment in the area. It has been estimated that about one-third of the population of the county lives within a 10-mile radius of the city centre. It has been estimated that nine out of 10 people now have a hospital within easy reach. However, the proposal is for a greenfield site that will require new roads and new building. That will take economic activity away from the city centre, which at the moment is scarred by unused potential building plots.
Surely the Government should take advantage of this opportunity to state whether they intend to establish a process whereby any major change to a PFI project must be subject to at least some form of public debate. Without that, there will be a series of disgruntled people, feeling that they have been badly treated and who are often ignorant of the decisions that were taken. Regardless of the medical benefits, what has happened in this case has left a very bad taste in the mouths of the people of the city of Norwich. They feel that local opinion and local democracy have been totally ignored.
4.23 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand from the major contractors who are involved in leading PFI health projects that the Bill is to be welcomed. It sets out to achieve the objective of clarifying the power of NHS trusts to enter into contracts for major projects which are externally financed by the banks or other funding institutions which will not be providing services themselves. The power to enter into PFI contracts was missing from the legislation setting up the NHS trusts and has been of concern both to them and to the providers of the finance for some time.
Perhaps I may refer to the contract which has already been brought to your Lordships' attention and which is perhaps one of the biggest. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege mentioned the building of the £194 million Norfolk & Norwich hospital in the county in which I live. That project has not reached financial close and has not been started. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, clearly demonstrated some of the problems that arise when one is unable to go ahead with such capital projects when they are first agreed. When such projects do not proceed, local people often decide that the location is not right and we then encounter all the problems that the noble Lord outlined.
Public sector capital funds are always scarce and have to be rationed across the whole range of government departments—so much so that long-awaited and long-promised new developments, despite the massive hospital building programmes of the 1980s and 1990s to date, are still in the Treasury queue. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, correctly commented on the length of the queue of public sector projects in the generality and on the size of the problem for the NHS in particular. However, the PFI allows the NHS to bypass or to jump the Treasury queue as long as the project is financially viable and has a private sector partner.
The Government have announced that they intend to conduct a speedy review of all PFI across government, to be conducted by the Paymaster General. I am pleased that they are prepared to put this sensible piece of legislation before Parliament even before the review has been completed. The speed with which this Bill has arrived makes me believe that it was unfinished business from the previous Administration. Indeed, we have had confirmation of that from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. There is no harm in that. The new Administration have made favourable noises about public/private sector partnerships, and if the review is to identify obstacles in the way of the PFI and ways in which the process might be streamlined, I welcome it.
The Bill will cover major projects which are externally financed. However, I am advised that it will not cover a deal where the private sector contractor is financing the project from its own resources. Many of the smaller PFI projects which have already been let involve the building contractor or service provider funding the project on the strength of its own balance sheet. The Secretary of State would not be able to
594
grant a certificate under Clause 1 for such projects because they would not satisfy the requirement under Clause 1(3)(b) that,
"a person proposes to make a loan to, or provide any other form of finance for, another party in connection with the agreement".
If there is no "other party"—just the trust and the service provider which is funding the project from its own resources—the certificate could not be granted. Perhaps the Minister can assist me and tell me whether my interpretation is correct. If it is, is that the approach on which the Government are now set? If the public/private partnership approach is to be used for the full range of projects within the health service, I believe that it must be capable of applying to small as well as to larger projects.
Having said that, I welcome the Bill. I hope that it will be given a warmer welcome than the somewhat dour comments that have been made about it today and I hope soon to see it on the statute book.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. Other noble Lords have already explained it and what it entails. I thought the Opposition spokesman, as we must now call the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, a little uncharitable in going wide of the Bill and attacking people who are not in the Chamber to defend themselves. She said that one of the main reasons why the Bill had had to be brought forward was the behaviour of some Labour local authorities. That would be the case—wouldn't it?—because there are not many Conservative local authorities left to misbehave although some have done so in the past. I believe that the noble Baroness actually used the word "confiscation"—she certainly implied it—with regard to what local authorities might do with their money.
To put the record straight, the biggest act of financial brigandage this century was perpetrated by the Conservative Government under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and her Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. Quite cheekily, they purloined £3 to £4 billion of water assets from local authorities without any compensation. I did not hear any shouts from noble Lords opposite in defence of local taxpayers to whom that money belonged. I believe it is on record that one Member of this House on the other side who said that the money ought to go back to the local authorities was the former Secretary of State for the Environment whose memorial service is sadly being held tomorrow. I refer to Lord Rippon who at the time was Geoffrey Rippon. In the other place the action of the Thatcher Government was deplored by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath. He also said that the money should be returned. It was only £3 to £4 billion. I believe that the noble Baroness should be careful in speaking about financial probity. That was a disgraceful act on the part of any democratic government.
I also worry about cost. It is well known that a delayed start in building costs an enormous amount of money. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, quoted the figure of £2.1 billion.

595
The figure that I have before me is £2.7 billion. That covers 146 schemes in the pipeline, including 23 that are worth over £25 million each. I believe that the Opposition spokesman teased my noble friend Lady Jay about the fact that action should have been taken before now. Who stopped it? The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, nailed that when she asked why these clauses were not in the Bill of last year. That was a Conservative Government Bill. Why were they not put into the Bill? It was apparent then what was emerging. The cost of delay in starting £2.1 or £2.7 billion of building contracts must be enormous.
An enormous sum of money has been squandered because this Bill has been delayed for 12 months. However, I welcome it because of what it will do for the building industry as well as the health service. Members from all sides of the House have asked why more money is not spent on the infrastructure and why capital receipts from council housing have not been released. The new Government will do it. I hope that no Member on the Benches opposite will ask why it was not done when the previous Government were in power. The implication is that when noble Lords on these Benches were in opposition they held up schemes. That is absolute nonsense.
I differ from those who say that any new hospital that is built, including services, should be totally privatised. I put this view as a layman. I do not believe that it is my party's view. I do not want to see a situation where treatment following clinical diagnosis is withheld on the basis of a view put forward by a financial adviser to a trust who sits in an office. One often came across this in local government. I believe that in Manchester I gained some distinction for running a good ship. If one had let the city treasurer run Manchester there would not have been much advancement because, like most economists and accountants, he always found a case for not spending extra money. If one wants to progress one must spend a lot of money. There is need for enormous sums of money—I do not know where they will come from—to put right the infrastructure of the health service. I believe that we are starting on the right track.
When one talks of wasted money or money that has gone west one thinks of what has been lost in computer scandals, what has been lost in the West Midlands as a result of something similar and the final report issued only a few weeks ago on overspending in the former Yorkshire Regional Health Authority which went quite beyond the needs of the National Health Service. Quite a chunk of that money was paid over by officers of the regional health authority to take account of the negative equity in the sales of their houses when they moved. They were taking money from the health service in Yorkshire to pay for more expensive houses elsewhere. That was being done for consultants. The sum involved was three quarters of a million pounds. I raised the matter in this Chamber some time ago. I asked why all this money had gone west in the health service. As far as I am aware, no appointed members responsible for that policy—I am not referring to officers—ever
596
appeared in court. I had more than a shred of suspicion that successive Secretaries of State for Health might well have been indemnifying individuals in the health service against the due process of law. Certainly, there were some very strange dealings in the incorrect spending of money in the National Health Service. It may well be that that will be looked into in a different context. I put forward a one-clause Bill that would have allowed for people in quangos who were found guilty of spending money to which they were not entitled to be surcharged like local authority members. However, on the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, naturally I withheld that Bill. However, I hope that matters of that kind can be looked into. I am convinced that the three cases that I have mentioned in Wessex, the West Midlands and Yorkshire are the tip of the iceberg. That is three instances out of 14. What happened in the other 11? They were never tested and no one ever inquired into them.
I understand that £2.1 billion of work will be put in hand. I hope that that occurs as quickly as possible without the building industry overheating for the reasons that I have given. The buildings are needed for patients and the buildings will provide work. I hope that because of the sums of money involved strict financial control over these contracts will be maintained. One knows that in very high value contracts the figures to be paid on completion are out of all proportion to those envisaged when the contracts are let. I hope that that facet will be looked at carefully. Having said that, like other noble Lords I welcome the Bill and look forward to the Committee stage when Members of your Lordships' House may agree variations, but the sooner the measure goes through the better.
4.38 p.m.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, I first declare an interest. I work in Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, a bank that advises various consortia involved in projects that may go ahead as a result of this proposed legislation. It was one of the banks that expressed the gravest reservations about the vires of the National Health Service trusts to enter into these contracts.
Like my noble friend Lady Cumberlege I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for introducing this Bill so early in the Session. It will enable several highly desirable projects to proceed through the PFI. Likewise, I am pleased that there is an all-party approach to the principles of the Bill which I hope will lead to its speedy enactment.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that she had supported PFI for some time. When the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was Front Bench spokesman for the party opposite he referred to the PFI as "probably fictitious investment". I trust that, so far as the Government are concerned, that somewhat flippant attitude to what is a serious topic is now firmly buried and consigned to the pages of Hansard and of history. Without being over dramatic, the projects which will benefit from the enactment of the Bill will

597
considerably increase the efficiency of healthcare in this country and thus reduce suffering sooner than would have been the case had the project been financed purely through public funds.
Although PFI is thought to be a complicated subject, its basic principles are perfectly straightforward. They are all about who should take what risk and, having established that, who is empowered to take that risk. It is perfectly fair for investors, banks and financial institutions to seek clarification on who is empowered to sign what. Indeed, it should be helpful for the Government to know who is responsible for what element of each project. In the same way as government must safeguard public funds, we in the private sector and in the bank must safeguard our depositors' funds and not put them and shareholders' money at undue risk. I am very pleased that the principles of the Bill provide a needed clarification to enable the trusts to sign these contracts.
The Bill is a good start. It will enable a significant sum of money to be raised. But I believe that a lot more could be done. It is not appropriate today to debate the wider aspects of PFI when the vires of local authorities to enter into transactions will have to be addressed. That must be the topic of further legislation, for their powers have already been challenged in the courts. However, I hope that that problem will be addressed by Mr. Malcolm Bates in his study and we all look forward to its results.
I further hope that it will recognise that many factors are common to all these projects. In the past, there has been a tendency to reinvent the wheel with each new set of advisers, investors, lawyers, bankers and government officials. As has been pointed out, that has been an expensive exercise, but each new project creates new case history. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding pointed out, it has enabled practitioners to move further up the learning curve. Nevertheless, large amounts of money have been set aside and there is impatience among sponsors and investors, as well as within government, to get on with it.
It should be possible to work out which problems are common to which projects, be they roads, prisons or hospitals—and I have been involved in all of them—and then to develop an umbrella template which would cover most of the answers to those problems which are currently addressed on an individual basis. Under that umbrella template, a further template could then be added to cover hospital schemes, for there are many similar characteristics to any new build hospitals. I am well aware that good work has already been done on that by the Private Finance Unit in the NHS. It has identified possible standard terms for certain commercial and financial agreements.
However, under my proposal, a second template could then be developed to include parts of hospital schemes. There is, for a financier, almost as much work in bringing to fruition a £1 million scheme as in undertaking one worth £100 million. It is simply
598
not economic for many institutions to become involved in the smaller schemes. But many of these smaller schemes—for instance, specialised eye units and chemotherapy units—in the £1 million to £5 million range are highly desirably and could possibly be ring fenced as regards financing. That will, however, happen only if they can be made to be not too time consuming and therefore the maximum conceivable number of common elements must be identified and standardised.
There is another way. One could find a sufficient number of common factors for the smaller schemes, which could then be lumped together to make a large package in a manner similar to the general purpose lines of credit, which are made available under the Export Credit Guarantee Department. They could still adhere to the European rules on competitive procurement. Likewise, a more detailed template to cover the smaller schemes could be formulated. Healthcare is not just about building shiny new large hospitals. Small facilities are particularly important, especially in rural areas. While each individual small scheme may not seem particularly large in terms of money, the totality adds up to a great deal. In order to allay any fears that the British Medical Association may have on this topic, I emphasise that I am not here talking about the privatisation of clinical services, nor indeed the extension of PFI into clinical services. I am here simply talking about the capital cost of bricks and mortar related to the smaller schemes.
While a general review of PFI is desirable, a short time has been given to Mr. Bates to conclude it. It cannot cover the common ingredients of the schemes to which I refer. If PFI is to be used to good effect for healthcare, more detailed discussion is needed between government and the practitioners if we are to turn theory into good practice. I know that the banking and the legal industries are keen to make PFI work and, as practitioners, we are more than willing to sit with those from the Treasury and whomever the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, wishes to nominate from the Department of Health to work out the details of the templates to which I have referred. I believe that it would be time well spent now and that it would save a lot more time and frustration in the future.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I wish to begin by declaring, an interest, though not a financial one. I am deputy chairman of Nuffield Hospitals. We have 34 acute hospitals countrywide caring for people in the private sector. Recently we completed agreement with the Royal Surrey Hospital Trust for the construction of a new Nuffield Hospital in Guildford. The contract contains initiatives for a new and exciting co-operation between the trust and Nuffield Hospitals.
Looking back on my childhood, I remember hospitals as dark, miserable and rather frightening buildings. Of course, once inside, the devotion, dedication and loving care shone through, even though I must admit that there was a stricter regime in those days. Tidiness of bed-making seemed to be high on the list of priorities. Most of the buildings were relics

