Sitting of 4 June 1997

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

  DTI Inquiries
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Charles Wardle:I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' inquiries. I have applied for this debate every week since the new year because I think that it is high time that something was done to ensure that DTI inquiries are conducted in a way that allows those being investigated the same protection they would be given in a court of law. That is not the situation now.
  Inspectors appointed under the Companies Act 1985 can ignore the presumption of innocence. They are able to pursue their inquiries by means that are manifestly unfair, as successive Law Lords, learned review bodies and distinguished commentators have repeatedly warned. Changes are long overdue. I hope that the House will today press the Minister, whom I congratulate on his arrival at the Dispatch Box, to revise DTI inquiry procedures so that the potential for abuse and unfairness is eliminated. Too often in the past, Parliament has been left uninformed about the progress of such inquiries and, too often, the progress has been wayward.
  Nobody would dispute the importance of tackling and prosecuting commercial fraud. Regrettably, business crime is a fact of life. In multinational operations with increasingly complex technology, the need for sophisticated monitoring and effective regulation has never been more important. Small investors and major institutional shareholders alike need safeguards against corrupt or careless practitioners. In a competitive world, confidence in the City of London depends on a reputation for straight dealing and vigilant control. It is equally necessary that every part of the regulatory framework, including the conduct of DTI inquiries, should be handled with complete integrity.
  I should make it clear that I am not deterred from delving into the performance of the past Administration. Nobody could be prouder than I am of the Conservative record over the past 18 years, but I am aware that mistakes occur in the best-run organisations and they must be sorted out if progress is to be made. If I were content with fudge and self-deception, I would not have made a stand over the threat to our border controls in the previous Parliament.
  For the avoidance of doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your arrival in the Chair and am delighted to see you there—I hope
  308
  that the House will accept that nothing in what I say today about former Ministers should be construed as an attack on any colleague. In the context of this debate, I am not in the slightest interested in the present ambitions of some colleagues. My concern, first and last, is with unsatisfactory procedures in DTI inquiries. I shall not flinch from telling the facts as I know them. My object is to put right what I consider to be some obvious wrongs.
  I wish to make my position clear because persistent press inquiries in the past few days about this debate have related to the Conservative leadership contest. I have repeated time and again to journalists that I was seeking the debate months before the leadership contest was even contemplated, but the speculation has intensified to the point where it is in danger of trivialising the serious issue of DTI inquiries I wish to raise.
  I have also told those journalists loud and clear that there is something far more controversial in what I shall have to say than mere gossip about colleagues' leadership chances. That is because having looked back at the vitriolic and unscrupulous warfare between Tiny Rowland and Mohamed Al Fayed, I have come to the fairly dramatic conclusion that the Al Fayeds were stitched up by a DTI inquiry.
  I am only too well aware that the Al Fayeds fight with no holds barred and resort to mud-slinging at the drop of a hat. For two years, they made in the press totally false allegations about me concerning a nationality application. I do not doubt that they have often embellished the truth and made an art form of exaggeration. I can understand the general distaste for their unprincipled and unsavoury use of brown envelopes and other inducements as bait for greedy and corrupt minor public figures and hangers-on.
  Yet injustice is injustice, no matter how controversial the characters on the receiving end may be. I like to think that the House would agree that an abuse of DTI inquiry procedures cannot be condoned simply because the subject of the inquiry has behaved reprehensibly in other ways.
  Two inquiries launched a decade ago—Guinness and House of Fraser—involved people who still seek redress for the damage inflicted on them by the inquiries. When the House of Fraser report was published in 1990, in positively bizarre circumstances, my first reaction, like that of former right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including Peter Shore, Sir David Steel, Sir Kenneth Warren and my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell), whom I see in his place, was to criticise the subjects of the inquiry and question the takeover.
  When further information came to my attention some time later, I was prompted to revisit the report and question my earlier assumptions. I felt that the Trade and Industry Select Committee's deliberations in 1990 had not reached the heart of the matter and, as I dug deeper into the events of 1985 to 1987, I changed my mind about the earlier presumption of guilt. I was struck by numerous inconsistencies in the report and the reasons for launching the inquiry in the first place—all of which, in my opinion, amounted to an abuse of proper procedures.
  I wish to declare relevant past employment and acquaintance with people to whom I shall refer in the debate. Concerning the Guinness inquiry, I met Lord Spens in 1969–28 years ago—when we both worked in the corporate finance department of Morgan Grenfell.

  309
  During the 1970s, when I ran a manufacturing group, Lord Spens advised me on a number of takeovers. He has recently briefed me on his claim against the Bank of England in the High Court.
  With regard to the House of Fraser inquiry, I worked from 1988 to 1992 as a consultant to KPMG, the accountants, one of whose corporate clients I had been for several years previously. KPMG accountants were auditors to both Lonrho and House of Fraser, as well as personal accountants to advisers to the Al Fayeds and the Sultan of Brunei. At no stage did KPMG divulge anything to me about Lonrho, House of Fraser or, for that matter, any other client.
  I have met Mohamed Al Fayed on one occasion, in the office of his solicitors last year, when I gave him the unedited version of a letter of mine that was published in The Daily Telegraph. He gave me a letter retracting a number of unfounded accusations that he had levelled against me in the press over the previous two years. There has been absolutely no input from Mohamed Al Fayed and his advisers in what I have to say and they have had no prior knowledge whatever of the content of this speech.
  I have been a Minister in the Home Office and the DTI. One sequence of events in the Home Office is relevant to the debate. In January 1994, while I was the Minister responsible for immigration and nationality, I was asked to find a way of reversing a decision by nationality division officials to reject the British citizenship application by Ali Fayed. I had already accepted the decision of officials. I explained that the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 require officials to carry out character checks on applicants. In doing so, they could not disregard highly adverse criticism in a report published by another Department.
  When I was instructed to pursue further references that might be favourable to Ali Fayed, I explained that, short of striking out the DTI report, it would still remain an insuperable obstacle for officials in the course of their statutory duties. Nevertheless, I conveyed the instructions to my private office and further inquiries were made. By the time they were completed, I had moved to another Department, but my successor, the late Sir Nicholas Baker, was left with no alternative but the one that I had originally accepted from officials.
  Subsequently, there was intensive briefing of the press about the incident, and I am indebted to officials from two Departments for keeping me informed about it. On one occasion, I had to summon the permanent secretary from the Home Office to correct factual inaccuracies in a press statement that was about to be released. There is nothing further that I wish to add about that chapter of events. Perhaps the intervention was due to an incomplete knowledge of British nationality legislation.
  I should like to make some general comments about the role of DTI inspectors—I hope that they will be of interest to the Minister—before I turn to two specific case study examples. In the debate on 16 February 1994 in another place, their lordships accepted that DTI guidelines for inspectors tried to strike a balance between public advantage and private rights, but expressed concern that,
  310
  in practice, the inquiries were inquisitorial. What Lord Denning had said 30 years ago in the Profumo inquiry, when he described his own role as
  "detective, inquisitor, advocate and judge … which must give rise to a serious risk of much unfairness"
  applies equally to DTI inquiries today.
  The Solomon commission stated in 1966 that the inquisitorial procedure is alien to the concept of justice in the United Kingdom, but that has not deterred successive DTI inspectors. In September 1974, Lord Fletcher said that inquiries are
  "not merely an unsatisfactory method of ascertaining truth … they can reflect adversely on the reputation of individuals and can be particularly damaging because they are promulgated by the government and assumed to the result of a judicial or semi-judicial investigation".
  In 1980, the law reform committee of the Senate of the Inns of Court of England and Wales said that inspectors were
  "unable to resist passing judgements which they are not really qualified to make".
  All too often, inspectors, whose duty is ostensibly to establish facts, attack individuals who have no means of answering back.
  The DTI's guidelines for inspectors quote Lord Justice Sachs, who said:
  "The inspectors' function is in essence to conduct an investigation designed to discover whether there are facts which may result in others taking action; it is not part of their function to take a decision as to whether action be taken and a fortiori it is not for them finally to determine such issues as may emerge if some action is taken eventually".
  That advice has been disregarded.
  In DTI inquiries, the British presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty goes out the window. Inquiries are conducted in secret, without defence counsel, without one witness knowing which other witnesses have been called, without hearing what one has said of another and without the right to cross-examine other witnesses or question their motives. There is, as Lord Lester said to general acclaim in another place in February 1994, no safeguard of open justice, no presumed procedures, no rules on inadmissible evidence. Powers are vested in the Secretary of State to decide whether to publish reports, no matter how damaging they may be to individuals, who have no right of appeal or access to the courts to change inspectors' opinions and recover their reputation. That is another feature of concern.
  To illustrate that, I turn first to the Guinness inquiry, which was launched on 1 December 1986 following a hostile takeover bid for Distillers by Guinness and by Argyll between January and April that year and which gave rise to numerous media stories and allegations about concert parties, warehousing and other share dealings that contravened the City takeover code and the Companies Act. Inspectors were asked
  "to investigate and report on the membership of the company and otherwise with respect to the company for the purpose of determining the true persons who are or have been beneficially interested in the success or failure of the company."
  The inspectors' final report has never been published, but in 1989, an unpublished interim report was extensively circulated to defendants in the Guinness trials and, more importantly, to the regulatory bodies. The inspectors' inquiries led to a number of prosecutions and two trials.

  311
  In 1990, Guinness trial one resulted in four convictions. The trial has since been declared to be unfair in the European Court of Human Rights as a result of the use of DTI interviews in the trial.
  Guinness trial two collapsed, ostensibly because of the breakdown of one defendant's health, but more probably because another defendant, Lord Spens, was about to show the court that the inspectors had quickly departed from the terms of the inquiry and had concentrated instead on a highly selective assault on a limited number of City individuals named in the media. In doing so, the inspectors completely ignored a large number of highly suspect share sales by supporters of the Argyll bid.
  Lord Spens was about to claim, with supporting evidence, that the inspectors' early departure from a comprehensive inquiry into all the share dealings to a highly selective examination of certain individuals had been prompted by ministerial interference. The inspectors had been told to pursue selected City individuals rather than investigate all the share transactions, as their terms of reference implied. It was a political decision to go for named individuals from the outset, but no Minister was ever accountable to the House for that decision.
  The police were quite deliberately kept out of the investigation for at least four months in order to allow inspectors to take evidence from witnesses for later use in a criminal trial without the constraints of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 coming into play on the witnesses' behalf. Parliament was not told of those tactics either, but, in the preliminary hearing ahead of Guinness trial one, prosecuting counsel admitted as much when he said:
  "It will come as no surprise … when I say that if Mr. Parnes' transcripts of evidence were not admissible, the prosecution would have to think seriously whether to proceed against him at all".
  Lord Denning's good advice 30 years earlier had been totally ignored and nobody told Parliament.
  It is on Guinness two and Lord Spens that I shall concentrate here. In his response to the inspectors' interim report, Lord Spens showed that the inspectors failed to carry out anything like a full analysis of the 5,719 transactions in Guinness shares between the opening and closing of bids from January to April 1986. Discovered evidence from the police revealed that only those transactions relating to a few named and well-known City individuals, discussed and identified by Ministers, officials and the Director of Public Prosecutions early in the inspectors' inquiries, were analysed and considered.
  Minutes of a meeting between John Wood and Rosalind Wright, of the Crown Prosecution Service, and solicitors acting for Morgan Grenfell reveal that Mr. Wood said:
  "If other MG involvements in other share ramping came to light the DPP would be criticised for not having prosecuted Morgan Grenfell and someone else might take out a private summons. But we want to target the principal offenders. We don't want rows and rows of defendants. We are looking at major offenders as understood by the media."
  So much for the official public version that the inspectors would examine the whole Guinness episode as their terms of reference implied. The hidden agenda was to nail the major offenders as understood by the media. An inquisition, prefaced by ministerial claims to the press ahead of the general election that handcuffs must be put on Guinness offenders, had picked out its prey. The inquiry was a sham of ill-informed questions about little-understood market dealings put to only some of the participants about only some of the share transactions.
  312
  On 8 January 1987, the Bank of England's Board of Banking Supervision, which included among its members the Governor and the Deputy Governor, concluded that "at this stage" it was not appropriate for Lord Spens to be dismissed from his job. Within less than three weeks, however, the Governor and the Deputy Governor swung to the opposite point of view. Suddenly, they felt it was not merely appropriate but urgently necessary to dismiss Lord Spens. Why? Not, as his trial subsequently showed, because the inspectors had uncovered fresh evidence against him, but because the DTI let the Bank of England know that there was a political imperative that City heads should roll—and soon—at the merchant banks identified by the media as embroiled in the Guinness affair.
  There are records of a meeting in the second week of January 1987 between the inspectors and the DTI to discuss a letter from Gerald Ronson offering to repay some fees. At that meeting, other matters were discussed. At the beginning of the following week, a note from a senior DTI official was dispatched to the Governor of the Bank of England complaining about the Bank's failure to force the dismissal of any merchant bank directors. The next day, two of the most senior directors of Morgan Grenfell were dismissed on Bank of England instructions and, two days later, Lord Spens was sacked from his job at Ansbacher. Barely a few weeks into the inquiry and long before the inspectors had been able to conduct a full inquiry designed to discover all the facts as DTI guidelines required, it seems that the inspectors and the DTI were pressing on the Bank of England the need to collect some well-known scalps.
  The political pressure for scalps did not come just from the DTI. The Chancellor said publicly that the Government wanted decisive action over the Guinness affair. On 20 January, he told the House that the two resignations at Morgan Grenfell were consistent with the Government's call for positive steps. Between 21 and 24 January, the press reported that the Government were exerting pressure to obtain resignations. Thereafter, the inspectors occupied much of their time not fulfilling the terms of their inquiry, but seeking to justify the scalps for which Ministers had pressed. In Guinness two, it all came unstuck in court.
  No attempt was made by the inspectors to look through the rest of the transactions. During the DTI investigation, it came to the notice of the inspectors, as a result of powerful evidence supplied by the chief executive of Montagu Investment Management—an associate of Argyll and a major fund investment company—that it had sold 4.5 million Guinness shares short in the market in the last 10 days of the bid, driving down the Guinness share price. That was more than double the size of the Ansbacher purchase for which Lord Spens was arrested, charged, prosecuted and then acquitted, but the Montagu Investment Management short sale was dismissed by the inspectors in an eight-line footnote to their interim report, completely ignoring the fact that they had been made aware of allegations of an unlawful indemnity on that short sale. Montagu Investment Management even shared a computer with Samuel Montagu and must, by any definition that the City has ever entertained, have been acting in concert.
  Why was that short sale ignored? Lord Spens argues that it was because Montagu Investment Management was not on the hit list, whereas he was. The inspectors spoke to no other employee of Ansbacher besides Lord Spens,

  313
  not even the securities clerk whom the inspectors had been told had been responsible for faxing a crucial letter from Lord Spens at a time when he was out of the bank.
  In summary, the inspectors failed to analyse all the Guinness share transactions; failed to include any mention of the Montagu Investment Management indemnity allegations in their interim report; failed to interview anyone else from Ansbacher, any market marker or jobber in the City or any representative of the City Takeover Panel; failed to analyse the problems caused by the stock exchange's own definition of a false market compiled by a jobber practising in the marketplace at the time of the bid; failed to take account of differing views on the disclosure provisions of the City takeover code; and failed to appreciate that core underwriters to the offer, such as Scottish Widows, were also in receipt of success fees and, by the inspectors' own definition, should have disclosed share sales. They also failed to involve the police and thus allow witnesses the protection of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at a sufficiently early stage in their inquiries.
  If, as Lord Spens claims, the interim report was discussed extensively with Ministers, officials and the DPP, its shortcomings are all the more disturbing. The suspicion must remain that Lord Spens, a highly successful if, at times, unorthodox and aggressive City player, was to be made an example of during the run-up to a general election, but the case against him collapsed and he was acquitted.
  The loose ends of the Guinness inquiry should now be subjected to a rigorous examination by the Minister and a report should be made to Parliament. The Bank of England, or perhaps the regulatory arm that is to be hived off to the Securities and Investments Board, should now offer to settle Lord Spens's court action for wrongful dismissal from Ansbacher and his exclusion for more than a decade from his rightful employment as a merchant banker.
  I now turn to the House of Fraser inquiry which was astonishing for the manner in which it was commissioned in 1987; for the line of inquiry that the inspectors subsequently chose to pursue, which bore little relationship to the basis on which the bid had originally been cleared by the Secretary of State in 1985; and, not least, for the way in which the inspectors' report came to be published. New light has been thrown on the events leading to the appointment of the inspectors and the conduct of the inquiry by the publication of a biography of Tiny Rowland by Tom Bower, the investigative journalist. Bower contends that Rowland
  "embarked upon a hunt which was frenetic, erratic, costly and occasionally illegal … to prove a conspiracy".
  The conspiracy was that Mohamed Al Fayed, lying about his past, had used the Sultan of Brunei's fortune to buy the House of Fraser, with the collusion of senior Government Ministers. Bower also contends that Rowland's efforts led directly to the appointment of inspectors and provided much of the evidence, directly or indirectly, that they subsequently considered.
  On 11 March 1985, Mohamed Al Fayed and his two brothers had acquired a controlling interest in House of Fraser in the stock market and prepared to bid for the balance of the shares. On the same day, Mohamed Al
  314
  Fayed had been interviewed at the Office of Fair Trading, and Sir Gordon Borrie had advised the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there were no grounds for a referral of the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  Sir Gordon's deputy at the OFT had listened to the Al Fayeds and their City advisers telling of their wealth and background, but Sir Gordon had advised the Secretary of State that their background was irrelevant. He said:
  "It's a cash bid and as long as the shareholders receive their money the OFT has no further interest".
  Nevertheless, the Secretary of State wished to speak to the Al Fayeds himself and he received similar assurances of substantial wealth at a meeting on 12 March, which he sought to verify by telephoning the chairman of Kleinwort Benson. Later, the Secretary of State was to respond exactly as the Director General of Fair Trading had done:
  "I didn't care who owned Harrods or House of Fraser. I was only interested in takeovers on competition grounds and there was no competition element involved".
  He also said:
  "What does it matter who brings in the money providing it's brought in?"
  The Al Fayeds were already known to the Government because they had made helpful representations that persuaded the Sultan of Brunei to retain large currency deposits in sterling that helped the strength of the pound. In January 1985, Mohamed Al Fayed had visited 10 Downing street with the Sultan and, just after he acquired control of House of Fraser, he lunched at No. 10 with the President of Egypt.
  The fact that, between March 1985 and the appointment of DTI inspectors in April 1987, the Al Fayeds' relationship with the Government slid from that of favoured investors to wanted suspects was due to just one man and his company—Tiny Rowland and Lonrho. It was Rowland who aspired to own House of Fraser and its star subsidiary, Harrods. It was Rowland who had warehoused his House of Fraser shares with the Al Fayeds, confident that they did not have the money to make a full bid. It was Rowland who was wrong-footed when the Al Fayeds did precisely what he never imagined was possible. It was Rowland, tainted permanently himself by an adverse DTI inspectors' report in the 1970s, who now sought to wreak the same vengeance on the Al Fayeds. Rumours in the media prompted by Rowland and his associates that the Al Fayeds were using the Sultan's money to buy assets in the UK have never been substantiated. Having falsely claimed that he had been prevented from making a counter-bid until it was too late—in fact, Lonrho had been cleared to bid the previous Friday—Rowland and various of his associates kept up a relentless barrage, to which the Al Fayeds replied in kind. The general view of the public—a view to which subscribe—was that Rowland and the Al Fayeds deserved each other.
  I shall not detain the House with a blow-by-blow account of the unprincipled and vicious propaganda war that followed. Three examples will do. A story linking Mark Thatcher, Al Fayed and the Sultan of Brunei was exposed as baseless. A self-styled holy man, the Swami, was paid $5 million by Rowland to give the appearance of authenticating accusations against the Fayeds that also proved false. An allegation of anti-semitism against the Fayeds came to nothing when it became clear that it had been planted in an American newspaper by an associate of Rowland's, without a shred of evidence in support.

  315
  That allegation was repeated to a Department of Trade and Industry Minister in a telephone call from the Minister's cousin, Harry Landy—a man who had embezzled millions from the Israel British bank, and had then been employed by Rowland. The Minister has said that he dismissed his cousin's remarks as irrelevant. That is entirely understandable. It is not clear whether officials considered the telephone call a declarable conflict of interest.
  What is clear is that nobody, other than the Rowland faction, objected to the bid. There was no obvious reason for doing so. A cash bid had been cleared by the Secretary of State on advice from Sir Gordon Borrie that the sole basis for refusal would have been on competition grounds, and no such grounds existed. The cash to pay the selling shareholders materialised and more cash followed to fund the acquired company's requirements.
  Neither that Secretary of State nor his two successors in the job found reason to launch an inquiry. But Tom Bower argues in his book that, as a general election grew closer and Rowland's noisy vendetta against the Government intensified, the next Secretary of State gave way to Lonrho pressure.
  In April 1987, inspectors were appointed to
  "inquire into the circumstances of the Fayeds' purchase of shares in House of Fraser in 1984 and 1985".
  No matter that the Al Fayeds had answered questions at the Office of Fair Trading on the very day in 1985 that they had acquired a controlling interest in the shares; no matter that the then Secretary of State had given the bid an unqualified clearance; no matter that nobody other than the discredited Rowland had objected. The Secretary of State now put the full force of the Government's authority behind an inquiry that quickly degenerated into a farcical and damaging witch hunt.
  There is speculation in chapter 12 of Tom Bower's book that the DTI succumbed to an inquiry only after Rowland had taken up Ernest Saunders, the sacked head of Guinness, in April 1987. Bower claims that Rowland then renewed pressure on the Secretary of State, who was a member of the Guinness family.
  Other sources suggest that the contingency of appointing inspectors in order to prevent Rowland from becoming a loose cannon in the run-up to the general election had been mooted earlier that year, and was nothing to do with Bower's theories. The whole truth may never be revealed, but the inspectors seem to have been appointed out of sheer expediency.
  I have never believed the defamatory stories that surfaced in the press about a Minister and a million pounds in a suitcase. There is no proof of any such wrongdoing, as Sir Gordon Downey confirmed in the fourth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges for 1996–97.
  A more plausible explanation is that Ministers and officials, confronted with Rowland's persistent pressure, were anxious to find a legitimate way of sidelining him. The appointment of inspectors was seen by those on the inside as satisfying ministerial ambitions to keep Rowland quiet for a while, at the same time as protecting civil servants from Rowland's threat of an awkward judicial review.
  Two things were patently wrong with that proposition. First, Rowland's application for leave to apply for judicial review had already been dismissed three weeks before the
  316
  inspectors were appointed. Secondly, a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as Rowland wanted, on the ground that Kleinwort Benson had changed its mind about the Fayeds' financial and business pedigree, was entirely spurious.
  When the bid was cleared in 1985, the then Secretary of State, advised by the Director General of Fair Trading, had acted on competition grounds. The Al Fayeds' financial status mattered only to the extent that they could pay the vendor shareholders, and that they had done.
  In April 1987, Ministers and officials should have told Rowland unequivocally to get lost. The fact that they did not do so has fuelled accusations of political expediency that bring discredit on a distinguished Administration. The inquiry and report that followed were a downright abuse of the very kind that the DTI's own guidelines for inspectors warn should be avoided.
  Because I do not accept that the shift in Kleinwort Benson's assessment of the Fayeds was germane to the principles on which the bid was cleared in the first place, I am not convinced that paragraphs 30 to 37 and 224 to 225, and part of paragraph 259, on the appointment of inspectors, in Sir Gordon Downey's otherwise excellently thorough report, paint the whole picture
  Kleinwort Benson's belated diligence concerning the Al Fayeds' background—which, by the way, appeared only after it had charged its clients a £3 million advisory fee—was due, like so much else in this murky saga, to Rowland's unrelenting hostility towards anyone who had sided with the Fayeds. Kleinwort Benson's second thoughts did not constitute grounds for a reference to the MMC, as Sir Gordon Borrie made clear in 1987; nor were they sufficient to trigger a section 423 inspection.
  Sir Gordon Downey's report does not clarify the genesis of the memorandum dated 27 March 1987 from a named official, Mr. Allen, which discussed options for responding to the Lonrho pressure. In my experience, officials tend to put up submissions in response to ministerial requests. Which Ministers prompted Mr. Allen, and to which Minister did he report within the DTI organisation?
  In all other respects, I accept Sir Gordon's findings, especially the rest of his conclusions, and am grateful for the time that he spared me after the publication of his report to discuss the views that I am conveying to the House today.
  Once launched, the House of Fraser inquiry became a travesty. The inspectors openly admitted that Rowland's pressure led to their appointment: it was, as they put it,
  "a consequence of two years of unrelenting pressure by Lonrho".
  However, they promptly contradicted themselves by saying that
  "the direct part which Lonrho and Mr. Rowland played was a comparatively small one".
  Pull the other one. For the duration of the inquiry, the inspectors were led by the nose by Rowland and his stooges, and no one at the DTI shouted stop.
  Inexplicably, the inspectors chose not to interview Lord Tebbit, the Secretary of State who had cleared the bid in 1985. They said:
  "We have not taken evidence from the then Secretary of State or from his junior minister".
  But they blatantly disputed Lord Tebbit's reasons for clearance on competition grounds, wrongly asserting that

  317
  "representations made by the Fayeds … had led the then Secretary of State to allow them to acquire control unimpeded by any inquiry".
  Can we square that with the then Secretary of State's own words:
  "I didn't care who owned House of Fraser. I was only interested in takeovers on competition grounds"—
  or with those of Sir Gordon Borrie:
  "The Commission does not exist to punish people for lying. The shareholders got cash"?
  It was not the Fayeds' grossly exaggerated claims about their wealth and background that had won them the day in 1985 when the bid was cleared. It was the absence of any objection on competition grounds and the availability of some £615 million of their money.
  The inspectors, having set off like bloodhounds to find what clearly they, like Rowland, hoped would be incontrovertible proof that the takeover cash did not belong to the Fayeds, later had to admit grudgingly:
  "We are not providing any independent confirmation of the ownership of any shareholding and … we were unable to establish how and when the Fayeds came into possession of the very large funds with which they were to buy House of Fraser".
  So the inspectors never proved that the money did not belong to the Fayeds, but that did not deter them from taking a swipe in chapter 2 of their report:
  "The Fayeds dishonestly represented … their wealth … and their resources".
  Undismayed by those discrepancies, the inspectors ploughed on. They said that at the time of their appointment they had been told
  "that an area of particular concern was the validity of the assurances given by the Fayeds in 1985".
  That was clearly a departure from the published terms of reference of their inquiry, but the inspectors failed to disclose who gave them that additional steer. We do not know whether it was a Minister or an official, but it enabled the inspectors, as in the Guinness inquiry, to leap clear of their original terms of reference in one bound, without disclosing their intentions to Parliament.
  Having failed to throw further light on the provenance of the takeover cash, the inspectors said:
  "We were not concerned with simple questions relating to the direct control of the purchase money used to buy House of Fraser. We were concerned by the statements the Fayeds made … English law has always frowned on those who obtain valuable benefits from others by dishonest representations".
  That was not what the then Secretary of State or Sir Gordon Borrie had said at the time of the bid.
  The inspectors embraced with uncritical enthusiasm an offer of help from an Egyptian—the late President Nasser's son-in-law, Dr. Ashraf Marwan, who, at the age of 27, had been Nasser's public relations chief. They approved of him because he had
  "a clear understanding of civil administration in Egypt".
  The inspectors cast aside doubts arising from the fact that Dr. Marwan had a high regard for Rowland, had done business with him ever since 1971 in places such as Libya, and was in dispute with the Fayeds over an aircraft supplied to the Sultan of Brunei. They even disregarded the published report of an earlier DTI inspector, John Griffiths, dated March 1984, which plainly accused Marwan of lying. Mr. Griffiths said in 1984:
  318
  "Dr. Marwan's evidence did not carry to me the ring of truth. I certainly felt I cannot rely upon it as the whole truth … he was not frank … I found two matters in Dr. Marwan's evidence impossible to believe … Dr. Marwan had a closer liaison with Mr. Rowland than he sought to convey to me."
  Yet the inspectors conducting the inquiry in question blithely asserted:
  "Mr. Marwan played an important role in uncovering the Fayeds".
  It seems that much of Dr. Marwan's so-called evidence against the Al Fayeds came in fact from Adnan Kashoggi, the Al Fayeds' disaffected brother-in-law.
  What the inspectors undoubtedly did show was that the Al Fayeds had talked up their past business activities and their family background to the point of fantasy or, if one prefers it—and sometimes I do—deceit. But for all their unsavoury faults, they will not have been the first people in public life to have dressed up their origins. Hon. Members need look no further than Parliament itself for examples of politicians who employ a slightly cosmetic touch to their CV. There are many other examples of people in high places who feel sensitive about their beginnings.
  The Al Fayeds had at first been welcomed with open arms into the highest strata of British society, but had then been dumped unceremoniously purely because of pressure from Rowland. What should be remembered, however, is that they did come up with the cash for the takeover bid, and nobody—not even the inspectors—has proved that the money was not theirs to spend.
  If Lord Young, yet another Secretary of State at the DTI, had had his way, none of this confused and largely irrelevant report—wrongly conceived and clumsily produced—would have seen the light of day. But Rowland's men stole the report from the DTI, and Rowland published it. This meant, by a further irony, that the statutory requirements for character checks in the British Nationality Act 1981 would prevent civil servants from being able to process the Al Fayeds' citizenship applications without taking the report into account. Rowland's skulduggery, having already compromised the DTI in 1987, was therefore going to throw a road block in front of the nationality division of the Home Office when the Al Fayeds applied for British citizenship.
  There is only one solution. It is not the one recommended to me in 1994 at the Home Office—that officials might simply turn a blind eye to the report if more favourable references were to be found. Not only would that have been unlawful and have offended the high standards of civil servants at the nationality division of the Home Office, but it would have left the law open for all manner of future abuses of the British Nationality Act. It simply would not have done.
  The only way now is for the DTI to re-examine this flawed report, recognise that it was conceived from Rowland's malice out of short-term expedience and conclude that it ought to be struck off the record in the interests of natural justice and the DTI's good name.
  As to any future application by the Al Fayeds for British nationality, that is not my concern. I have no idea whether they would make such an application. I have no idea—the House may have its own view—whether their other actions, including offering inducements to individuals, would be regarded as sufficient objection by nationality officials. That is for the Home Office to decide if the case ever comes up.

  319
  Throughout this murky saga, a string of mistakes have been made and the best thing to do is to get to the bottom of it and sort out the mistakes. In the best-run organisations, such mistakes occur. It is better to deal with them, rather than allow a string of further abuses to continue and for the truth never to surface.
  10.12 am
  Mr. John Maxton: I have to tell the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) that I wish to make my remarks entirely about the Guinness affair in which, far from being over-zealous, DTI inspectors appear to have done very little. Certainly, little has been done after the initial burst of the interim report, to which he referred. By the way, the report is not readily available to Members of Parliament because it has never been published.
  In case anyone believes that my actions are politically motivated, I should point out that my interest in the affair come from a constituent and friend—although not necessarily a voter for me—Robert Jack. A distinguished Glasgow lawyer until his retirement, he was a professor of mercantile law at Glasgow university and was used by the DTI in the early 1980s on the advisory panel on company law. Between 1987 and 1989, he chaired the review committee on banking services law. He knows a great deal about the world of company law and is a director of the Bank of Scotland.
  Mr. Jack's persistence in asking me to raise this matter meant that I asked the previous Government a series of questions and wrote a series of letters to Ministers about why the DTI inspectors never published a report on the Guinness affair. It may be that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle thinks that Ernest Saunders and his friends and cronies were all very clean in terms of that affair, but most Scottish Members of Parliament at the time felt that the Guinness bid to take over United Distillers—which was not initially considered hostile by United Distillers; it was the Argyll bid that was considered hostile—bore the hallmarks of Thatcherism and the way in which the economy and industry were being run in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There was ruthlessness, and promises were made which were not kept. The bid was organised in such a way that shareholders were undermined and it was not to the benefit of the work force.
  In making the bid, Ernest Saunders made certain promises to the shareholders of United Distillers. He said that the existing chairman of United Distillers would remain. He did not. He promised in shareholder documents that Sir Thomas Risk would become chairman. He did not, and was elbowed aside by Saunders himself. Saunders said that the United Distillers board would remain the same. It did not, and six members had to resign. He said that Guinness would change its name and move its headquarters to Edinburgh. None of that happened.
  There were criminal cases and, eventually, Ernest Saunders—having found a cure for Alzheimer's disease that no one else in the world has managed to find—went to the European Court and received his judgment last December. But the real point that I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to answer—unlike previous Ministers—is why on earth, more than 10 years later, the inspectors have never published a report.
  320
  Lord Spens was the last to raise the matter, asking the previous Government
  "whether the inspectors, appointed in December 1986, to investigate the affairs of Guinness plc have completed their report and, if not, what are the reasons for the delay; and when do the inspectors expect to be in a position to complete their Report."
  The then Minister of State, Lord Fraser of Carmylie, replied:
  "The inspectors appointed to investigate and report on the affairs of Guinness plc have not yet completed their enquiries which were suspended during the Guinness criminal trials. Following the conclusion of the last of those trials the inspectors are working towards completion of their final report."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 1997; Vol. 577, c. 88–89.]
  The last criminal trial in this country on the matter has been completed for nearly six years. Why on earth have the inspectors still not published a report? In addition, the report should have been published following the European Court decision last December. More importantly, why were the inquiries suspended during the criminal trials? I can understand that it might not have been possible to publish a report while trials were taking place, but to suspend the inquiries is beyond belief.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether he has received a report on the matter? If so, will he publish it? The previous Government said that they had not received a report, but gave no promises that when they did, they would publish it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me whether he has received the report and will make it clear that he intends to publish it.
  I want to make a little point about the way in which Mr. Ernest Saunders operated at United Distillers. That company is the proud owner of the famous Landseer painting, "Monarch of the Glen", which stands in the stairwell of its headquarters in Edinburgh. When the incoming chairman, now Lord Macfarlane, took over at Guinness and United Distillers, he had some job persuading Sotheby's that the "Monarch of the Glen" was not for sale. That is how Mr. Ernest Saunders operated. I think that we are entitled to know exactly what happened in the bid.
  10.19 am
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The whole House must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). It will have been a difficult decision on his part to undertake the considerable work that he has obviously done in preparation for his speech today. I say that without making any presumption about the facts of the three matters that he has raised. But one of the two essential roles of the House—the first being our role as a legislature—is to act on behalf of the public as a watchdog over the whole apparatus of our administrative, including quasi-judicial, procedures to ensure that their integrity is safeguarded and that when questions need to be asked they are duly asked, and answers insisted upon, so that the public can have confidence in the openness and integrity of the procedures by which we are governed.
  Everyone who knows my hon. Friend will agree that he has acted in the highest traditions of the House in deciding to draw public attention to the three matters that he has laid before us. The first is whether there was improper pressure on him when he was taking a decision as a Minister in a nationality case. I have absolutely no knowledge of any matters relating to that issue, and no comments to make on it.

  321
  The second matter is whether the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' inquiry into the House of Fraser was properly conducted. Again, I must make it absolutely plain that I have no personal knowledge of that matter, but there is one comment that I would like to make. Merely as a matter of personal interest, I read the report of the inquiry, and it made quite exciting bedside reading—rather more exciting than one is accustomed to receiving from the Department of Trade and Industry, or indeed any other Department of State.
  I was struck at the time, as a former merchant banker and corporate financier, by the disproportionate attention paid to the issue of the Al Fayeds' personal wealth. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the issue of the personal wealth of a bidder in a cash bid is relevant only in so far as there may be doubts as to whether he has the means to purchase the shares for which he has tendered. There was never any question about the Al Fayeds duly paying on time and at the price offered.
  The other great issue on which the inspectors spent, as I thought, a disproportionate time, was the Al Fayeds' family background. I have not had occasion to look at the document since I read it many years ago, but that still sticks in my mind, as it seemed so surprising. The issue concerned whether the Al Fayeds were the sons of some poor teacher in Alexandria or came from a wealthy Egyptian family.
  Again, it seems astonishing that anyone should be concerned with the family background of a bidder in a public bid, except in so far as it related to the ability to pay for any shares for which he was tendering. We have all agreed that there was no link there. The extraordinary implication was that there was some shame attached to being the son of a poor teacher.
  I have no knowledge of the Al Fayeds; I have had no business dealings with them, have never met them, and know absolutely nothing about them except what has been published in the media over the years—and we all know that some of that has been extremely lurid.
  The other fact that struck me, as a corporate financier, was that the representations in the offer document—the prospectus issued on behalf of the Al Fayeds in connection with the bid—were regarded as a matter that was germane to their reliability. One can have some understanding of why that was the case, but it must be emphasised—as was not done in the report—that responsibility for the accuracy of statements made in an offer document lies with the person who signs it, and that is the bidder's merchant bank adviser.
  I have signed prospectuses and listing particulars myself and I am well aware of the substantial responsibility that one has in such circumstances for the accuracy of every statement made, which is why I would always conduct verification meetings, sometimes over several days, with all the various advisers and parties concerned. If someone made a statement in the draft that he had, say, the highest market share for widgets in California, I would ask how he knew that and how the statement could be verified, and I would not accept that it should be included in the offer document unless I was persuaded that it had been properly justified.
  Therefore, if there is criticism about statements that were untrue—whether about the essential issues in the financial decision that would have to be made by
  322
  shareholders or even about peripheral issues, such as the family background of the parties involved—it should be directed at the merchant bank concerned and in particular at the director who signed the relevant documents. As I recall the inspectors' report, responsibility was not laid where it should have been.
  The third matter is the Guinness bid for the Distillers company. I must say at once that I do have personal knowledge of the matter and of many, indeed all, of the principal players involved. At the relevant time, I was a director of Morgan Grenfell, the merchant banking adviser to the bidder, Guinness plc. Morgan Grenfell is now a subsidiary of the Deutsche bank, but was then an independent British bank.
  I had absolutely no personal involvement in the transaction, which was being handled by a colleague, but I remember that at our morning meetings throughout the spring of 1987 statements were made about how many Distillers shares we had purchased and what the Guinness share price was. Unlike the House of Fraser bid, this was an exchange offer rather than a cash bid, so the price of the bidder's shares was of the essence in determining whether it would succeed.
  The stock exchange was extremely buoyant at the time, but I remember thinking that we seemed to be extremely lucky in the support that we were receiving from around the world for our client's shares. Frankly, it never dawned on me or on any of my colleagues, who are people of the greatest professionalism and honesty, or indeed on anyone in the City, including the stock exchange and the regulators and others who monitor such matters, that that strong share price was not simply fortuitous or the result of objective assessments around the world of the potential attractions of Guinness, but was engineered by a co-ordinated share support operation.
  My main point of substance here is that it would probably never have dawned on anybody, other than those who were a party to the illegal share support operation, that anything untoward was going on, had it not been for the fact that in the United States the various regulatory authorities, the Justice Department, the Attorney-General's office in New York state and the Securities and Exchange Commission were conducting an investigation into insider dealing on Wall street, which resulted originally from the Levine affair.
  The United States authorities make much more imaginative and better use of plea bargaining than we ever have in Britain. Through the Levine affair, they succeeded in breaking into a much more important insider dealing ring run by Boesky; through plea bargaining with him, they succeeded in convicting the biggest insider dealer of all time, Milken. It was not until Boesky did his deal with the American regulatory and investigative authorities that anything came to light. As part of his plea bargain, he was committed to revealing all his insider deals. So far as I know, he did so, but who knows whether he finally made a comprehensive confession? One of the important deals in which he had been involved that he revealed was the Guinness insider dealing operation. It was at that point that our authorities were alerted and investigations began in Britain.
  I recall very well the first that I and my colleagues knew of the matter. At 9 am on 1 December 1986, DTI inspectors arrived at my firm, seized documents and began their investigations. A few weeks later, the director

  323
  responsible for the Guinness transaction, Mr. Seelig, was required to resign at an emergency board meeting held that day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said, it was not until a month or so later, at the end of January, that to our great amazement, the chairman of our holdings board, Lord Catto, was summoned to the Bank of England and told that the chairman of the bank, Christopher Reeves, and Mr. Graham Walsh, the head of the corporate finance department, must immediately leave the firm or we would be deprived of our accepting house status. That, of course, led to another emergency board meeting where the head of our treasury operations said that we should suffer distinctly in the markets if we lost accepting house status. There was no practical alternative to agreeing to the demands made of us by the Bank of England.
  Mr. Maxton: Given the hon. Gentleman's experience of the investment world and his story about how the Guinness affair came to light, will he comment on the difference between self-regulation in Britain and Government regulation in the United States?
  Mr. Davies: No, because while that is an important subject, it cannot be properly fitted into the speech that I intend to make this morning, which will be limited to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. I have dealt with the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised in many contexts, including that of the Treasury Committee.
  We were all surprised in January 1987 when the Bank of England suddenly demanded the resignation of Mr. Reeves and Mr. Walsh. My understanding from the report put to us by Lord Catto was that there had been much concern in Government circles. The implication was that Whitehall may have had a role in the decision. But the impression we were given was that the Bank of England had not resisted any pressure that might have come from this end of town. In any case, we decided that we had no alternative but to accede to the demands made of us. During that day, Mr. Reeves and Mr. Walsh left the firm.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said, elsewhere in the City over the next few days as a result of similar initiatives of which I have no direct knowledge, other people left their firms, including Lord Spens, whom I know personally. He had been a colleague when he was a director at Morgan Grenfell. I did one major transaction with him after he went to Ansbacher which was not related in any way to any of the matters under discussion this morning. I have not seen him for many years; I do not think that I have seen him since I have been in the House.
  I felt it necessary to make that personal statement to corroborate, so far as I can, in one small particular at least, part of the story that my hon. Friend set out. I want to draw one clear conclusion from what I have said, which I believe follows from the whole of this debate. We live in a democracy; we are proud of living in an open society. We live in a country that has always been well governed by international standards, and I trust that it will remain so. We must have confidence in the integrity, honesty and openness of all our procedures.
  It follows that I must disagree with my hon. Friend, who at one point appeared to regret that the DTI inspectors' report into the House of Fraser, which had had
  324
  an impact on decisions taken in relation to that bid, had been published. When a decision is taken that impacts on the freedom of individuals—in this case the right of shareholders to accept a higher offer for their shares—or the freedom of any of our citizens to conduct his or her business in the way that he or she thinks fit, it is right that the grounds for such a decision should be made public. Irrespective of whether the procedures of the DTI inspectors investigating the House of Fraser matter were flawed—they may have been; I have no comment on the merits of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle—the report should have been published. It should have been open and available so that we could question any flaws in the report or in the procedures of the inspectors who produced it and so that we could have seen the relation between the report and the decision subsequently taken by Ministers or others that affected the conduct of the bid or the rights and property of individuals.
  Equally, in the case of Guinness, it is wrong that after 10 years we still have not seen the report of the DTI inspectors. I have not seen it. As far as I know, none of my fellow directors at Morgan Grenfell has seen it; and nor has anyone else. Some of those involved in subsequent legal actions may have seen part of it. That is not satisfactory. In my days in the financial markets—this is still very much the case—we were trained to be suspicious of anything that looked like a false market, anything that looked like a market in which information was not openly available to everyone who was taking decisions and who was involved in that market. Similarly, in politics there are great dangers in decisions being taken on the basis of information that is available only to some of the parties or to those taking decisions. Others cannot then understand the basis of decisions, which may be arbitrary or unfair. We do not know whether they are unfair or arbitrary because we do not know the information on which they were taken.
  So far as I know, all the criminal investigations that arose from the conduct of the Guinness bid for Distillers have been concluded. It is time that the report and all relevant information was published. I know this is controversial, but I have always supported a freedom of information Act. The new Government promised one before they were elected, but have been remarkably silent since coming to power.
  Mr. Maxton: It will be implemented.
  Mr. Davies: I fear that it may not be the last promise made by the Labour Government that is likely to be buried. I leave that party political point aside. If we had a freedom of information Act, it would be possible for citizens to demand to see information where there was no explicit judicial or national security reason for withholding it.
  The onus in the successful freedom of information Act in the United States is on the Administration to justify withholding information. They have to produce specific justifications in each case. That is not the case in Britain, but it should be. Even if the Labour party will not fulfil its electoral commitment to introduce such an Act—
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Davies: I am about to finish. I hope and trust that, even in that event, it will be possible at least to publish

  325
  the Guinness report after what has been too long a delay. I hope that, in future, it will be a matter of good practice that any reports that form the basis of decisions that interfere in the markets and the freedom of individuals to conduct their business in the way that they choose should be made publicly and freely available.
  10.39 am
  Mr. Richard Page: Occasionally, debates in the House lift the various motions above the mundane. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) for launching such a one today and livening up our Wednesday morning activities. I am glad that he started by putting some distance between what he had to say and some leadership contest that I understand is currently taking place in the Conservative party. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) broadened the debate into the United States dimension. For a moment, I thought that we were about to be diverted into the advantages or disadvantages of self-regulation in the City. I am glad that he resisted the inducements of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to take us down that path. Nevertheless, he corroborated part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and gave some substance to what he had to say.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle lifted a corner of the veil over certain Department of Trade and Industry inquiries. For me, it was a journey down memory lane. All of us who were Members of Parliament when the events to which he referred took place remember being deluged by highly expensive, glossy publications in which claim and counterclaim were made by Messrs Rowland and Al Fayed when they were having their lovers' tiff. Since then, they have kissed and made up and are once more good friends—or so they say. I kept and filed away all those publications. They will undoubtedly have some historic interest. For me, they are a marvellous example of the vanity and perhaps ruthlessness of wealthy men who are frustrated when what they want to achieve is no longer put in their hands. There is a great similarity with the behaviour of a child of four or five who has a toy taken away and drums his heels into the ground in frustration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle made a number of points and focused on the Guinness and House of Fraser affairs. I do not intend to comment on those cases. Once or twice, he extrapolated a point or two, but that was up to him. It is his debate. The question for me is the worries that he expressed about the guidelines for DTI inquiries and the inquisitorial style that has been used by the inspectors. My hon. Friend gave examples to buttress his concerns about the impact on the individuals who have been touched in these affairs, so it is right that I should ask the Minister to examine the guidelines and the methods of investigation. The investigators have not always covered themselves in glory, not only in the affairs that have been mentioned, but in others. A fresh look would not go amiss.
  10.42 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): May I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your
  326

  elevation to office. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), whom the House acknowledges to be a gentleman, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been so helpful and supportive to me in my first weeks in office.
  The debate is a serious one. I wish to cover as closely as possible the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and various other hon. Members, but it is important in the short time available to me to give my first impressions as a Minister of dealing with the Department of Trade and Industry investigations and enforcement directorate. I have taken the opportunity to meet as many of the staff as possible, and I am impressed by the commitment that they have shown and the depth into which they go into matters. Some of the remarks that were made earlier should not be allowed to detract from the tremendous work which all hon. Members believe the directorate does. The staff of the directorate are charged with investigating allegations of wrongdoing in companies, and we all agree that they have a difficult job.
  The subject of today's debate is the inspectors' inquiries, which are more narrowly focused than the work of the investigations and enforcement directorate using its powers under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985.
  The DTI has appointed 20 sets of inspectors under the Financial Services Act 1986 to investigate suspected contraventions of insider dealing law. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle concentrated his attention on the Companies Acts powers today. The powers are wider than those granted to section 447 investigators. Inquiries are usually announced and there is an expectation that in most cases there will be a published report. It is inevitable that the wider inquiries take longer to complete and are much more expensive, as they rely mainly on the appointment of external inspectors.
  The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle expressed a valid fear that the examination of witnesses under our system was unfair and oppressive. He quoted Lord Justice Sachs, and I should like to quote him back to the hon. Gentleman. He said:
  "In the application of the concept of fair play, there must be real flexibility, so that very different situations may be met without producing procedures unsuitable to the object in hand … So many are the permutations and combinations that may arise in an investigation that it seems to me quite plain that it is impracticable and indeed ill-advised to attempt to lay down a set of rules applicable to all witnesses at all times."
  There can be little doubt among hon. Members that, without flexibility—although there must be proper safeguards, and I believe that there are—and the considerable powers that are available, it would be simply impossible to amass the evidence that is required to bring the perpetrators of some of the complex City frauds and insider dealing share transactions to justice.
  Mr. Page: My hon. Friend raised a valuable point when he asked that the guidelines be examined. The Minister mentions bringing the perpetrators to justice, but the Department has not covered itself in glory in past years. I earnestly ask the Minister not merely to read his brief but to re-examine the guidelines to see whether they are as effective and correct as they could be.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am trying to keep party politics out of this. What we have really had is an assertion that, for

  327
  18 years, there has been some form of corruption at the heart of government in the investigations. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle shakes his head, but he used words which he may regret. He said that DTI inspectors led Ministers by the nose and he made more serious allegations. He referred to sinister motives and suggested that the Department was flawed and corrupted. He said that civil servants had taken sadly flawed judgments.
  Mr. Page: No.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman implied that. Let us be frank with each other. Those are the serious allegations on which I as a Minister now have to satisfy myself and answer.
  I have looked into the matter in some detail. I know that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has been in discussions with my office and I am grateful for the information that he gave us. As for sinister motives, let us consider what the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said when he published part of the fourth report in March this year:
  "From my examination of the DTI papers, I think it likely that the Lonrho campaign was, indeed, one of the factors affecting the advice given to Ministers … It was not, however, the only consideration and, in the end, probably not the main one."
  Hon. Members have asked whether the inspectors' reports were unfair. I do not see any evidence of that. For instance, Lord Denning concluded:
  "Inspectors should be masters of their own procedure. They should be subject to no rules except this: they must be fair. This being done, they should make their report with courage and frankness, keeping nothing back. Public interest demands it."
  I believe that the inspectors have met that obligation. As the European Court said of the Al Fayed case:
  "Whilst inspectors are accorded broad freedom in reporting on the affairs of public companies, the performance of their investigation function is attended by not inconsiderable safeguards intended to ensure a fair procedure and the reliability of findings of fact."
  At the heart of the debate is the question whether the DTI will review the House of Fraser report. I must tell the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that the answer is no. The European Court of Human Rights was extremely complimentary about the procedures followed by the inspectors when it gave judgment on the Al Fayeds' claim that the publication of the report was damaging to their right to a fair hearing. The court stated:
  "Considerations of public interest dictate both the appointment of Inspectors and the publication or not"—
  I stress the word "not"—
  "of their report."
  The court also quoted from an earlier European Commission of Human Rights hearing:
  "It is necessary in a democratic society that governments exercise statutory controls over large commercial activities in order to ensure good management practice and the transparency of honest dealings."
  Mr. Quentin Davies: No one would disagree with that quotation, but as for publication, does the Minister appreciate that at the moment and for the foreseeable future he will bear the responsibility if the Guinness report is not published? He cannot lay that responsibility on to
  328
  anyone else. After such a long delay, will he or will he not now publish the DTI inspectors' report into the Guinness bid for Distillers?
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has repeated a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, which I was about to answer.
  The inspectors have not yet completed the Guinness report, but it is expected shortly. That is not my fault. It should be noted that the inspectors have been constrained—I will not use the word hampered—by the judicial procedures. They were guided by the need to ensure that while court proceedings were in train they were not open to accusations of harassing witnesses and pursuing matters that were before the court. I am sure that that is a cause of frustration to DTI inspectors and former Ministers, as well as to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, who has taken such a direct interest in the case for so many years. Everyone in Scotland and elsewhere who has taken an interest in the Guinness affair wants to see that report concluded as soon as possible. I am advised that it is expected shortly.
  When the report is received, it will be given due consideration. It is the usual practice to publish reports into public companies, but a decision on whether to publish this one or any other such inspection can be made only after careful scrutiny of the signed report.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart rightly asked why the Guinness inspection has taken so long. I gave him one reason. I am sure that he knows more about the chronology of events than most, but I shall go through them for the benefit of the House.
  I attach great importance to inspections being conducted as quickly as possible. As for the Guinness inspection, inspectors were appointed in November 1986. They submitted their interim report in November 1988. By that time, Ernest Saunders had been arrested. The first Guinness trial started in January 1990 and convictions were obtained in August 1990. In March 1991, the inspectors were directed to limit their work while the criminal proceedings against other defendants were in train. They resumed their work in March 1993. In March 1994, the inspectors went to court to certify Thomas Ward's failure to attend for interview. Ward was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for contempt. He is currently in the United States and contempt is not an extraditable offence.
  Following the evidence gathering part of the inspection, the inspectors have spent most of the remaining time writing their report and, significantly, applying the fairness procedures. That process is commonly referred to as Maxwellisation and involves inspectors' putting the substance of their criticisms to those whom they are minded to criticise in their final report. That important procedure was highlighted by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle.
  The process takes time and it is sometimes open to abuse. It involves trying to balance the need to produce a quick report as efficiently as possible against the need to apply fairness by offering those likely to be criticised an opportunity to seek to dissuade the inspectors from their critical opinions.
  I do not believe that any of the parties in the relevant cases have been denied that fairness. The delays in the publication of the report are, however, one reason why we want such powers to be used sparingly in the future.

  329
  Hon. Members have expressed their concerns this morning. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for being honest enough to admit that he has suffered a change of mind. In March 1990 he criticised the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Nicholas Ridley. He spoke of hon. Members' frustration
  "that what the DTI inspectors described as the Fayeds' deceit and lies has not been met with their immediate disqualification as directors or, at the very least, with a bar from directorships of other United Kingdom companies".—[Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 250.]
  In common with other hon. Members, I have looked at the evidence. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not believe that there was any conspiracy or any incompetence on the part of DTI inspectors. It is a problem for all of us to ensure that public servants act in the best interests of the public. We in the House must safeguard that. I will of course consider any of the points raised that I have not so far answered and which the hon. Gentleman considers require further explanation.
  It is vital that the Companies Acts are operated effectively. None of us takes any satisfaction from the lengthy delays in the Guinness trial or the rather unsavoury activities of Al Fayed and Lonrho. As a young, new Member, I, too, was subjected to their glossy publications. I learnt to use the circular filing cabinet and I put "From Hero to Zero" in the bin. I gather that they are not collectors items.
  We cannot base what we do in government solely on the authority of investigative journalism. Any allegations must be considered. I assure hon. Members that officials at the DTI have given the case the closest consideration. That has been done not merely by one or two officials, but by a number who have cross-checked each other's work. They have advised Ministers accordingly.
  We want the Guinness report to be concluded quickly. I have given an undertaking to the House that I want that done. We are also a Labour Government who want a flourishing corporate sector. We want it to deal honestly and fairly with its customers, suppliers, shareholders and, most important, employees. Those objectives go hand in hand and we cannot have one without the other. The Government will use all the powers at their disposal to deter, detect and punish wrongdoing.

  Cyprus
  10.59 am
  Mr. Andy Love: I should like to add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and welcome you to your new position. I also offer belated congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), both on his appointment as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and on the prominent part that he has played in forging a new relationship with our neighbours in the European Union.
  I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I make my traditional introductory remarks. It is a great honour to represent the people of Edmonton and I thank them for electing me as their Member of Parliament. I should also like to thank all those across London, both hon. Members and supporters, who worked so hard to achieve victory. For the first time, I am joined in the House by two other new Labour Members for the London borough of Enfield: my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). Not only is the borough now represented by three Labour Members of Parliament, but it has a Labour council which was newly elected in 1994 after 26 years of Tory rule.
  This phenomenal run of electoral success began with the election of the first Labour Member of the European Parliament, Pauline Green, who was elected eight years ago. Like Pauline, I stood for election as a Labour and Co-operative candidate and now have the privilege of representing the Co-operative movement in the House. With my colleagues, I hope to bring its principles, values and experience to bear on hon. Members' deliberations.
  Prior to the coming of the railways and the rapid expansion of London, Edmonton, like the surrounding villages of Enfield, Friern Barnet and Potters Bar, was represented in Parliament by a Middlesex county Member. Under the Reform Act of 1885 Edmonton became part of the Enfield parliamentary division. Local electors had to wait for the subsequent reform Act of 1918, which introduced the major innovation of a limited franchise for women, for the formation of the Edmonton constituency.
  My immediate predecessor, Dr. Ian Twinn, was the seventh Member of Parliament for the constituency. Although, since its formation, there have been four Labour and three Conservative Members of Parliament, more than 50 years separate Dr. Twinn's election from that of the previous Tory Member. It is a measure of the regard in which he was held that Dr. Twinn served for 14 years in the House. I pay tribute to the tenacity with which he held the seat during that time. Indeed, I learnt that to my cost at the general election in 1992. The House will not be surprised to hear that we disagreed on many things, but he was, by unanimous consent, a tireless representative of local people and local causes. He will be particularly remembered in the House for his advocacy on behalf of Cyprus—a cause about which I know he feels passionately and to which I shall return later.
  Among the distinguished list of my Labour predecessors, I wish to pay tribute to Ted Graham, now Lord Graham of Edmonton. Like me, he is not a native of Edmonton—he originally came from Tyneside. He came to work locally, stayed and formed a strong attachment to Edmonton and its people. In the nine years

  331
  that he served in the House, he built up an unrivalled reputation as a campaigner on issues affecting the constituency. He was, and to some extent still is, known as the voice of Edmonton. I wish him well, in the knowledge that he will be playing an active part in this Parliament in another place.
  I have it on good authority from the Fees Office that Edmonton lies nine miles north of the House—[Interruption.] That struck a chord. Since local government reorganisation in the early 1960s, it has formed part of the London borough of Enfield, but it still maintains a distinct identity and character, of which its citizens are very proud. Depending on one's view, it is either blessed or cursed by being dissected by two of the busiest routes into and around the capital: the great Cambridge road and the north circular road, which are both currently being extended or strengthened.
  The work is causing significant disruption, noise and pollution. Business is being badly affected, as are local shopping patterns. Local people wonder whether the disruption will ever end. But when the work is complete, the improved road network should hold out hope of much-needed investment in that part of north London—to some extent, that hope will be fulfilled. However, little thought has been given to the overall impact of the road developments on either the wider transport infrastructure or on public and private investment patterns locally. That is because decisions are fragmented and taken by unelected and unaccountable bodies. London needs a directly elected strategic authority to provide an independent voice and to act as a powerful champion for promoting economic, transport and planning strategies to boost prosperity and job growth.
  I can also confirm that the local economy is in much need of a boost; it was undermined in the 1980s by two of the deepest recessions since the war and has not fully recovered. Much of the industry for which Edmonton was famous—furniture, electrical goods and electronics—has disappeared or moved to green-field sites. The replacement jobs have often been low skilled with low wages. Many people are insecure and it is not hard to find locals, particularly young people, who have been forced to change jobs two or three times in as many years. One in four of all our under-25s in Edmonton are unemployed. With few or no skills or qualifications, many of them have little prospect of gaining employment. For that reason, the people of Edmonton welcome the Chancellor's welfare-to-work initiative and the Government's commitment to provide meaningful employment and training that will lead to a qualification. For many people, the scheme will for the first time provide both the independence and self-respect that come with earning a wage.
  Edmonton is a community of many contrasts. Alongside increasing prosperity, many people suffer considerable hardship and deprivation. One way in which those problems are being challenged is through the Edmonton partnership initiative, an innovative scheme to regenerate the local town centre. It is an attempt to reverse the long-term decline of the shopping centre while, at the same time, radically improving local housing conditions and providing community facilities and much-needed jobs and training for local people. Based on a public-private consortium, the initiative will attract more than £100 million of investment into the constituency, with more than £80 million of that coming from the
  332
  private sector. Over the next seven years that exciting partnership project will transform the centre of Edmonton, delivering tangible benefits and increasing prosperity to one of the most deprived parts of the constituency.
  Edmonton is also a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural community. At the latest count, 65 languages were spoken in local schools. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it will be a great privilege and pleasure to
  "represent all of the people"
  in my constituency. By far the largest local ethnic minority is the Cypriot community—Greek and Turkish—many of whom have come here since the invasion and division of the island in 1974. The future of Cyprus is of more than academic interest to all of them. It is with that in mind that I have sought to initiate this first debate on Cyprus in the new Parliament.
  First, I offer the apologies of my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who are great friends of Cyprus and regularly contribute to debates on this subject. Unfortunately, they are away on urgent business of the House and are unable to be with us today.
  I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their commitment, stated in the Queen's Speech, to seek a settlement in Cyprus. I warmly welcome the mission statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am particularly pleased to see that, among its objectives, he includes:
  "to work through international forums and bilateral relationships to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy which we demand for ourselves."
  We must also demand them for Cyprus and the Cypriot people. It is appropriate that this debate is taking place today, because I understand that the Cypriot Foreign Minister, Mr. Cassoulides, is at this very moment flying into Britain for talks with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing them well.
  This year has been dubbed the year of the "big push" in Cyprus. There has certainly been a flurry of diplomatic activity in recent months, which is not surprising, given the number of international representatives who are currently on the island. Apart from the ubiquitous United Nations representative, who has recently been sponsoring proximity talks between the two communities, there are also representatives from the United States and from the European Union and, of course, Britain's own representative, the recently reappointed former ambassador to the UN, Sir David Hannay. This has occasioned the President of Cyprus to comment that there are "too many cooks", and one can see his point.
  The critical issue facing the Government is to evaluate what role Britain can play in finding a just and lasting settlement for Cyprus. Before looking at that, I want to give a word of caution. Nearly 23 years have elapsed since the military invasion that divided the island and hopes of a settlement have risen in the past, only to be dashed. A flurry of diplomatic activity is no substitute for confidence-building measures and meaningful negotiations. The high-level agreements that form the starting point for direct negotiations and that set out the framework for a settlement were drawn up 18 years ago and it has to be admitted that there has been little real progress since.