599
of the Victorian age. Even though upgrading has taken place, one can never get away from the fact that they remain harsh, grim and dark.
Those were the hospitals which the NHS inherited. During the past 50 years, enormous sums have been spent on rebuilding and refurbishing. Indeed, the past 10 years have seen the completion of more than 750 schemes, each costing more than £1 million. But there has to be a balance as regards how funds are spent. Money put into buildings cannot be used for other worthy causes and priorities have to be set out. However, I believe that for patients it must be so much more agreeable to enter a hospital which is light and welcoming. It must also be of great benefit to all those who work in hospitals to have better amenities. I am sure that, for example, they will welcome not having draughty corridors or having to take patients into the open air on the way to and from surgery.
It is even more important that hospitals become centres of excellence, with the latest hi-tech equipment necessary for today's treatments. We all know of towns where the debate on the longed-for new hospital has ranged from excited expectation to mere despair, as the project queued for Treasury agreement. The private finance initiative was begun by the previous government to alleviate the problem. It applies only to buildings and non-core services, with the NHS retaining the freehold of the building. Of course, it provides an opportunity for the private sector to apply flair and expertise in the design and construction of the buildings required by a trust for its particular needs. Many schemes are in the pipeline—71 have been approved, bringing in private capital of more than £600 million, including last year an injection of capital for major schemes at Leeds, Amersham and, indeed, the hospital in Norwich about which we have heard this afternoon.
However, the whole initiative has not progressed as quickly as was envisaged. It is a new process which brings together private capital and NHS trusts. But doubts were raised as to the underlying powers of the trusts to enter into those financial arrangements. I believe that no one expected such doubts to emerge and I am sure that they were not intended. Therefore, it was natural that action should be taken and the previous Government promised legislation to ease the situation. Therefore, I am delighted to welcome this Bill and also, of course, the Government's conversion to the principle of PFI.
The Bill recognises the contribution that can be made by the private sector to the development of facilities for the NHS. I was interested to note from the briefing that I received from the BMA that it has withdrawn its main reservation, as it accepts,
"that the PFI may be important in attracting additional financial resources into the Health Service".
I hope that this important, short Bill will have a speedy passage on to the statute book. It will enable and encourage the conclusion of many projects. That can only be of benefit to local communities and, indeed, the economy of the country as a whole. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns as she takes up her new place on the
600
Front Bench. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, as she embarks on her first Bill as a Minister. I wish her and the Bill all success as the Bill proceeds through this House.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining so clearly the purpose of this short Bill. I hope that she is right to predict that the log-jam or gridlock as regards some PFI projects will now break up and that some of them will start to get going.
In some parts of the country, there will be great relief if that occurs. However, some projects will not receive the whole-hearted support which perhaps the Minister would wish from the populations concerned. In that regard, I refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about Norwich and I am thinking also of the next phase of development at Barnet General Hospital. That will allow the further dismantling of Edgware General Hospital, which is a hospital well situated in the midst of a population which contains many under-privileged people. If the development goes ahead, those people will have to travel much further for their acute and emergency services. Similarly in Norwich, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, by moving out of the city the hospital will be more difficult to reach for the 40 per cent. of the citizens of Norwich who have no car. The new car park will be of little use to those people.
However, it seems that both projects are so far along the road of planning that it will be very difficult to reverse them now. Nevertheless, I feel that the anxieties of the populations concerned, who will be deprived of their local hospitals, must be addressed. I know that Norwich City Council and the citizens of Edgware would certainly be grateful for this.
As most noble Lords have said, this debate allows us to consider whether the whole PFI initiative is necessary or wise. The Government are in favour, as am I, of good forms of public/private partnership in the financing of a variety of enterprises, not only in the NHS but in many other fields—universities, roads and rail schemes, although that is not so much the case now that the railways are privatised—but there is still some call for public finance in that area.
The main reason for the need for those public/private partnerships is to avoid increasing the public sector borrowing requirement. But as several noble Lords said in the debate which took place about a year ago on the residual liabilities private finance initiative legislation, it may not always be the most appropriate method of private finance for the NHS. That is not only because the support services provided by the consortium or firm concerned will then be out of National Health Service control but there is also that grey area which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned where those support services impinge on clinical services so that one is not quite sure where the divide comes.
There is also a worry because it is a costly way to obtain capital for building solid assets. I realise that such talk is probably anathema to the Treasury, which

601
lumps into the public sector borrowing requirement both capital and revenue or recurrent expenditure. But I suggest that it may be time now for a rethink to consider that and to consider whether we should not require public sector borrowing to have separate capital and revenue elements. I know that that has often been discussed before. It would allow greater leeway in the field of capital expenditure. If a water-tight business project could be drawn up for capital expenditure, that would seem to be a perfectly sensible reason to increase capital expenditure under the PSBR.
It has been said that the PFI is mortgaging our future. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and other noble Lords have justified that and have said that that is not a bad thing. Like many of us, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has bought several houses on a mortgage. In this House there may be some who are lucky enough to have a tied cottage or a stately home. I wish that I was one of those because I certainly have bought more than one house on a mortgage. But it is a perfectly acceptable way to raise money, provided that the asset will be realisable at the end.
It has been said by a number of people, and in particular by my noble friend Lord Winston, that in the provision of health services things change very rapidly. It may be that a hospital which is built now will be redundant in 10 years' time. However, I suggest that architects may wish to think very seriously about that. They have thought a lot about making hospitals flexible according to their different kinds of clinical use. I suggest that they may have to think about building hospitals in such a way that they could be converted easily into something totally different—for residential or commercial use or as community centres and so on. But it seems to me that, regarding solid bricks and mortar investments, we could borrow money more cheaply on the international market as a government than can be raised through the private sector.
As for the costs of servicing the hospital and the facilities, they will still have to be met every year whether the enterprise is publicly or privately financed. If the project is privately run, then a profit must be made out of taxpayers' money. I just wonder whether that is what the Government really want to see. In many cases, where services have been contracted out by existing hospital trusts, the result has not always been a happy one. The use of a "flexible", often part-time, low-paid workforce has often led to a lowering of standards. I suggest that when a minimum wage is introduced the charges for such services will probably rise, so that the competitive advantage of commercially contracted out support services may well become less.
I agree that the Bill is necessary for the current projects that are waiting impatiently for the starting gun. However, I hope that the operation of the PFI in these projects will be carefully evaluated and that in future the PFI will only be used where a clear
602
advantage to taxpayers can be demonstrated over the whole period of the contract, and not simply because the immediate cost appears to be less.
5 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I should like to start by adding my congratulations to those already offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. Our paths have crossed, shall I say, in the health service on a number of occasions and I have the greatest admiration for her knowledge and ability. I should first add my name to the list of those speakers who have also declared an interest, in that I am chairman of a west London health authority. A number of PFI schemes are under way or already completed in that part of the city.
It might be helpful if I say a few words about some of the background to capital investment in the health service. Within the public sector, the NHS has historically had a narrow and restricted approach to capital investment. Local government and the university sector have had greater freedoms to use private sector money and have had the associated powers to borrow. The approach of the health service has been more cautious. This can be extended to its overall financial management where over the years it has had a good record of living within its allocated funding without accumulating debt.
However, as a result of that traditional, rather unimaginative approach to capital investment, neither the costs of capital nor the potential to create funds for new buildings through the sale of surplus land holdings were sufficiently taken into account. A notable exception to this approach has been in general practice. Traditionally, GPs, as independent contractors, have had a well-established pattern of using private sector funds for capital investment in GP premises development. Further, over the past 20 years or so, the closure of the large, long-stay institutions for elderly people and people with learning disabilities, as well as for psychiatric patients. has depended heavily on non-NHS funding to provide capital for high quality, small residential units, offering standards of privacy and a quality of life which are often far better than those previously offered in the NHS. Moreover, for frail elderly people the enormous growth in the independent nursing home sector is another example of the NHS utilising third-party capital funds. There are also numerous partnerships with housing associations and other non-profit-making groups where their ability to access capital has enabled them to work in partnership with the health service, thus providing truly excellent facilities for some of the most vulnerable groups in our society.
We are all aware that the purpose of the PFI when applied to the health service is to inject additional capital money into the NHS to tackle the considerable backlog of out-of-date unsuitable buildings and equipment. However, experience gained while working up the schemes—in other words, the learning curve, which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkin—has inevitably revealed some problems

603
which it would have been difficult to anticipate but which nevertheless need to be taken into account if the initiative is to be effective and enduring.
One of the obstacles that has emerged has been dealt with by this Bill; another is the matter of risk, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Home in the context of banking. In order for the capital sums involved to be excluded from the public sector borrowing requirement calculations, the private sector was required to assume a substantial proportion of the risk involved. If the private sector funders were to take such large risks they would have had to charge premiums so high that any potential benefit would have been negated.
The residual liabilities Act, to which reference has already been made, was passed last summer and goes some way to reduce the commercial risk as it allows the Secretary of State to deal with insolvent trusts. However, if reasonable rates of return on the capital employed are to be achieved, the sharing of risk between the health service and the consortium providing the project must be sensibly applied.
Another problem, but one which, if properly organised, could also be a virtue, is the management of facilities. The issue has already been extensively dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, but I have a slightly different slant to put on the subject.
The large PFI schemes tend to be bid for by consortia. These can be made up of a number of companies supplying different services. Part of the deal is that members of the consortium take over the provision of some or most of the non-clinical support services such as catering, domestic services, estate management, car parking, and many others, on a long-term basis. It is important to note that this provides part of the return on the investment and is part of the process of transferring risk.
The virtue can be in services more effectively and efficiently provided. However, the problem can be that the management of the trust concerned has lost direct control of those services and has closely and continually to monitor their quality. It means that there is a different management role, with managers becoming performance approvers rather than service managers—a skill that needs to be learnt.
When the PFI was first introduced into the NHS—and this is another aspect of the learning curve—there were doubts about whether people at local level would have the maturity to balance the risks and benefits of large capital projects in both financial and non-financial terms, and so a complicated, highly centralised and lengthy process had to be embarked upon. That has contributed to the length of time it is taking to sign off the contracts for the big schemes. It would be a help if some of the preliminary procedures could be streamlined. That would save both time and some of the excessive costs which fall both on the lead parties in the consortia and the trusts. That point has already been made, but I should like to emphasise that a great deal of learning has had to be done as the PFI has taken a grip in the health service.
604
The health service cannot operate efficiently without adequate sources of capital funding. One source is recycling—for example, through the sale of land no longer needed by the health service—but this will never provide enough and sources of new capital will always be needed. The PFI is becoming established as one of those sources and through the benefit of experience it must be made to work properly.
The very short Bill before us—indeed, I do not believe that I have ever seen a shorter one—will remove an obstacle which has emerged as work on large PFI schemes has continued. I hope that the Bill will progress through all its stages as speedily as possible and be on the statute book very soon.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap but I do so in response to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who referred to me as speaking later in the debate and as obviously being in support of the Government. Therefore, I felt that if I did not speak it would be seen as an indication that I do not support the Government. Perhaps I may confirm to the House that I do support the Government. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the very effective way that she explained the purpose of the legislation which is aimed at clearing up a mess left by the previous Government. In saying that I must point out that the reason we are so desperately in need of infrastructure investment in the National Health Service is because of the paucity of that investment during the past 18 years of the previous Administration.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I took over as Secretary of State in 1979 following years when investment in the National Health Service had fallen by over 30 per cent. Since then it has increased in real terms by 60 per cent.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my time is short. We have had 18 years of Conservative government. If they had invested prudently and used some of the labour that was available among the 1 million people who were unemployed over and above the figure who were unemployed at the time of the previous Labour Government, the National Health Service infrastructure might not be in such a poor state. However, I have been diverted from the remarks I was hoping to make.
I am glad that my noble friend Lady Jay is now our deputy leader in the Lords. It is worth pointing out that the new Labour Government have committed themselves to abolish the internal market in the National Health Service. In doing that the risks associated with new hospital building programmes are much reduced. One of the unfortunate effects of the internal market that the previous Government developed was that it put at risk the activity of hospitals and health authorities. If GPs and other referring units decided to use the internal market to make savings and diverted their patients to other hospitals there was a risk that a hospital could go