  333
  It is widely recognised that there is a great deal of work to be done before there is a realistic prospect of reaching an agreement, but a consensus is emerging that that work must be undertaken urgently and that the measures necessary for the effective promotion of a settlement must be put in place. Britain is uniquely placed to facilitate that process, because of its historic role on the island; because it is a guarantor power of the security of Cyprus; and because it is a member of both the UN Security Council and the EU. Most important, Britain can help to ensure that any final agreement is based on international law, UN resolutions and the objectives of the Government's own mission statement.
  Britain must make it clear that the continued division of Cyprus is unacceptable and can never form the basis of a settlement. Any solution must be based on the unity and integrity of the island. That is already set out in the high-level agreements and in the Gali set of ideas to create a bizonal, bicommunal federation comprising two politically equal communities. Over the years, many on both sides have cast doubt on that formulation, yet it describes the only framework that can provide both the unity and equality that are critical to a settlement.
  Division on the island creates instability, as the furore over the now delayed purchase of Russian S300 missiles shows. A shift in the balance on one side leads to a response from the other and the result is military build-up. It is little wonder that, over the past 23 years, Cyprus has become one of the most over-militarised areas of the world and consequently a potential flash point. Any solution must be based on the demilitarisation of the island and in that respect the House should welcome the statement by Mr. Clerides, proposing to demilitarise the whole island and reallocate spending to the economic development of a reunited Cyprus.
  It is, of course, security—or the lack of it—that has bedevilled all attempts to find a lasting solution. Both communities well remember the failures of the past—in 1963 and 1967—and the tragic events of 1974. No one underestimates the difficulty in achieving firm security guarantees. The people of Cyprus must have confidence that there will be no return to the communal violence or military interventions of the past.
  Working next door to my constituency offices is a Cypriot shopkeeper, who has not seen his parents for 25 years. They are elderly and he despairs that he will never see them again. They are Greek Cypriots, but live in the Karpas peninsula in the north of the island. They should be able to travel, but cannot leave as they would find it impossible to return. Their relatives cannot visit. Ending their isolation must be the first step in building confidence and moving towards a settlement.
  Both communities have suffered many grave injustices. If they are to be reconciled, each community is entitled to know what has happened to the loved ones who disappeared during the violence of the past. Like the truth commission in South Africa, justice demands that the terrible events of the past should be made public, so that the fate of the innocent victims can be known. In addition, the events of 1974 made hundreds of thousands of Cypriots on both sides refugees on their own island. Many would like to visit their villages, return to their homes and travel freely to
  334
  other parts of the island, but they cannot do so. Any meaningful settlement must underpin the human rights of all Cypriots.
  Cyprus has had a relationship with the European Community since it first signed an association agreement in 1972. A customs union in 1987 was rapidly followed by an application for membership of the EC in 1990. A favourable opinion from the Commission on Cyprus's eligibility in 1993 led to agreement at the Cannes summit two years ago that negotiations for accession should begin six months after the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference in Amsterdam. That will coincide with Britain's presidency of the EU and provide a unique opportunity for Britain to give a lead in supporting Cyprus's application.
  Membership will benefit both communities. It will end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and provide an impetus to the economy and a huge boost to living standards. The EU can help to guarantee the security of both communities. However, one question remains: will Cyprus be reunited, as we all hope, before those negotiations are completed? In November last year, the then Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, made it plain that it would be very difficult to admit a divided Cyprus to the EU. That view was subsequently echoed by the German Foreign Minister. The Government should continue to offer support to Cyprus's application for membership, on its merits and without conditions.
  Much of the answer to the question of accession and of a general settlement lies, not in northern Cyprus, but in Turkey. Turkey's own application for membership has been described as "premature". It was told recently by the Christian Democrat group in the European Parliament that, as a non-Christian country, it was an unsuitable applicant for membership. I disagree fundamentally with that view.
  However, there are continuing difficulties with the recently agreed customs union, and against that background it is unlikely that Turkey will be in a position in the near future to make a serious application for full membership. Many believe, as a result, that it is unlikely to encourage the Turkish Cypriot community to co-operate in the negotiations for Cyprus's entry to the EU. That would be regrettable, and I hope that the Government will make it clear that it can never be acceptable for a country that is not a member of the Community to exercise its veto on the application of another.
  Relations between Greece and Turkey remain tense, and complicate the finding of a solution in Cyprus. Disputes about uninhabited islands, the military build-up in the region and friction regarding Cyprus continue to sour relations between the two nations—both, supposedly, NATO allies. As yet, diplomatic efforts to resolve the various disputes have met with very limited success. As both are guarantor powers, it is hard to see how any permanent settlement in Cyprus can be achieved without an overall resolution of the disputes in that part of the eastern Mediterranean.
  The year 1997 will be crucial to Cyprus. The European Union and the United States appear to believe that there is a brief window of opportunity for a political settlement. Although proximity talks are not reported to have thrown up new initiatives or signs of greater flexibility, it is widely felt that, as Sir David Hannay was recently quoted as saying,
  "the chances of getting a settlement are better than they have been for quite a long time".

  335 In addition, with European Union accession negotiations, presidential elections in Cyprus and the distinct possibility of fresh elections in Turkey—all likely to happen in 1998—it is hard to avoid the conclusion that 1997 presents a better prospect than will exist for some time.
  I was therefore very pleased to read recent press reports of the possibility of direct UN-sponsored talks between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash, expected to begin in early July. As part of that announcement, the UN emphasised the importance of the talks developing on a positive note. I believe that we would all agree. I also welcome the note of realism in that statement, saying that the first round
  "may not yield any concrete results as such"
  and that they will be followed by further talks later in the month. No one underestimates the task confronting the participants, but I am sure that the House will join me in wishing them every success in their endeavours.
  However, Britain needs to do more. I hope that the debate will send a clear message that this House believes that the Government must do everything in their power to assist those negotiations, and that Ministers must use their influence with the international community to move the issue of Cyprus up the international agenda and to step up efforts to find a just and lasting settlement of the division of the island.
  11.23 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to the Chair of the House, which I regard as a reflection of your long and very distinguished service in this place, and wish you success in your role.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on his maiden speech. I thank him for the pretty compliment that he paid his predecessor, Dr. Ian Twinn, who was a friend of many hon. Members on both sides of the House and a very good friend of the Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus. I am sure that it will be of considerable comfort to his constituents, and the wider Cypriot community in the United Kingdom, to know that the Edmonton tradition is being continued, and that the support for the movement behind the Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus and the Cypriot Brotherhood will continue to be represented by him in the House.
  The hon. Member for Edmonton described the volatility of the constituency that he represents. However long or short his tenure of office in the House, I hope that he will enjoy it and that he will be successful in it. On this morning's showing, I am sure that he will be.
  The hon. Gentleman neatly managed to weave that magic dance that all of us are required to weave the first time that we speak in the House, knitting together the virtues and joys of one's constituency, as the second garden of Eden, with the need to concentrate on the debate. I commend him on the manner in which he did so. I am sure that his constituents will be pleased to read his remarks in local newspapers and in Hansard.
  I briefly turn to the subject of the debate—the future of the sadly divided island of Cyprus. Specifically, I shall mention the role that the Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus has played and will continue to play. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edmonton will quickly become a signed-up member of the organisation, and I hope that
  336
  many of his new colleagues in the Government, and many of the colleagues who have joined us on the Opposition Benches, will take up that cause. I hope that they will understand that, as its title implies, the Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus means the friends of Cyprus and of all Cypriots worldwide, not—as, sadly, is sometimes said—merely the friends of Greek Cyprus.
  Members of the Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus, on both sides of both Houses of Parliament, have worked for far too many years to secure a settlement of the division of the island of Cyprus that is in the interests of all those who have a legitimate right to live on, and move freely around, the island. No settlement will ever be possible of what has become known as the Cyprus problem that is not based on the three freedoms: freedom of movement, freedom of domicile and freedom of employment. Unless and until all international politicians involved in these debates understand that, there will never be a settlement.
  However, I accept that the hon. Member for Edmonton is correct in believing that 1997, being the window of opportunity in the run-up to the Cypriot presidential elections and elections in Turkey, may offer an opportunity for a settlement that, if it is missed, may not come around again for some time. The year 1997 may be the year of Cyprus—the year of the "big push", as the hon. Gentleman described it—which some of us thought might have been 1996, 1995, 1994 or 1993. Such predictions have been made for far too long.
  The hon. Gentleman illustrated his concern through the eyes of the neighbour to his office, a Cypriot whose parents live in a peninsula in the north of the island and who has been unable to visit his parents. That illustration encapsulates the problem that confronts many hon. Members. We have constituents who find themselves in a similar position.
  I think of George Yerolemou, now an elderly man, who first came to me within days of my arrival in the House of Commons, 14 years ago, showing me a photograph of a simple dwelling in a village in the northern part of the island, which is his home. He has not seen that home now for well over 20 years. Sadly, his wife has died and will never see it again. For me, that is the Cyprus problem—the fact that there are people living in my constituency who are unable to go to their homeland, to move around it, to visit their Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot friends and drink coffee with them and to visit their family's graves. They can do none of those normal things.
  The Berlin wall has come down; Germany has been reunited; we have watched the Soviet empire crumble. Wars and conflicts are being settled throughout the world. The Gulf war—a major middle east conflict—has been and gone. In this day and age, outrageously, an army of occupation continues to sit with virtual impunity in half of a territory, where it has sat since an invasion in 1974, while the entire might of the western world stands by, arguing the toss in the United Nations and passing resolution after resolution, and the Council of Europe and the European Union discuss the issue, and nothing happens. It cannot be right that the situation is allowed to continue.
  It is time that the world community took the Cyprus issue as seriously as it has taken others. We must recognise that the instability of the Turkish economy and of some Turkish politicians makes it convenient to have a distraction just across the water, to focus Turkish

  337
  attention on it and to distract the Turkish people from their problems at home. That may be convenient for Turkey, the power that works the strings of the regime in northern Cyprus, but it is no longer acceptable.
  I hope that the present Administration will take the same determined attitude in the House as have previous Administrations since the invasion. They must send a clear message that the illegal regime in the northern part of Cyprus will never be recognised; that we, with our European partners, will press for the admission of Cyprus as swiftly as possible to the European Union; and that we hope, believe and expect that the international community will bring its best endeavours to bear to ensure that, before the year is out, the island will be united and our constituents, be they Turkish Cypriots or Greek Cypriots, will be able to move freely around their homeland.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), first, on being canny enough to secure the debate. He is a new Member, but he has already managed to find his way around the House of Commons. I have been trying for some time to get one of these Wednesday morning debates, but I have not yet succeeded.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on having the courage to open a debate in his maiden speech. His performance this morning bodes well for the future. That is no surprise to me, as I have known my hon. Friend for many years. He was a councillor in Haringey and the chair of the housing committee when I was a councillor. We spent many years discussing issues, especially matters relating to Cyprus.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the ethnic diversity in his constituency, Edmonton, and said that Cypriots were the largest ethnic group. The reason for that is the fact that they left my constituency, Tottenham, and moved to Edmonton and further afield as they became more prosperous, having come mainly to Haringey in 1974 after the invasion of Cyprus. Cypriots, both Greek and Turkish, have made a great contribution to the economy of Haringey and of Tottenham in particular, and I believe that they will continue to play an important role in the local economy.
  I was fortunate enough to be invited by the executive members of one of the Cypriot organisations in London, DEKO—the Democratic Party of the Workers of Cyprus—to visit Cyprus in April this year. It was my third visit to Cyprus. I have been to the green line, to demonstrations in Morphou and to conferences in Cyprus. It was my first opportunity to see in detail the way in which the Cyprus problem has affected the lives of people there.
  At the Ledra Palace on the green line I met a woman who was there with her daughter. She was looking across at the Turkish side. She pointed out her house to me and said, "It is 100 metres from where I stand, yet I cannot go there." She told me that she had been coming there every day since 1974.
  There were huge pictures on display, showing the violence that occurred in Cyprus in August last year, when three Greek Cypriot men were killed. One was an old man who was collecting snails in the mountains. He did not
  338
  know where the green line was and happened to wander over to the Turkish side. He was beaten and shot dead. Another picture depicted a young man who had climbed a flagpole to remove the Turkish flag. He was shot down like a dog by the Turkish authorities. A third person was beaten and killed.
  That brought home to me the grief of Cyprus and the problems that exist there. With my hon. Friends, I am determined to do something about the matter. One wonders how the previous British Government could sit in office for 18 years and do nothing to try to resolve the situation in Cyprus.
  The United Nations should deal with the matter, but as a guarantor power and one of the old colonial powers in Cyprus Britain has a clear responsibility to do as much as it can to bring the other guarantor powers together. I hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), will give us an assurance that, in addition to what the United Nations is doing, the Labour Government will do everything in their power to bring together the other guarantor powers, Greece and Turkey, and to get things moving.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton raised various points with which I agree. He spoke about the missing persons. There are about 1,500 missing persons on the Greek Cypriot side and hundreds on the Turkish Cypriot side. Any settlement must deal with their fate.
  As a gesture of good will in the talks that are currently taking place, the rights of the people of the enclave, particularly in the north of Cyprus, must be taken into account. Those people are in serious difficulties and their rights must be guaranteed. I call on the Turkish Cypriot side in particular to ensure as a gesture of good will that the rights of the people of the enclave are respected.
  I am particularly concerned about the demilitarisation of Cyprus. As my hon. Friend stated, the Turkish soldiers in the northern part of Cyprus have been bolstered by Turkish settlers from Anatolia. When demilitarisation takes place and the soldiers leave, the majority of the settlers, if not all of them, should leave as well.
  The agreement must ensure that Cyprus becomes a bizonal and bicommunal community. That was the original agreement made between Mr. Denktash and Archbishop Makarios, and it must be honoured if there is to be a way forward.
  In relation to the European Union I believe, like my hon. Friend, that Cyprus should be admitted, regardless of the state of the country—whether it is divided or not. The Government of Cyprus, who are the legitimate Government recognised by the United Nations and by all countries except Turkey, have applied for membership of the European Union. I believe that Cyprus is entitled to become a member, and that that should happen as soon as possible. I hope that when Britain has the presidency of the European Union next year, we will ensure that Cyprus's membership application goes through.
  Meanwhile, I oppose Turkish membership of the EU for a number of reasons. First, its relationship with Cyprus rules it out; secondly, and more importantly, human rights in Turkey are a thorough disgrace. There must be no question of Turkey becoming a member so long as it continues to treat Kurdish people in the way it does—
  Mr. John Austin: My hon. Friend has mentioned the abuse of human rights in Turkey

  339
  and Turkey's continued illegal occupation of the north of Cyprus. Does he agree not just that it would be wholly wrong for Turkey to be considered for membership of the EU in those circumstances, but that it is wholly wrong that western nations should continue to supply economic aid and military weapons to Turkey while the illegal occupation continues?
  Mr. Grant: I thank my hon. Friend. The difficulty is that Turkey is a member of NATO, and certain treaties need to be upheld. Britain, however, could adopt the stance that my hon. Friend has mentioned; I shall support him if he wants to push the matter further by means of a motion or some other procedural device.
  I want to mention Mr. Asil Nadir before I close—that infamous person who jumped bail, absconded and was allowed to stay in northern Cyprus. He has now gone to Turkey, where he is flaunting his presence and trying to do deals with the British Government. I am pleased that our Government have refused to do deals with Mr. Nadir. I hope that Turkey will come to its senses and return him to Britain so that he can face justice here.
  When reaching any solution for Cyprus, we must take into account the deserts of both sides. The Turkish Cypriot side has had little championing in this House. Mr. Andrew Faulds, a former Member, was one of the few in this House who spoke up for the Turkish Cypriots. I believe that they have every right to have their safety guaranteed. The events of the early 1970s—Eoka and the coup—mean that Turkish Cypriots have good reason to believe that they would be under severe threat in a reunited Cyprus. It is therefore incumbent on all who are concerned about Cyprus and its reunification to ensure that the Turkish Cypriots are given absolute guarantees of their safety and their ability to purchase and maintain properties in Cyprus. They must be given a fair deal as an integral part of any united Cyprus.
  I look forward to further debates on Cyprus. I was extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned the country in the Queen's Speech, as he did in the Labour party manifesto. I look forward to the Labour Government working to ensure a free, democratic, demilitarised and united Cyprus.
  11.43 am
  Mr. Alan Meale: I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who was a sturdy fighter for Cyprus even before he entered the House. I know that the Cypriot community in Britain was overjoyed to hear of his election to this place. I commiserate, too, with his predecessor, Dr. Ian Twinn, who was also a magnificent fighter for Cyprus. I am sure that he will continue the fight outside this place.
  I hope that the new Government will take the Cyprus issue more seriously than the previous one did. We have some responsibilities toward Cyprus, and in the past I believe that we have let the people of Cyprus down. The people of Cyprus are our allies. On the first day of the second world war, 40,000 out of an available 52,000 Cypriots volunteered for active service to fight fascism in Europe. During that conflict and in subsequent conflicts they have always been on our side, but unfortunately there have been times when they needed our help and we did not reciprocate.
  340
  Cyprus has been a good member of the Commonwealth and has participated fully in it. Britain is a guarantor power, yet British Governments do not have a good record in the matter: 23 years after the illegal invasion and occupation we have yet to reach an agreement to sort the problem out. One reason for that is the fact that what is at stake is not the foreign policy of Cyprus but rather the foreign policy of the United States of America. Recently the President of the United States visited this country, and I know that our Prime Minister discussed Cyprus with him while he was here.
  America's attitude has little to do with missiles based in Turkey, which used to point toward the east of Europe but which now point elsewhere. It has more to do with the fact that 73 per cent. of the world's oil and gas reserves are to be found in the region. That is what interests the Americans and guides their policy. However, it is about time we started looking at the interests of the people of Cyprus, more than 400,000 of whom have been dispatched to live elsewhere in the world because of the partition.
  There is a window of opportunity at the moment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton is sympathetic to the cause of finding a real solution to the Cyprus problem. Our presidency of the EU starts in January, and I know that the Foreign Secretary has put Cyprus's entry to the EU at the top of his agenda. That offers us and Cyprus a genuine opportunity. The EU would be foolhardy even to contemplate delaying Cyprus's entry to Europe. It is in Europe's interests that Cyprus should play a full part as a member country.
  Cyprus has excellent trade links with eastern European countries—better than those of any country in the EU. It also has good trading links with the middle east—better than ours. As an economist, I know that the western world's economy has been in recession—a point that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) used to make when he was a Minister—and that the only way out is to trade our way out of that recession with the third world. All the African countries have sound trading relations with Cyprus, for instance.
  As for defence, we have two strategic bases in Cyprus which will continue to be important to the defence of Europe once Cyprus joins the EU.
  There is an ever increasing need in world trade for shipping, and the fleets of Cyprus and Greece combined would give the EU the second largest fleet in the world. So Cyprus's accession would boost the EU's trading possibilities.
  Cyprus is also very active in banking and has its own banking system. More than 1,800 offshore companies are registered there and over the past few years it has developed its own stock exchange. It could perhaps give Europe an opportunity for offshore banking that is not afforded to it at the present time.
  Geographically, Cyprus is important for telecommunications and Britain recognises this. Everybody knows that telecommunications will play a large part in the future of the world. As an offshore telecommunications bank, Cyprus is ideally situated, and Europe could benefit greatly from that.
  Last but not least, there is a programme, a structure, an agreement, for oil and gas pipelines to come down from eastern Europe, which will service most countries of the European Union, and also to have an oil and gas pipeline

  341
  into Cyprus. That will make Cyprus—particularly with the shipping that it has in conjunction with Greece—the gas station of Europe. It would be foolhardy for Britain and Europe not to allow Cyprus to play a full part in the European Union when that opportunity arises. I see no reason why Cyprus should not be a full member of the European Union.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary push for a speedy solution to get Cyprus in as a full member of the European Union, that will benefit Britain and Europe in the future.
  11.50 am
  Mr. Robin Corbett: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on his maiden speech. As a joint vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus, I am particularly pleased that he was generous enough to pay tribute to his predecessor, Dr. Ian Twinn, who worked with us on that committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) said that the needs and views of the Turkish Cypriot community have not been properly attended to. As the hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said earlier, the Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus has tried since 1974 to be friends of both Cypriot communities and to work with those in both communities—on the island and in London—who were willing to work with us, not for us to tell them what a solution should look like, but to try to create a climate in which that solution becomes more possible.
  There was an extremely significant development on the island while we were otherwise engaged in March this year. The all-Cyprus trade union forum, linking trade unions in both parts of the island, came together—something that it has not done for many years—to talk about the effects on the working people of Cyprus of the future accession of Cyprus to the European Union. There is no question but that the main beneficiaries of Cypriot membership of the European Union will be the members of the Turkish Cypriot community. That is indisputable.
  Without going back over history—much of it painful—I believe that the people who have paid the highest price for the continued division of Cyprus have been the ordinary working people of the north of Cyprus, who have been starved of the partnerships that have been on offer for many years from the southern part of the island. There was a hope—a distinct possibility—that Varosha could be handed back, and as part of that arrangement there would be joint ventures involving business people from both Cypriot communities.
  The all-Cyprus trade union forum met at the Ledra Palace hotel, which is a living example of the futility, the stupidity, the grief of disputes such as those which have torn Cyprus apart. I have nothing but praise for the painful efforts that the United Nations has made over the years, and for those who have made up the peacekeeping force on the island. For those of us with photographic memories of what that hotel was like before the cruel and barbarous invasion of the island in 1974, in many ways it is worse now than the Berlin wall ever was, because it is much nearer.
  If one looks from old Nicosia across the no man's land into the occupied part of the island, one sees that it is absolutely untouched by human beings, save for the odd
  342
  United Nations patrol. We are three years from the end of the millennium. Is this really the best that men and women can deliver in an island as small as Cyprus? It is crazy, because there has not been a shared willingness by the leaders of both Cypriot communities to reach a solution. That is what makes so important the move by the all-Cyprus trade union forum to bring together representatives of working people from both Cypriot communities to discuss and debate the benefits that would flow to them, their families and to the island as a whole from the admission of Cyprus to the European Union. There is no question but that that would be beneficial. As ever, of course, politicians will get in the way of that.
  Over the years, many of us have valued our contact with Mr. Denktash as the representative of the other Cypriot community. He will understand, I am sure, when I say—perhaps he shares this feeling—that many of us have found the discussions in which we have engaged exceptionally frustrating. He may well have found the same with us. It must be understood—this was mentioned earlier—that the Turkish Cypriot community has an absolute right to have its security and human rights guaranteed. They are in no sense a second-class community on the island of Cyprus. They enjoy, and deserve to enjoy, equal political status. I am not interested in counting heads, as evidence from around the world, including parts of the United Kingdom, proves that counting heads and saying, "This is a majority community and that is a minority community," does not help to solve problems. It helps to make them worse and to keep them going.
  That is why I say—I hope that Mr. Denktash will accept this, and that it may encourage him in the contacts that are about to resume—that in no sense does anybody regard the Turkish Cypriot community as second class. They have equal political status. They are entitled to a full say, not just in a settlement to the Cyprus question but in the negotiations concerning Cyprus's admission to the European Union. Seats have been reserved by the Government of Cyprus for representatives from the Turkish Cypriot communities to take part in the negotiations. Given political willingness, ways can be found—and are found, by the representative in Nicosia—to consult and to try to involve them informally in the lead-up to the detailed negotiations. There is no substitute for their taking their proper place.
  I hope that Mr. Denktash will seize this new opportunity—heaven knows, as a number of hon. Members have been saying for long enough, it is a glorious opportunity, the best for years—for leaders of both communities to take part in the negotiations. They are getting on a bit, they have seen it all, they studied together and qualified in law in London, and no doubt sank a pint or two, donkey's years back. Now, as they look forward to their active careers in politics perhaps coming to an end, is it really beyond their wit, on behalf of the two Cypriot communities which they lead, to sit down, to put their differences on the table, but to come to the conclusion that they have more in common than not?
  There are large issues to be settled. I have mentioned security. There is the question of freedom of movement on the island and the vexed question of the settlers brought in from Turkey. Those questions are not easy, but if there is a willingness to find a solution, a solution can be found.

  343
  As the hon. Member for North Thanet said earlier, despite all the stumbling blocks, potholes and other things that can go wrong, the opposing factions in South Africa and the middle east have found ways of sitting down, talking to each other and committing themselves to a process the end result of which is agreement. Both sides in those examples, and many others around the world, committed themselves to success.
  We have a right now to say to Mr. Denktash and President Klerides that we expect them to seize the opportunity later this month of the renewed contacts and to accept their solemn responsibility and duty to bring peace, stability and security to both Cypriot communities. That is to the benefit of both and in the interests of the whole.
  12.1 pm
  Mr. David Davis: I require only a couple of minutes, so I have allowed as many hon. Members to speak as possible. The House has heard me speak on this subject at four or five-weekly intervals during the past three years and I have nothing new to add.
  I compliment the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on his brave and excellent maiden speech. I add my thanks to a number of others for his compliments to his predecessor, Dr. Ian Twinn. He is a friend of mine of some 20 or 30 years, standing, so I am particularly grateful to him for that. Ian Twinn spent a great deal of time in what was my office and is now the Minister of State's office in the Foreign Office pursuing precisely this issue. The hon. Member for Edmonton has honourably maintained the tradition of adopting a high profile in representing his constituents on the issue. He took a balanced view, which was also reflected in the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).
  The hon. Member for Edmonton said that he wants Britain to restore the unity of Cyprus. I think that there is agreement on that throughout the House. This is not a partisan matter. This has been a largely non-partisan debate, with the exception of some ill-informed comments from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I have obeyed a strict self-denying ordinance on the subject for three years, trying not to score party political points about something that affects the lives and futures of so many people in Cyprus. I wish that he would do the same.
  The hon. Member for Edmonton said that he wanted Cyprus to have a higher profile on the international agenda. The Conservative Government achieved just that. Malcolm Rifkind created a precedent by being the first Foreign Secretary to go there for some 30 years. We appointed our own special representative and fought hard in the EU and in the United Nations to have the issue resolved, often at some political cost. The Minister will find the same problems as he takes up the issue and I am sure that he, too, will find it hard. We are all committed to obtaining a peaceful and equitable solution to this tragic problem.
  There were a number of other cogent and valuable contributions today, most notably from my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), but from others as well, with which I found much to agree.
  This is my first opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. I look forward to his matching my grey hairs during the next few years, as a
  344
  result of dealing with not just the Cyprus issue, but a number of others which will test him. I pledge all necessary personal support to the aim of obtaining a peaceful and equitable solution to this tragic problem in the next few years.
  12.4 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. By reputation, you are an affable man, but I know the other side of you. You are a stern and firm man when necessary. We look forward to that latter quality when the Government are in trouble, as no doubt we will be on some occasions in the next five years. However, I know that you will retain the impartiality in your current responsibility that you showed in your past responsibilities.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on his foresight in making an early application for this debate which the past hour has shown to be of considerable interest to hon. Members. It is a great credit to him that he has chosen to make his maiden speech on this subject. He said that Lord Graham had been the voice of Edmonton. After my hon. Friend's excellent contribution, there will be a new voice of Edmonton, which the House will look forward to hearing on a number of occasions in the future. He was generous to his predecessors, eloquent, knowledgeable about his constituency and committed to the subjects on which he feels strongly. It is a credit to him that he was able to make such a speech today.
  New hon. Members may not be aware that, for an Adjournment debate, this has been well attended. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on choosing a subject of such interest to so many hon. Members. There have been many good contributions.
  I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) for his kind remarks on my appointment and for his commitment that the Conservative party will do what it can to seek a settlement of the Cyprus issue. He referred to my pending grey hairs. One learns one or two secrets in opposition in that regard and I shall be happy to see him afterwards to give him some advice which he may wish to follow. I can assure him that being an Opposition spokesperson is a tiring business. There is a lot of campaigning to do which can result in more grey hairs than might be acquired even in government. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) says, Falkirk supporters are even more afflicted by that trouble than others.
  The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asked whether the Government would have a determined attitude on Cyprus and I can assure him that they will. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), with whom I have had a long association on foreign affairs and other matters, made a knowledgeable contribution. I was particularly impressed by his emphasis on the contributions of both the Greek and Turkish communities in his constituency and in neighbouring constituencies to the economic and social fabric of the communities in which they live. I can also give an assurance to my hon. Friend. He said that this Government, as the inheritors of a guarantor power, have a definite responsibility towards Cyprus. I assure him that that is certainly the case.

  345
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) that, in looking forward to the British presidency, we have Cyprus very high up the list of our international obligations. We will consult widely on how best we can proceed to raise the issue and to persuade others to reach a settlement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) emphasised that a settlement in Cyprus and accession to the European Union would be of benefit to both communities, but that one community might benefit more than the other. That point was well made, and well taken at the Dispatch Box.
  It is right that Cyprus should be among the first foreign affairs subjects to command the House's attention this Parliament. As hon. Members have made clear, the history of Cyprus is long and tragic. It has been recounted on many occasions in the House, and we have heard further contributions today recalling the suffering and loss that the Cypriot people have endured over many years. That strife has scarred the people of the island and has led to a culture of hostility and suspicion in both communities. That is intolerable for present and future generations of Cypriots, and unacceptable and intolerable for the international community.
  There can be no doubt that successive failures to address those divisions has left Europe with a dangerously unstable region in the eastern Mediterranean. That is why emphasis was laid in the debate on the Loyal Address on the Government's commitment to work actively in support of the UN for a lasting settlement of the Cyprus conflict.
  The question that citizens in this country and those in Cyprus will be asking is whether progress towards peace is realistic. I do not have to remind the House of the difficult start to 1997. Indeed, hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have already emphasised that point. The recent violence followed the violence that marked much of 1996. I hope that both sides of the House will agree on the need to work for a comprehensive, political settlement in Cyprus, establishing a bizonal, bicommunal federation comprising two politically equal communities.
  Despite the setbacks, the United Nations, supported by the international community, has been working hard with both parties since March to prepare the way for face-to-face negotiations. The preparatory process has been taken as far as it can; real progress, as the House knows, can be made only through direct talks. We therefore support the UN's aim of convening face-to-face negotiations within a few weeks. It is important that the ground we have gained this year is not lost.
  Of course, problems remain, but the prospects for getting both parties to talk to each other under UN mediation are now better than they have been for a long time. I therefore urge the leaders of both communities to respond positively to an invitation to negotiations from the UN Secretary-General. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will pursue that process in talks later today with the Foreign Minister of Cyprus.
  There is a heavy burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the leaders of both communities to negotiate a settlement. I know that they are aware of the
  346
  responsibility and I urge them to exercise it wisely. There is an equal burden of responsibility on each and every Cypriot to make any settlement work.
  I noticed that many Cypriots across the divide were prepared to make the first, tentative steps—to gather at a bicommunal concert in Nicosia on 19 May. The success of that concert is encouraging and I hope that more Cypriots will take up future offers to attend similar bicommunal events. They are crucial in breaking that familiar stranglehold of suspicion which we all know exists.
  Of course, there will be those do not wish to see a peace process through reconciliation. Some tried, but failed, to disrupt the concert I referred to. I congratulate the authorities on both sides on the firm stance they took with the protesters. Those wreckers see peace coming not through reconciliation but only through the dominance of one side over the other. They aim to inspire fear and to deter those who want to take part and genuinely want to extend the hand of friendship. They will fail, however, for negotiation and reconciliation are the only paths to a lasting peace in Cyprus.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton reminded us of the tragedy of family life on the island of Cyprus and my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham made the same point. Families on one side of the line have not been to visit their relatives for 20 years or more. When the wreckers consider their tactics, they should think of the plight of those families and others.
  I have said that we hope that if face-to-face negotiations are convened, both leaders will work constructively with the UN Secretary-General's negotiator, Diego Cordovez, and his team. The parties must be ready to do business; there will be much to do and many issues need to be addressed, including security, territory, refugees, the provisions of a new constitution, the powers of the zones, the powers of the federation and voting mechanisms. Those are just some of the matters of important concern.
  The issues may appear impossibly complex to many of us, although many of the hon. Members in the House today have been acquainted with those problems and complexities for many years. Fortunately, the parties do not have to start from scratch. The useful work left over from previous attempts to negotiate a settlement provides a good starting point. The "Set of Ideas", for example, is a useful quarry. The parties themselves also have a depth of experience and knowledge of much of the detail. We look to them to apply that knowledge with the political will, the determination and the vision to make possible the compromises that will be inevitable to ensure success. Nobody, including the UN, can impose a settlement. Ultimately, it is for the Cypriots themselves to decide their future and they now have an historic opportunity to do so.
  Hon. Members and people in the country have asked about the role of the United Kingdom in the negotiations. We stand ready to help in any way. We recognise that we have a historical and moral duty to do so. As the House will know, we have reappointed Sir David Hannay as UK special representative for Cyprus. He will visit Cyprus, Greece and Turkey next week, and he will continue to help both sides with advice, encouragement and support.
  I have no doubt that our help and that of the international community will be more than ever needed in the months ahead. We must, however, be guided on some matters by the UN mediator, Diego Cordovez, on how

  347
  best we and others can assist. I know from the contributions in the debate today that hon. Members on both sides will want us to do our utmost.
  Mr. Grant: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. Is it the Government's position that they should reconvene a meeting of the guarantor powers? My hon. Friend mentioned Sir David Hannay, who would go as an ambassador to the various guarantor powers. Has my hon. Friend considered the British Government themselves calling a meeting of the guarantor powers to discuss the matter?
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I assure him that the British Government want to see the parties brought together. Our view is that it would be better for us to use our best endeavours to bring those parties together under the United Nations rather than to reconvene a meeting, as we believe that that would have more impact and would probably be easier to achieve.
  Mr. David Heath: I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position. I did not seek to intervene earlier because many hon. Members wished to contribute to the debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will have the support of the whole House and certainly that of Liberal Democrat Members in pursuit of the policies he has outlined. If the British Government can play an active role in concert, of course, with the United Nations in seeking a lasting settlement in Cyprus, the Minister will certainly have the support of Liberal Democrat Members.
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that commitment and his reassurance. I can give him a reciprocal assurance that when new issues and initiatives arise, we shall endeavour to keep every group of interests well briefed on developments. That would include hon. Members—and, indeed, the parties that they represent—who have shown an interest in seeking a settlement in Cyprus.
  We know that negotiation will not resolve itself quickly, as has been said. We are not talking about one make-or-break negotiating session. Indeed, we do not
  348
  necessarily expect to find a solution this year. Hon. Members will recognise that the process will need to take account of the impending presidential elections in the Republic of Cyprus in February 1998. That is not however an excuse for standing still, and we hope that progress will be made on a number of key issues. The negotiating process needs a basis to ensure that progress continues in early 1998. We are ready to help the United Nations manage any break in the negotiating process.
  As hon. Members know only too well, a settlement cannot be achieved easily, but the consequences of another failure would be grave. On the other hand, a settlement would mean an end to the tragedies that have been described in the debate, an end to the continuing spiral of arms purchases that has made Cyprus the tinder box it is today and an improvement in the climate of relations between Greece and Turkey.
  I turn to the European Union dimension. The prospect of Cyprus's accession to the EU brings a new opportunity to make progress towards a settlement. Accession negotiations are due to open six months after the end of the intergovernmental conference under our EU presidency. We expect that that important initiative will begin on time.
  We welcome the prospect of Cyprus's accession to the EU and hope that it will stimulate both sides to make progress towards a settlement through direct talks hosted by the UN. I should make it clear again that no third party can have any veto over that process. We believe that membership of the EU will benefit all Cypriots in terms of political and economic co-operation and the social benefits that EU citizens enjoy. As has been said, Cyprus itself can make a substantial contribution to EU activities.
  Above all, a settlement of the Cyprus problem will mean that that troubled island will start the new millennium with confidence, vigour and hope. I am pleased that hon. Members have been so committed to helping to find a settlement that can allow that to happen. The Government make the same commitment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We move to the next debate, on arrangements for Prime Minister's Question Time.

  Prime Minister's Question Time
  12.22 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on his appointment. I believe that it is some time since Liverpool has had a Minister in Her Majesty's Government. I am only sorry that he should have to answer and support a case of such weakness, but I have no doubt that he will plough through it.
  Almost the first act of the new Government, which was announced by press release when the House had not fully convened, was to allow the Prime Minister to get away from having to answer to Parliament twice a week. That act, which was carried without consultation, is entirely contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Procedure Committee. The recommendation was most carefully made, following the taking of much evidence—including, somewhat unusually, from three previous Prime Ministers.
  The recommendation in paragraph 41 of the Procedure Committee's report reads:
  "We are not persuaded that a change, under the existing format for Prime Minister's Questions, to one 30 minute session a week is desirable."
  The report was unanimously agreed by the Committee, which included four Labour Members, one of whom is now a Minister. They were the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is now a Minister. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) also voted in favour. The view taken by the Procedure Committee was given definite and specific backing.
  Such evidence may be enough—but, stop, is there something more? I remind the House that there is. On page 43 of the report, a letter reads:
  "I can see a good case for a radical overhaul of Prime Minister's Questions to replace the existing pattern with a once weekly session of half an hour in which there is more of an opportunity to probe the Prime Minister in depth … I very much doubt that any Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition has ever actually looked forward to 3.15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. These sessions"—
  mark the word "sessions"
  "are however a fundamental part of our parliamentary democracy, and a part that is now familiar to the public."
  That evidence was given not by a Conservative Minister but by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister repeated the phrase "Trust me" many times, but it is proving a fairly hollow entreaty as the Blair Government set about riding roughshod over the rights and duties of Parliament to hold the Executive to account.
  Let us consider the issue in a logical sequence and consider the arguments put by the Leader of the House, who I am sorry is not in her place to defend her action. I believe that the decision was forced on her and was not of her own choosing. The Prime Minister rejected absolutely the concept of the right of the Leader of the Opposition to have a go at the Prime Minister twice a week—which had been his right. He had made it nearly mandatory to ask three supplementary questions each session, totalling six questions a week—at least two being carefully prepared soundbites ensuring that some damaging comment was made about the Government.
  350
  The President of the Council said that it was necessary to implement the decision immediately or it would never be implemented. She must understand that that is nonsense, given that there is a motion on today's Order Paper to set up a Committee to look into the matter. One presumes that that Committee's recommendations will be carried. Why, therefore, was there a need to rush the matter through without proper consultation, which previous Governments and Lord Presidents of the Council had always allowed whenever alterations to procedure were considered?
  The moment that he came to power, the Prime Minister ran away from the concept of having Prime Minister's questions twice a week. He claimed that Parliament was not served by them and that a session once a week would be more serious and would allow more questions to be asked. With the open-ended question still in operation, Prime Minister's questions will not become more constructive or more serious. Yes, we may get through one or two more questions in a single 30-minute session than with the Tuesday and Thursday routine, but why? Because the Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, used to take up between 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the 15-minute session with his questions and the answers to them. Anyone will realise that the major sufferer under the new regime will be the Leader of the Opposition. He will not be called six times by Madam Speaker in the 30-minute session. Of course we will get through one or two more Back-Bench questions, but at whose expense? It will be at the Leader of the Opposition's expense. I am certain that that will not displease the Prime Minister. He has now made six equal three. That is imaginative mathematics even for the new Labour Government.
  Of real concern, as hon. Members who have been here for some time will know, is the topical aspect to Prime Minister's Question Time. Subjects for questions to the Prime Minister on Thursday afternoons often arose from the Cabinet meeting on Thursday mornings. Now, the chance to ask those questions will not arise for six days. The Sunday papers will often have already presented the Government's view and the topicality will have gone six days later.
  A side issue is that the most popular time for the public to request orders for the Gallery was for the twice-weekly sessions of Prime Minister's Question Time. The orders for those sessions were like gold dust, but the public will now have only half the opportunities to see the Prime Minister at work. The public outside will see the Prime Minister under fire only once a week on television. The twice-weekly sessions used to be very popular.
  We will make Prime Minister's Question Time more constructive only when we limit the open-ended question, as I have said. That was resisted by Labour Members in opposition because, they argued, Prime Minister's questions would lose their topicality. That argument becomes even stronger if what is topical on Wednesday evening or Thursday cannot be dealt with until six days later. The change will reduce the chance of removing the limitation of the open-ended questions, which is the one way in which the Procedure Committee argued we could make Prime Minister's Question Time more serious and more constructive.
  The move by the Prime Minister amounts to limits on the Opposition that he absolutely refused to accept when he was in opposition. Nobody can tell me differently,

  351
  because I argued personally with the Prime Minister's staff in his office on that point. When in opposition, he wanted no alteration to the existing pattern.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I participated in the Procedure Committee's inquiry into the subject. Does he acknowledge that it would have been much better to have the debate as soon as possible after publication of the Procedure Committee's report? The debate could have been accommodated within the business of the House by the previous Government, but they never gave us the opportunity to debate it. We could have heard the arguments, including those from the then Leader of the Opposition, before the general election. We could have had a good debate using that experience and the report before us, instead of leaving the report hanging in the air without any conclusion, as unfortunately happened under the previous Government.
  Sir Peter Emery: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the previous Leader of the House, Mr. Tony Newton, proceeded with procedural changes only if there was general agreement between the usual channels. It was the specific refusal of the Opposition to agree to the Government's proposal to provide Government time that meant that the debate did not take place. I should know, because I negotiated with the Leader of the House to try to arrange the debate. It was specifically because the then Leader of the Opposition did not wish to change the existing practice—he did not want to incorporate the suggestions that we were making—that the report was not considered by the House.
  Proper parliamentary reform must always be conducted with the mutual agreement of the majority of hon. Members. When reform has been thrust through by one party, it has usually failed. I know that better than most, having been the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for 14 years.
  The Prime Minister is refusing to allow himself to be questioned as every Prime Minister has been questioned for the past 35 years. Why? It must either be because he is willing to treat the House of Commons with disdain, or because he is afraid of being cross-questioned by his peers twice a week. He admitted in his letter to the Procedure Committee that he does not look forward to that.
  Mr. Mike Hall: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister is frightened to answer questions. If so, why has my right hon. Friend introduced changes that will lead to more questions, not fewer?
  Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me. What the Prime Minister has done is to turn six into three.
  Mr. Hall indicated dissent.
  Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Member should not shake his head. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he asked six questions in the two sessions. If the Leader of the Opposition has the chance to ask only three questions once a week, Back Benchers will obviously have more time for questions.
  352
  As I was saying, either the Prime Minister is afraid of being cross-questioned by his peers or he wishes to limit the House's ability to hold the Executive to account. Whichever is true, it is ignoble and it shows an arrogance and disdain for Parliament. It shows a contempt more normally associated with some of the so-called democratic leaders of banana republics.
  What have we seen in the Session so far? No statement was made to the House on the alteration of the role of the Bank of England; no statement was made to the House on the defence review; and no statement was made to the House about the changes that will protect the Prime Minister from having to come to the House twice a week. The phrase "Trust me" has a hollow ring indeed, when it comes to protecting the rights of Parliament.
  12.37 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) for allowing me a moment or two£
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the Minister to speak? In Adjournment debates such as this, it is not enough to have the permission of the initiator of the debate. He must have the permission of the Minister who is to reply. Does he have that permission?
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I was not informed, but I do not object to the hon. Member speaking in the debate.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister and I congratulate him on his new office. I am sure that this will be the first of many occasions on which he is here to answer Adjournment debates.
  I fully endorse everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said. He gave us a careful and accurate analysis of the factual and historical background to the discussions about the format for Prime Minister's questions. As he said, one of the consequences of the change has been to reduce by half the opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to question the Prime Minister. I regret that, because that questioning has been an important part of exchanges in the House twice a week for many years. The change is not one for the better.
  Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in any case, the arithmetic of the House has changed the status of the Leader of the Opposition, as there are now three major parties in the House? Do not the new arrangements rightly reflect that change, by recognising the fact that the leader of the third party should have more opportunities than he had in the past?
  Mr. Yeo: As the hon. Gentleman has raised the point, I can tell him that the third party now has about a quarter of the number of seats that the second party has, yet is being allowed two thirds of the opportunities to ask the Prime Minister questions. Had the previous arrangements remained in force, it would have had one third of the opportunities, so even that was disproportionately weighted in favour of the third party. The arrangements are now enormously weighted in its favour. Clearly that change is welcome to the third party, but it is in no way justified by the change in the parliamentary arithmetic.

  353
  My quarrel is not so much with the nature of the changes, which could have been the subject of a debate, as with the manner in which they were announced.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman said that the change was in no way justified, but does he acknowledge that as the Leader of the Opposition now represents only half as many Members as he did before, it might be appropriate for him to have half the number of opportunities at Question Time?
  Mr. Yeo: The tradition in the House has been to allow the Leader of the Opposition, whoever he is, whichever party he represents, and almost regardless of the number of seats, to ask questions. I am thinking of the House in 1983, when the Labour party had only slightly more seats than the Conservative party has now. No one in any party in the House then suggested that because the Labour party had suffered a severe setback at the general election, its opportunities to ask the Prime Minister questions should be reduced.
  However, all that is to some extent beside the point. The issue here is the way in which the decision was taken and announced, without consultation with any Back Bencher. I regret that, as, I think, do many Members on both sides of the House.
  When the Minister replies, he could be very brief, although I shall ensure that he gets his 15 minutes—I think that that is usually the length of speech prepared for a Minister replying to an Adjournment debate. The most useful thing that he could do would be to acknowledge that on this occasion an inexperienced Government and Prime Minister made a mistake.
  The matter could be largely put right by a forthright apology. It is nothing to be ashamed of if mistakes are made when there is a new boy in the job. Questions in the House, whether to the Prime Minister or to any other Minister, are important, especially for Back Benchers.
  In the present era, the Minister without Portfolio and his Government thought-police are hellbent on controlling every utterance of Labour Back Benchers. I do not know how long that control will be effective—I doubt whether it will last until 2002—but for the time being it remains, so it is Back Benchers from the various Opposition parties who are most affected by the change.
  It has already been agreed between the two sides of the House that the total number of questions asked by Back Benchers has not been reduced; I do not suggest that it has, although the immediacy of those questions is certainly reduced by the change from two sessions to one. However, given that, with their huge majority, it is clear that the Government ultimately have the power to force through any change in parliamentary procedure that they wish, it is an act of extraordinary arrogance for the Government and the Leader of the House to make such a change without consulting even one Back Bencher on either side of the House.
  Coupled with the way in which the Leader of the House has acted ruthlessly to prevent debate on large chunks of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, those actions do not bode well for the health of parliamentary debate or of democracy. They certainly do not sit easily with the
  354
  Government's repeatedly proclaiming their commitment to openness and accountability, and their wish to be the servants, not the masters, of the people.
  I believe that the Minister's reply could be brief. He could simply say, "Yes, we were wrong. Yes, we are sorry—and now we shall engage in a belated process of consultation."
  12.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): As I have not yet had the privilege of speaking from the Dispatch Box as a member of the Government, nor with you in the Chair, Mr. Martin, I first extend my congratulations to you. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate you formally.
  I shall set out the Government's position unequivocally. Put simply, it is that the procedure report did not win general acceptance, that changing the rota for oral questions is an administrative matter, as I shall go on to substantiate, that the change needed to be introduced without delay—carrying out a widespread consultation, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) suggested, would have been virtually impossible—that the structure of Prime Minister's questions can be reviewed by the Select Committee on the modernisation of the House of Commons, and finally, that the new system is far better than the old.
  The House will be grateful to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) for giving us the opportunity to debate one of our most important procedures. In previous Parliaments, the right hon. Gentleman played a distinguished part as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, as we all know. As he said, his total service in that role amounts to 14 years. His speech introducing the debate showed evidence of a wide knowledge and of long experience of all aspects of the procedure of the House.
  In recent years there has been considerable dissatisfaction with the way in which Prime Minister's questions were conducted. That was felt not only outside the House, where many people watch the event live on television, but inside the House. The former Prime Minister made it clear several years ago that he thought that the time could be used more productively.
  Responding to that desire for change, the Procedure Committee carried out its inquiry. Its report, and the evidence on which it was based, made a valuable contribution to the debate, and I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Member for East Devon and his colleagues on the Committee for the work that they put into that report.
  The Committee's main recommendation was that instead of tabling open questions that gave no idea of the subject that the questioner wished to raise, the 10 Members successful in the ballot should have to table a substantive question the day before. The Committee made a respectable case for that proposal but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out at the time, doing away with open questions altogether would cause controversy.
  As the right hon. Member for East Devon will agree, there will always be controversy about suggested procedural changes in the House. The Conservative Government at the time did not accept the recommendation, which does not seem to have won the support of the House as a whole, either.

  355
  As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) reminded us, it was the Conservative Government who prevented proper and open debate on such matters. If he reads column 631 of Hansard for 11 July 1996, he will see that the Procedure Committee's report was tagged on to a debate at that stage in the parliamentary process. It was the Conservative Government who prevented debate, not a lack of willingness on the part of the then Labour Opposition.
  The previous Government were in no hurry to act on the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. The Committee's report was not debated for a year, and then only as part of an Adjournment debate on the subject of parliamentary procedure. In that debate the former Leader of the House, Tony Newton, made clear his reservations about the suggested change, pointing out that it would make it more difficult to put topical questions to the Prime Minister.
  The new Government took office on 1 May with a manifesto commitment to modernise the House of Commons, and in particular to make Prime Minister's questions more effective. As a first step in that direction, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced on 9 May that there would be one half-hour session of Prime Minister's questions every week, to provide further scope for covering more issues in depth.
  That did not require a change in Standing Orders, only a change in the rota for oral questions. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that the rota needs to be settled before the State Opening of Parliament, so that when the Table Office opens that morning, Members will know which Ministers will answer questions on which days. The sensible course was, therefore, to move to the new arrangements right from the start, rather than cause confusion by changing the rota half way through the Session. Members who say that they are not necessarily against the changes we have made but complain that they should have been consulted first—such as the hon. Member for South Suffolk—ought to recognise that, in the circumstances, that was impracticable.
  Governments of all political persuasions have changed the questions rota from time to time in response to changes in ministerial responsibility and other factors. This Session's rota would in any case have been different from last Session's to reflect the Prime Minister's decision to bring together the Departments of the Environment and of Transport under the Deputy Prime Minister, and to create the new Department of International Development.
  The Prime Minister's place on the rota has been changed several times before. Way back in Mr. Gladstone's time, questions to the Prime Minister were taken last; then at question No. 51; then at question No. 45; then at question No. 40 on Tuesdays and Thursdays; and then at 3.15 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The changes we are discussing mean that the Prime Minister still answers questions for 30 minutes each week—just as the Prime Minister did before.
  Mr. Mike Hall: One of the criticisms from Opposition Members concerns the lack of consultation. Yet two years ago, the Prime Minister announced his intention to
  356
  improve Prime Minister's Question Time. He consulted the electorate on this proposal, and my hon. Friend will agree that he is right to make the change.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The Prime Minister has made clear repeatedly his intention to make the House more in tune with the needs of the 21st, rather than the 19th, century. As a result, he received a ringing endorsement from the electorate on 1 May. That should be borne in mind by Opposition Members.
  Sir Peter Emery: The Minister listed the historical changes made to Prime Minister's Question Time. The records show that those changes were all made following consultation with all parties. The present change was made without such consultation. Labour's manifesto—which, for greater accuracy, I looked up this morning—says:
  "Prime Minister's Question Time will be made more effective".
  Most people believe that that comes about by the open-ended question, and not necessarily by any alteration in timing.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: If the right hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will show how increased effectiveness is offered by the new arrangements for Prime Minister's Question Time. I would argue that, far from being a diminution of the rights of Back Benchers, our changes will give Back Benchers greater opportunity to put questions to the Prime Minister and will therefore make them a far more effective mechanism within the House.
  The other change, which was made with the agreement of Madam Speaker, is that the Prime Minister no longer refers back to the earlier question about his engagements. Instead, the hon. Member tabling the question goes straight to his or her supplementary question without any preliminaries, which were pointless, repetitive and difficult for members of the public to understand. This sensible reform was suggested by the Committee in its report, and I see that the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for East Devon, is nodding. The change will open up what happens in this House to a less esoteric audience than Members of Parliament.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has moved quickly to propose the creation of a new Select Committee to consider the modernisation of the House of Commons. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Devon for indicating his support for this idea when he spoke in the debate on the eve of the spring recess. I hope that the new Committee will review the changes introduced by the Government to Prime Minister's Question Time, and it may wish also to look at some of the other reforms that have been suggested, such as doing away with open questions altogether and reducing the period of notice required for specific questions. The House will then be able to look again at Prime Minister's Question Time, if it wishes, with the benefit of advice from the Select Committee and with greater experience of the new format.
  It is a little early to draw any conclusions, since Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon will be only the second to be held under the new arrangements. None the less, I believe that it is instructive to compare Prime Minister's Question Time on 21 May with what happened on the last two such occasions in the last Parliament.

  357
  On 18 and 20 March, a total of nine Back Benchers were able to put supplementary questions to the Prime Minister. On 21 May, 18 Back Benchers were called. On 18 March, the House reached only Question 3 on the Order Paper, while on 20 March we did not get past the first question. On 21 May, the House finished at Question 10.
  On 20 March—as has been pointed out—the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, was called once. On 21 May, he was called twice, enabling him to go into his chosen topic in greater depth. That was one of the reasons for making the change to a half-hour session. Even more importantly—although this is not something which can be proved with numbers—I think that every hon. Member who was present would agree that the tone of Prime Minister's Question Time on 21 May was infinitely more positive and constructive than in the last Parliament. I am sure that it will do much to raise the standing of this House in the country at large if we can continue in this spirit throughout the Parliament.
  Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for East Devon could not resist some jibes at the expense of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. First, he said that when my right hon. Friend was the Leader of the Opposition, he took up a disproportionate time during Prime Minister's Question Time. I may be alone in my recollections, but I seem to remember that the orchestrated interruptions by the then Conservative majority prevented the proper conduct of Prime Minister's Question Time and, on occasion after occasion, prevented my right hon. Friend from presenting his case and asking questions in an orderly fashion. Thankfully, because of a new approach from the new Government, that will no longer obtain.
  358
  Secondly, I find farcical the suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is afraid to come here to answer questions, given the mandate that he and the Government have been given. I reject that out of hand. We have to get away from such jibes, and members of this Government will try to do so in a responsible fashion.
  I was sad to hear the right hon. Member for East Devon state that we were conducting the government of this country like a banana republic. That was a gratuitously offensive remark about a new Government who have come in at a rate of knots to effect changes that we set out clearly in our manifesto, which, I repeat, gained a ringing endorsement on 1 May.
  Mr. Yeo: Is the Minister suggesting that merely because a commitment has been contained in a manifesto, the need for subsequent parliamentary scrutiny and consultation about the details of implementing the proposal is removed? If that is the case, it is a very serious threat to this country.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am not saying that at all. First, we are a responsible Government who want to bring the procedures of this House up to speed with the demands of the 21st century rather than the 19th. Secondly, it is self-evident that the Prime Minister and the Government were given solid support by the electorate on 1 May for making those necessary changes.
  I assure the right hon. Member for East Devon that the Prime Minister is just as accountable to the House as he was before; that he answers questions for as long now as he did before; that a question which could have been put to the Prime Minister before can be put to the Prime Minister now; and that all the new arrangements can be reviewed by a Select Committee of this House. I am sure that the new format for Prime Minister's Question Time is a considerable improvement on the old. I believe that this view will be shared by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties in increasing numbers.