605
bankrupt. Getting rid of the internal market removes that risk. I hope that as a result the costs of the PFI capital schemes will decrease. We need to recognise that this is very much in the way of a bridging loan operation. It will take some years to turn the ship of state round to arrive at a situation where public activities are carried out for the benefit of every citizen of this country rather than for the benefit of a few. It is within that context that I am glad to confirm that I support the Government and I support the Bill.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like a number of other noble Lords who have spoken I declare an interest as I am chairman of a company which supplies energy management services. We are providing such services under PFI arrangements to a number of hospital trusts on schemes which are much smaller than those we are talking about. I am glad to say that those arrangements are working well to mutual advantage.
The purpose of the Bill before us is limited. That was made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in introducing the debate, and by the comments of other noble Lords who have spoken. It was inevitable that in the course of our discussion wider comments would he made on the PFI arrangements, particularly with regard to the NHS trust hospitals.
I am glad that the Government have moved fast in setting up the inquiry led by Mr. Malcolm Bates which will report on 13th June. Therefore we shall have time to take note of some of the recommendations he makes before this Bill has gone through all its stages. I hope, however, that we shall have a full and early opportunity—once that report has appeared and the Government have commented on it—to debate the wider issues, many of which have been touched on today.
I wish to comment on some of those wider issues. Many of the issues touched on were raised in the excellent report of the Treasury Committee of another place in the middle of last year. That was a basic report which no doubt the Government—as did the previous Government—will take serious note of. I wish to mention a number of the issues which other noble Lords have referred to and to highlight them for our future debate and discussion.
First, there is the question of whether PFI schemes are a substitute for or additional to public expenditure. There is no doubt that when they were initially introduced by the previous Government—as my noble friend Lady Robson remarked—it was made clear that they were intended to be additional to public expenditure. However, it has now emerged that there is a major element of substitution—as the last Red Book issued by the previous Government has shown—and a progressive planned diminution of public sector investment in the health service. Therefore we must recognise—presumably the noble Baroness will confirm this, unless there has been any change of
606
policy on the part of the present Government—that this is the policy. That makes the PFI all the more important.
Another issue that arose, and was referred to by the noble Baroness in her introductory speech, was the question of prioritisation. There is a fear—this was mentioned in the Treasury report—that the way in which these schemes are being negotiated in a rather ad hoc way could lead to projects which are not necessarily the most desirable projects at a particular time. That is an important issue which needs to be looked at. It raises the whole question of a strategic approach to the provision of additional health services, which in turn raises the question of whether this should be done on a national or a regional basis.
My noble friend Lord Addington referred to the real problems which have arisen as a result of the long delay and the many changes introduced in the Norfolk hospital project, which is one of the projects that is meant to be going ahead as a result of this Bill. That touches on the question of how these projects are planned, what sort of strategic review is undertaken before they are launched and what sort of public consultation is engaged in. There is much more to be done in that area.
The noble Earl, Lord Home, made some important remarks from the point of view of the financial sector. He pointed out that the costs of financing smaller schemes are almost as much as the costs of financing larger ones. I agree with him. As regards the projects my company is involved in, we have had to find the money ourselves. It was too difficult, too costly and too time consuming to go to the marketplace. The noble Earl made a valid point which I hope will be taken up; namely, that a number of the smaller schemes could be grouped together and that a consortium of financial institutions could be persuaded to provide the money for these grouped schemes. However, in order that the schemes can be grouped together there has to be a strategic appraisal. They have to be identified and there needs to be much more co-ordination than presently exists.
There is also the question of the procedural delays under the present arrangements. These are considerable. I have talked to friends in the financial sector. They are of the opinion that these are possibly initial delays and that as we get into the swing of things and as things are sorted out projects may go through faster. Nonetheless—I refer again to the remarks of the noble Earl—the concept of templates to abbreviate the time taken in the negotiations would be particularly helpful. Time costs money in these negotiations. Here I wish to dwell upon a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when she mentioned the vast amount of money that has been spent purely on consultancy fees. I in no way run down the consultants. They have probably provided all that they were asked for. However, I do not believe that the way in which the schemes are being negotiated now by the trust hospitals is the most effective. I consider it most unlikely that the normal financial staff in NHS hospitals would be capable of undertaking the kind of

607
negotiations about which we speak. Inevitably they would have to undertake it through consultancies and financial advisers.
If we had some form of strategic approach, and if we had on a regional basis a common pool of personnel skilled in these negotiations, then the problem could be reduced in its cost and made more effective in its practice.
Associated with procedural delays are the large tendering costs. I know of firms which have decided that so long as those costs are incurred with no certainty of business at the end, they would not wish to engage in any more of those processes. We need to find ways to reduce the cost and delay.
My noble friend Lady Robson, and the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Rea, made the important point regarding the speed with which medical health developments are moving on the one hand, and the fact that a number of major projects have to be entered into by their very nature for a period of 15, 20 or 25 years. As a result of changes not only in medical technology and skills but also shifts in population and demand, what happens if part way through the costly enterprise launched into in good faith turns out to be no longer as relevant as it had been? That again comes back to greater flexibility and a more strategic approach, perhaps lumping together larger schemes, and not only smaller ones, to mitigate the problem.
Finally, assessment of benefits as between public and private funding took up a lot of the time of the Treasury Committee. I remember a time when the Treasury was adamant that there could be no replacement for public funding because it was so low cost. The fashion has now changed. It has demonstrated, certainly to its satisfaction, that the reverse is true and that although public funds cost less, nonetheless the efficiencies of the private sector more than compensate for that cost. I find it difficult to believe that the Treasury was either absolutely right the first time round and/or the second. The whole issue requires much more consideration, as the Treasury Committee recommended.
In summary, I was much struck by one of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. She said that the Government were intent on exploring various ways in which the public and private sector could come together. Whether the solution is simply to adjust the existing PFI, or to think of some alternative which could operate in parallel, remains to be seen. I strongly recommend that consideration be given to some regionalisation of the planning of the investments. That is in line with the proposals put forward by the King's Fund with which a number of noble Lords may be familiar. Such an approach can produce different ways in which public and private finance can be brought together. It would make for greater flexibility. It should enable speedier processes and reduce costs in negotiation. I very much hope that as a result of our consideration of this short Bill, which certainly deserves our support, the Government
608
will take note of these wider considerations and that when we have the longer debate we can air those issues at greater length.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, this has been an interesting and somewhat lively debate. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is no longer in his place. When he managed in one story to combine an isotope, fishing rods, a bicycle and nets, I wondered whether he was discussing PFI or introducing a new game of consequences in your Lordships' House.
Earlier, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege welcomed the objectives of the Bill and gave it her wholehearted support. Other speakers from these Benches have echoed that sentiment. The Bill comes from a "must do" pile of our recent Conservative Government. Like my noble friends, I can also welcome the objectives of the Bill. So is this afternoon one of unrestrained joy for me? Not quite, my Lords. I cannot help wondering whether this Bill is the first but not the last example of the Labour Government implementing our policies without really believing in them. I suspect it is.
The problem is that if you do not believe in the principles upon which a policy is based you cannot be trusted to sustain those policies. That always matters, but especially so in this case. Those who enter into PFI agreements need to be confident of long-term government support for the principle underlying PFI. Otherwise they simply will not become involved. And the ability of the National Health Service to continue to develop healthcare provision will be damaged.
So far, under the encouraging but watchful eye of a Conservative Government, PFI has been a success story overall for the NHS. Indeed, despite some of the stories cited on the Benches opposite, I shall quote local examples of how it has been a success. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater made clear, before PFI was introduced many deserving NHS projects had to queue up at the Treasury for scarce public sector capital funds. Despite the massive hospital building programme undertaken by Conservative Governments since 1979, many towns had to wait years for new developments. PFI has started to change that.
My noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lord Jenkin of Roding referred to the rather steep learning curve faced by the National Health Service as it grappled with the opportunities offered by PFI. That process is mainly behind it now, so it can begin to develop in strength on PFI projects. And there are indeed success stories to be told. In my area, St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey, owned housing which had been condemned. I use the word "housing" loosely. It was 50 year-old hutted accommodation. The hospital made an arrangement with a housing association whereby the properties were renovated and 180 new units created which are held on a 125-year lease. Nursing staff and doctors now have excellent new accommodation, and St. Peter's has obtained a £5 million property build at no cost to the NHS. We may talk about large or small sums. That may sound a small sum to a financier but it was an important advantage for my local NHS.

609
We can see that PFI should certainly not in itself threaten the public service nature of the National Health Service because it should apply only to buildings in which National Health Service professionals work and to non-core clinical services. The NHS retains the freehold of the buildings but the private sector applies its expertise in the design, construction, maintenance and provision of building support services in order to deliver better quality and better value for money—the kind of provision so well described by my noble friend Lord Home.
However, despite all the advantages which PFI contracts can bring, the Labour Party in opposition failed to recognise them. Indeed, it is on record as rejecting on more than one occasion PFI funding on ideological grounds. At the Labour Party conference on 1st October 1996, Chris Smith said:
"Labour is totally opposed to the use of the Private Finance Initiative".
And in 1995 Labour's final pre-election NHS policy statement, Renewing the NHS, stated on page 26:
"We will …do our utmost to discourage the signing of such [private finance] contracts".
Yet in May the Labour Government announced a speedy review of the PFI across government in order to recommend how the whole process could be streamlined. Today they introduce this Bill.
Labour really has to make up its mind once and for all about PFI contracts. If the Government do not support the PFI wholeheartedly in the future they are committing themselves to making up the £300 million capital shortfall from extra taxation. Will the Minister tell us where the Government stand now on PFI? Can she guarantee that they will take the same view in two years' time, given their change of mind over the past two years? And do the Government now accept that PFI does not lead inexorably to the privatisation of the NHS? Patients and professionals deserve to know that there will be a degree of stability in the Government's policy on this issue—a stability that Labour has failed to show in recent years.
As the Minister pointed out earlier, the Bill is intended to clarify the powers of a National Health Service trust to enter into private finance initiative contracts, setting out that PFI contracts will be certified by the Department of Health in writing, and identifying the criteria a contract should meet.
Naturally I appreciate the value of Clause 1(3), which prescribes the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may give a certificate. But the Minister will have to forgive me for introducing another note of cynicism. I remember all too well the Labour Government's love of bureaucracy in the 1960s and 1970s. Too often it acted as a dead hand on innovative development. It was used as a tool to give national direction to levelling down standards instead of providing a quality guideline which still nourished and encouraged the spread of good practice. Will the Minister reassure me today that this Labour Government will act any differently when tackling the question of whether or not to give a certificate under the Bill?
610
While in government we always took seriously the views expressed by the BMA. I am sure the Minister will do the same. When the Secretary of State grants a certificate, will he take account of the resolution passed by the BMA at its annual meeting last year that proposals for a PFI scheme should not extend into the privatisation of clinical services? I note the statement made by the Secretary of State to the Royal College of Nursing congress on 19th May. But can the Minister assure us that this will be the Secretary of State's position on the subject in the foreseeable future, or at least beyond the results of the PFI review?
In a brief circulated to noble Lords before the debate, the BMA voiced its concern that the willingness of the private sector to become involved in a new building project could increasingly influence whether or not that project goes ahead. Our Conservative Government were keenly aware that the likely future impact of PFI agreements on the future shape of hospital provision in the UK should never be ignored. What is the Minister's assessment now of the likely impact of PFI contracts on the future shape of hospital provision in the UK? Indeed, what is the planned nature and size of hospital provision in five years' time? Above all, I should like to be convinced that the Minister intends to do more than merely implement our policies just for the time being and that she is prepared to espouse the principles which underlie them. I look forward to hearing what I hope will be her convincing arguments.
In the meantime, like noble friends on these Benches and other Members of the House I welcome the Bill and hope that it will soon be on the statute book.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate for their thoughtful examination of the many issues raised by this short Bill. I am also extremely grateful for the personal welcome extended to me by many speakers, and particularly for the generous remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I, too, welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, to her new role on the Front Bench. Although I do not want to begin our relationship across the Dispatch Box by quoting in a rather negative way from previous debates on this subject, because she drew attention to quotations from others previously perhaps I may draw her attention to my most recent comment on the subject in this House, namely, in the previous Bill on the private finance initiative, when I said categorically:
"We on these Benches support the principle of joint public/private partnerships and the potential for spreading risk on major capital ventures".—[Official Report, 21/5/96; col. 740.]
That was my position then; it is my position now; it will be my position in the future.
Today's debate has given a clear signal that concern for the fabric of the NHS is shared on all sides of this House. As always, it was informed by the great personal knowledge and experience that noble Lords regularly bring to this kind of topic—although I was a little concerned that some noble Lords had perhaps not read New Labour's business manifesto. That would not of