  GPs (Sunderland)
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I have already done so privately, but I take the opportunity to do so formally, on the record, and I wish you all the best in the years ahead.
  I am pleased to get the chance to have this debate today, because it is no exaggeration to say that the subject is the most important one that I have dealt with in my five years in the House. It is the cause of considerable concern to my constituents and to various people in the medical profession.
  I have a little difficulty, because I must praise both the British Medical Association, in the form of Dr. Patnaik, who has sent me quite a lot of information, and Clare Dodgson, the chief executive of Sunderland health authority, who has done likewise. The trouble is that their figures do not quite coincide.
  The one thing that is certain is that the average number of patients registered with a general practitioner in the country as a whole is about 1,800. In Sunderland, the worst figure suggested by the BMA is an average of 2,400 patients. That is a long way above the national average—one third or 33; per cent. extra. Even the lower figure suggested by Sunderland health authority, 2,200, is about 22 or 23 per cent. above the national average.
  The position is exacerbated by the fact that, according to the last survey that I read about the general health of the nation, Sunderland was in the bottom five health authorities for the state of the public's health. A GP in Sunderland has many more patients than he or she should have, and those patients are generally in a poorer condition. That term may sound impersonal, which I do not mean it to be, but that is the reality.
  The problem is not new. It has been known about since the early 1990s. Indeed, in 1994, when the health authority published its services review, the whole thrust was to take work away from the secondary sector and put it back into the primary sector. In other words, everyone seemed to think that it was a good idea to try to reduce the work load at hospitals and pass it back to GPs.
  At that time, many people warned the health authority that doctors could only just manage with the work load that they had then, let alone an increased load. At that time, the local medical committee, general practitioners, consultants, Sunderland community health council, local Members of Parliament—including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has been vociferous on the issue—patients and many individuals expressed concerns and proposed alternative views but, unfortunately, as probably happened in many other areas, the health authority chose to ignore them.
  We warned at the time that crisis point would be reached in the service if something dramatic was not done to address the problem. Unfortunately, the resources that were supposed to be made available to augment and strengthen the primary sector relied on diverting money saved by a reduction in costs in the secondary sector. Three years on, we find that no resources have been moved from one sector to the other. Indeed, Sunderland health authority has stated publicly that the rundown in hospital facilities will, if necessary, be reduced until such time as the primary sector can deal with its problems.
  360
  In their manifesto, the Government stated that there would be a Minister responsible for equalising the service that people can expect from the health service regardless of what part of the country they live in. It is not my intention to deliver a long tirade about what might or might not have been done. I am sure that everyone in the health sector recognises the problem, and endeavours have been made to improve the situation, but I am concerned when I hear about trying to take work away from GPs and give it to nurse practitioners, because I have not met a single member of the public who is in favour of that. If we want nurse practitioners to do doctors' work, they should be properly trained and paid as GPs.
  I must give credit to the GPs in Sunderland. The burden that they have and the disadvantages that they are working under are such that they must be really good people, or the service would have collapsed long ago. I know of no place in Britain where the GP:patient ratio is worse than in Sunderland.
  The health authority thinks that it has done all that it can. We might disagree at times about the best way forward—for example, I should like the career start scheme, allowing a young doctor to work in the area without the financial obligations of having to buy into a practice, which has been successful in Durham, to be tried in Sunderland.
  In addition to the current shortfall, there is not a single GP under 30 years of age working in Sunderland. The average age is almost 48, and the preponderance of people working in the service are in the 50 to 55, or 55 to 60 range. We even have four doctors who are between 65 and 70. With no disrespect to them, it should not be necessary for doctors to work after they are 65; there should be enough young doctors coming in to allow them to retire while they are still in reasonable health themselves.
  I want the Minister to contact the people on Sunderland health authority, try to come up with some new ideas, and perhaps appoint someone independent to consider the problem. No matter how hard the health authority is trying—and I give it its due—it is not having any effect and the situation is not improving. The citizens have a right to say that it is a Government responsibility to take the necessary action, to ensure that all areas have an equal health service.
  For me, the problem is the No. 1 priority in the health care sector in my constituency and in the Sunderland area as a whole. I get a little depressed when I find that the health authority intends to spend scarce resources on litigation to try to force Northumbrian Water to put fluoride in the water, when the vast majority of the public do not want that.
  It is even more depressing that the local hospital, which for many years—most of the century, as far as I am aware—was called Sunderland district general hospital, decided a few weeks ago to change its name to Sunderland Royal hospital, which will no doubt lead to extraordinary costs and will not result in one more patient receiving treatment or any improvement whatever for health service patients.
  I know that the Minister knows the Sunderland area well, and worked there at one time, and I wish him well in his new post. I hope that he will be able to see his way clear to trying to bring some relief to my fellow citizens

  361
  in Sunderland, because the situation is extremely worrying; from being manageable, it could suddenly become completely unmanageable.
  When a couple of doctors retired in the middle of 1985, more than 1,000 of my constituents were struck off from the practice and had to find somewhere else. People have to travel all over the town. People are now only rarely able to go to surgeries within walking distance of where they live. So bad is the situation that the health authority employs someone full time to find places for citizens on doctors' panels. That cannot be a satisfactory situation. We need something doing, and urgently. Whatever measures are required to bring it about must be taken. It does not matter who takes them.
  I hope that the Minister will be more effective than his predecessors over the past four or five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and I twice met Ministers in the previous Government. We have had numerous meetings with the local health authority; we have met the regional health authority. I do not doubt that there is plenty of good will, but we are not getting any movement. This is going to be a good test of our new Government in view of our commitment to improving the health service and reducing bureaucracy to get more patients treated.
  1.10 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to this debate, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing and which is important to his constituents. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) also takes an active interest in the recruitment and retention of general practitioners in the city.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North rightly said, he and I have a great affinity for Sunderland, which is a great city. I spent two years working to keep the Sunderland shipyards open. I therefore have a great deal of sympathy with the points that he raised, and I thank him for raising them in such a considered way. I listened carefully to what he said about his and his constituents' concerns about the situation in Sunderland. Those concerns are shared by the Government. I especially realise that Sunderland has faced considerable challenges in relation to the high work load on existing GPs and the problems of recruiting new doctors.
  People in Sunderland deserve the best possible primary care services. Sunderland needs such services because of the situation that my hon. Friend described. There are high levels of mortality and morbidity, and real problems of social deprivation and poverty that have wholesale health implications. In that respect, I understand that Sunderland is engaged in a programme of urban regeneration and that the health authority is actively involved in a range of partnership initiatives with the city council and other organisations in an effort to promote healthier life styles, create job opportunities, improve housing and so on. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that those engaged in such activities are to be congratulated on their efforts; we wish them well. I hope that he also agrees that the new Government's approach on job creation, housing and public health will be of direct benefit to those local efforts.
  362
  In addition to that general activity, Sunderland health authority, which is responsible for providing services in the area, is actively trying to redress the situation. It has taken several positive steps to promote recruitment and retention of GPs. I know that my hon. Friend recognises the commitment of the health authority chairman, the chief executive, to whom he paid tribute, and their colleagues on the ground to doing what they can. I was also pleased that Sunderland has at least made some efforts to listen to the views of the local community using the King's Fund citizens jury initiative, which highlighted several issues including making greater use of multidisciplinary teams working in primary care.
  I have read carefully the information that has been supplied to me about the progress that has been made in Sunderland, in trying to address some of the problems that my hon. Friend described. I was particularly struck by one initiative, the new out-of-hours emergency centre in the city, which is staffed by the deputising service and tries to relieve the out-of-hours work load on GPs. As my hon. Friend knows, that service became fully operational on 1 March last year. I understand that a recently completed evaluation by Sunderland's local medical committee showed it to be a great success. Patient satisfaction with the service was high, and a further survey of GPs in Sunderland has shown that a significant number of doctors would be willing to work sessions in a modern primary care centre. In the light of that progress, two further such centres are being opened in the city. I hope that those developments will make Sunderland more attractive to young doctors.
  My hon. Friend knows that there have been other initiatives, and highlighted one that he would like to be imported from a neighbouring area. I shall ask Sunderland health authority to explore that possibility. I want to build on those local efforts by pursuing policies nationally that I believe will help tackle Sunderland's GP recruitment problems. As my hon. Friend knows, Sunderland is an extreme case, but there are pockets of similar problems in other parts of the country. We intend to do what we can to take action to resolve them. I shall briefly describe some of the measures that are in hand.
  In the short time that we have been in government, I have, precisely because of the concerns that have been expressed by my hon. Friend and others, begun to consider in detail recruitment and retention issues in general practice. Family doctor services are the bedrock of the national health service. The Government believe that there is a need for overall work force policies that will attract high-calibre students into general practice. In the light of that view, I was concerned, as I said last week, by recently published figures that show that the number of GP trainees fell by more than one fifth over the decade between 1986 and 1996.
  While the falling number of GP trainees is a cause for concern, the issue cannot be seen in isolation. My hon. Friend made some important points about the relationship between the primary and secondary care sectors. We must ensure that we do not consider such issues in isolation, but take a holistic view of the national health service and the range of services that it provides. I intend to look carefully at how primary care is provided, how to get the balance right between secondary and primary care and how to encourage the work force to reflect that balance. We are aiming to integrate medical work force planning more closely across the primary and secondary sectors,

  363
  so that in future the number of GPs and the number of hospital doctors will be considered together rather than in isolation. We shall talk to the medical profession about all those issues.
  We want to consider flexible working patterns to provide opportunities for change that address the needs of the work force while providing high-quality services for patients. We shall seek the views of the profession on what employment opportunities would better suit their needs and how any such needs could be addressed.
  We shall also consider opportunities under the National Health Service Primary Care Act 1997 for health authorities to improve the level and types of services that family doctors may provide. We shall also look at other options within the existing national contract, such as whether a salaried doctors scheme within the existing framework might provide some answers, particularly in areas with recruitment difficulties, such as Sunderland. I know that many health authorities have already explored that option, but have found several legal obstacles to its implementation. I shall consider ways in which we might move forward as soon as possible.
  We also realise the importance of retaining GPs and attracting back into practice qualified practitioners, especially the increasing proportion of female GPs. My view is extremely straightforward. The health service needs to develop much more family-friendly policies, if we are to recruit people into medical practice and retain them. The world has moved on and the medical profession is no longer a male bastion. With an increasing number of women GPs and doctors comes a need to consider flexibility so that their careers are no longer artificially moulded by outdated practices. I shall look carefully at that.
  I shall also examine how general practice retains its work force. We need policies that provide sufficient opportunities for doctors who wish to take career breaks but to retain skills so that they can re-enter general practice at a later date. In considering the needs of the work force, we shall also consider the effect on services. We need to ensure that we continue to build a strong family doctor service in which quality is the watchword.
  I believe that access to primary care services is a patient's fundamental right in the NHS. At the risk of repeating a point that was made by my hon. Friend, it may be worth giving just one statistic that will help to put the position in Sunderland into the national context. Average GP list sizes have been falling throughout the country, in some cases dramatically—by about 9 per cent. They stand now at an average of about 1,800 per doctor. The average list size in Sunderland is at least 2,200. I know that there are arguments about whether the health authority and the British Medical Association have got the figure right, but as my hon. Friend says, there is real anxiety that list sizes in Sunderland are much greater than in other parts of the country. Sunderland is working hard to improve that ratio while not compromising quality.
  364
  I know that there have been discussions with the Medical Practices Committee of the BMA, which controls the distribution of GPs throughout England and Wales, to ensure that entry into general practice in Sunderland is planned to give the best services possible in the areas of greatest need. If my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North would like to submit evidence to me about the extent of the problem, if he thinks that the health authority has not quite got the measure of the problem, or if my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South would like to do so, I shall take a personal interest in what they have to say.
  I shall ask Sunderland health authority to identify the steps that it considers necessary to tackle the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North described. I shall take a personal interest in its response. I do not think that the problem persists for lack of trying to deal with it on the part of Sunderland health authority. It has embarked on a wide and impressive range of initiatives. My hon. Friend says that it has not cracked the problem. That may be true, but it has operated in a national environment that has not been conducive to attracting doctors into general practice or retaining them.
  It has become crystal clear to me in the past few weeks that there is real concern among GPs about their work load and the continual public pressures that they face. We shall have to deal with that. I know that there is particular stress and pressure in Sunderland, but it is fair to say that GP morale in the country as a whole is not what it was or should be.
  Mr. Etherington: The fact that the number of patients per GP has dropped nationally at a time when the opposite has happened in Sunderland emphasises my point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer to listen to representations from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). We shall certainly take advantage of that and arrange an early meeting with him to put our views to him privately.
  Mr. Milburn: I am always happy to oblige. It might be useful for us to do that. I shall ask Sunderland health authority to report on and assess as quickly as possible the initiatives that it has taken. As public money is involved, it is important that when new initiatives are set in train, a full evaluation is made of the action that has been taken and whether it has been successful. I shall also ask the health authority to describe in more detail the steps that it considers should be taken in future. We want to help as much as possible.
  I give my hon. Friend an assurance that I shall take a personal interest in the issue. I also give him a more general assurance that the Government are determined to ensure that patients in all parts of Britain receive the GP services that they deserve.
  1.26 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I add my congratulations to those of others on your appointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I go further, I need to declare an interest that I shall record in the Register of Members' Interests. I still serve as a local authority councillor in the London borough of Sutton. I shall make some references to Sutton and some initiatives that the council is taking.
  It is appropriate that we are talking today about youth crime, given the early disclosure last week of the 1996 international crime victimisation survey. Whatever the official figures reveal about increases or decreases in crime, there can be no doubt that 18 years of Conservative government have produced a high-crime society. No Home Secretary or Government can be proud of that fact. The House cannot be satisfied or, indeed, safe, until we have taken steps to reduce crime and the fear of crime.
  Crime and the fear of crime affect the vulnerable in our society—the elderly, ethnic minorities, disabled people and women. Fear imprisons victims as surely as prison bars imprison offenders. It is important to bear it in mind that the most likely victims of crime are young people between the ages of 19 and 25.
  I wish to draw attention to a soundbite that was used before the general election by the then Opposition, now the Government. "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime," was the cry of the present Home Secretary when he was in opposition. I shall seek some reassurances today that one part of that equation has not been lost. Some statements since the election have made me fear that it might have been; that the transition between opposition and government has led the Home Secretary to drop the reference to being tough on the causes of crime. I strongly believe that simply to deal with the effects of crime—with its aftermath—is not an adequate response.
  I have no doubt that the Home Secretary is sincere when he talks about being tough on crime, but I urge Ministers to do all that they can to move away from the rhetoric and soundbites of the previous Home Secretary. The rhetoric failed to deal with the causes of crime and was unlikely to do anything to change criminal behaviour.
  On the face of it, there is little to oppose in the Government's emphasis on the idea of zero tolerance. However, that strategy fails to address the reality and clutches at what appears to be just one solution to a complex set of problems. I stress that crime is not susceptible to soundbite solutions. We need to attack crime and the causes of crime from as many different directions as possible.
  When in opposition, the current Home Secretary paid a number of visits to the United States, in particular New York, to look at the initiatives taken there. Those visits certainly helped to reinforce the image of an iron Home Secretary in waiting. From the further evidence taken from other American cities that have tried the zero tolerance initiative, it is clear that they have not delivered as great a reduction in crime as that recorded in New York. Moreover, other American cities have achieved even bigger reductions in crime without deploying the zero tolerance tactics.
  I understand from professionals in this field that one plausible explanation for the reduction in crime in New York is the reduced use of crack cocaine. That drug
  366
  dependency causes many people to commit crime to feed their habit and causes violent and dangerous behaviour. Many professionals, including many of our senior police officers, do not believe that zero tolerance alone is the solution to our crime problems.
  I believe that what is necessary for success is to focus not just on the consequences, but on the causes of crime. We need a sophisticated, well-researched and successfully implemented strategy to tackle crime. It should be backed up by practical action carried out in partnership. Partnership is a much used word, indeed, it is becoming one of the buzzwords of the 1990s, but for some of us it has been the foundation of practical action for many years. To that end, I should like to recommend a report published by James Morgan, entitled "Safer Communities". It was commissioned by the previous Government and published in 1991.
  There is no better case for the need for partnership in tackling youth crime than that presented in the report. Sadly, it has been left on the shelf to collect dust because of a lack of political will to see it implemented. That report includes the following two recommendations:
  "As the provider of a range of services which directly impact on the causes of crime (such as education, housing and recreation) the local authority is a natural focus for co-ordinating, in collaboration with the police, the broad range of activities directed at improving community safety …
  in the longer term local authorities, working in conjunction with the police, should have a clear statutory responsibility for the development and stimulation of community safety and crime prevention programmes, and for progressing at a local level a multi-agency approach to community safety".
  I hope that when the Minister responds he will say that the Government intend to enact those recommendations in their crime and disorder Bill so that local authorities are given the statutory force to develop community safety strategies.
  My local authority, the London borough of Sutton, has already taken the Morgan report recommendations to heart. In 1993, it appointed a community safety officer and it established a formal partnership with our local police and probation service. In 1994, that group produced a community safety action plan with the clear objectives of reducing the level of crime, lessening the fear of crime and creating a safer environment for community life to flourish.
  That first community safety action plan contained 29 specific projects, which were all completed within the designated two-year period. It is important to note that it is not just statutory agencies that are involved in the plan. Our partnership stretches well beyond that to include the voluntary and business sectors, to ensure a genuine strategic approach in Sutton.
  The 1994 and 1996 community safety action plans related to youth crime. Those innovative and imaginative schemes, which have been implemented in partnership, have been successful and produced a real reduction in crime. Although one can cast some doubt on the recorded statistics on crime, I believe that the largest reductions in reported crime in Sutton are as a direct result of the council's initiatives.
  If the Government are serious about reducing crime committed by young people, we need to understand what drives them to become offenders in the first place. If young people are the problem, they must also be part of

  367
  the solution. That means that young people should be included and consulted when identifying the issues, deciding the strategy and taking action.
  Sutton's concern about crime stems from a particular group of young people who committed a large number of burglaries, mostly from retail premises, in my constituency. Back in 1992, they had the effrontery to leave calling cards that read, "999". Unfortunately, their fame was increased out of all proportion due to my predecessor's predilection for generating newspaper headlines. The more that that group of young people breathed the oxygen of publicity, the more crime that they, and other young people who imitated them, started to commit.
  In June 1994, my council commissioned some research to find out young people's attitude to crime in order to establish why they committed such acts. That study was undertaken by young people who had been trained in counselling and research. They spent time out on the streets speaking to individuals and gangs of young people. That research showed that although the crimes were committed by a small number of young people, a large proportion of them used a range of drugs which contributed to their criminal behaviour. As a result of that research, the council funded and promoted the Sutton youth awareness programme—YAP. That organisation provides services such as one-to-one counselling and treatment and advice to young people using drugs as well as other substances such as solvents and alcohol. It also set up a programme of preventive workshops in schools and offers training and consultancy for staff who work with young people.
  An outreach programme was also established in 1996. It is training a large number of young people to work in outreach teams on the streets with the aim of reducing the level of substance abuse and engaging young people in purposeful activities in their local community.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I declare an interest as a recorder of the Crown court and a former acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating this important debate and I agree whole-heartedly with him about the need to tackle the causes of crime. From my experience, I believe that a great proportion of youth crime is connected with drugs and alcohol. Does he agree that the more work that can be concentrated on that problem, the greater the prospect of improvements?
  Mr. Burstow: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's good point. I am keen to stress that we need to do more to deal with the problems of solvent abuse and other forms of drug abuse.
  I should like to describe how the initiatives taken in my area have borne fruit. A local shopping centre, Stonecot Hill, suffered from a number of minor crimes, which caused a considerable amount of damage to the premises of local retailers. In the spring of 1996, the council called a meeting of those businesses, which was also attended by the local police and representatives of the probation service as well as youth workers and representatives of the Sutton youth awareness programme.
  As a result of that meeting, a strategy was agreed to increase the number of police officers patrolling the area. Outreach staff have also started to talk to young people
  368
  hanging around the streets. A graffiti project has been successfully implemented to engage those young people in productive work. The probation service, through its community services programme, has cleared up the area and painted and made repairs where necessary. Local traders suggested where murals might be painted and the first was completed in March 1997. The outreach teams have spent time with the young people for the past six months. Drug information and advice services have also been offered to young people, and those with more acute drug dependency problems have been referred for more extensive counselling and support.
  The council is also supplementing that initiative with the introduction of a closed circuit television camera at the local shopping centre, which is connected to the local control centre. It is important to note that that strategy has focused on the causes of crime, and in recent months the crime level has fallen to zero. In addition, it has helped to upgrade the area. It has brought together the traders and statutory agencies, who have agreed a programme of action. It has also diverted a significant number of young people from drifting into a life of crime and has prevented the inevitable spiral that leads to more serious offences.
  So far, I have described initiatives for young people on the verge of crime, but it is vital to try to work with those young people who have already fallen over the edge. One scheme in which my local authority of Sutton has become involved in recent years is the youth at risk programme. It was the second local authority to engage the youth at risk team. The team works with some of the most difficult children in our society and it has now run three programmes targeting persistent young offenders in Sutton. They are intensive programmes: residential courses are followed by a nine-month programme of training and one-to-one support. The programme was described in The Observer as
  "the kick start of a radical, 9 month programme to turn their (the lives of some seriously dysfunctional children and young people) around…Like Michael Howard's Boot Camps this is a relatively new idea from the United States. But boot camps are about tough punishment. Youth at Risk is about tough love."
  Young people involved in the initiative are able to reveal their backgrounds and experiences—many for the first time. The initiative often reveals very damaged children who have been abused, sexually and physically. Many of them have been through the care system and many have never experienced normal family life and the love of parent or parents. I do not say that to seek the House's pity for the children and I do not wish to pretend that the youth at risk programme turns them into angels—it does not. But it makes a difference to their lives and, as a consequence, to the communities in which they live.
  In National Volunteers Week, I want to pay particular tribute to the dedicated partners who play a part in the youth at risk programme. The volunteers allow the programme to succeed. We should pay tribute to them for riding the incredible roller-coaster of emotions involved in the programme.
  The youth at risk scheme has delivered positive results. It has shown that a large number of children with such problems in Sutton and other parts of the country can be diverted from offending—it has substantially reduced the level of offending. Many young people move back to employment or return to school as a result of the programme.

  369
  I do not believe that it is enough simply to address the problem of young offenders; we must also work with the victims of crime. In Sutton, the council has recently completed a survey of young people as victims of crime. It produced interesting findings which I have had the opportunity to study in the past few days. More than 1,000 young people responded to the survey; more than two thirds of them said that they had been the victim of crime. More than 20 per cent. of women had been subjected to sexual harassment. Some 33 per cent. of black respondents and 61 per cent. of Asian respondents said that they had been the victims of racial harassment.
  I wish the Home Secretary and his ministerial team the best of luck in tackling the legacy of the Home Office team in the previous Government. I hope that the Home Secretary and his team will not pander to the right-wing dogma that believes that prison works. A rising prison population is not a sign of success, but an admission of failure. Of course we need prison for serious and violent offenders, but the fact that 90 per cent. of young teenagers who are sent to prison are reconvicted within two years shows that that system is clearly not working.
  For every £50 that the Government spend today on catching, prosecuting and imprisoning a criminal, they spend just £1 on trying to prevent the crime in the first place. That is a bizarre sense of priorities. While the Home Secretary and his team are putting the finishing touches to their zero tolerance plans, I ask them to consider the many examples, some of which I have given today, of crime prevention and multi-agency projects where councils and voluntary organisations have worked with young people and delivered results. If the Home Secretary, Home Office Ministers or Home Office staff want to see for themselves the success in Sutton, I invite them to the borough to talk not just to those who run the projects, but to the young people themselves.
  In this debate I have tried to highlight the success of programmes that the Liberal Democrats have introduced in my local authority area. I have done so not to praise my colleagues in particular, but to persuade the Home Secretary and his Ministers that being tough on crime also requires action on the causes of crime and action to engage young people in positive activity rather than to lock them away. Prisons, while necessary, only seem to prepare young people better for a life of crime. This country needs to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
  1.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I was delighted by the compliment paid to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), when he used the words that my right hon. Friend made famous when he was shadow Home Secretary. The words are considerably more than a soundbite: they stand the test of time, which is why they are being used now, several years later, just as the hon. Gentleman has done. They can be unpacked and tested for their meaning, which is basically what the hon. Gentleman has done in today's debate.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to the House. I am having to say that more than once as many of us in the House became used to responding to
  370
  his predecessor's contributions—contributions which were different in tone and nature from the speech that we have heard today. I welcome the constructive and positive way in which the hon. Gentleman has approached the topic. His manner invites positive engagement, which I am happy to undertake.
  In making his initial remarks, the hon. Gentleman said that he was drawing on his continuing experience as a local authority member in Sutton. It is right that he should do so—all of us bring our experiences to the House. For two years after I entered the House, I continued as a city councillor in Cardiff. I drew on that experience as well as the experience that I gained when I chaired the juvenile bench in Cardiff and when I worked with young people for many years before entering Parliament. All my experiences have informed my debates. As I worked in and represented local areas, I also saw crime at its worst and saw how it affects and damages the lives of individuals, families and communities. We must consider the problem of crime as a whole in order properly to understand and tackle it. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of tackling youth crime—as well as the importance of tackling crime generally and the fear of crime.
  I have also spent the past few years as the Labour representative on the board of Crime Concern, where I worked alongside the former Member of Parliament, Sir Ivan Lawrence. Between us we made some interesting contributions to those meetings.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman emphasise the balance to be struck between being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. I can assure him that I have no doubt about either side of that equation. I am glad that he accepts—everyone should—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be tough on crime. My right hon. Friend is equally keen to be tough on the causes of crime. The hon. Gentleman will see that balance in everything that we do.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to zero tolerance. I think that that idea is sometimes misunderstood or subjected to an alternative interpretation. One interpretation of zero tolerance amounts to intolerance. Another interpretation means not allowing things to drift—one takes note of the first pane of glass that is broken instead of waiting for many panes to be broken, or one takes note of and does something about the first piece of graffiti instead of waiting until the town is covered with it. It is that sort of interpretation that is important.
  It was interesting when the chief constable of Thames Valley, Mr. Charles Pollard, expressed his reservations recently about zero tolerance which, he said, could end up with conflict on the streets, particularly in those communities that are most suspicious about police motives and actions. He went out of his way to stress that he agreed with the sort of zero tolerance argued for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) shortly before the election. Many other senior police officers have supported that sort of approach.
  The evidence from the United States must be treated with caution. Many lessons can be learnt—indeed, last year I spent time looking at policing in Chicago, Washington and Baltimore. The example that impressed me most was Baltimore, where the city authorities, led by a vigorous, young, black mayor, thoroughly supported the chief of police's view that they should reclaim

  371
  communities so that there would be no no-go areas, the recreation areas would not be taken over by drug pushers and a sense among young people of seeing the police in a positive role would be encouraged and developed.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister agree that the real problem with the policy of zero tolerance is that many people involved with tackling youth crime tend to feel that it leads to zero understanding of why young people become involved in crime in the first place? That, in turn, leads to zero respect and creates a vicious circle.
  Mr. Michael: Yes, I do see that. Some people do not want to understand what is happening. They should listen to the detail of what is being said, which brings us back to the phrase, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." One of the causes of crime is a general feeling that nobody cares very much—it does not matter what happens and slight misbehaviour does not matter—which runs on into worse behaviour and more serious offences. A proper understanding should lead people, whether they want a policy of punishment, one of prevention, or a proper balance between the two, to the message contained in the phrase, "zero tolerance", which is that we should not put up with increasing levels of crime and bad behaviour and a feeling of being unsafe in one's home or on the street. That is the message that needs to be got across and understood.
  Mr. Burstow: The Minister may have partially addressed the point I planned to raise, but I shall build on it nevertheless. In a sense, zero tolerance has already been defined in a way that does not coincide with what the Government say it means; it is open to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. In the past, it has been misunderstood and applied in a way that might even have led to riots in this country. Will the Minister consider other ways of describing the strategy and tactics involved, so that the Government do not risk being misunderstood when they talk about zero tolerance?
  Mr. Michael: In the mother of Parliaments, it is right that we should look at the way in which we explain our policies and try to find better ways of expressing ourselves, but there is a definition of zero tolerance—the one that I have described—that is clearly understood and that has elicited a positive response from both the police and the public. That is the concept on which we need to work. We must get across the idea that one can do something about crime and disorder, that communities can be reclaimed and that the partnerships between the police and local authorities to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be built.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of the Morgan report, which was published by the previous Government and not so much left gathering dust on a shelf as buried deep under a large pile of earth. The previous Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was unable to mention local government without becoming increasingly sibilant and looking rather frustrated. It is clear that it is not simply a matter of giving a duty or responsibility to local authorities, because, as in Sutton and in most parts of the country, local authorities have moved on and already accept that they have that duty and responsibility.
  372
  That acceptance has been driven by the experience of crime among councillors and the people who have been to see them and by the fact that there is now a lot more crime around than there was even when the Morgan report was published. Current levels of crime are unacceptable.
  In Croydon, where one of my new colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), was a leading member of the council when it became a local authority, a speedy move was made to put community safety and working with the police high up on the agenda. We have reached the stage at which local authorities and the police recognise that the issue is important to both of them and that a partnership approach has to be developed.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was right to say that "partnership" is easy to say, but hard to put into effect. Personal partnerships have to be worked on—they do not just happen—and that is also true of partnerships between the police and local authorities. Such partnerships must involve both parties together identifying problems of crime in their area, together identifying the strategies needed to tackle those problems and together delivering that strategy. It is also important that the partnership is between the police, the local authority and the local community, which includes not only the resident community, but voluntary organisations and the business community.
  I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that it is appropriate that we are discussing this issue during volunteers week. Yesterday, I took the opportunity to join the Women's Royal Voluntary Service for a session of pouring tea—[Interruption.] I shall be happy to give the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) a demonstration later if he likes. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to volunteers contributing to their local community, perhaps by recognising the need for a youth club in the area, or the need to confront local youths about their behaviour and find more positive activities for them and for younger children so that they do not start to get involved in the pattern of crime.
  I can reveal that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and I spent some time together this morning in a way of which even the Liberal Democrats would approve. We were going through the applications for the Prudential youth action awards, the result of which will be announced in July. I hope that they will engender a great deal of interest, because we saw improving standards in the entries and creative responses to the problems that were being tackled. Young people themselves were identifying problems such as bullying or drugs and coming up with solutions to those problems in their local area.
  When other young people talk to children about such problems, it is far more convincing than when those of us who are well over the hill are talking—almost from the beyond the grave—and telling them what to do. Young people have a power among those younger than them within their generation—say, a couple of years younger—that is extremely important. Without giving away any secrets regarding the results of the awards, I was particularly impressed by the way in which many of the applicants were looking forward to developing what they had learnt while doing this year's project. That is an excellent example of a widening pool of young people who understand, not only that there is a problem, but that they are part of the solution. We will be making progress

  373
  if we as a society can encourage young people to be a part of the solution, as the Prudential youth action awards do, and encourage them to feel that they can do something about the nature and quality of the community in which they live.
  I have concentrated on responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, but I came prepared to make some other remarks because it is important that the debate should be balanced. There are problems with crime that have simply not been tackled. We have proposed community safety orders, whereby we can tackle the problem of neighbourhoods being plagued by continual anti-social behaviour, perhaps by a family or a group of families. The persistent harassment of a community can devastate people's lives and that is why we have proposed that local authorities and the police should be able to seek this new order from the courts. The order will be addressed to a named individual or individuals and focus on behaviour that has caused distress or fear to neighbours. Those named in the orders will be told clearly what it is they must not do or where they must not go. The trigger for harassment and bad behaviour may well include racial antagonism and the order could help in such circumstances.
  That is an example of a problem that has not been addressed in recent years, yet as soon as we started to talk about it, hon. Members on both sides of the House said, "Yes, there is such a family on one of my estates," or, "I have heard complaints about this sort of thing." The police and local authorities have not had the equipment to tackle the problem and we hope to put that right in our crime and disorder Bill.
  Above all, we want to speed up the youth justice system. The scandal was identified by the Audit Commission last year, but those of us who have had any association with youth justice have known of the problems for far longer. It takes far too long for youngsters who have been caught to be brought before the courts and punished. That sends out all the wrong messages—it tells young offenders that nobody cares, that nothing much will happen if they misbehave. Repeat cautioning had the same effect. We have to tighten up the system so that, as with one's own children, young offenders are punished today—not tomorrow or in six months' time. We need to introduce that sense of urgency to the way in which we punish young people when they go wrong, as well as trying to prevent them from getting involved in crime in the first place or diverting them quickly if they do start down that path. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Ms Charlotte Atkins, Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. Fraser Kemp, Mr. Andrew MacKay, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. George Mudie and Mr. Paul Tyler be members of the Committee of Selection.
  That the members of the Committee of Selection nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Civil Service (Legislation)
    Dr. Tony Wright: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for civil service legislation. [519]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): As the House knows, this Government are firmly committed to a wide-ranging constitutional reform programme and, as part of that, I shall be working with colleagues to take forward our commitment to give legal force to the civil service code.
    Dr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome him to his post. He will know that the need to protect the integrity and independence of the civil service under the previous Government led to the present civil service code, following a recommendation by the old Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. He made an extremely welcome announcement just now that he will introduce an Act that will incorporate the code and give the civil service a new statutory footing.
    Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words. I read with care the code, the debate and the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I feel that any legislation must reinforce and reiterate the essential values and features of the civil service, which of course include integrity and impartiality.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he agree that a most distinguishing and distinguished feature of our civil service is its political impartiality? Will he ensure that, while he holds his present office, nothing will be done to compromise that in any way?
    Dr. Clark: I can give the hon. Gentleman that categorical assurance.
    Mr. Beith: Can the Minister assure the House that the mentality of the general election has entirely left the Labour party? Were the Government to be run on the basis on which the general election campaign was run by the Labour party—that internal dissent should be suppressed—it would certainly not be for the good of the country. It is therefore important that political advisers do not take over the traditional role of senior civil servants in protecting that impartiality.
    Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point when he talks about special advisers, and it is right and proper that I make the point from the Dispatch Box. The rules under which we are operating for special advisers are the same as those that have been applicable, basically, for the past 25 years. There is one small exception relating to three separate appointments which, by Order in Council, were given special powers. That was done because we felt that it was right and proper that we should be open and transparent with the House, because those were grey areas which had been areas of difficulty in the past.
    376
    The key point is that the whole process is intended to reinforce the political neutrality and integrity of the civil service.
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman says that he intends to stick to the practice of 25 years. How does he square that statement with the suggestion that the Prime Minister's principal private secretary is to be an apparatchik from the Labour party—Mr. Jonathan Powell? Will he tell the House, in the interests of open government, that in the event of that appointment taking place, the views of Sir Robin Butler will be published and made available to the House?
    Dr. Clark: I am afraid that, yet again, the right hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The Prime Minister has made it clear that Mr. Jonathan Powell is his chief of staff—a position that existed previously in Mrs. Thatcher' s early years in office—and that Mr. Powell will not take on the position of principal private secretary. That post will remain in the mainstream of the civil service. The rules were laid down by the Prime Minister and he is sticking to them.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Radice.
    Mr. Radice: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. Is it not the case that there are very few more special advisers under this Government than there were under the previous Government? Unlike the previous Government, however, we are making sure that political advisers are political appointments at No. 10, rather than suborning career civil servants and using them as political playthings, as Mrs. Thatcher did.
    Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend, who has a great deal of knowledge on the matter, having chaired for several years the Select Committee that dealt with it, is right. In no way are we taking any action whatever to impugn the political integrity of the civil service—exactly the contrary. As regards numbers, we have never hidden the fact. We said clearly during the election that a strong independent source of advice was needed for strategic thinking in No. 10. At a departmental level, under the previous Government, there were about 38 special advisers; under this Government there will be about 44—not a great difference.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to two questions. This is his second question.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is my choice whom I call. I have made it clear that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to two questions. This is his second question.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure, Madam Speaker, that the whole House will welcome the fact that the Government cannot silence you, no matter how much they try to silence everyone else.

    377
    Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the principal private secretary to the Prime Minister—a civil servant—will in no way be answerable to Jonathan Powell?
    Dr. Clark: It is quite clear that the principal private secretary to the Prime Minister is a career civil servant and he is responsible to the permanent secretary of the civil service, who is head of the civil service in that professional capacity. There is a clear distinction of roles.

    Civil Service (Management)
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to improve the management of the civil service. [520]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We are committed to a modernised, high-quality, efficient and customer-focused civil service, and we wish to mobilise the talents and creativity of civil servants at all levels to achieve that.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on his appointment. Does he agree with me, as one of the small band of ex-civil servant Members of Parliament, that during the previous Government, under the pressure of contractorisation, market testing and privatisation, many wrong macho management practices were imported from the private sector into the British civil service? Does he agree that the new Labour Government must do their best to continue the drive for efficiency through benchmarking and other means, but must restore the public service ethos to its rightful place in the civil service?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The watchwords of the new Government towards the civil service will be to make it accountable, accessible, responsive and more efficient. With regard to training and development, we have already reinforced the civil service commitment to Investors in People, the national standard for the effective training and development of all an organisation's staff. We are acutely conscious of what has happened to civil service morale, and we look forward to working with civil servants to improve morale.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. Will he try to answer the question that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already been asked twice? Will the principal private secretary have to report to the chief of staff; and will the latter control access to the Prime Minister? If that is supposed to represent better management of the civil service, we clearly disagree.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I endorse everything that my right hon. Friend has said. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman address his comments to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, if he gets the opportunity.

    Intestacy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will review the current practice in which the estates of those who die intestate in the County Palatine revert to the Crown. [521]
    Dr. David Clark: The Law Commission, in its 1989 report "Family Law: Distribution on Intestacy", recommended no change to current legislation. I have no plans to suggest a review of the law on intestacy.
    Mr. Prentice: Are not many aspects of the Duchy weird and wonderful throwbacks to the middle ages—none weirder than the fact that the estates of people who die intestate in the County Palatine revert to the Duke of Lancaster? Is there not a powerful case for opening up the Duke of Lancaster's benevolent fund to include people who are elected as councillors instead of just the lords lieutenant, the sheriffs and all the other appointees whom we are fed up with?
    Dr. Clark: I am persuaded that my hon. Friend has made a very pertinent point. The Government have committed themselves to more transparency and openness; in that spirit I intend to look at the composition and openness of the board of trustees of the Duchy benevolent fund. As part of that process, I invite representations from right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies fall within the County Palatine.

    Citizens Charters
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the future of citizens charters. [522]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), represents a city that was instrumental in pioneering charters. We will be relaunching the programme as part of our drive to modernise and improve government. It will be based on the needs of the people who really count—the users of public services.
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the city of York inventing the idea of citizens charters. Does he agree that the citizens charter was brought into disrepute by the former Government's refusal to report annually on whether targets had been met, and by their failure to give the public decent means of redress when services fell below the necessary quality? As part of his review, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to consult local authorities with a good track record on customer contracts and quality of service, and the public—for whose benefit the charter was originally developed?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We shall of course consult all interested parties during the charter programme review. Special emphasis will be given to the people with the greatest interest in the matter: the users of public services. We intend to hold the fullest possible consultation, including organisations that have a particular interest in delivering the best possible services to the people of this country.
    Mr. Rowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a significant number of public services in Kent have

    379
    achieved a charter mark for excellence and that, far from what the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) said, the Conservative Government deserve the highest congratulations on having introduced this extremely efficient way of meeting consumer expectations? Will the Minister give a solemn undertaking that charters will be developed in a way that will enhance services, just as they have so effectively done hitherto?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We fully intend to reinforce and extend the use of the charter mark. There are at the moment 645 proud possessors of the charter mark—it is not easy to obtain—which shows that those organisations have achieved very high standards.
    There is a great deal of suspicion that the previous Government were more concerned with subterfuge than this Government intend to be. We will be open, we will consult and we will develop the charter mark. I hope that many more organisations in the public domain will apply for a charter mark in future.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will my hon. Friend give an example of an improved service in local government?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: There are many examples of improved services in local government, including some in the much maligned city of Liverpool—my home city. My hon. Friend will find that organisations as diverse as ambulance and hospital services have applied for—and successfully gained—a charter mark, reflecting the very high level of service they provide and their commitment to their customers.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the assurance that the charter mark will be kept. However, having seen it in operation in my constituency—I congratulate two of the hospitals in my constituency that achieved it—will there be a guarantee that standards will be maintained and that pressures of finance will not militate against them?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We will aggressively insist on maintaining the very highest standards. The charter mark, remember, is not for ever. Anybody who fails to meet the standards will have their charter mark taken away.

    Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals his Department has to improve the civil service publicity relating to complaints procedures with particular reference to the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. [523]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government will seek ways to improve publicity in relation to complaints procedures generally, and in particular to the parliamentary ombudsman's role.
    Mr. Connarty: I am happy to welcome my hon. Friend to his ministerial post and to note that the new Government place importance on an open complaints procedure to give the public confidence in the performance of public sector departments. Will my hon. Friend give a specific example of what the Office of Public Service has done to make people aware of the role
    380
    of the parliamentary ombudsman? Will he also consider changing the title to "parliamentary ombudsman", because no one knows what the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration does?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Being the party of open government, I can reassure my colleague that any suggestions to improve service are welcome. In terms of what we have done, the Office of Public Service booklet, "The Ombudsman in your Files", was recently reprinted and distributed in response to a recommendation from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to issue the White Paper on freedom of information. [524]
    Dr. David Clark: I hope to publish a White Paper on freedom of information before the summer recess.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my right hon. Friend for achieving a Labour party manifesto objective so early in this Parliament, in producing the White Paper. Will he ensure that there is full consultation of all interested parties on this document, but ultimately that it leads to more open, more effective and more accountable government in the form of legislation at an early date?
    Dr. Clark: The freedom of information Act will change profoundly the whole governance of Britain. It is important that we get it right because it will be a landmark Bill. There will be the fullest consultation possible at every level, not only on the White Paper, but on the draft Bill which we hope to publish early in the new year.
    Mr. Fabricant: If the Labour party is indeed the party of open government, why is the Minister not sticking to his manifesto commitment to publish the Bill this Session?
    Dr. Clark: It is very important that we get the Bill right, because, I repeat, it will change profoundly the whole of the political culture of this country. If we are to get it right, if we are to have an all-singing, all-dancing Bill, it is right and proper that we have the fullest possible consultation from all parts and from all opinions in the country. By following that process, I believe that we will get a very wise and sensible Act of Parliament.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post and welcome very much his robust statement about freedom of information. Does he agree that the Scott report revealed not just a few Ministers behaving badly but a culture of secrecy and dissembling endemic in the system, and that freedom of information legislation is absolutely essential to deal with that? Will he undertake to bring that forward in the next Queen's Speech?
    Dr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for the benefit of his considerable knowledge

    381
    of this subject. We have a clear manifesto commitment to openness and transparency on arms exports and that will be reflected in our freedom of information Act.
    Mr. Burstow: Given the Government's commitment to comprehensive rights for disabled people, in drafting the White Paper will the Government give due regard to the needs of disabled people in terms of access to information?
    Dr. Clark: Yes, I can give that commitment. One reason we wanted a decent period of consultation was so that we could hear the views of the widest cross-section of people.

    Public Services (Value for Money)
    Mr. Evans: T: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he intends to take to ensure value for money from public services. [525]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government want to achieve high-quality public services which are efficient and focus on people's needs. We have already made a start by setting up the comprehensive spending review. That will examine ways to make better use of resources and root out inefficiency in public spending.
    Mr. Evans: I am delighted to learn that the Government are trying to attack public spending on public services, but are they sending the right message to the public—that they will obtain the best public services—when, at the very top, the civil service, political appointments have increased from 38 to 53? Is not that a massive increase? Do we know whether it will stop at 53, or will there be yet more political appointments in the civil service? In the spirit of openness and transparency—in which the Government believe—will the Minister confirm that Sir Robin Butler has not said that he is "seriously unrelaxed" about the number of political appointments that have been made within government?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Not for the first time, the premise on which the hon. Gentleman bases his question is wrong. The message going out from the Government to the British people concerns accountability, accessibility, the responsiveness of government and a drive for greater efficiency. That is why, since 2 May, we have announced not only a comprehensive spending review, but a review of the private finance initiative and the public-private partnerships. We have also announced measures on the electronic delivery of Government services, the Department's efficiency plans and that we will reconsider the agency targets for Ministers. That is the message that is going out from a Government who are gearing up for the 21st century, unlike the previous Government who were geared to the 19th.
    Mr. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he make it a priority to ensure that quangos and training and enterprise councils, which were stacked with Tory nominees by the previous Government, are made more accountable and that they give value for money?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall reconsider the whole system of appointments to quangos,
    382
    their necessity and the principles of accountability as part of a full-scale review which my right hon. Friend has already announced.
    Mr. Grieve: As the hon. Gentleman is concerned about open government and public spending, will he undertake to publish the salaries of all the new special advisers with whom the Government are stuffing the Whitehall machine?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We shall follow exactly the usual procedures in publishing the range within which those individuals are employed and paid.

    Civil Service (Ethnic Monitoring)
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure ethnic monitoring in the civil service. [526]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: All Departments and agencies are required to monitor the ethnic origin of their staff and applicants. My Department publishes an overview in the civil service data summary.
    Monitoring data are used to identify where barriers exist and action is required. Information on resultant initiatives is published in the equal opportunities progress report.
    Mr. Vaz: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his appointment. He will know from the statistics that have been published by his Department during the past few weeks that there are no black and Asian people in senior positions in the civil service, and we are talking about hundreds of such posts. What does my hon. Friend intend to do to tackle that apparent cultural discrimination in the recruitment and selection procedure of the British civil service?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We are monitoring the civil service equal opportunities policy. Indeed, there is a requirement to monitor it. I have to make a comparison with the working population at large. Ethnic minority representation in the civil service, at 5.5 per cent., compares very favourably with that in the economically active population in Great Britain as a whole, which stands at 4.9 per cent.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to reply to the third report of the Public Service Committee on the citizens charter (HC 78 of Session 1996–97). [528]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), we will relaunch the charter programme. We will respond to the Committee at a time agreed with the new Chairman, after he or she has been appointed.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Select Committee called for genuine dialogue between providers and users of public services in order to carry forward the charter process. May I be assured that my hon. Friend will include dialogue between providers and users for each charter that is developed

    383
    further? Will he ensure that such dialogue will inform the award of charter marks so that they bear some relation to the experience of users of services?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will consult widely and properly with all interested stakeholders, including the users of services and those who offer advice, such as the National Consumer Council and citizens advice bureaux.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: In the interests of accountability to the citizen, will the hon. Gentleman conduct a review of the number of policy reviews that are being undertaken by the Government? He will, I think, find that endless policy reviews are a recipe for governmental paralysis, not proper government of the country.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The number of reviews that are having to be undertaken by the new Government is a reflection of the inertia displayed by the previous Government, particularly towards public service.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to publish a freedom of information Bill; and if he will make a statement. [529]
    Dr. David Clark: I intend to publish the White Paper on freedom of information before the summer recess.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I welcome him to his position on the Front Bench. Will he ensure that when he publishes the White Paper and produces the Bill, which will bring about tremendous change for the people of Britain, the legislation will be retrospective so that people can see what the previous Government did during the past 18 years? They will then never vote for the Conservatives again.
    Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting comment. He can rest assured that there will be the widest consultation on the White Paper. That is not, however, all that we are doing in respect of openness. In their manifesto, the Government made clear their commitment to the regeneration of our democratic process. Central to that was the White Paper on new government I announced yesterday. It will set out how we shall deliver accountable, accessible, responsive and efficient government to the people of Britain. Those proposals, alongside our freedom of information Bill, will bring an agenda of openness to government which we have never seen before.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will the agenda of openness extend to the publication of the contents of the Excalibur computer so that Labour Members can understand what information is held on it? In this spirit of openness, might it not also be an idea if the information was published in the press so that we could all read it?
    Dr. Clark: All the information contained in that computer is published information and it is available under the Data Protection Act 1988.

    Release of Documents
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to change the criteria determining the release of documents under the 30-year rule. [530]
    Dr. David Clark: We will publish shortly a White Paper on freedom of information. I hope that we shall see a considerable extension in the release of public records under the 30-year rule.
    Mr. Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people regard the operation of the 30-year rule as a farce? When documents are released at the beginning of each year, all we tend to find out is what kind of tea and biscuits the Prime Minister consumed 30 years ago. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that far more documents are released, to release them before 30 years and to review all documents currently held to find out whether they can be released?
    Dr. Clark: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. As an historian, I know the frustrations involved. The emphasis under this Government will be on releasing, not withholding, information. We have just announced, as evidence of our good faith, that we hope to release a tranche of information relating to the security forces during the first world war.
    Mr. Mackinlay: As part of the review, will my right hon. Friend consider with the royal household whether documents held at Windsor and Buckingham palace should be subject to the same rules of disclosure as documents kept in the Public Record Office? Some very important historic public documents relating to public policy are kept in the royal household.
    Dr. Clark: In the spirit of openness and transparency in historical records, I shall certainly look into that point.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Earth Summit
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Prime Minister what are the Government's main objectives for the United Nations General Assembly special session—earth summit II—in New York in June. [547]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I shall be attending the earth summit in New York on 23 June, along with my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and others. We shall be pressing for action across a range of issues at that summit, including a commitment by this country to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010. That is based on 1990 levels. That is a challenging commitment and demonstrates the Government's commitment to a more green world.
    Mr. Dafis: May I suggest that the commitment shown by the Government at earth summit II will be a very important test of the seriousness with which they take the sustainable development issue? May I also suggest that

    385
    success at the summit depends on the developed world setting an example on sustainable consumption and its willingness to transfer resources in terms of technology and funds to the developing world? Will the Prime Minister at least give a commitment that he will ensure the reversal of the decline in development aid given to third-world countries that, very ironically, has occurred since the earth summit in 1992?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed as a Government to raising the levels of overseas aid, but it has to be done in a way that is compatible with the limits on public expenditure that we have set ourselves. I should say that we shall not simply be undertaking action on carbon dioxide emissions at the earth summit. We shall also be supporting the new convention on forests, which will do an immense amount to reduce the destruction of rain forests. We shall also be pressing for measures against pollution more generally and measures in respect of oceans as well.
    I should say, too, that measures are already being announced by the Government in relation to domestic policy, which will have a dramatic impact on the environment in respect not just of an integrated transport strategy but of the new environmental task force, which will enlist the support of young people in cleaning up the environment in parts of the country.
    Helen Jackson: Four out of every 10 primary school children in my constituency started the school year in a class of more than 30—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The substantive question is about the earth summit and supplementary questions must relate to it.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 June. [548]
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall be meeting the President of the European Commission.
    Mr. Bruce: In a written answer, the Treasury has just it made clear that, once the cost of living increase is calculated, pensioners will not benefit from the reduction in value added tax on fuel. Why does the Prime Minister continue to insist that pensioners will benefit?
    The Prime Minister: Of course pensioners will benefit from the reduction in VAT on fuel. Of course they will: that is precisely why so many of them supported the policy of reducing VAT on fuel. There was probably no more unpopular policy pursued by the previous Government than that of raising VAT on fuel in direct breach of their election commitments. In contrast, this Government, having promised to reduce VAT on fuel, will do so.
    Mr. MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating our sister party in France on the remarkable election victory on Sunday? In addition to
    386
    working with President Chirac, will my right hon. Friend seize the opportunity of five consecutive years of government to forge a new political entente cordiale between our two countries and instruct Ministers and officials to seek out what unites our two great nations and to put to one side what may divide us? Finally, when my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Jospin tomorrow in Sweden, will he in the name of all English people ask Mr. Jospin to have a word with Eric Cantona and ask him to keep playing for Manchester United?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that might be an entente too far. Of course I am delighted to congratulate Mr. Jospin on his victory and I want to work with all our partners in Europe to ensure that we have an agenda for Europe which focuses on the single biggest problem in Europe—jobs. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has today made an important initiative and said that all the European countries should come together to work out how we get the right labour market, the right education and skills and the right infrastructure in Europe to ensure not just that the single market works, but that we can reduce the appalling levels of unemployment throughout Europe.
    Mr. Ashdown: Are not the first crucial decisions on monetary union now just weeks away and likely to turn on a choice between relaxation and delay? Which does the Government prefer?
    The Prime Minister: What we prefer is the policy that we articulated before the election and continue to articulate now—to keep the options open for this country. We have made it clear that we believe that it is highly unlikely that Britain would want to join the first wave of monetary union. I have also made it clear, as we have always said, that the criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way. If they are, the answer is not to delay—the answer is not to proceed.
    Mr. Ashdown: While I agree with the latter part of the Prime Minister's answer, does he agree that there is a very limited degree of flexibility allowed in the Maastricht criteria, not least on the timetable? Would it not be better if Britain were to accept that and lead the search for a pragmatic solution, and to show the way that that could be done through the leadership of his Government?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we should exercise a leadership role, but it is important to have a consistent position and stick to it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some flexibility in the criteria. It is important that the criteria are not fiddled or botched in any way, because if that happens the process will not work. We will ensure that that is clear not only here but to our European partners, too.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Does the Prime Minister not find it astonishing that some 100,000 children do not attend their school in England and Wales each day? Will he tell the House what the Government intend to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a severe problem. Part of the reason why we are committed to action on class sizes and on literacy and

    387
    numeracy in our schools is to try to reduce the numbers of children who play truant. My hon. Friend may also like to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and other Education Ministers are considering better ways to deal with truancy. The great problem for many schools is that they are faced with the choice of keeping children who are unruly and undisciplined, which disrupts the education of other children, or throwing them out of the school, in which case they often end up as a problem for the police and other enforcement agencies in the local community. There has to be a better way to approach the problem. If not, we shall find that social costs mount up, including crime, and those 100,000 young people may also end up later incapable of finding work or working for any length of time.
    Mr. Major: Three weeks ago the Prime Minister promised the House that the devolution Bill would be published before the referendum. Can he confirm that that is still the case?
    The Prime Minister: The proposals in the White Paper upon which the devolution Bill will be published will of course be published, because it is that upon which the referendum is to be held.
    Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman perhaps did not hear my question. I asked him whether the Bill would be published. I quote from what he said in answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) some time ago:
    "Of course the Bill will be published in time for the referendum, because the referendum will take place on those proposals".
    Why has the Prime Minister changed his mind? If he has changed his mind, why did he not have the courtesy to come and tell the House that he had done so? The distinction between the White Paper and the Bill will be well understood both to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman. Was it not a matter of trust that he should tell us?
    The Prime Minister: It is absolutely clear—it was made clear before the election and all the way through—that it is the White Paper proposals that will be put to a referendum of the Scottish people. That is entirely sensible, since it is only then, after the referendum has given an affirmative answer, that it is sensible to draw up the Bill, so that we then have the details of the Bill properly debated in the House. That is plainly the sensible way to proceed. As we have said all the way through before the election, and I repeat again now, the White Paper proposals will be there so that everybody in Scotland and Wales knows precisely what is being contemplated.
    Mr. Major: The Prime Minister is both wriggling and waffling. For ease of reference, I have the Hansard report in front of me and I quote the Prime Minister:
    "Of course the Bill"—
    not the White Paper—
    "will be published in time for the referendum, because the referendum will take place on those proposals"—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c.641
    388
    Is not the truth of the matter that the details of the policy are still in such a muddle that the right hon. Gentleman cannot yet give detailed instructions to the draftsmen?
    The Prime Minister: The proposals to which I referred are the proposals in the White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Bill."] The proposals in the White Paper. Those are the proposals that we said before the election that we would publish. It is plainly sensible and right, and in accordance with precisely what we said before the election, that we will publish those proposals. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made clear in the debate yesterday, he will publish the proposals in the White Paper before Parliament rises so that Parliament will have the opportunity to debate them. That is plainly the most sensible way to proceed, and we shall proceed in that way.
    Mr. Major: Why does the Prime Minister not just admit that he made a mistake in the past and that the Bill is not ready? Why does he not admit that he has been caught with his fingers in the till oratorically? He promised the Bill and he cannot deliver the Bill. Devolution is a constitutional matter, but already the Government have guillotined the referendum Bill so that important parts of it cannot even be discussed and we suspect that they will not even follow the long-established convention of taking the Bill on the Floor of the House. The Prime Minister cannot answer any of the detailed questions that have repeatedly been put to him about that Bill. After one month of government, is that not a contemptible way for the Prime Minister to treat the House of Commons, and is it not becoming apparent that that is typical of the arrogant way in which the Government are beginning to behave?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I may deal with each of the right hon. Gentleman's points in turn. First—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must now come to order. We must not have this bawling and shouting.
    The Prime Minister: The Conservatives have not taken long to slip into the ways of opposition. I can deal with each of the right hon. Gentleman's points. First, we need no lessons on fingers in the till from the Conservative party. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made clear yesterday—and as I repeat today—the proposals will be in the White Paper on which people will be able to vote in the referendum. As for the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill—
    Dr. Mawhinney: What about the devolution Bill?
    The Prime Minister: The former chairman of the Conservative party must contain himself for a moment. He did not do so during the election campaign, and he is not doing so now. The Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill is simple, containing six clauses and two schedules. The Conservative party tabled 250 amendments, 21 new

    389
    clauses and 12 new schedules—and it did so not to assist debate, but to scupper the Bill. I ask the people of this country this: which is undemocratic—a Government using their mandate to propose a referendum to allow the Scottish and Welsh people to have their say, or a Conservative party that wants to prevent the Government from carrying out that mandate?
    As for the use of the guillotine—since the Leader of the Opposition raised that—I have done a little research. The last Conservative Government used the guillotine 59 times—six times in advance of Committee stage. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are saying that the previous Government never used the guillotine on constitutional Bills, but they did so on the Single European Act and, what is more, when they forced the poll tax on Scotland. As a Government, we are implementing the policies upon which we were elected. That is the real difference between us and the Conservative party.
    Mr. Major: After all that waffle, I repeat my question to the Prime Minister: why did he promise the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the House that the Bill would be published, and why has he not now apologised for breaking that promise?
    The Prime Minister: My promise was precisely that which we made at the election. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday, the promise was to publish the proposals in a White Paper before Parliament rose, and that these would then be debated by the House. That is my right hon. Friend's position, and mine. Opposition Members—with all their shouting and braying—want to stop us carrying out the policies upon which we were elected. We will not let them stop us.
    Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend use this opportunity to join all decent people in Northern Ireland in utterly condemning the appalling murder of Constable Greg Taylor at the weekend? How many meetings should take place between Government officials and representatives of Sinn Fein before any decision is taken about when those meetings should stop? How many meetings will take place before a decision is taken that enough is enough?
    The Prime Minister: As we made clear when we announced the process of officials of the Government talking to Sinn Fein, it was important that it was subject to events on the ground. That continues to be the case. The Government absolutely abhor—as, I am sure, does the whole House—the murder of the member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It was appalling and totally unprovoked, and was a precise example of the type of random vicious violence that we want to stop. That is why it is so important that we give every impetus that we can to making sure that we carry the talks process forward, but in a way—as my hon. Friend rightly said—that is entirely consistent with the principles that we set out, and it will be.
    Mr. Day: Will the Prime Minister confirm that at the time of the abolition of the Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland, the number of Members of Parliament from the Province was increased to compensate for the
    390
    loss of that body? Can he therefore explain to the House why he refuses to reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament accordingly if Parliaments are established in Scotland and Wales? Does he not realise that unless changes to our constitution are equitable and fair to all parts of the United Kingdom, his proposals will strike at the very heart and unity of this United Kingdom, which I hope that all hon. Members hold dear? [549]
    The Prime Minister: Of course they must be equitable and fair, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that our proposals are very similar to those made for Northern Ireland by the previous Government—for a devolved Assembly with legislative powers, but no reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. If the proposals were equitable and fair then, similar arguments can be made in respect of others.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that 18 years of the Conservative Government's misguided policies have done great damage to city and town centres throughout the country? If so, will he ensure that all his colleagues with responsibility for such matters come together to put the towns and city centres of our country first and produce policies to bring them back to life?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the general objective that my hon. Friend sets out, and we are attempting to do a number of things in that connection. One is the action on crime in city centres, which is tremendously important, allowing people greater freedom both to live and to work there. That is one reason why we have supported so many Labour and other authorities introducing closed circuit television in city centres and other measures that have improved crime prevention there.
    It is also important in all those town centres to get the right planning and environment measures and the right transport strategy, which is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is so committed to ensuring that we have the right public transport strategy to give people the freedom to go into the town centre and back again.
    I would say to my hon. Friend, however, that there are certain elements—the development of out-of-town shopping centres, for example—that accord with what people want to do, so it is important that while doing everything that we can to redevelop town centres, we should recognise that certain patterns of behaviour will remain simply because people want them to remain.
    Mr. David Davis: The Prime Minister rightly said that unemployment was one of the major issues facing Europe. He argued in his election manifesto that using the windfall tax to fund the employer rebate would reduce labour costs and that reducing those costs would reduce unemployment. If he believes that, why does he not believe that increasing costs, with a minimum wage, will increase unemployment? [550]
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that a minimum wage will increase unemployment at all. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members are opposed to the minimum wage, but I say that it is wrong—simply wrong—that 800,000 people in this country are paid £2.50 an hour or less. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would like his wife or his children to work

    391
    for that kind of sum. Of course it is important to tackle unemployment, but the whole purpose of the windfall tax, and its advantage, is that it enables us to take a range of different measures, including a subsidy to employers to take on young people who have been unemployed for some time, who can then be given training and skills, giving them the best chance of getting back into the labour market and doing something worth while.
    Conservative Members shake their heads and ask how long those people will be employed. I visited a training centre in Southwark the other day.
    Mr. Duncan: Well done.
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is quite important to see what steps are being taken in local communities. A whole range of those young people, some of whom had been unemployed for long periods, had the chance for the first time to make something of their lives, as a result of the skills and training that they were getting, particularly in new technology.
    We want to reduce the appalling levels of structural long-term unemployment, not just here but throughout Europe. If Conservative Members do not join us in that endeavour, it shows how out of touch they are.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the death toll from last year's E. coli outbreak in central Scotland has reached 20 with the tragic death of an elderly woman in my constituency at the weekend, making it the most severe outbreak of that strain in the world? Given the more recent outbreak at Falkirk district royal infirmary, which affected more than 30 people, and the fact that its source has not yet been identified, will my right hon. Friend order early implementation of the recommendations in Professor Pennington's report and order the highest form of public inquiry—not a fatal accident inquiry, but a fully fledged public inquiry presided over by a senior Scottish judge—to get to the root of the matter? That is what we demanded in opposition and that is what we expect now that we are in government. [551]
    The Prime Minister: I entirely share and understand the concern about that issue. We shall, of course, consider the recommendations of Professor Pennington and then consider what further action needs to be taken. I assure my hon. Friend that everything that can be done will be done. It is sensible to do that in the light of whatever Professor Pennington has recommended. In addition to dealing with the particular outbreaks of E. coli in Scotland, we will set up an independent food standards agency, which will give us a far better chance of reducing such outbreaks in future.
    Mr. Wilshire: When President Clinton and a real first lady had dinner with the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday rather than at Buckingham palace, did the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to explain why members of Her Majesty's Government have taken to referring to the wife of the British Prime Minister as Britain's first lady? Will he take this opportunity to instruct his Ministers to stop this arrogant practice? [552]
    The Prime Minister: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that opposition has certainly not improved the Conservative party. I do not know anyone who is doing that. We are very content with the present position. In relation to insulting the wives of politicians, whether here or abroad, the more they are kept out of the whole thing, the better.
    Ms Squire: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Eurofighter aircraft is vital to Britain's future defence needs, to the future success of Britain's defence manufacturing industry and to the 40,000 jobs directly and indirectly involved in its production? When he meets Chancellor Kohl in Germany on Friday, will he emphasise the importance of the Eurofighter project and urge him to ensure that Germany signs the production agreements without any further delay? [553]
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I shall certainly urge that we proceed with the Eurofighter project. As my hon. Friend knows, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is at this very time trying to do that with his German counterparts. The Eurofighter project is immensely important for Britain. It is important for defence reasons because it is the multi-role aircraft that we need for our future defence requirements, but it is also vitally important for jobs, technology and skills. Some of the most highly skilled employees in the country will be working on the project. It is ready to go into its production phase, and we will do all that we can to speed up the project.
    Mr. Cash: Given what the Prime Minister said about the connection between jobs, unemployment and the fudged criteria under the European Union treaty, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Maastricht criteria have already clearly failed on those matters? Will he go to Amsterdam, as I repeatedly asked our previous Prime Minister, to renegotiate the treaty and deal with the question of economic and monetary union in the interests of all the people of the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I hope that he does more good for me than he did for the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). In respect of the hon. Gentleman's question on jobs, we shall simply be saying that we have to focus on how we improve the labour market, its flexibility and the employment of people within the labour market—as it is a different labour market today—and how we take the action necessary to improve the job situation not only for people here in Britain but for people throughout Europe. There are 18 million unemployed in Europe and some 9 million who have been unemployed for more than a year. That is precisely one of the reasons why we are taking action here. We want to put unemployment right at the top of the agenda for Europe as well. We shall be doing that, of course, at Amsterdam, but we shall be doing it beforehand as well in talks with other countries.
    Mr. Winnick: I raised the Stephen Lawrence case in the previous Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of interest that those who were named by the Daily Mail as responsible for the brutal killing of that