611
course apply to my noble friend Lord Monkswell, who made a helpful intervention in response to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
I therefore re-emphasise that the Government are determined to sort out the problems that have afflicted the PFI in the area of health, and the private finance Bill that we are considering today is tangible proof of that commitment. It confirms that NHS trusts have power to enter into PFI type contracts and therefore opens the door to major hospital building programmes. Bricks and mortar will result, and a particular result will be the two principal PFI schemes that are ready to go, in the Norfolk and Norwich hospital mentioned by noble Lords and another major project at Dartford and Gravesham. Banks have confirmed that enactment of this legislation will enable them to lend so that these hospitals can reach early financial closure and building can go ahead.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised various substantial general points about PFI. She also raised the specific issue as to whether there was a need for this additional legislation following the earlier concerns we had about the residual liabilities Bill and other matters. I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Home, on this subject. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the banks concerned had genuine worries about the nature of the ultra vires of NHS trusts and, although it may seem a rather heavy-handed way of proceeding, primary legislation was needed to make sure that those particular financial agreements were made.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I do not believe I ever said that I had doubts about the Bill being necessary. I said it was a pity that we had to have two Bills and that they could not have been taken at the same time. The legislation could have been thought out a little more carefully.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in that case the noble Baroness and I are entirely at one. As I am sure she will recall, in my opening remarks I said that I, too, thought it might have been more sensible for the Bills to have proceeded together. I was a little concerned that she felt this was too heavy-handed a way to approach the problem. I understand now that that was not her concern. However, I am nonetheless grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Home, for making the points he did from a specifically banking perspective. I am particularly grateful that he offered further help in regard to working with the Department of Health to bring these projects to fruition more quickly. I am sure that is an approach which my honourable friends who are concerned with some of the individual projects will want to take up.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised specific points about the development in Norwich. I understand his concerns about local public consultation. I will raise those points with my ministerial colleagues. I can only say to him, and indeed to my noble friend Lord Rea, who raised similar concerns, that I am genuinely surprised if their suggestion is that the general response to any new hospital development in any community would be unenthusiastic. However, I know that there
612
have been particular problems in Norwich—although I also understand that the local community health councils have endorsed the proposals as they stand. As I say, I will take up the specific concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I understand that there may be some areas of agreement; however, there is certainly great public concern about the way this matter was handled and the way in which, in this particular case, account was not taken of the wider issues involved and not merely the site. That is the main point of concern.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making the point even clearer, and I shall take it up again with my colleagues at the Department of Health.
Another point was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who feared that the Bill would not cover the situation where private contractors found themselves paying from their own resources rather than receiving a loan. I am advised that, although that is the correct reading of Clause 1(3), Clause 1(6) provides that nothing in the Bill affects the validity of an agreement between a trust and a private contractor which does not have a certificate. The validity of the small scheme which does not qualify for a certificate is therefore unaffected. Apparently there is clear legal advice that trusts are able to enter into contracts without a certificate and the certificate process provides concrete reassurance to the banks which are funding the larger schemes. If there is anything further on the point which the noble Viscount would like to raise I shall be delighted to write to him.
Other more general points raised concerned the general scepticism—as I think I can call it—of noble Lords opposite about the overall confidence of the financial community in the new Government's determination to develop public/private partnership schemes and our real conversion to and interest in that as a profitable way forward for the National Health Service. The points were raised by several speakers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege, Lady Robson and Lady Anelay, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I can only remind your Lordships of the commitments that were given in the Government's business manifesto in the election to which I referred. I remind the House of the 12-point plan on the PFI and the specific understandings between the new Secretary of State and the banks about the schemes that we have discussed and the general enthusiasm of the private sector for the reappraisal by my noble friend the Paymaster General of the whole area of policy which has been widely considered. As I told your Lordships, it will be readily available and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested, it will be the subject of a more general debate at that time.
The whole question of clinical services is very tricky. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and others. I wish to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's clear commitment that we shall not allow clinical services to be included in the private

613
finance initiative or in the public/private partnerships as they develop. Under the previous administration, there was some discretion as to whether core clinical services could be included in PFI. Under this administration, there is none. Core clinical services are excluded. However, we acknowledge that there is an on-going debate about some of the definitions of clinical support services. It is undoubtedly a grey area, and several noble Lords raised the question of pathology and radiology, as well as other so-called support services. We have given a clear undertaking to look at the detail. It is part of the investigation by my honourable friend Mr. Milburn into the issue of PFI and health services, but we have never been in any doubt about the principle.
I say with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that I was intrigued by the number of questions on the issue which she raised with me this afternoon. I thought she raised appropriate questions about the definitions of clinical support services and I was intrigued because they were familiar to me. I asked many of the same questions myself a year ago when we debated the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill. The difference is that we are now determined to sort the problem out. My honourable friend Mr. Milburn is urgently considering those questions in his general review and I am confident that he will throw constructive light on the problematic area. We shall then be able to reach workable and acceptable clarity on the issue.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would give way. I am grateful to her for being so clear in describing some of the issues raised this afternoon and for giving clear answers. However, when we were tackling them, as the noble Baroness said, when it came to radiology, pathology and some of the support services we were clear that if the local people wanted them to be part of the scheme we would seriously consider it and probably accede to it. From what the noble Baroness said this afternoon, I understand that her Government are far more ambivalent about it. I am still not sure whether radiology and pathology are part of the PFI schemes. She described them as "a grey area". When shall we know the results? People who work in the services find the uncertainty hard to cope with. With us, there was a clear line; but from what the noble Baroness said this afternoon, I think it is a fudge.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have genuinely described it as a grey area because that is what I see it as being at the moment. I understand the noble Baroness's concern about a speedy resolution of the question; but without being disrespectful I can only say that it is somewhat surprising that the same questions should be asked by her this afternoon as I myself asked from her position last year. Very little conclusive work seems to have been done by the experts in the field to guide the new Government. That is precisely why my honourable friend Mr. Milburn is conducting his urgent review. I can be sure that it will throw a constructive light on the matter and we shall then be able to reach workable solutions. That is taking
614
place within the first month of the Government taking office, and to press us at this point for clarity on something which has been confused for such a long time is perhaps a little inappropriate.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again. I agree that the position is confused, but when we were in power it was clear what our line was. It depended on the will of the local people working in the service. I understand that that is not the case now with the new administration and that the matter has been thrown back into the pot. As I said, it is a fudge.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is the third time that I say it but obviously with no great clarity: for us it is still a grey area. If the noble Baroness suggests that under the past government there was great clarity, all I can say is what I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns. I do not wish to quote extensively from debates we had on the subject almost a year ago, but with precisely the same questions—and that is why I raised the point then with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—the same answers were given as I have given this afternoon. The clarity may have been in her mind, but it was not clear in the policy laid down. If the noble Baroness disagrees, perhaps we may return to the point later. I apologise if she feels that mine is a wrong interpretation, I do not wish to use extensive quotations from the Official Report.
Perhaps I may return to another issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Both were concerned about the equally difficult issue of health services in London, which is just as problematic as the area of clinical support services. With respect to both speakers, although the PFI clearly has implications for the future of services everywhere in the country, questions on London are not the subject of the Bill today. When the details of the review process for the London situation are announced by the Government I look forward to discussing the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about membership of the review body and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly drew attention to the authoritative report of the Treasury committee in another place last year. He was right to be concerned about the prioritisation of projects under the PFI. The Government are concerned to pursue the issue on the basis of a strategic approach. We agree that that is necessary, particularly as a way of avoiding the types of consultancy costs to which the noble Lord referred, as I did in my opening remarks. My honourable friend Mr. Milburn wishes to deal with much of the work in the NHS now and we shall want to look at the useful suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of placing some of the issues within the context of the regional structure of the NHS.
Overall, I wish to reassure him that the NHS projects which are considered within the PFI will go ahead only if they demonstrate value for money, are affordable by the NHS and are explicitly supported by the relevant health authorities because they meet identified health

615
needs. The private sector will not dictate the capital programme of the NHS, although I hope that it will be a partner in our strategic approach.
In conclusion, I apologise if I have not dealt with all the points that noble Lords raised. If there are substantive points, I shall write to them. I am confident that the co-operative spirit which greeted the Bill in your Lordships' House will be matched by practical support from the financial community. I hope and expect that what the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Jenkin of Roding, described as "a clash of cultures" will be replaced by productive joint enterprise. The NHS then can become a signpost toward successful public/private partnerships in the future. I believe that the Bill will begin that process.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Pharmacists Bill [H.L.]
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I bring this Bill, which is even shorter than the previous one, contrary to what my noble friend Lady Eccles said, before your Lordships in the interests of protecting the public but also in the interests of protecting the reputation of some 40,000 pharmacists.
First, however, let me say how pleased I am to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on the Government Bench opposite. It is a pleasure to be able to see her as I talk to her on this occasion. I believe that that is the only advantage so far of being in opposition.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that when a pharmacist's misconduct or criminal conviction is proved to the satisfaction of the Statutory Committee, which is the disciplinary committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, that committee has the power, where appropriate, immediately to suspend the pharmacist from the register in order to protect the public, and indeed also when it is in the best interests of the pharmacist himself or herself.
This is a single issue Bill. It does not change anything except in regard to the power to suspend with immediate effect a pharmacist who should be suspended in the interests of protecting the public. At the present time that is not possible. Such a power was given to the GMC in 1970 after the notorious case of Dr. Petrov, who was dispensing controlled drugs to all and sundry. He was stopped from dispensing controlled drugs but continued to dispense all the other substances which did not come under the description of controlled drugs. The power was given to the GMC as a result of that case. I hope that in the case of pharmacists it will not be necessary that someone should put the public at risk before this matter is taken on board.
At this stage, I should declare an interest, however vicarious. My husband has been for the past seven years the chairman of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. He was appointed by the Privy
616
Council, is independent of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and is a QC, a Bencher of the Inner Temple and a deputy High Court judge.
Under Section 11 of the Pharmacy Act, it is expressly provided that a direction that the pharmacist should be suspended,
"shall not take effect until the expiration of three months from the giving of notice of the direction".
So he has three months of working normally. Granting three months' grace before erasure of his name is almost certainly because Section 10 of the Act allows a person aggrieved by a direction of the committee a right within three months to appeal to the High Court against that direction. He has the right to appeal within three months. It is also important to note that, whenever an aggrieved pharmacist appeals to the High Court, Section 11 of the Act provides that the direction appealed against shall not take effect until the appeal is determined or withdrawn.
It is not unknown for pharmacists to put in an appeal just before the three months are up and then withdraw it after a number of months. That can give those pharmacists who have been found wanting by the Statutory Committee—indeed, who have been convicted perhaps in the courts as well—up to one year in which to continue to practise normally in the pharmacy.
I am sure that your Lordships will not feel happy that you, your families or children might go to a pharmacy where there is a pharmacist who is dispensing medicines quite normally but who would not be able to practise if this power existed. Moreover, if he has been doing something unacceptable, he may even be doing more of it because he only has one year in which to continue to do it. After that time he will surely be suspended and he may be taking advantage of that situation to dispense the kind of drugs which may not come under the description of controlled drugs but are nevertheless dangerous.
This particular power has become even more urgent since the recent passage of the Pharmacists (Unfitness to Practise) Act 1997. At this point I should like to take a moment to mention Michael Shersby, a Member of the other place, who died very suddenly on 8th May. He took that Bill through the other place before it came to this House. It is very sad for me to remember that he and I had agreed to take through this Bill jointly, myself in your Lordships' House and he in the other place. It is a matter of great sadness to me personally as well as in my role as a Member of this House that he is no longer with us.
The Pharmacists (Unfitness to Practise) Act allows for immediate suspension. The anomaly exists only in the case of the Statutory Committee, which has no power to give a direction of immediate interim suspension. There have been a number of cases in which my husband has felt very concerned about this matter and has spoken out publicly within the Council. Perhaps I may offer one or two examples just to give the flavour of the problem.
There was a locum pharmacist dealing controlled drugs from her place of work for her partner. There have been a number of cases in which pharmacists have exercised