    393
    17-year-old youth have not taken any action to clear their names? When is justice and the rule of law going to prevail in this case? Is it not disgraceful that that youth was put to death, those responsible have been named and no action has yet been taken to ensure that the murderers of Stephen Lawrence are put in the dock? [554]
    The Prime Minister: I of course understand—indeed, I deeply share—the concern that my hon. Friend has raised, as I believe that we all do. When he raised the matter previously in the House, it was made clear by the then Prime Minister and by all of us how much we wanted
    394
    to see justice done in this case. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to meet Mrs. Lawrence shortly. We shall do everything that we can—consistent, obviously, with the proper rule of law, because that is the way in which it must be done. I entirely understand the frustration that people feel. It was an appalling and brutal murder and no one has been brought to justice for it. There is a deep sense of injustice within the local community that that should be so. I hope that people understand that we shall do everything that we can within the rule of law to rectify that injustice. The meeting that my right hon. Friend is to have with Mrs. Lawrence is one step in doing that.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Lidington: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you able to confirm that it is still the practice in the House that if an hon. Member on either side believes that he has been misreported in the Official Report, he is entitled to ask the Editor for a correction, and that if the Prime Minister believes that the Hansard reporter, in all innocence, heard the word "Bill" when he was meant to hear the words "White Paper", it is open to him to ask the Editor to correct the record?
Madam Speaker: I have to concern myself with the principle. If any hon. Member believes that he has been misreported, of course it is up to him to take it up with the Editor of Hansard.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's questions today, reference was made to the atrocious murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland at the weekend. It may not be within your knowledge that a number of persons have already been charged with that murder. Was it in order that that matter should be raised on the Floor of the House today?
Madam Speaker: Had it not been in order, I would have stopped the hon. Lady proceeding. I believe that the point that she made was perfectly in order.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During questions today, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked two supplementary questions on a single question on the Order Paper. I have not seen that happen once in my 18 years in the House. It has happened in Prime Minister's questions, and perhaps even on one occasion in Deputy Prime Minister's questions under the previous Government. Did we see a procedural change introduced today?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not seen a procedural change. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely correct in putting two questions if he wished to do so. He decided to ask two supplementary questions under one question, and that was perfectly in order. He can ask two questions and no more. It is up to me as Speaker to determine whom I call and when.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will undoubtedly have seen on the tapes a report from the Foreign Secretary to the effect that international military intervention in Sierra Leone has not been ruled out. That is a clear implication that international military intervention may take place. May I ask you whether you have had any request for a statement on such a matter? If not, is it not right that the House should be informed before the Foreign Secretary makes such statements, which might involve British military forces?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly accurate. Statements of such a nature should be made to the House in the first place.
396
In answer to his first question, I was not aware of what he has obviously seen on the tapes. I was not informed that a statement would be forthcoming. Of course, there is always the opportunity to raise such an issue by private notice question and I would certainly consider any such request with all seriousness.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that when we are elected to the House our families are not elected with us? Will you condemn the deplorable trend now followed by the Opposition of mentioning hon. Members' families, insulting them and personalising the debate?
Madam Speaker: I have always totally disapproved of Members' families being abused or cited across the Floor of the House. As long-standing Members know very well, we are elected; we take the brunt; we are answerable, and not any of our families.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you to inquire whether it might be possible for the Prime Minister to make shorter responses to questions? Each one of his replies today turned into a mini-Adjournment Debate. That diminishes the opportunities available to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to question the right hon. Gentleman more closely.
Madam Speaker: I am very pleased to inform the House that in this new Session I am watching closely all questions and answers. Every day, the questions are much too long, as are the answers. I keep records and I shall take firm action when I have a full account and all the relevant Departments have been able to answer.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Lest the House may have been misinformed during an exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time, will you advise the Prime Minister that when Northern Ireland's Parliament was set up, the number of Members returned to the House was reduced from some 30 to 12? That is pertinent to the ensuing debates.
Madam Speaker: It is barely a point of order, but it is a point of information.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that once a point of order has been responded to, there can be no further points of order on it. If the hon. Gentleman has a fresh point of order, I will listen to it. Perhaps he can think about that, and, if he has, I will come back to him.
Sir Archie Hamilton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you share my concern about reports that the new political appointees installed at Downing street have not had security clearance? Has the Prime Minister given any indication that he will make

397
a statement to the House to say whether those people have had access to classified information before they were cleared for security purposes?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I have not been told that the Prime Minister or any other Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter.
Now, Mr. Cohen, do you have a new point of order, fresh in your mind?
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the exercise of your powers in relation to questions, should a question apparently contain an insult to a Member's spouse or partner, would you be prepared to intervene to stop that question being asked and reprimand the hon. Member who made such an insult?
Madam Speaker: I have done so on many occasions, but I regard it as important that hon. Members are adult. They should not abuse the family members of those who are elected to the House.
Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you study Hansard on the Loyal Address debate and compare what the Prime Minister said then with what he said in the Chamber today in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? If it is apparent to you that there are some glaring inconsistencies between promises made by the Prime Minister during the Loyal Address debate and what he said today, will you consider issuing an instruction to the Prime Minister from the Chair similar to the one issued to senior Ministers that Prime Ministers, as well, should not make policy on the hoof?
Madam Speaker: All right hon. and hon. Members who speak in the House are responsible for their own comments and, providing that they are within our parliamentary guidelines, they are not the responsibility of the Speaker.

Orders of the Day

  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 3 June].
  [MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
    Clause 1

      REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND
      Amendment proposed [3 June]: No. 87, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the words
      'and tax varying powers of a Scottish Parliament'
      and to insert the words
      `of a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
      3.39 pm
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the Committee that we are also discussing 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.'.
      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. Edward Garnier: Last night, as we concluded our deliberations before the 10 o'clock Adjournment, I was discussing the questions that were being suggested by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
      The questions to be used in the referendum on Scotland have, as we all know, taken many forms in the past few months. The right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) went through so many twists and turns in reaching a conclusion as to what to present to the Scottish people that one could be forgiven for thinking that he was sitting on a sharp object. Or had ground control finally got in touch with Major Tom and shown him the blade of Excalibur? Whatever it was that brought the right hon. Gentleman to the present arrangement of two questions on one referendum, he was in danger of making the grand old Duke of York look decidedly decisive.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants one consolidated question asking electors whether they want a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland. He said that the taxation powers were critical for a Scottish Parliament to give it flexibility and accountability. Certainly, if I were in favour of a separate Scottish Parliament, I would not be content with a Parliament that could not vote its own budget—that is to offer a hungry man a plate, but no food. But that is precisely what the Welsh are to be offered by the Government. If I were a Welsh elector, I should throw it back in the Government's face. The Welsh are being insulted by the Government, as we all are by the Bill and the proposals for a referendum in Scotland and Wales that are set out in it.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not my hon. and learned Friend being unfair to the Government, in that they have made it clear that while they will ask in a referendum whether the Scottish people would like to have a tax-raising power in their Parliament, they also promised in the election campaign not to use that power and therefore to ignore whatever is said by the Scottish electors? Surely that is a strange thing for a Government who say that they want to be trusted by the people.
      Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is right, but then the Labour party is a strange thing.
      There are only two sensible ways to deal with the referendum—I touched on one of them last night. The first is to tell the people what the Government propose—to present the public with the scheme that they recommend. Provided that it has been set out before Parliament, discussed in both Houses, discussed on television and radio and in the press—argued over in all its three-dimensional glory—the public will know precisely what they are being offered.
      400
      The public should be asked, "Do you or do you not approve of the proposal for a Scottish/Welsh Parliament contained in the Scotland/Wales Act 1997 or 1998?" I call that the Linlithgow question.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: Given yesterday's debate and the persuasive case made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), would it not be more appropriate to refer to this as the Linlithgow solution?
      Mr. Garnier: It would be appropriate to call it the Linlithgow solution if I were the least bit confident that the Secretary of State for Scotland would accept his hon. Friend's solution, but he will not. The Government are not in listening mode.
      To talk now of White Papers—or is it a Bill? We have yet to discover. Such talk is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. To talk of proposals for "a Scottish Parliament" means nothing. Given the timetable motion, we can expect little room for discussion from the Government. The people are entitled to know now—before the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill becomes law—the details of the proposals. Without knowing the details, they are neither informed nor in a position to make a rational judgment.
      The second way to deal with the referendum is to ask people whether they want independence. That is the solution preferred by the Scottish nationalists. If the people say that they want independence, it will be up to the people of Scotland to decide on their own Parliament, to set out their own plans for their taxation system and, possibly, if they want to move outside the ambit of foreign and defence affairs dealt with from Whitehall, to settle their own treaties and international affairs. However, the Government have neither the brains nor the bravery to produce anything other than a total mess. We now watch them with amazement that the reputation they were entitled to expect on election by a vast majority is rapidly sifting away. I urge all hon. Members to watch them like hawks.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Fallon: There are many amendments in this group, but I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 111 and 112 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
      Putting the phrase "tax-varying powers" on the face of the Bill as well as on the ballot paper perpetuates a deception that was skilfully cultivated during the run-up to the election. That deception is that the only powers that the new Scottish Parliament will have are tax-varying powers, or that the only powers that matter that the new Scottish Parliament will have are tax-varying powers. That, of course, is not true. We cannot know precisely the total number of other powers that the new Scottish Parliament is likely to have, because we do not yet have the White Paper before us; but, from the very choice of the word "parliament" for the proposed new body and from the previous attempts to establish such a Parliament, we can deduce that the range of powers to be given to the new Parliament is quite considerable.
      First, as one would expect of any parliament, there is the power to make law. It is inevitable that when the Government come to consider the detail of their

      401
      proposals, they will attempt to transfer some law making of some sort from this House to the new Scottish Parliament. Perhaps Scottish private legislation, or those curious Scottish orders that are referred to special commissioners, or some types of Scottish legislation at the later stages of consideration will be transferred or delegated to the new Scottish Parliament. If so, they will be formidable powers, affecting every citizen of Scotland and it may well be that those voting in the referendum will prefer those powers not to be exercised by a new Scottish Parliament.
      After all, Scotland already has plenty of government: a Scottish Office, local authorities and a large number of Members of Parliament. Indeed, until we reduced the layer of regional government, it could be argued that Scotland had more government than almost any other country in western Europe.
      Sir Robert Smith: An existing layer of government is the Scottish Office. How do Conservative Members plan to hold the Scottish Office accountable to the people it is meant to serve—the people of Scotland?
      Mr. Fallon: That neatly takes me on to the second power of the Scottish Parliament, which is its power to hold Ministers, the Scottish Office and Scottish public bodies to account. At the moment, that power is exercised through this House, where Scottish Office Ministers are held to account by all Members of Parliament, whether or not they sit for Scottish constituencies. The Conservative Government strengthened that accountability by ensuring that the Scottish Grand Committee could hold to account Ministers other than those representing the Scottish Office—a welcome innovation. However, some of the people who will vote in the referendum may feel that that power should not be exercised by the new Scottish Parliament. It would all depend on whether the exercise of that power was proportionate to the cost of the new machinery by means of which it was exercised, or whether it simply duplicated the existing arrangements that prevail in the House.
      Finally—
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: These questions cannot be answered in any form until another question is answered: to whom will the civil service be responsible? Will civil servants be responsible to the United Kingdom Government, as they are at present? To whom will they owe their prime loyalty? I hate to use the word "masters", because I do not believe that that is the appropriate relationship, yet, in some senses, it is the old problem of serving two masters. Are civil servants to be responsible to the Ministers in a Scottish Parliament? Until that question has been resolved, the issues that the hon. Gentleman properly raises cannot be resolved.
      Mr. Fallon: That must be right. It was certainly the case under the previous Government—I know that it seems to have changed now—that civil servants were ultimately responsible to the Crown. It has yet to be established how they will be able to serve two different Parliaments. That reinforces the case for spelling out in
      402
      more detail in the Bill, in legislation and, if necessary, on the ballot paper what powers those who vote in the referendum in Scotland will be voting for.
      Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Fallon: I will, but I am conscious that others want to contribute.
      Mr. Cash: I said yesterday that the role of the Secretary of State is also left in limbo. Does my hon. Friend accept not only that civil servants are servants of the Crown, but that, as the function of the Secretary of State is an indivisible function, that matter must be sorted out? As it is impossible for any one Secretary of State to be distinguished from others, the issue of the relationship between Ministers of the Crown and those who would be representatives in a Scottish Parliament, setting out their policy in that Parliament, will have to be sorted out.
      Mr. Fallon: It certainly needs to be sorted out. It would also lead us down the path of exploring the relationship between the Secretary of State, who is accountable to the House, and whoever is chosen to be first Minister in the new Scottish Parliament. However, that might be outside the scope of the amendments that we are debating, so I will not take that path.
      The third power of Parliament is the power to grant or withhold supply. However legislation is framed, no system of parliamentary government is constructed without the prospect of granting supply to or withholding it from its Executive. Before any citizen, any resident of Scotland, comes to vote in a referendum this autumn, they will surely want to know exactly what type of supply may be controlled by the new Scottish Parliament and may be granted to or withheld from its Executive by that Parliament.
      That matter might affect the funding of every local authority, hospital, school, university and public service in Scotland. There may well be many people in remoter parts of Scotland who will not agree to the granting or withholding of that type of supply, exercised on the whim of a coalition in the new Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, that will, for example, dramatically reduce the moneys available to the councils of the Western Isles or the Shetland Islands.
      That is why the powers to be exercised by the new Scottish Parliament must be set out. If they are not to be set out in legislation before the referendum, we are entitled to say that they should be specifically set out on the face of the Bill, as proposed in the Government's narrow phrase "tax-varying powers" in clause 1, or on the ballot paper. If that is impossible, as a last resort it would be better than nothing that those powers be set out in some type of formal literature that is sent to every resident of Scotland before he or she votes in the referendum. That is a proposition which the Committee cannot discuss, because of the way in which the timetable motion has been drawn up.
      Unless the powers are specifically set out in legislation, and unless we can assure those who are voting that they know exactly what powers the new Scottish Parliament will have, we are driven back to the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), which we should put before the House again.

      403
      How can those who vote in a referendum—this autumn, perhaps—be sure what they are voting for, unless they see in detail the powers that the new Parliament will exercise? When the Minister of State winds up the debate, he should re-examine the phrase "tax-varying powers", and consider the deletion of the adjective "tax-varying". He should at least come clean with the Committee and say that the vote this autumn should be on the establishment and powers in toto of the new Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: I want to reiterate the Liberal Democrat position on the Scottish referendum. The position is different in Wales, and our Welsh colleagues will make clear their position.
      First, we are against a referendum on Scotland. We believe that the proposal for a referendum was born from panic. The Labour leadership was put in a panic by the former Secretary of State for Scotland. Fortunately, the Scottish voters have a great deal more—if I may use two Scottish expressions—spunk and smeddum than the Labour leadership. They have rejected the attempts of the previous Secretary of State to frighten them and turn them against the idea of a Scottish Parliament. The Scottish voters have shown better sense than the Labour leadership. There is no need for a referendum.
      Our position is diametrically opposed to that of the Conservatives, who are against any form of democracy anywhere, especially in Scotland. We believe that the views of the Scots are clear and a referendum would be a waste of time.
      Secondly, we are against the second question. We consider it politically inept. However it is written, it will be read by many voters as, "You do want to have higher taxes, don't you?" Those of us who learnt Latin learnt a form of question which called for the answer no. This is such a question. It is written in such a way that people will tend to vote no. It does not state, "If you vote for higher taxes, you will get better schools, better hospitals and so on," which our party put forward in the general election. It merely asks in the abstract, "Would you like to vote for higher taxes?" We believe that that is inept.
      Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made clear yesterday, the question puts on offer a proposition that no party is putting forward—that is, a Scottish Parliament without tax-raising powers. That is not on the political agenda, so it is wrong to offer it. It also demolishes any moral position that the Government may have for rejecting the nationalists' claim to have their question included in the referendum. Once one starts opening out the scope of the referendum, where does one stop? The second question is foolish and undermines the Government's position.
      I shall deal with some of the arguments that we have heard against a Parliament with tax-varying powers. The hon. Member for Linlithgow argued that the existence of borders created difficulties, but there is no problem if a citizen of Connecticut pays different taxes from a citizen of New York state, or if the citizens of two adjacent German Länder are taxed differently. The hon. Gentleman may say that America is a federal country—but that makes no difference to the principle. Denmark, a unitary country, has district, regional and national income taxes.
      404
      The system works perfectly well; there is no rioting in the streets of Denmark of the kind we had here with the poll tax.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should not ask the Scottish people whether they want a taxation system different from the one they have at the moment, even though, on his own evidence, there are at least five or six ways in which that could be interpreted?
      4 pm
      Mr. Gorrie: We are saying that the tax-varying element of the Parliament is an integral part of the whole structure. Hence to ask a separate question about it is idiotic.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman proposes that a Scottish Parliament must, of necessity, control an entirely separate fiscal regime from the one applying to the rest of the UK. That seems to imply that a Scottish Parliament must, also of necessity, be economically independent from the United Kingdom Parliament.
      Mr. Gorrie: I do not see why it should not be, but it is also possible to have a mixed system, which is what the Government seem to be proposing. We say that, without some control over the money, the Scottish Parliament proposal is fatally flawed.
      Mr. Garnier: For some time, it has been Liberal party policy—I do not know whether it still is—to advocate a local income tax, so I can well understand a Scottish Parliament having the power to raise a local income tax that varied from region to region or from county to county. Does the hon. Gentleman, however, agree that the second question is meaningless because the people of Scotland will be invited to answer it with no idea of the true definition of "tax-varying powers"? At the moment, it is just a nice-sounding phrase with no detail behind it.
      Mr. Gorrie: By the time voting takes place, a White Paper will have been issued and debated at length. The citizens of Scotland are not all as stupid as English Conservative Members seem to think they are. It would be quite simple for them to say that they wanted a Parliament with some control over money. We are against asking a separate question at all; but if there is one, we shall campaign flat out for a double yes in the referendum, because tax-raising powers are essential.
      Conservative Members have raised the chimera that because of a slightly higher income tax in Scotland, people and companies would indulge in a mass emigration to England. That is rubbish. There are already in Scotland at least three pairs of adjacent local authorities the gulf between whose council tax D bands—the standard rate band—is greater than the gulf that would ensue from the imposition of an extra 3p tax on the mythical average taxpayer. Yet there is no mass emigration or immigration—
      Mr. Lansley rose—
      Mr. Gorrie: No, really, I have had enough. The whole argument, like almost everything else the Conservatives have said in this debate, is false.

      405
      Next, various Conservatives and the hon. Member for Linlithgow have argued that because Parliament might change a few commas and full stops between publication of the White Paper and the final passage of the Bill, the whole process will be null and void. That misses the point. The people of Scotland will not be swayed, when voting for or against a Scottish Parliament, merely because some power over railways or fisheries is or is not included. They will be voting on a gut feeling that they want a Scottish Parliament with control over its own affairs and its own money. Any minor changes made later by Parliament will in no way invalidate the decision of the people of Scotland.
      It is no wonder that many Scottish Conservatives want out. They want to run their own show. I invite Conservatives who have spoken repeatedly and prominently in these debates to come to Scotland to campaign for the no side in the referendum. Then all of us would be able to stay at home, and would romp home.
      Over 26 years, in four different councils, I have formed the view that in public life most of the people involved in the debate roughly understand the question, but they have different answers. The Conservative party has not begun to understand the question. It is on a different planet altogether. Many of us have used the well-known phrase about power corrupting. I have discovered in the past few days that the corruption of power is a lingering illness. The corruption carries on far longer than the power. The Conservatives must get their act together, because they are making a mockery of themselves, democracy and the House.
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am pleased to reply to the debate on the amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) has it absolutely right.
      It is my style to try to be as helpful as I can to the Conservative Opposition. They are recovering slowly from 1 May, but are obviously going through a period of recuperation.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: The Minister said that he agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), and that he was absolutely right. Does that mean that the Minister accepts the hon. Gentleman's amendment?
      Mr. McLeish: Obviously we are to have a continuation of the nit-picking exercise that was characteristic of the Opposition yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman will just sit still for a few minutes more, I shall respond.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is absolutely right that Conservative Members need to listen to what is happening in Scotland in relation to devolution and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. In my attempt to be continually helpful, I draw their attention to a poll in one of our national newspapers this morning. In fact there were two polls, but I shall deal first with the one on devolution. It appears that, in the most recent poll, the vote was 3:1 in support of a Scottish Parliament and 2:1 in support of it having tax-varying powers. Indeed, that poll is very encouraging.
      406
      I remind the Conservative Opposition of another poll in the same national newspaper this morning, which suggested that, after popular support for the Conservatives reached the dizzy heights of 18 per cent. on 1 May, it has now plummeted to 9 per cent. I submit that the fundamental challenge for Conservative Members to get to grips with is that voters in Scotland want, by 3:1, to support a Scottish Parliament, but have given only 9 per cent. support to what used to be Her Majesty's Government's party in Scotland.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. McLeish: In a moment.
      It is also important to identify who is saying what in the Conservative party about the referendum. In an excellent article in the Evening News today, pro-home rule Tory campaigner Christine Richards, ex-leader of the Tories on Edinburgh council, said:
      "We cannot go on being arrogant and ignorant."
      That is in relation to the "I still won't budge on devolution" concept put forward in the House.
      I ask the Conservatives to think hard. It is becoming embarrassing for a Minister to try to help the Conservative party in Scotland to come to grips with its own reality.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: In addition to speaking to the lady to whom my hon. Friend referred, perhaps some Opposition Members should speak to the likes of Councillor Brian Meek, who is arguing a good case for an independent Conservative party in Scotland.
      Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend is obviously trying to be as helpful as I am in relation to the recuperation of the Conservative party, but I fear that if I do not get on to the amendments, you, Mr. Lord, will bring me back into line.
      Mr. Grieve rose—
      Mr. Fallon rose—
      Mr. McLeish: I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister, because, as I think he is aware, I have tried to attend these debates from the beginning precisely because I should like to be educated, especially on the views of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament. I confess that although I may go there frequently, I understand my own ignorance on many points.
      There is no mention in anything that the Minister has said of the wider United Kingdom dimension. Can he not understand that one of the concerns that brings Conservative Members to address the House is the fact that unless the UK dimension is taken into account, simply going along because there may be wishes in Scotland or Wales will not produce a durable result that will both devolve government and preserve the Union?
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman's comment in relation to the franchise was dealt with yesterday.

      407
      However, there will be ample opportunity to debate the matter when the White Paper is published, during the campaign before the referendum and, if it is successful, during the passage of the substantive Bill. I am sure that that will provide the education that the hon. Gentleman seeks as well as giving Conservative Members the opportunity to participate and to make the views of their constituents known, whichever part of the United Kingdom they represent.
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend said that there would be ample opportunity to debate the matter. In the public print there has been some reference to the White Paper being published on 25 July. Can my hon. Friend confirm that it will be before the middle of July?
      Mr. McLeish: I can confirm that the Government want to publish the White Paper as soon as possible before the summer recess, and we have also confirmed that we want a debate on it when it is published.
      Mr. Ancram rose—
      Mr. McLeish: I want to make some progress.
      Amendment Nos. 76 and 87 to 95 would have the effect of consulting the electorate in Scotland only on a single proposal for a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. In effect, that would deny people in Scotland the opportunity to say whether they wanted their Parliament to have the power to vary tax.
      We, of course, firmly believe that a Scottish Parliament should have the power to vary tax. The Westminster Parliament and local authorities have such powers. We believe that the responsibility and discipline that come with having the power to vary tax are important.
      However, we believe that it is important that people in Scotland should be given the opportunity to express their views specifically on our tax-varying proposals. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked why we are consulting separately on our proposal for the Scottish Parliament to have tax-varying powers and not on any other aspects of our proposals—why taxation? Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that taxation is significant. It is an issue on which most people have a view, and understandably so. It is only right that the views of the Scottish people on that issue are clear.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: When my hon. Friend refers to tax-raising powers, is he dealing with all kinds of taxes or just one kind of tax? Would VAT, corporation tax or capital gains tax be varied? Which tax is it?
      Mr. McLeish: The tax-varying power applicable to Scotland will be predicated on income tax.
      If hon. Members are so sure that the Scottish people want a Parliament with tax-varying powers, what harm can there be in asking them? We made it clear in our manifesto that we intended to consult them on that, and I can see no reason for failing to deliver on that pledge. Popular endorsement on that specific point will put the views of the people of Scotland beyond doubt and speed the passage of the subsequent legislation. I do not expect that the people of Scotland will want anything less for a Scottish Parliament.
      408
      Again, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan sought reassurance that a second referendum would not be held once the main devolution legislation had received Royal Assent. I am happy to assure him that we have no such intention.
      Mr. James Wallace: Is it the Minister's position, as was reported, that if—I am sure that he and I would both expect and hope that it would not arise—there was a yes, no vote, a Labour Government would bring in legislation to introduce a Scottish Parliament without tax powers, despite his knowing that that is less than what he believes to be in the best interests of the Scottish people?
      Mr. McLeish: In the spirit of optimism pervading the Government, we believe that we shall have a yes, yes vote. To talk of any other would, in some respects, help what I was going to describe as the no, no campaign, but it is difficult to envisage a no, no campaign other than the one being generated from Westminster by the Conservative party.
      The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also raised the point, as did the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that there would be an opportunity to vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament and against it having tax-varying powers—the so-called yes, no vote. I have no doubt that we shall receive resounding support for our proposals for a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. We fully expect a yes, yes result and we are planning on that basis.
      The heart of a Parliament lies in its powers to legislate. Our proposals will ensure that legislation on Scottish affairs will be passed in Scotland by people elected in Scotland who understand and represent Scottish interests.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: The point being made by me and by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) went slightly further. We were pointing out that a two-question referendum brings forward an option of a Parliament without tax-varying powers, which is not supported by any substantial party in the whole of Scotland. Why is that option being presented when other options, such as the independence option, are clearly not?
      4.5 pm
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman will obviously have an opportunity a bit later in the debate to discuss the multi-option referendum. Suffice it to say that we believe that the two questions are vital. We believe that tax-varying powers are an essential element of our proposals for devolution and we shall campaign vigorously to ensure that we have a yes, yes vote.
      The issue of a no, yes result was raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I have already explained why we are committed to consulting the people of Scotland separately on the tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament. There will be two ballot papers, one on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and one on whether it should have the power to vary tax. We are using two separate ballot papers after having consulted electoral practitioners who advised that their use would reduce the risk of spoilt ballot papers and would ease the

      409
      process of the count. We do not expect a no, yes result in the referendum and we are certainly not planning for that. If an individual wants to vote in that way, he or she will be perfectly entitled to do so.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: Who are these practitioners and what experience do they have of a two-ballot-paper referendum?
      Mr. McLeish: Officials have consulted widely on these issues. Indeed, there is an association—this was news to me—that brings together people who are experts in the field. I can reassure my hon. Friend that a great deal of thought has gone into the matter.
      Amendment Nos.111 and 112 seek to amend the proposition on which the people in Scotland will be consulted—[Interruption.] It would be useful for Opposition Front-Bench Members to listen a bit, especially as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), one of the leading contenders for the leadership, is here. It seems to be the practice of Conservatives to go to Scotland and to lecture, lecture and lecture the people there on devolution. Listening does not seem to have been one of their activities over the past 18 years.
      Amendment Nos. 111 and 112 seek to amend the proposition on which the people in Scotland will be consulted, to refer to a Scottish Assembly and to remove the reference to tax-varying powers. We have already made it perfectly clear that we intend to consult the people in Scotland on our proposals for a Scottish Parliament and not on any other options.
      A number of questions were asked about the specific powers of a Scottish Parliament and about details of our proposals—indeed, those questions have dominated most of the contributions from Conservative Members.
      Mr. Ancram: I want to make a suggestion to the Minister of State which will, I hope, be helpful. Given the misunderstanding that has obviously arisen over the past three weeks over whether there will be a Bill before the referendum or a White Paper before the referendum, given that the Minister has told us that a White Paper will be produced before the House rises for the summer and that there will be a chance to debate it, and given that the referendum will not take place until September, will he consider producing a draft Bill before the referendum takes place, so that the people in Scotland and the people in Wales will know the detail of what they are being asked to vote on?
      Mr. McLeish: I say with the greatest respect and courtesy that I can muster that Government Members are sick and tired of the fact that after 50 questions have been posed and 50 answers have been received, Front-Bench Conservative Members' contributions are just nit-picking over what is very, very obvious. I shall spell the matter out to the right hon. Gentleman. We have said that we shall publish a White Paper as soon as possible. We shall then seek to have the legislation passed through the House. We shall then move to a referendum in the autumn—
      Mr. Ancram: Through both Houses?
      Mr. McLeish: I meant that the legislation would pass through this House and, of course, the Lords. That would
      410
      mean that the legislation would receive Royal Assent by the time we rose for the summer recess. That has been made obvious and clear at every possible opportunity. I suggest again a helpful piece of advice. Unless the Conservative Opposition's comments become more relevant to the points that have been made, they are frankly not only doing themselves a disservice, but ignoring the Conservative party in Scotland, which is seeking a constructive way forward.
      Mr. Ancram: The Minister of State has said something and I want to be clear about it. Clarity is important. He said first that there would be a White Paper, then he said that legislation would go through the House. I looked surprised because I did not know whether he was referring to the Bill or legislation following the White Paper. We need to get the order clear. Which comes first?
      Mr. McLeish: In a sense, I should not dignify the questions that have been asked. I shall spell it out. We are moving to the publication of a White Paper, which will be published before the House rises for the summer recess. [Interruption.] I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would sit and listen instead of talking and talking. He asked a question, and he should let me answer it. We shall be seeking to get Royal Assent for the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill before the House rises for the summer recess. We shall then proceed to a referendum in the autumn. A successful completion of the referendum will mean a substantial Bill being prepared later this year.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way. A number of hon. Members want to speak. I have clarified the point, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have on numerous occasions.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Dictatorship.
      Mr. McLeish: Again, the Conservatives seem to learn absolutely nothing. They shout from sedentary positions, "Dictatorship, dictatorship, dictatorship."
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way.
      A number of questions were asked about the specific powers of a Scottish Parliament and particular details of the proposals. If hon. Members wish to engage in debate on the extent of a Scottish Parliament's powers, they should do so in the debate on the White Paper and during scrutiny of the main legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a specific point on the Barnett formula. That is obviously an important issue and one that will be addressed in the White Paper.
      Amendment No. 145 would provide for a referendum to be held in Scotland on the establishment and tax-raising rather than tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament. That assumes that a Scottish Parliament would never want to lower its taxation and suggests an ever-increasing spiral of taxation. It would be an absolute nonsense to tie the Parliament's hands in that way. A power to raise tax must be accompanied by a power to lower it. I invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.
      Mr. Wallace: I listened with interest to the Minister's response. The debate has been useful and interesting