617
little or no proper control over controlled drugs. Quite often that type of case involves the disappearance of drugs of addiction known to have entered the pharmacy. That is quite often explained as having been due to the export of those drugs but more usually they find their way onto the black market. An unusual situation is where a pharmacist feels that he knows better than the doctors and will continue to make suggestions contrary to what the doctor may have prescribed. A pharmacist may make serious errors when dispensing, not because of physical impairment—that will now be dealt with under the Pharmacists (Unfitness to Practise) Act—but because the pharmacy itself operates in a muddle and confusion. Lastly, there is a category of sheer wickedness: pharmacists who sell drugs for profit to drug addicts without prescriptions. They are small in number but nevertheless it is a very serious issue when it comes before the Statutory Committee.
The protection of the public must be of paramount importance. But also the reputations of the 40,000 pharmacists deserve to be protected. The fact that pharmacists, bad or indifferent, may go on practising for up to one year in spite of their activities having been brought before the Statutory Committee, their guilt having been proved and the Statutory Committee having felt that they should not be practising, does no good for the reputation of the profession of pharmacists.
I hope that the House will consider this issue. It does not affect any other matter in the Pharmacy Act, which is due for a full review, but that will require government time. I hope your Lordships will consider this single point and take action as quickly as possible through the means of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Baroness Flather.)
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend on bringing this item before your Lordships' House and on her unquestioned commitment to the safety of the British people. As this is a Second Reading, I should like to pay a tribute to the pharmaceutical profession—40,000 men and women, the vast majority of whom contribute greatly to the health needs of this country's population. They are a huge source of advice and help not only to the worried well but also to those suffering from self-limiting conditions.
I have been told that on average every woman goes into Boots the Chemist at least once every three weeks. That is a huge exposure and presents unparalleled opportunities for promoting good health and education. It is a responsibility that many pharmacists in thousands of outlets take seriously, as the comprehensive display of information and literature testifies. But it is not so much the written word as the sympathetic, professional approach that is so valued by people in the high street.
My noble friend Lady Flather, in her clear exposition of the Bill, said—as was also said by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes when she took her Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill through your Lordships'
618
House—that, as in all walks of life, there are some who fail themselves and some who fail their profession. They must be dealt with—pour encourager les autres and to safeguard the public. In his helpful brief Mr. Gary Flather, whom we have heard is a Queen's Counsel and also chairman of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, clearly sets out the necessity for a measure of this type, as was also highlighted today by my noble friend.
We on these Benches strongly support the principle that lies behind the Bill and agree with its objectives. However, I understand that there may be some problems as to its current drafting in that it may not achieve my noble friend's desired intention. But that is a matter for the Minister and her legal advisers.
My second point concerns appeal against a decision of the Statutory Committee and the fact that immediate action should be taken. As the Bill is currently drafted, that appeal would be to the High Court. When we were discussing the Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill, we were keen to ensure that the appeal mechanism would be distinct from the courts, leaving the possibility of judicial review. The appeal mechanism is designed to ensure speedy decision-making without adversely affecting the rights of the individual.
The problem relating to appeals in the Pharmacy Act 1954—which is the Act to be amended in order to enable the provisions in this Bill—is that it can take nine months to a year before an appeal is heard. If that appeal is successful, the pharmacist concerned will lose a considerable amount of income. Perhaps my noble friend would like to consider that point.
Lastly, I understand that a recent judgment (on 14th February of this year) before Mr. Justice Ognall reinforced the view that the Statutory Committee should have powers to impose sanctions which are less than an order that a name should be removed from the register. Thus powers of suspension for a specified period, or perhaps in the case of a corporate body powers to impose financial penalties, would greatly assist the flexibility of the disciplinary machinery. There may be advantages in having a range of sanctions so that the sentence more accurately fits the crime. But that is another matter which my noble friend may like to consider.
Finally, I congratulate my noble friend once again and thank her for bringing this important matter before your Lordships' House and for her commitment to the safety of the public. I wish her every success in her endeavours.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, for so clearly explaining her reasons for bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her authoritative remarks on the issue.
The concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, for the immediate protection of the public in cases of alleged misconduct by practising pharmacists is both understandable and welcome in principle. If I may say so, that concern reflects the noble Baroness's overall

619
determination to maintain and achieve high standards in healthcare. All those who have taken part in discussions and debates with her both inside and outside your Lordships' Chamber have long been aware of her concern.
I am sorry that I was not personally involved in the debates in the last Parliament on the Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill, but I have of course read your Lordships' deliberations, with great interest. I understand that the noble Baroness sees the Bill before us as an extension of those provisions.
The Government recognise, as does the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, that there is a need to be able to suspend a pharmacist immediately in circumstances of alleged misconduct. Our concern is that the Bill before the House today does not contain all the elements that are necessary to achieve that satisfactorily.
As your Lordships know, pharmacists play an important part in the front line of primary healthcare today. Safe and accurate dispensing is the cornerstone of the pharmacist's role. The increasing complexity and potency of modern medicines mean that it is even more important that high standards in pharmacies are upheld. Those factors make it all the more important that appropriate disciplinary procedures are in place which protect the public and also protect the rights of the pharmacist.
Your Lordships will of course recall the provisions of the Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Act, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain considered then that ill health among its members which might threaten high standards of practice should be dealt with separately from matters of discipline which are dealt with by the society's statutory committee, as the noble Baroness explained when introducing the Bill.
The new Act gives the society, through a health committee, powers either to suspend or to impose a conditions of practice order on a pharmacist whose competence is impaired due to physical or mental ill health. There is provision under the Act to suspend a pharmacist immediately if the health committee considers that to be necessary for the protection of the public.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, intends that similar powers should be available to the statutory committee in disciplinary matters. This Bill proposes an amendment to the 1954 Pharmacy Act that would allow immediate suspension of a pharmacist. It does not, however, indicate what the effect of suspension is intended to be or what terms would govern a suspension.
The present powers of the statutory committee are related to inclusion on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists or removal from that register. What is now proposed by the noble Baroness suggests that what is intended is immediate removal from the register.
In our view there is a fundamental difference between the terms of the Bill before your Lordships and the earlier Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Act. This Bill does not provide for a satisfactory appeals mechanism
620
to protect the pharmacist who is to be suspended from immediately being prevented from practising his profession.
Your Lordships may recall that the earlier Act includes provisions specifying the effect of suspension and interim suspension orders and makes provision that any period of immediate suspension pending appeal on health grounds is for a strictly defined and limited period of time. An immediate suspension order ceases to have effect after 12 weeks from the day on which the order is made; or, of course, if an appeal is heard earlier the decision of the health committee that the pharmacist should be suspended for a period of up to three years is then either confirmed or overturned. A pharmacist has 28 days within which to appeal against a decision of the health committee, so it is incumbent on the society to be able to make early arrangements for an appeal to be heard. The society understands that it must be able to do this in order to ensure the continued protection of the public, and in this way the pharmacist's interests are protected as well as those of the public.
The noble Baroness's Bill makes no similar provisions for those who might be suspended by the statutory committee. It does not state a date on which the suspension period ceases. This would mean that the pharmacist suspended in this way would be unable to practise until the normal appeal process against a decision of the statutory committee has been gone through. As the noble Baroness will know, under this procedure a pharmacist may wait for up to three months before he lodges an appeal. He must also wait for a slot for the case to be heard in the High Court. It is of course possible, but I am advised unlikely, that such a hearing could be expedited. It is more likely to take up to a year to be held.
In our view the balance of protecting the public and protecting the pharmacists' interests would not be satisfied as they are by the earlier Act. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is questionable that the proposals, as drafted, comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. With your Lordships' permission, I shall quote from the article:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
However, as I said earlier, the Government recognise the need for amendment of the powers of the statutory committee and the noble Baroness's proposal to extend the powers of the committee is welcome in principle. I know that the society is also supportive of the proposal that the statutory committee should have additional powers. However, as I hope I have explained, we do not believe that the proposals of the Bill are adequate to achieve the limited provision with which it seeks to deal. We also accept the view of the pharmaceutical society that a number of other aspects of the provisions governing the powers of the statutory committee could also usefully be reviewed in a general way.

621
For example, Section 8 of the Pharmacy Act 1954 refers to,
"misconduct [which] …renders the …guilty person unfit to have his name on the register",
and unless the statutory committee finds this degree of misconduct to have occurred, it has no sanction or powers. On the other hand, the disciplinary provisions for other health professionals, such as doctors, refer to "serious professional misconduct", and give the relevant disciplinary body jurisdiction to determine what penalty should be imposed including, but not limited to, removal from the professional register.
It is clear that the society needs to have powers to deal with conduct which is not acceptable professionally, particularly where it is motivated by commercial rather than professional interests. Although this conduct may well be serious, it will seldom be so grave as to render the responsible person totally unfit to practise his profession by being struck off the register.
We all understand that as the role of the pharmacy in healthcare develops the society is anxious to develop adequate mechanisms to enable the profession to set and maintain high standards and to ensure compliance with those standards. These are necessarily very broad issues which should be considered carefully. Over the coming months the society intends to discuss proposals for a comprehensive review of the disciplinary provisions, including the provisions in the Medicines Act which deal with bodies corporate which own pharmacies. It will wish to seek the views of the various interested parties both within the profession and outside it and then to discuss them with the Department of Health. It is at that stage that it may make proposals for changes to the jurisdiction or disciplinary powers of the statutory committee. We would then look carefully and sympathetically at any proposals for legislation that emerge.
In the light of the society's desire for a comprehensive review of the provisions relating to disciplinary matters and because we feel that the disciplinary proposals before us in the Bill are flawed for the reasons I have tried to give, I am afraid that the Government cannot support the Bill. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, whose concerns we appreciate, but we feel that her Bill only begins to address one of the changes which may need to be introduced. We think this may require more fundamental reappraisal. The Bill before us is an attempt at what one might describe as piecemeal reform. We feel, as does the Royal Society, that it is not really in the best interests of patients or of pharmacists.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, the Minister has read a very interesting brief. I am sure that she has not had as much opportunity as I have had to familiarise herself with the subject. Therefore, I shall try not to bear any ill will towards her. I am not only disappointed. I am rather surprised by what I felt was something of a
622
tautology that came out in her brief. Unfortunately, my pen ran out of ink part way through and I could not take as full a note as I should have wished of the enormously lengthy reasoning as to why pharmacists who are a danger to the public should not be removed from the register with immediate effect.
The noble Baroness referred to an independent tribunal and to human rights. What is the point of setting up a statutory committee? What is the statutory committee? Is it some kind of an arm of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society? Is it some kind of an arm of the pharmacy profession? I thought it was an independent tribunal. The chairman is certainly independent. I do not know about other members because they are appointed by the council. They are neither lay nor independent. But it is meant to look after the profession. It is meant to keep an eye on what is going on in the profession. It was set up by the Pharmacy Act 1954.
I told your Lordships of the example of the General Medical Council. It too had no right to remove a doctor from the register with immediate effect. We are not talking about removing every person who comes before the statutory committee. It is simply giving the discretion to a committee which has been appointed specifically to protect the public. If we had no committee, there would be no need for anything. Whatever happened would happen. However, the GMC received its powers in 1970 in piecemeal legislation because that became necessary for the protection of the public. No one can say that it is logical to have piecemeal legislation, but this matter is long, long overdue. Every other health care profession has this right vested in its disciplinary committee.
What else have I heard? The noble Baroness referred to appeals to the High Court. Such appeals do not take three months. That is the maximum period in which a person may lodge an appeal. He or she can lodge the appeal as soon as they leave the statutory committee building. We have heard that the process may take up to a year. It may well do. However, they have been found guilty. The case against them has been proved. Every other person who has a case against them proved may have to accept the penalty until the appeal. If you have to go to prison after the Crown Court, you will go to prison. Then you have an appeal and you may be let out. I am pleased to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, indicate his agreement. It is something to which we are all subject. If we are found guilty of an offence, we are punished for it. We can then appeal but we must wait until the appeal is heard. As I have said before, this happens only in cases where the statutory committee appointed by the Privy Council to oversee the profession feels that it is necessary. The whole of the statutory committee is behind this so-called piecemeal legislation.
If the appeal is successful that is no reason not to give the right to the statutory committee to remove someone from the register. I beg your Lordships' pardon. The Minister said that she wanted that clarified. It is not a removal from the register. It is called "immediate interim suspension", whatever that means. That is the exact term.

623
We heard something about a judicial review. All of us in this place have that right and it is our greatest protection in this country from any kind of administrative injustice. There will always be the right to judicial review. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege mentioned the case of Boots. It was collecting scripts and taking them to be filled and then returned. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society felt that that was misconduct by Boots but it lost the case as inevitably it would because it was not misconduct. My husband gave a minority judgment in that. He did not agree with the majority, all of whom were pharmacists. At one point the judge in his judgment said that he could do no better than to read from the chairman's statement.
All these are red herrings. There is absolutely no reason whatever why this matter cannot be dealt with immediately. If the department felt that there was some defect in the drafting of this very short Bill, I am sure that it could have taken a hand and carried out some improvement itself. But the department has not done so. It has taken no interest in this matter. If there is to be a review of the Pharmacy Act, according to the statement of the secretary and registrar of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, it would take 18 months to two years. I believe that that figure is optimistic. With their huge programme of legislation, will the Government find time for a review of the Pharmacy Act? I believe that they will not.
I received a letter yesterday from Mr. Ferguson who is the registrar and secretary to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. He states in his letter that there is no question of representations being made to the Minister opposing the Bill. That is supposed to be the pharmacists' position. That is the best information that I have. He further says that he can confirm that the society's council supports the principle of the statutory committee having the power of interim suspension in appropriate circumstances. Therefore, there is no question of the society speaking against the Bill which would secure that end. That is supposed to be the official position of the society. If it has made separate representations to the Minister, which do not tally with what I have just said, I cannot speak for it. But I am very surprised that such a respectable organisation as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should speak in different ways to the Minister and myself.
The Minister made a point about the ill-health situation being dealt with separately. That was long overdue. I am surprised that that bit of piecemeal legislation was allowed to go through this House by the then government. The society did not object to it. If anything was piecemeal, that piece of legislation was. But it was allowed to go through.
What else can I say in support of this Bill except to suggest that the chairman of the statutory committee is deeply concerned about not having this particular power. As I have said before, and as all noble Lords know, 99.9 per cent. of pharmacists are above reproach and work to the great satisfaction of everyone. But there is that 0.1 per cent. who should not be dispensing for up to a year when they have been found guilty by the statutory committee and found to be seriously lacking in the qualities that a pharmacist should have to continue
624
practising and dispensing normally. If your Lordships feel happy about that situation, I certainly do not. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Poverty Traps
6.25 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are contemplating to reduce poverty traps which prevent people getting off benefit and into work.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Oscar Wilde claimed that he could resist anything except temptation. Today I am trying to do a little bit better. When I tabled this Unstarred Question I did not realise that the Prime Minister's speech of yesterday would be dumped right in my path as I begin the debate. But I have already had one bite of the cherry of welfare to work. The Minister knows my general views on it. I am going to try not to cover that ground again, but instead to cover ground on which there may be rather wider areas of agreement.
The welfare to work programme will obviously not be enough for what any government must now have in mind. As we have been told many times, it is budgeted to take 250,000 people off benefit and into work. But if one compares that with the total number of people on benefit it is not very large. I believe that the total number of people on benefit is still just over 5 million. Therefore, it is a greater number than the total population of Scotland. Of those last published figures, 1,495,000 are classified as unemployed. The Minister and I may agree a suspicion that the figure is a little bigger. So clearly we need to do something beyond welfare to work to encourage people to come off benefit and back into work.
In opposing any particular change to the welfare state, I do not want to make out that everything in the garden is lovely and that there is nothing to change. We are to have tomorrow the launch of the citizens' commission on the welfare state published by Community Care. I had intended to draw on that in some detail, but I was told at the very last moment that since it is embargoed until 12.30 tomorrow afternoon, I can only refer to it in general terms. One finds in the voices of the users a very strong sense that the notion of the dependency culture is a myth; that benefit levels are simply too low to encourage any such thing; and that the demonising of welfare claimants, which goes with that sort of rhetoric, has created a very considerable depth of anger repeated in vernacular language which, even if it had not been embargoed, I could not have repeated in your Lordships' House. The word that occurs over and over again is "trapped". Once on benefit it is simply too difficult to get out.
In addressing the matter I hope that I shall be speaking with the agreement of some voices within the Government. Yesterday the Prime Minister said,
"I am asking social security ministers to look at all the key benefits and apply a simple test—do they give people a chance to work or do they trap them on benefits for the most productive years of their lives'?"
I hope that he told his Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is an objective that cannot be met without spending a certain amount of money.
I would like to congratulate Mr. Martin Taylor on his appointment to review the poverty trap. I read with pleasure his interview in the New Statesman last week. I could not improve on his words. He said,
"Alleviation of poverty is a moral imperative, but a system which encourages people to stay in quasi-poverty or just above it, rather than dragging themselves up because it gives them no incentive to climb out, is also failing a moral test".
That is the general framework from which I approach the subject.
How exactly to tackle poverty traps is a highly technical question. I do not expect agreement on every point because there will never be any such thing. I should like merely to make a few suggestions, some of which I hope may be found helpful. If I do not spend time on the issue of a minimum wage, it is because I think that here I would be preaching to the converted; I shall therefore save a few words. If I talk about tax thresholds, I shall be preaching to the converted again. However, there is a difference here between the Government's inclination to a lower tax rate of 10 per cent. and the advice that we have received that taking people out of tax altogether works better. I shall not press that although it could be investigated with more statistical information than I have at my command. However, I should like the Minister to investigate one question or possibly pass it to Mr. Taylor. I refer to whether there is a case for reversing the measure introduced by the Thatcher government of making benefit income taxable. People who are in and out of work and on and off benefit find it a very bumpy ride, especially since tax tends to be demanded in a lump sum in arrears. It also much reduces the amount that they can earn in a new job before they begin to pay tax. That matter would be well worth considering.
Among other possible measures worth thought is one of our proposals. I refer to the merging of income support and family credit into a single low-income benefit so that the abrupt bumps and jumps of the taper can be smoothed out. I would hope that the effect would be rather like that of having a ramp instead of stairs for wheelchair users, especially with passported benefits which would not need all to kick in at the same time. In discussions of those benefits I hear over and over again about the importance of free dental care. The loss of that has caused very strong feeling.
I also recommend—again from our proposed measures—the use of the social fund for deposits to enable the homeless to take up rented accommodation and to begin to look for work. I owe that idea to the Minister's colleague in another place, Mr. John Battle, who on one occasion was going home from Parliament at one o'clock in the morning when he met a young man bedding down
626
under the arches at Charing Cross. Mr. Battle asked the young man. "Why aren't you in work? What went wrong?". The man said, "I am in work, but I don't get my first pay cheque for two weeks. I can't afford a deposit, so I am sleeping under the arches and then going to work every morning". Not all of us have the guts to do that; so we might help a little bit there.
I turn now to the tapers and to the combination of tax and the family credit taper, the housing benefit taper, the council tax benefit taper and so forth. According to the Social Security Advisory Committee in 1995—I do not think that these figures are grossly out of date—over half a million people had marginal deduction rates of more than 70 per cent., with a few having deduction rates as high as 97 per cent. If I may coin a phrase, that is squeezing the poor until the pips squeak—and that is a problem that we might do something to stop. A certain amount of easing of the tapers, which are exceptionally steep by international standards, could help, as could some investigation of a mortgage benefit, possibly financed from the abolition of MIRAS which is obviously on its way over a period of time. Homelessness tends to handicap the search for work.
Over and over again the Community Care report reveals strong feelings among people who are trying to care for a sick relative but who cannot get enough assistance to do that and are faced with the prospect of putting their relative into permanent institutional care at vastly greater cost to the state than if they were looked after at home. On that subject, Mr. Dick Francis, who is not famous as a social critic, described the welfare state as guilty of a fish-faced blind eye. He was talking about the lack of help for incapacitated wives. It is a point which may deserve thought.
I have listened a good many times to the noble Baroness the Minister talking about the pressure on the partner of an unemployed person. That is a subject of quite incredible complexity. I was interested in a suggestion for a partner disregard which was made by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its 1995 paper on the role of incentives in the benefit system. That might be a practical way of allowing a partner to go on working without having to pay benefit to Mrs. Cedric Brown if she chooses not to work. I can think of no other way. If the Minister can think of better ways, I shall be pleased to hear about them. It is a thorny problem and I wish her luck with it.
I hope also that there will be some liaison with the Department for the Environment and Transport about the problems of getting to work. Normally the figures that we are given about poverty traps leave out the cost of getting to work but in a number of areas, which are regrettably without any public transport, there is no way of getting to work except by car. Our candidate for Falmouth and Camborne spoke at our last conference with some eloquence about the extreme poverty experienced by people on income support in Falmouth and Camborne who have to run cars or otherwise become unemployable. I should like to think that there would be some consultation with the Department of Social Security before rail lines or bus services are withdrawn. I do not know whether that is possible, but I hope that it is.
I hope that we shall be able to alleviate many of these problems as we achieve more progress towards the objective of equal pay. It is too early to question the noble Baroness in her capacity as Minister for Women, on which I congratulate her, but I shall be questioning her over the next year or two on how progress towards equal pay is advancing and I hope, as I am sure we all do, for good news.
That is a list of measures worth starting with. A different series of issues is involved when we consider questions relating to single parents. The first speech I made as party spokesman on this brief was on a Motion introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, whose contribution I look forward to hearing in a little while, about helping married women to enter the labour force should they wish to do so. That is exactly right. That is my position and will remain so. I understand that single parents are to he "encouraged"; I am very glad that there is to be no compulsion. However, there is a faint potential for ambiguity in the word "encourage" and I hope to hear that ambiguity dispelled.
If we are to consider the real questions about single parents it is well worth looking at the 20 countries studied by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw and others which makes real comparisons possible. His key variables are interesting. He finds that child care costs have the closest relationship with the employment of lone parents; that no countries have low child care costs and low levels of lone parent employment; and that the United Kingdom has the most expensive pre-school child care of any of the 20 countries. That is an understatement of Professor Bradshaw's findings. Only four countries out of the 20 achieved even half the cost of UK child care. Those are startling figures. If one takes simple crude prices, only three countries, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States, have about half our costs. If one calculates on the basis of a proportion of average earnings, one adds Spain. It still means that 15 out of 20 countries studied do not have child care half as expensive as ours. Those are surely striking figures. If 1 were a Government looking at them I would not try to encourage demand for child care. I would first try to improve supply. I would also look at the hours for which it was available.
I was extremely glad to hear in the Prime Minister's speech that the Government were going ahead with the policy of making schools open after hours. These are our clothes and I am delighted to see them worn. I am also delighted that the Prime Minister says that much more can be done to make work and family life compatible. That is something I will be urging on the noble Baroness but I am sure that she will not need it. One keeps hearing—it must stop—about people who are dismissed from their employment for taking time off to care for sick children. I understand that this can he very inconvenient to an employer, but in the world as it is coming to be, if that happens we may not have a labour force at all. That would be even more inconvenient to an employer. In particular, I hope that the Minister for Women will make it her business—I think that it should he—to ensure that men are not dismissed from employment for taking care of sick children, which is
628
everybody's business, and that at least, perhaps by way of guidance, nobody so dismissed shall be found guilty of voluntary unemployment.
In addition to these child care problems, single parents have all the same ordinary bottlenecks that others face in trying to get off benefit. They have all the same problems of tapers, especially with housing benefit. It is also shown by the comparative study that we are one of only eight countries among the 20 where a person pays full rent and local taxation at half average earnings. The replacement rate as one comes to income out of benefit is the highest in all the countries studied. Those seem to be the real matters that keep single parents out of work. If one does not tackle those all the encouragement in the world is worth nothing. If one encourages single parents into work without relieving the bottleneck it is like squeezing a tube of toothpaste without remembering to take off the top. If I can assist the Minister to take off the top I shall be happy to do so.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the fact that because I arrived late today I did not put down my name, but I gave notice that I intended to speak. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate initiated by the noble Earl. I hope that the new Government will address the problems to which he has referred. Although everyone appreciates that it is not possible to do everything at once obviously expectations are very high, particularly among those concerned with poverty and its effects upon some of our fellow citizens.
I welcome the commitment in my party's manifesto to look at the interaction of the tax and benefits systems and to try to promote work incentives. The noble Earl has dealt with that in detail in his opening speech. This is important in the effort to deal with poverty. No one supports what has become known as the dependency culture. I am inclined to share the noble Earl's view that it is rather a myth. Nevertheless, the proposals to assist lone parents back into work should be welcomed. However, there are problems which may be quite expensive to solve. Often children of single parents live in circumstances where relationships have become broken, often violently. It is important for such children that there should be stability. Lone parents should not therefore feel that they are being compelled into work—often work that may be unsuitable and badly paid. Individual circumstances must be taken into account. After all, we still await the introduction of the minimum wage. Until that is established we are not likely to be able to tackle the culture of dependency. The minimum wage is an important item in the whole argument. Incidentally, I welcome the evidence that the Government are getting on with it and have already appointed Professor Bain, formerly head of the London Business School, to head the Low Pay Commission.
There are at present considerable barriers that prevent lone parents from taking work. Chief among them is the shortage of affordable child care. Moreover, most employers fail to take an enlightened approach to the irregular hours often necessary to provide parenting at an acceptable level. Employers should be encouraged to

629
take a more positive attitude to parenting. Some enlightened employers have for years provided a child minder's allowance to staff with parenting responsibilities. Such initiatives should be encouraged; and certainly such so-called perks should not be taxed. Most single mothers are not so by choice. Some have become so because their husbands have left them or they have had to get out of violent relationships. Despite the existence of the CSA, maintenance payments are often unreliable. The previous Government indicated an intention to abolish one-parent benefit and the lone parent premium in means-tested benefits for new claimants from April 1998. I very much hope that the new Government will not proceed with the proposed cuts. One parent benefit has the advantage of being non-means-tested and therefore is similar in that respect to child benefit. It is easy to administer and provides security of income.
There is already a substantial amount of evidence to indicate that the levels of benefit are themselves inadequate. The removal of one parent benefit lends support to the notion fostered by the previous Government that single parents are responsible for all kinds of social ills, from the soaring crime rate among young people to inflated welfare bills to be paid ultimately by citizens who have managed to live in more traditional and conventional family circumstances. Of course, this is unfair. Many single women struggle hard to bring up their children, often with little assistance. Most can be regarded as low income families with all that that means in terms of poor diet, as highlighted in the paper published recently by the National Food Alliance. There are now about one million single mothers, most of whom have not willingly sought their underprivileged status. I therefore welcome the Government's stated determination to help these women. I believe that provided child care is available and women do not feel pressurised into unsuitable and low paid work the new proposals will be of assistance to many. But there will be transitional problems, and that is why I make a plea for the retention of one parent benefit. Good quality care is not cheap, particularly in this country. Many single mothers want to work but are caught in the benefits and child care trap. The Government have raised hopes of a new beginning and a more enlightened and humane approach. I await with interest the Minister's response.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble kinsman Lord Russell has provided a fairly meaty dish for the Minister to get her teeth into when she answers at the end of this short debate. I shall be relatively brief and try to keep my remarks to the 15 minutes recommended by the Companion to the Standing Orders.
I start by offering my apologies to the noble Baroness for the absence of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The noble Baroness missed him on her first outing, but I am sure that in due course both she and my noble kinsman will have opportunity aplenty to exchange arguments with my noble friend, as they have done from different parts of the Chamber over previous
630
years. For the present, the noble Baroness will have to make do with me. However, she and my noble kinsman will remember that when they came to their social security briefs—the noble Baroness sitting where I am today—I was then, if I may put it this way, the "whipping boy" in social security. Therefore, I offer my commiserations and my congratulations to the noble Baroness on the position that she holds.
I also offer the noble Baroness sympathy. She and her party will find the whole task of tackling the growth in social security expenditure much harder than the pious statements of Opposition—that is, of course, if they really are committed to controlling growth in the social security budget. I remember that when some time ago my right honourable friend Peter Lilley, then Secretary of State for Social Security, published the document entitled Growth in Social Security Expenditure, the noble Baroness was somewhat dismissive and felt that a growth in the economy would take care of most of it. I should like to look at her precise words on some of those occasions because they might make fairly interesting reading.
The real question before us, as put by my noble kinsman, is just what we can do to encourage people back into work, whether by means of making adjustments to the taper or whatever. The question that we must ask, and the answer that we must have, is exactly what steps the party opposite is contemplating not only to reduce the poverty trap but to reduce social security expenditure over a wider front.
I do not believe that the noble Baroness and the Government can complain that they have not had time to address these matters. It is some five years since a commission on social justice was set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It reported in 1994, but we do not seem to hear much about it now. It would be interesting if the noble Baroness could tell us how that report has influenced their thinking and to what extent the ideas put forward in the report will be developed by the party now in government.
I suppose that we must turn to the Government's manifesto, which was put forward before the election, to see exactly what they are proposing in terms of social security reform. The manifesto is fairly thin on these matters. We obviously hear about welfare to work and how a welfare-to-work budget will be introduced within two months of the general election. We have heard that that will be met and there will he a Budget on 2nd July. Therefore, I suppose that it would be right for us to wait until July to hear the details of the so-called "windfall tax" in order to see how it will operate and exactly what it will do. From my portfolio in education and employment, together with my noble friend in social security and others representing the Treasury, I look forward to debating those matters some time after 2nd July.
There are other references within the manifesto. We hear about an imaginative welfare to work programme to put the long-term unemployed back to work and to cut social security costs. However, again, there are no details whatever. We also hear about putting lone parents into work and how the minimum wage will

631
remove the worst excesses of low pay and be of particular benefit to women while cutting some of the massive £4 billion benefits bill by which taxpayers subsidise companies which pay very low wages. If the national minimum wage is set at a relatively high level it will cost jobs. That is a matter which the noble Baroness must address and which the party opposite must deal with.
As regards the imaginative welfare-to-work programme and exactly what is proposed, the noble Baroness will remember that on 19th May we had an exchange on those matters. The point that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish wished to have addressed was the extent to which the stick or the carrot would be adopted in terms of the welfare-to-work programme. I believe that my noble kinsman is very "unkeen" on the stick and would like to see much more carrot. During the weekend we heard that major announcements would be made about the degree of compulsion that would be introduced into a welfare-to-work programme. In the Prime Minister's announcement on Monday, we heard nothing new whatever. The Daily Telegraph stated that it was all "motherhood and apple pie".
According to those interviewed by the Daily Telegraph and others, it is pretty clear that simple encouragement and tinkering with the taper will have little effect. Therefore, can the noble Baroness expand a little on what is proposed and say to what extent there will be either a stick or a carrot, or both? In reply to my noble friend Lord Mackay on 19th May, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said:
"it is desirable to ensure that all young people who are currently unemployed, particularly those who have been unemployed for a long period of time, should be not just encouraged but given a little carrot and perhaps a tiny stick to make sure that they benefit from what is being provided".—[Official Report, 19/5/97; col. 144.]
It would be beholden on the noble Baroness to tell us just how much there will be a stick and to what extent there will be a carrot.
We accept the basic premise put forward by the party opposite on a number of occasions, as we did when we were in government, that getting people into work and off benefit will in the long term do much to reduce the welfare bill. That is why we are very proud of our record on unemployment during the past few years. We saw a steady fall in unemployment against all the trends in Europe and similar countries. We saw falls over three years, starting earlier in the economic cycle than previously and coming down much faster. I believe that all of that is now at risk. We have the Government's commitment to sign up to the social chapter, which in some way will not be binding—they will pick and choose just which bits they want, but I am not sure how that will be managed. We also have their commitment to a minimum wage, which everyone accepts will cost some jobs although there are arguments about how many. Even the new chairman of the Low Pay Commission, Professor George Bain, admits that he will be surprised if there are not some job losses. Can the noble Baroness tell us just what is proposed? If there is no compulsion, how will single parents be encouraged
632
back to work? Yesterday, some people on the Ellesmere Estate were saying that they would go back to work only for a figure in the region of £500 a week.
I wish to ask about reducing the so-called poverty trap, which in effect means lengthening the taper to income-related benefits. I believe that the noble Baroness must accept that that would necessarily increase the number of those in receipt of income-related benefits receiving relatively small amounts. It would, therefore, dramatically increase the administration costs of all income-related benefits. As the noble Baroness will be well aware, the administration costs of income-related benefits are much higher than all others. In addition, it would do much to increase the overall budget. If not that, how will encouragement work? What kind of compulsion will there be? Will there be a much greater degree of compulsion?
I believe that all of that is far too vague. There is no sign that any of it means anything or would yield anything. I very much hope that the noble Baroness can offer some degree of light when she comes to answer.
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic today, and to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his kind remarks. I am intrigued that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, found himself with an alternative obligation but I understand why he might find that more attractive.
Lord Henley: He will be back.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure he will be and we shall welcome him when he returns. In the light of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, the debate is especially timely. We all recognise that it is impossible to live a financially comfortable life on benefit. But as an example, to raise all income-related benefits by £5 per head would cost a staggering £1.9 billion, nearly £2 billion.
Therefore, we have two priorities: to ensure that those who are trapped in poverty on benefit yet who can—and almost always want to—work should be helped into work; while at the same time we discharge our responsibilities to support those who are unable to work due to age, disability or caring responsibilities in as decent and dignified manner as possible. In other words, 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. That means addressing both the unemployment trap and the poverty trap. In this House of experts, noble Lords will know what that means.
Noble Lords will know also that there are no easy solutions to those interdependent problems. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the question of tapers. As the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will know, a measure which improves the return from moving into

633
work will generally also increase the severity of marginal tax rates for those in work. When we provide financial support to boost family income in work, we have to consider the effect on incentives as that help is withdrawn. A sharp withdrawal of in-work benefits leaves little incentive to extend hours or earnings. Yet gradual withdrawal—a slower taper, on which I was pressed by the noble Earl—draws more people into means-testing and increases cost.
There are problems both with a long gradual taper off benefit and with its opposite—a short, sharp taper. These are difficulties accentuated because means testing has grown as a percentage of our benefit expenditure, to my regret, from 17 per cent. in 1978–79 to 36 per cent. in 1995–96, and also because our benefit system is household based. We have constructed the perverse effect that to maximise his incentive to work (by withdrawing pound for pound) we may, as the noble Earl recognised, pull any partner of his in part-time work out of work altogether. Similarly, we urge people to save and then taper their benefit down very sharply for any modest savings they may have.
While reviewing those problems, as we shall do, we must not neglect our duty to protect those who are unable to find work. This Government are committed to maximising opportunities for people to play a full part in our society—and that includes ensuring that work pays enough to be worth while. That is why we have appointed Martin Taylor, the chief executive of Barclays plc, to lead a task force undertaking a thorough review of the tax and benefit systems so they can be modernised and streamlined to deliver the Government's aims of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency and strengthening the community and family life.
Once we have completed this review, we shall have practical and well considered proposals to further our key welfare-to-work objectives by addressing the barriers that keep people out of work and trapped on benefits. In addition, the Government have announced that Professor George Bain will head the low-pay commission to advise the Government on their minimum wage, not much mentioned this evening. The minimum wage will help to ensure, as we urged repeatedly when we were on the Opposition Benches, that in-work benefit moneys do not go to subsidise the exploitative employer but to help those who have particular difficulties in the labour market, perhaps because of the size of their family.
The debate today has been widespread and knowledgeable. It is a timely debate and one to which I have listened with great interest. But it is clear that it is not simply financial matters which people consider when seeking to return to work. We intend not only to review the benefit system to improve incentives to return to work but, as I have been invited to comment this evening, we intend to introduce a whole range of other measures which will help to get people off benefit and into work.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, both referred to the New Deal. Our first priority is to get 250,000 young people under 25 off
634
benefit and into work or quality training. For too long young people were written off by the previous Government. The Government's New Deal will present real opportunities to each and every young person on jobseeker's allowance to better themselves and to prepare themselves for work.
There will be four routes available to them: a chance of employment, for which we will reimburse the employer £60 per week for six months; an opportunity to work with the voluntary sector; a chance of gaining valuable work experience through the environmental task force; or the opportunity for young people without basic qualifications to improve their skills through full-time study or training, an option never before available to them.
Placements on the employer option and those with the voluntary sector and the environmental task force will offer quality accredited training as well as work experience. That is vastly superior to anything offered by the previous Government, who were only interested in make-work schemes which offered little or no real help to the long-term unemployed. By contrast, the New Deal will allow young people to increase their knowledge and gain in confidence from their experiences on the various options. By improving their skills and standards they will increase their overall employability and they will make themselves more acceptable to prospective employers. We are offering them opportunities—opportunities to move into employment; opportunities to train and opportunities to do genuinely meaningful work in the community and for the environment.
All of these placements will offer quality training or work experience, allowing young people to increase their knowledge and gain in confidence. When we interview young people during the gateway to the New Deal, we shall pay specific attention to those who are particularly disadvantaged in the labour market. Obviously fit, able, confident, qualified young people will usually find their way into work. Others who are less confident, less fit and less qualified often become beached in our society. When helping young people to choose the most appropriate New Deal option, we shall look carefully at special needs; for example, those people for whom English is not their first language or young people with a degree of disability.
However, I must offer a note of warning, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pressed me on this matter. These are real opportunities for young people and we expect them to avail themselves of those opportunities for improvement. As the Prime Minister said, there will be no fifth option of a life on full benefit if they turn down those options. If reasonable offers are refused, sanctions will inevitably come into play. The majority of people want to work and will wish to take up one of the four options available. But those who do not will not be able to live off benefit. JSA sanctions will apply for fixed periods of two or four weeks.
For the long-term unemployed who are over 25 we are also offering subsidies of £75 per week to employers willing to provide jobs. That will be in addition to the

635
numerous programmes which the Employment Service already runs to assist the long-term unemployed in their search for work.
All noble Lords who have spoken have emphasised that it is not just those who are claiming jobseeker's allowance who may want to work. It is our intention to ensure that the wider unemployed, such as lone mothers who are looking for work, are not forgotten or pushed to the bottom of the pile. Lone parents face significant challenges in taking sole responsibility for the upbringing of their children and in pursuing the best possible standard of living for themselves and their families. I agree entirely with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Turner to that effect. Most of them do an heroic job.
While the majority of lone parents want to work when their youngest child goes to school, they face extra barriers on moving into work. They have to balance the often competing and conflicting needs of work and family responsibilities against the present scarcity of affordable childcare. Moreover, they lack the support of a partner and of a partner's in-laws. In addition, they often have a low skills base and low self-esteem, combined with limited employment experience. All that can mean that lone parents remain unconvinced that they really can be better off in work.
We believe that lone parents do not feel that a life on benefit can satisfy their aspirations to provide the best possible life for their children; nor that the example of the parent living on benefit for a very long time can be a healthy one for their children. My right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Frank Field, sometimes quotes the example of a child in his constituency who, when asked what he wanted to do when he grew up, replied that he wanted to collect his Giro.
We believe that lone parents want to achieve independence and regain personal control over their own lives. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I should point out that the offer of work for them is not a problem but an opportunity which they are pressing us to deliver. They know, as we do, that the average difference for a lone parent not in work and one in work is £50 per week. That money can transform the living standards, opportunities and aspirations, and, indeed, the quality of life, for them and their children.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I too have studied the research of Jonathan Bradshaw. It is entirely right that he should draw to our attention tonight the fact that lone parents in this country face hurdles as regards getting back to work which are higher than those which exist almost anywhere else in Europe. It is our job in the first place to dismantle those hurdles so far as we can and, if not, we must help them to overcome them. To do so, the Government are committed to introducing help and advice from a proactive Employment Service. Once the youngest child is in the second term of full-time school, lone parents will be assisted by developing a package of job search, training and after-school care for their children to help them off benefit. Moreover, we will introduce something that we have never had—a national childcare strategy which will plan provision to match the requirements of the
636
modern labour market and help parents, especially lone mothers, to balance family and working life. That will entail after-school care and early years development plans. A key feature will be a substantial expansion in out-of-school childcare, at least £150 million of which will be funded by the National Lottery.
There is one other group that has not been mentioned in tonight's debate but it is one that I know is of considerable concern to your Lordships. They may linger for many years on benefit yet would like to work. I am referring to disabled people. They currently find themselves in two situations. They are either receiving long-term sickness benefits with little encouragement to get back into appropriate work which they may feel they can do or they are registering for work but have some partial incapacity which makes finding work very difficult. That is especially true for what we call the "twilight decade". I have in mind those middle-aged men who may have spent years in quite heavy manual work who may have a partial disability—for example, back trouble or angina—but who, given their health record, together with their age and lack of skills, are unlikely to be offered a full-time job and, if they were, would be unlikely to be able to hold it down. But it does not have to be all or nothing. We shall be looking carefully at the problems faced by these groups and seeking to ensure that the benefit system provides more help for the special needs of those disabled people who are able and who wish to get back into work, whether full-time or part-time.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the Citizens' Commission. Like him, I have had the privilege of reading that report in advance of its publication and I found it illuminating. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that it shows very clearly how attached people are to the labour market: they want to be financially self-supporting and do not want to linger in dependency—indeed, the subject of tonight's debate. Too often—and I am sure that the report is right—the welfare system has supported people outside the labour market rather than helping them to participate in it. Our strategy will be designed precisely in that direction so as to help people get back into the labour market.
The noble Earl raised many matters. If I have not answered all of them this evening, I hope that he will allow me to deal with them by letter. In particular, he mentioned the possibility of merging income support with family credit and suggested that we should ease the process. That is certainly a question which Martin Taylor will be reviewing and considering. Obviously we have a very real interest in the matter. However, as the noble Earl will know, there is a problem, given the fact that, unlike income support, family credit for the most part—that is, with the exception of things like earnings top-up—is a family/child-related benefit and, therefore, is not something for which single people are eligible except in pilot schemes. Indeed, there could be a problem, although I am not saying that there would be, of a possible incentive to reduce hours. Nonetheless, that is something that we are actively looking at because, if we could smooth the transition between the two, it would surely be right to do so.

637
The noble Earl also asked whether we would consider using the social fund for deposits. That is an attractive idea. However, in the past there seems to have been considerable abuse of the system in that in the previous system, costs jumped from £18,000 a year in 1981 to over £10 million before it was finally abolished. In the light of that experience, we believe that the rent guarantee schemes of voluntary and local authorities continue to prove to be a better and more reliable way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to the problem of seeking to cap social security expenditure as his Government failed to do. The noble Lord is right: his Government did fail to cap social security expenditure. The reason for that was that social security expenditure grew to subsidise the benefits of the previous Government's economic failure. Those benefits of failure from jobseeker's allowance to income support, to extra money on housing benefit and council tax benefit going to the unemployed amounted to £10 billion in real terms in 1979 but over £30 billion in today's money—a leap of £20 billion in real terms. The response to that is to tackle those failings. We firmly believe that the best way of ensuring a cap on social security expenditure—and, indeed, I hope a reduction in social security expenditure—will be achieved because we are working with the grain of what people want; namely, to come off social security benefits and be able to move into work.
638
In conclusion, I have outlined a large programme of measures which we believe will improve financial incentives, help people to increase their employability and make them attractive to prospective employers. People who need financial support while they are looking for work will of course continue to receive it, but we will also be providing a wide range of services which will give them both the skills and the confidence which will in turn help them to return to work.
It bears repetition: this Government believe that, for those able to work, work is the best form of welfare. It is also—and the report of the Citizens' Commission shows this to be the case—what they want to do. As one claimant said, "They"—presumably the previous Government—"have taken away everything that would help you get back into work". While another said, "The worst thing is that they have made people feel that they are not part of society". Then, from a person who was one of the long-term unemployed under the previous Government, "People who have been unemployed for years have all their initiative, self-will and self-worth taken away. Then they expect us to get a job".
We believe and hope that we understand the difficulties that people may face when making the transition back into work. We are committed to providing the active support that they need to achieve that aim. We will enable them to do what they most want to do; namely, escape the path of poverty and get back into work.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Asil Nadir: Allegations
  Mr. Asil Nadir: Allegations
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  National Focus: Reporting Arrangements
  National Focus: Reporting Arrangements
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology: Report
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology: Report
  CJD: UK
  CJD: UK
  CJD: EU
  CJD: EU
  Liverpool: Corporation Documents
  Liverpool: Corporation Documents
  Mersey Docks: Dispute
  Mersey Docks: Dispute
  New Export Initiative
  New Export Initiative
  Estate Agents: Regulation
  Estate Agents: Regulation
  Gibraltar Dockyard
  Gibraltar Dockyard
  Commonwealth Trade: Meetings
  Commonwealth Trade: Meetings
  London Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Parking Fines
  London Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Parking Fines
  Consular Fees
  Consular Fees
  Former Yugoslavia: Criminal Tribunal
  Former Yugoslavia: Criminal Tribunal
  World Wide Web: British Embassy Sites
  World Wide Web: British Embassy Sites
  NATO: Enlargement
  NATO: Enlargement
  Human Rights: Mr. Nigel Rodley's Report
  Human Rights: Mr. Nigel Rodley's Report
  Service Dental and Medical Officers: Pay
  Service Dental and Medical Officers: Pay
  Education: 17 and 18 year-olds
  Education: 17 and 18 year-olds
  Education: 11 year olds
  Education: 11 year olds
  Vocational Qualifications: Skills Audit
  Vocational Qualifications: Skills Audit
  Schools: Standards
  Schools: Standards
  Education: Results Data
  Education: Results Data
  Comprehensive Schools: Data
  Comprehensive Schools: Data
  Education: Performance Targets
  Education: Performance Targets
  Forestry: Ministerial Responsibility
  Forestry: Ministerial Responsibility
  Wildlife Monitoring: Scotland
  Wildlife Monitoring: Scotland
  Historic Scotland: Performance Targets
  Historic Scotland: Performance Targets
  Sterling Area
  Sterling Area
  Eurostat Report on Poverty in Britain
  Eurostat Report on Poverty in Britain
  Unemployment Rates
  Unemployment Rates
  Volunteers Week
  Volunteers Week
  Surrender of Prohibited Weapons: Record of Payments
  Surrender of Prohibited Weapons: Record of Payments
  Scarman Trust: Inquiry Details
  Scarman Trust: Inquiry Details
  Electoral Registration: Procedure
  Electoral Registration: Procedure
  Mr. and Mrs. R. O. Hill
  Mr. and Mrs. R. O. Hill
  Secure Training Centres: Plans
  Secure Training Centres: Plans
  European Parliament: Voting System
  European Parliament: Voting System
  UK: Radioactive Waste Levels
  UK: Radioactive Waste Levels
  Wild Boar: Indiscriminate Release
  Wild Boar: Indiscriminate Release
  Parliament Square: Works
  Parliament Square: Works
  Freshwater Fish and Shellfish Water Quality: Regulations
  Freshwater Fish and Shellfish Water Quality: Regulations
  Army Personnel: Deployment
  Army Personnel: Deployment
  MoD Performance Report
  MoD Performance Report
  Quarantine Kennels: Inspection Legislation
  Quarantine Kennels: Inspection Legislation
  BSE: Statistics
  BSE: Statistics
  Agriculture Council, Brussels, 20 May
  Agriculture Council, Brussels, 20 May
  CAP: Payments
  CAP: Payments
  Quota Hopping
  Quota Hopping
  Hemp
  Hemp
  Prisoners: Housing Benefit
  Prisoners: Housing Benefit
  Freedom of Information: Legislation
  Freedom of Information: Legislation
  Broadcasting of Religious Advertising: Prohibition
  Broadcasting of Religious Advertising: Prohibition
  Millennium Exhibition: Sponsors
  Millennium Exhibition: Sponsors
  Royal Opera House: Funding
  Royal Opera House: Funding
  Tate Gallery of Modern Art
  Tate Gallery of Modern Art