      411
      because it has not simply highlighted a number of questions on the referendum, but allowed comments on the whole question of taxation powers of a Scottish Parliament.
      It is interesting to note that the Liberal Democrats' amendments have attracted a degree of all-party consensus, which hitherto has not been achieved in this Parliament. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has indicated some support. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—for different reasons, perhaps—found merits in the amendments. Indeed, so has the Scottish National party. I am sure that, when the House divides in a few minutes, such a grand coalition will be welcome.
      Some points have been raised about the powers that a Scottish Parliament would have. I wonder whether those taking part in the debate, especially Conservative Members who purport to speak with such knowledge, have read the report of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, "Scotland's Parliament: Scotland's Right", which was published on St. Andrew's day in 1995 and answers many of the questions raised. With more civil service input and jargon, it will no doubt be reflected in greater detail in the White Paper when it duly finds the light of day.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wallace: I shall give way in a moment.
      The Government are not about to launch on the people of Scotland or the United Kingdom a complete bolt from the blue that that has not been previously trailed.
      Mr. Ancram: How do we know?
      Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman asks how we know. It was made perfectly clear in the election manifestos of both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats that proposals for a Scottish Parliament would be firmly rooted in and based on the workings of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which, let it be remembered, was not a creature of either the Labour party or the Scottish Liberal Democrats. It reflected a very broad consensus in Scotland, including local authorities, Churches, trade unions, ethnic groups and Scottish language groups—perhaps the broadest-based civic representation in Scotland this century.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, as a result of the convention, the logical consequence of a Scottish Parliament is the reduction in Scottish representation here at Westminster? That is something that the Government deny because it is not convenient for their party representation in the House. Their proposals amount to the gerrymandering of the British constitution in their favour. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his honesty.
      Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, but what he said proves that he has not read the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The convention specifically did not address the issue of the number of seats at Westminster, because that is a matter for Westminster and not for the Scottish
      412
      Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Liberal Democrats endorse what the Kilbrandon commission said in 1970 or 1971 about the reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. The Labour party does not agree with that position, but there we differ. The Scottish Constitutional Convention made no recommendation one way or the other.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman said that the issue was a matter for Westminster. How can it be a matter only for Westminster unless we also sort out who at Westminster will decide it—the United Kingdom Members or the English Members?
      Mr. Wallace: It is self-evident that the composition of the House must be a matter for the House and all its Members. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the wider UK dimension and asked how English Members would have a chance to take part in that wider dimension. That is self-evident, too, if he gives it one moment's thought. When the Bill for a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly comes before the House, hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—will all have an opportunity to take part.
      The Parliament of the United Kingdom is constituted—albeit that my party believes that it is constituted unfairly because of the electoral system, but that is the system that we operate—on the arguments that were put before the electorate and determined on 1 May. The overwhelming majority of the British people from Scotland, England and Wales voted on 1 May for parties that were committed to substantial constitutional reform, including Parliaments for Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom. The representatives of the people will make the decisions and scrutinise the Bill when it comes before the House.
      Mr. Garnier: The Bill mentions the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Scottish Constitutional Convention paper. Would it not have been helpful for the public if a version or précis of the paper had been attached to the Bill as a schedule, so that in our debate on the referendum this week all those who do not have the hon. Gentleman's learning could understand what he was on about?
      Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Not only has he clearly not read the Scottish Constitutional Convention proposals, but he has clearly not read the Bill. The fact that he is only now coming alive to the issue shows that he has not examined the proposals. If the referendum happens, the ballot paper to be put before the electorate will say:
      "Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament".
      Those proposals, as has been made clear, will be published in a White Paper. That issue was raised earlier at Prime Minister's questions. I recall the Prime Minister saying that the Bill would be published and I realised at the time that he was making a mistake. I do not know why he did not own up to the mistake. At an early stage in his premiership, he has forgotten the basic rule—when one is in a hole, stop digging and start climbing. Nevertheless, all of us who have followed the debate knew that he meant that a White Paper would be the basis for the referendum.

      413
      The Minister has not answered the question about what could happen if there was a yes, no vote. I accept that we should approach the issue in a spirit of optimism, to use the Minister's words. He has been assured that my party will campaign, if amendment No. 87 is not successful, for a yes, yes outcome. The Herald vote today was a 2:1 yes—but only 53 per cent. were in favour of the tax-varying powers. For me, that is not a sufficient cushion of comfort. It puts us on notice that we shall have to argue for those powers.
      There is a good argument for those powers, but I believe that the Government are entering dangerous territory and taking a gamble. It would be better if the two questions were consolidated into one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West pointed out, there is no party in Scotland, and no body within the home rule movement in Scotland, that argues for the yes, no option that will appear on the ballot paper—a Scottish Parliament without tax-varying powers.
      A Government who believe sincerely that the best solution for the government of Scotland is a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers are taking a gamble in allowing the possibility—let us put it no higher than that for the time being—of an outcome involving a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers, for which the Government will say they are prepared to legislate—
      It being half-past Four o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 70, Noes 344.

      Division No. 10]

      [4.30 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Harvey, Nick

      Baker, Norman

      Hayes, John

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Breed, Colin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Burstow, Paul

      Keetch, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Kennedy, Charles

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Chidgey, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Chope, Christopher

      Livsey, Richard

      Cotter, Brian

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Maclennan, Robert

      (Perth)

      Mates, Michael

      Dafis, Cynog

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Moore, Michael

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Evans, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Oaten, Mark

      Fabricant, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Rendel, David

      Forth, Eric

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Salmond, Alex

      Garnier, Edward

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gill, Christopher

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

      Grieve, Dominic

      Swinney, John

      Hancock, Mike

      Taylor, Matthew

      414

      (Truro & St Austell)

      Webb, Steven

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Welsh, Andrew

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Tyler, Paul

      Willis, Phil

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Donald Gorrie.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coleman, Iain

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corbett, Robin

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Austin, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Banks, Tony

      Cranston, Ross

      Barnes, Harry

      Crausby, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Battle, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cummings, John

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Darvill, Keith

      Benton, Joe

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Blizzard, Robert

      Denham, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brake, Thomas

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Donohoe, Brian H

      (Dunfermline E)

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick

      Dowd, Jim

      (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

      Butler, Christine

      Efford, Clive

      Byers, Stephen

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Caborn, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Cann, Jamie

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Caplin, Ivor

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Casale, Roger

      Flynn, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Galbraith, Sam

      Clapham, Michael

      Gapes, Mike

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gerard, Neil

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clelland, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Graham, Thomas

      415

      Grant, Berie

      McAllion, John

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Grocott, Bruce

      Macdonald, Calum

      Grogan, John

      McDonnell, John

      Gunnell, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hain, Peter

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McLeish, Henry

      Hanson, David

      McNulty, Tony

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      MacShane, Denis

      Healey, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Heppell, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Hill, Keith

      Marek, Dr John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hoey, Kate

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Home Robertson, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hood, Jimmy

      Maxton, John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hope, Philip

      Meale, Alan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Merchant, Piers

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Merron, Ms Gillian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Michael, Alun

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Milburn, Alan

      Hughes, Ms Beverley

      Miller, Andrew

      (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hurst, Alan

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hutton, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Iddon, Brian

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Morley, Elliot

      Ingram, Adam

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Ms Melanie

      Norris, Dan

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pendry, Tom

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pike, Peter L

      Khabra, Piara S

      Plaskitt, James

      Kidney, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pond, Chris

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kingham, Tessa

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Purchase, Ken

      Laxton, Bob

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lepper, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Radice, Giles

      Levitt, Tom

      Rammell, Bill

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Linton, Martin

      Rogers, Allan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rooney, Terry

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lock, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Love, Andy

      Roy, Frank

      416

      Ruane, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Salter, Martin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Sawford, Phil

      Thompson, William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Todd, Mark

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Touhig, Don

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Truswell, Paul

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Snape, Peter

      Wareing, Robert N

      Soley, Clive

      Watts, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      White, Brian

      Spellar, John

      Whitehead, Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      (Swansea W)

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Dr Alan W

      (E Carmarthen)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wills, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stott, Roger

      Wood, Mike

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Woolas, Phil

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Tellers for the Noes:

      (Dewsbury)

      Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. John McFall.

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Salmond: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'tax-varying powers' and insert `constitutional status'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 97, in page 1, line 7, at end insert
      'and on the status of Scotland within the United Kingdom'.
      No. 204, in page 1, line 10, leave out '1' and insert
      '(Referendum in Scotland (No. 3)).
      No. 72, in schedule 1, page 4, line 5, at end insert `and alternative'.
      No. 73, in page 4, leave out line 7 and insert
      `Note your preferred options in order of preference by marking 1, 2 or 3 by each option. You need not use every option.'.
      No. 74, in page 4, line 8, after 'A', insert `DEVOLVED'.
      No. 75, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
      `OR
      I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT'.
      No. 231, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
      `AS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER.'.
      No. 232, in page 4, line 12, at end insert
      `AS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER'.
      No. 76, in page 4, leave out lines 13 to 22.
      No. 99, in page 4, line 22, at end add—'Part III—
      Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the status of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
      Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box
      I AGREE THAT SCOTLAND SHOULD REMAIN AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
      I DO NOT AGREE THAT SCOTLAND SHOULD REMAIN AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM'.
      New schedule 9—Referendum in Scotland (No. 3)—

      Part 1

        Part 1
        FORM OF FIRST BALLOT PAPER
        Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament or independence for Scotland.
        Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box:
        I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO CHANGE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND

        or
        I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
        or
        I AGREE THAT SCOTLAND SHOULD LEAVE THE UNITED KINGDOM.'.
        Amendment No. 77, in title, line 2, leave out 'tax-varying powers' and insert 'constitutional status'.
        Mr. Salmond: The amendment should be considered with amendments Nos. 72 to 77. Their effect is to provide for a multi-option referendum in Scotland, to give people the choice between independence, devolution and the status quo on a preferential voting system to allow people to vote 1, 2, 3. The bottom option would be knocked out, resulting in a clear winner.
        My contention is that this is the real referendum, if one is to be held at all. I must make it clear at the outset that if the Government had said that they had a mandate from the general election and therefore intended to proceed with their proposals for a devolved Scottish Parliament, they would have had no argument from me about a multi-option referendum. It is legitimate to say that the general election is a mandate to move ahead with devolution proposals. That, however, is not what the Government have done. Instead, they have taken the position, as was made clear by the Secretary of State two weeks ago, that the general election did not provide a test of the constitutional options. It was not a sufficient test because other issues prevailed during the campaign.
        The issue on which the general election campaign in Scotland focused was the substantial urge to remove the Conservative party from every available seat, which the Scottish people were successful in doing in different ways in different constituencies. We all know that that was the key issue of the general election campaign in Scotland. If the Government believe that the general election did not decide the constitutional position and that therefore there must be a test of opinion, it is my position that that test of opinion must be fair and must make available to all the people the real options before the Scottish nation.
        418
        I want to discuss three arguments. First, members of all parties in the House have at one time or another supported the concept of a multi-option referendum. Secondly, I shall point to the various international precedents, and the one United Kingdom precedent, for my position. Thirdly, I shall argue that it is such a referendum that has genuine popular assent and is supported by the people of Scotland.
        First, there is the argument that members of all parties have supported my position. It was certainly supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 23 April 1992, when he said not only that he supported the concept of a multi-option referendum but told the Scottish Trades Union Congress annual congress in Dundee that it should be "shouted from the rooftops".
        The Secretary of State has been having some fun with his Tory opposite number—at least, I think that that is what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) may become, although he is denying it; time will tell—about the various changes he has made in his position. The Secretary of State owes us an explanation of why the concept was to be "shouted from the rooftops" in 1992 but not even to be whispered in the Lobbies in 1997.
        Mr. Ernie Ross: We won.
        Mr. Salmond: That is one of the hon. Gentleman's more telling contributions to debates of late. If he had been listening, he would realise that I argued that if the Secretary of State had wanted to take the Labour party's election victory as a mandate to proceed with a devolution plan without further consultation, I would have accepted that as a legitimate position. But that is not the position of the Labour party. Its position is that there has to be a test of opinion. The amendment proposes a democratic and real test of opinion.
        Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that if there was a multi-option referendum in which people could vote for independence, but the people of Scotland rejected that, the Scottish National party would disband and join the other political parties?
        Mr. Salmond: Like the Labour party did after the general elections in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992? All democratic parties accept the result of a referendum or election. If they lose, they do not disband. They try to win another referendum in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course. Democratic parties submit their position to the people and if they are defeated they try to find a better method of putting their arguments so that they can be successful in the future. What on earth is wrong with that? What is more interesting is why, in opposition, the Labour party supported the concept of putting independence on the ballot paper, yet in government finds that prospect too frightening.
        Mr. Fallon: Is the hon. Gentleman now telling the Committee that if he is not satisfied with the result of the referendum or the legislation that follows it he will campaign immediately for a further referendum?
        Mr. Salmond: No. The Scottish National party will campaign to win a general election, a referendum or an election to a Scottish Assembly at some point in the

        419
        future. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, having returned to the House, fully expects the Conservative party to return to power at the next general election. His may be a minority opinion, but I am sure that he holds it dear and clutches hope to his bosom.
        A multi-option referendum was supported by the late John Smith. As leader of the Labour party, he made it clear that the Labour party as a whole was campaigning in support of the concept. So in the past there has been substantial Labour party support for the idea.
        The organisation Scotland United was formed and predicated on the basis of a multi-option referendum, which it recognised as the one concept that in recent years had united the forces of constitutional change in Scotland. In its policy document, "What Price Democracy", published in 1992, it argued for a multi-option referendum, noting that
        "one of the big problems with the 1979 referendum was the absence from the ballot paper of the independence option, which meant that a significant section of the Scottish population was denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred option."
        Many members of that organisation are on the Government Benches today.
        Not only is the concept supported by Labour Members but it was originally a Liberal party idea. In the late 1960s, Lord Steel introduced a Bill proposing a multi-option referendum. Liberal Members are fond of telling us that they have most of the good ideas and that other parties adopt them some time later. I see the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) nodding her assent. What they tell us less often is that by the time they have convinced the rest of us that they are a good idea, they have deserted the cause and no longer espouse their original policies. I hope that, given the Liberal antecedents of the case, Liberal Members will support the amendment.
        I have to accept that Tory support for our proposal is somewhat more recent. It was not evident when the Tories were in government, but at least one of the Tory leadership candidates, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), announced in Scotland at the weekend that he was in favour of a multi-option referendum. To be fair, some Back-Bench Tory Members have argued over a longer period that independence should appear on the ballot paper in a constitutional referendum in Scotland.
        Broad support for the concept has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties in the House. If we evaluate the amendment's chances of success, I comfort myself with the notion that the Secretary of State has held five positions on referendums on Scotland in the past five years. In 1992, when I debated with him as—
        The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Five?
        Mr. Salmond: I am coming to all five.
        In the 1992 general election, when we debated as the two party leaders in Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman was against any referendum. After the election, he moved, as I have already said, to support a multi-option referendum. Last year, when he was the Labour party Chief Whip, the proposal for a two-question referendum was first put forward and he adopted joint authorship of it. Some of us think that he was just covering fire for the
        420
        right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson); none the less, he was willing to accept responsibility for that notion. When the Labour party's Scottish executive decided to have two referendums with three questions, that was described by the Labour party hierarchy as a mature and sensible decision. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, as the then Chief Whip, also shared that opinion.
        That takes us to the fifth change of heart—the two-question referendum proposed in the Bill. All I am saying is that, having taken five positions in the past five years, surely it is not too much to expect the right hon. Gentleman to move back to his 1992 position by accepting our amendment. I am sure that he will when he replies.
        Mr. Dewar: Wait breathlessly.
        Mr. Salmond: I shall do so. I am hoping for a sixth change of position because I know that, in his heart, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the amendment represents the right course to take.
        There are a number of international examples of referendums that have been put before people in a range of countries where three or more clear constitutional positions have been offered. However, perhaps the example that is of most interest to the Committee is the decision of the Attlee Privy Council of the United Kingdom in 1946.
        There was to be a ballot in Newfoundland on its democratic status. Originally, a constitutional convention suggested that only two options should be allowed, but the Attlee Privy Council decided otherwise. Preecing's Contemporary Archive for 6 to 13 November 1946 states:
        "Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be right that the people of Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity of considering the issue and they have therefore decided that confederation with Canada should be included as a third choice on the referendum paper."
        The Attlee Privy Council—a Labour Government with a landslide majority—had the democratic common sense to see that it would be unfair to exclude from a referendum ballot paper an option that was supported by many people in Newfoundland. As we know, it was that option that eventually, albeit narrowly, carried the day in Newfoundland. That is why it entered the Canadian Confederation. That example is both international and pertaining to the United Kingdom.
        I suggest that a multi-option referendum—a fair referendum—is the one that carries public support in Scotland. One opinion poll, which tested whether people wanted the option of independence to be included on the ballot paper of any referendum in Scotland, was published in The Sunday Times on 11 August 1996. It showed not only overwhelming support from the Scottish people—73 per cent.—for that idea, but majority support in every party for all the options of independence, devolution and the status quo to be included on the ballot paper. Of Labour supporters in Scotland, 81 per cent. suggested that that was the right thing to do. So there is public support for a fair ballot, but another factor should be recognised by the Committee and it is an argument that is not often put clearly.
        According to my memory and experience, there has not been a single recent public opinion poll that presented the three options of independence, devolution or the status

        421
        quo and showed a majority in favour of devolution. In the vast majority of polls, devolution has been the preferred option, but, as far as I am aware, not a single opinion poll citing those three options has shown 50 per cent. or more in favour of devolution. One opinion poll during the general election campaign suggested that independence and devolution were tied with 35 per cent. support, with support for the status quo at 24 per cent. The ICM poll in The Scotsman suggested that there was substantial support for the status quo—that was more than the other polls suggested.
        5 pm
        Mr. Dewar: I apologise for indulging my curiosity, but is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position that any multi-choice referendum would be invalid unless one of the options received 50 per cent. support? Does it follow that the hon. Gentleman is Suggesting a transferable vote multi-choice option?
        Mr. Salmond: As I said in my introduction, and as the amendments state, people would mark 1, 2 or 3 in a preferential system. The option receiving the lowest number of votes in the first count would be knocked out and the votes redistributed, giving a winner with a substantial majority.
        It is often said by Labour Members that devolution is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people. As today's opinion poll showed, that claim would be justified only if the independence option were not offered. As far as I know, of recent polls that have offered independence, devolution and the preservation of the status quo, not one has shown a majority in favour of devolution.
        I think that The Sunday Times poll that I mentioned has the figures about right—it is a close thing between devolution and independence. The Conservative party would no doubt like to hang on to the ICM poll that showed substantial support—almost 30 per cent.—for the status quo. The truth is, we do not know what the result would be and the only way to find out is by putting the options fairly and squarely before the people of Scotland and allowing them to decide.
        Mr. Michael Connarty: We have discussed this before. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he would not choose to have a referendum with three options in which people could answer yes or no? One option could be: "Do you wish Scotland to remain a part of the Union or the United Kingdom?" Is he afraid that because the question is so clear, people may choose to say yes?
        Mr. Salmond: I do not think that anything could be clearer than the options that we propose in the amendments—whether people want no change to the constitutional arrangements, whether they want an independent Scottish Parliament or whether they want a devolved Scottish Parliament. Each option is given parity on the ballot paper and people are asked to judge. I would argue that that is a fair way to put the questions. But if the amendments are carried, if the Government want to address the issue of a multi-option referendum and if we
        422
        want to reach agreement on a fair representation on the ballot paper, I am sure that that can be negotiated and arranged. The hon. Gentleman should look at what we have suggested and tell me why that is not a fair representation of the positions.
        Mr. Connarty: Having taught modern studies in schools for a long time and having seen the problems faced by people at all levels—right up to those learning about government and political systems at A-level—in understanding a system where the votes are ranked between the first, second and third choices, with the consequential results of the single transferable vote, I think that the complexity involved is more likely to confuse than clarify.
        Mr. Salmond: Australia and southern Ireland managed to cope with the complex system of voting. Most people would argue that over the years they have managed to produce reasonable results in terms of forming Governments. To argue against a system of preferential voting that is used in many countries and say that people in Scotland would be unable to cope shows me that when the hon. Gentleman was a modern studies teacher he should have had more faith in his pupils and that he should now have more faith in the people of Scotland.
        Mr. Cash: Has the hon. Gentleman addressed the question of the threshold majority that should be required? Does he agree that in 1978 the number of people who voted amounted to only, I think, 32 per cent.? Does he agree that that showed such a low interest that some threshold is required in relation to the present arrangements?
        Mr. Salmond: Not only have I addressed that issue, but I managed to devote a large part of my speech on the guillotine motion yesterday to that point. I told the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—he was not in the Chamber at the time—that I did not think it was a very powerful argument to advance when, on the basis of the total number of the electorate, the Conservative party received 12.5 per cent. of the votes at the election. On the basis of today's opinion poll, the Conservative party's percentage of the total electorate likely to vote in Scotland would be more like 6 per cent. The threshold argument is weak when advanced from the dizzy heights of 6 or 12.5 per cent. of the total electorate. The argument for a threshold—for a fancy franchise and a rigged ballot—is a poor one. It would be far better to allow, if I may use the Scottish parlance, a square go between the various constitutional options—far, far better to put them on the ballot paper in an honest and fair manner and let the people of Scotland decide. The people of Scotland should have the right to decide this matter.
        I have shared the irritation of many hon. Members at the nature of some of the contributions to this debate from Conservative Members, especially the argument that the people of England are going have to pay for this constitutional exercise in Scotland. If those hon. Members had been involved in the general election campaign in Scotland, perhaps they would have been surprised that one of the matters on which all the parties were agreed was the figures showing a substantial fiscal surplus in Scotland between 1979 and 1995. Those figures were first revealed

        423
        in a Treasury answer on 13 January this year and all the political parties confirmed them, including the then Secretary of State for Scotland at a press conference.
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Rubbish—absolute rubbish.
        Mr. Salmond: I hear his former parliamentary private secretary telling me that that is absolute rubbish. On 8 April 1997, The Herald ran the headline:
        "Forsyth accepts that calculations show a net cash flow of £27,000 million to England."
        Given that, earlier today, Conservative Members suggested to the Prime Minister that if he was misquoted he should have corrected the record, perhaps the then Secretary of State for Scotland should have corrected the record if he felt that he was misquoted during the election campaign. My point is that it is deeply insulting to people in Scotland to conduct the argument on that basis.
        Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Salmond: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Jenkin: He does not dare.
        Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I am more than generous in giving way to a range of hon. Members. I am not giving way because I want to refer to the nature and quality of the arguments.
        It is demeaning to argue for a threshold, for a fancy franchise, for a 40 per cent. rule or for a 50 per cent. rule—that is an assault on the democratic process. It is also demeaning and inaccurate of Conservative Members to show their contempt for Scotland and for Wales by the way in which they have addressed some of those arguments over the past 24 hours.
        All of us have a responsibility to find a method of reaching agreement and of holding a referendum. If we are to consult the people, if we are to offer them a fair chance to express their view and if it is a referendum that is required and not a general election, as has been argued, then surely the case for putting all the options clearly, fairly and squarely before the people on a ballot is unanswerable. Whatever the voting configurations are in the Lobbies later this evening, I know that, in their hearts, most hon. Members know that that is the right thing to do.
        Mr. John McAllion: I shall be brief, because I have personal reservations about referendums in general.
        As many hon. Members will know, the referendum device was introduced into our constitution at the end of the 19th century by a man called A. V. Dicey, who openly admitted that he did so with the purpose of blocking home rule for Ireland. In parliamentary terms, he was successful because he did block home rule for Ireland at that time, but that success had grave consequences for the people of that island and for the people of this island with which we have been living ever since. Referendums in general are a conservative measure and are usually introduced by those who want to preserve the constitutional status quo and prevent change of any sort from being introduced by radical reformers.
        424
        Indeed, promoters of referendums since Mr. Dicey have followed his example. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) claims credit for having secured the 1975 referendum, but he did not do it because he wanted Britain to go into the Common Market; rather he did it for the opposite purpose. Again, in 1979 the referendum on Scottish devolution was promoted by those who wanted to stop devolution—it was the last throw of the dice for those who wanted to stop a Scottish Parliament being set up. By use of the threshold argument, to which Conservative Members have referred, they were successful in stopping devolution at that time and Scotland has paid the price ever since.
        In general, therefore, I am not a natural supporter of referendums and I do not see the need to hold them, except in certain circumstances where they can be justified. I believe that referendums would have been justified in the circumstances that obtained in Scotland in the aftermath of the 1992 general election, when Scotland clearly voted for parties that had proposed a Scottish Parliament. Three out of four voters in Scotland voted for parties that were offering a Scottish Parliament, but all the voters got was five more years of the Tories, who refused to change the status quo.
        In those circumstances, it was important to unite the forces for change in Scotland around the one issue that could unite them—the holding of a multi-option referendum, to give the Scottish people the chance to say whether they wanted independence, devolution or the status quo. That campaign was unsuccessful. I am as sorry as anyone else that it was, but the fact that people supported it at that time is not necessarily a reason to expect them to support the holding of a referendum at this point in our history, because there are inherent weaknesses in the multi-option referendum. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) did not discuss the main weakness.
        It is argued that the majority of people in Scotland support devolution, but that is not necessarily the case. The 9 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland who support the Tories are not the only ones who support the status quo. Some members of the Labour party support the status quo. Some supporters of the Labour party support the status quo.
        Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Name them.
        Mr. McAllion: I would be here all night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a joke. [Laughter.] The likelihood is that there would be a three-way split in any such vote. We do not know what the terms of that split would be—perhaps 40 per cent. for devolution, 30 per cent. for independence and 25 per cent. for the status quo. The idea that we should settle the issue by second choices does not encourage me much.
        If I had to vote in a multi-option referendum, I would put devolution first and independence second, but I would not want independence to be established in Scotland on the basis of my second choice or those of other people. People should positively vote for independence; and if independence is established, it should be established on the basis of a majority, not of second choices. Anything else is a weak position.
        I have great sympathy with the idea that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan expressed—that we have a mandate to establish a Scottish Parliament and we

        425
        should get on with doing it. In fact, if I, not my right hon. Friend, were Secretary of State for Scotland, that is what we would be doing.
        Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Member cares to look at the results of The Herald poll on the second question published this morning, he will see that the proposed second question in the referendum can be carried with a majority only on the second choices of people who want independence for Scotland. Why is it all right to carry devolution on the second choices of those who want independence, but not to carry independence on the second choices of those who want devolution?
        Mr. McAllion: The Government were given a mandate. The manifesto that the Labour party submitted to the Scottish people at the last general election said that, if elected, Labour would introduce a two-question referendum. The Government are honouring that mandate, and it is a bit much to say that we are being dishonourable by implementing the proposals that we submitted to the Scottish people in a general election, for which they then voted. It is a very honourable position for the Government to take.
        I accept that a yes, yes vote will depend on the support of Scottish National party supporters. I hope that they will understand that if they vote yes, yes we shall get, for the first time in nearly 300 years, a Parliament in Scotland, and that can be only to their advantage. I make no pretence that it will be otherwise. It will be to the advantage of the SNP to have a Parliament in Scotland because, obviously, they will receive far better representation in that Government, under a proportional system, than they possibly could in this Parliament under a first-past-the-post system, and I entirely welcome that.
        It would be open to a Scottish Parliament to decide to hold a referendum on whatever subject it wished. I accept that and I have no problem with it. However, at this stage in the fight for a Scottish Parliament, it is important to maximise the yes, yes vote. I am sure that the SNP will help.
        Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am interested in what the hon. Member has to say, and we are all heartened when a Government honour their manifesto pledges, but is he seriously suggesting that the people of Scotland would rise up and object if the current Government decided to go even further than their manifesto pledge and offer that third option? Does he think that, having been promised 250,000 jobs, people will object if, by chance, 255,000 jobs are created? That is effectively what he is saying. Is he really arguing that people will object if the Government exceed their manifesto commitment?
        Mr. McAllion: The hon. Lady is asking me to agree that the Labour Government should implement the SNP manifesto now that the Labour Government have been elected. Of course that makes no sense.
        In fact, the SNP manifesto does not propose a multi-option referendum. During the general election, Charter 88 called a democracy day debate, in which all the candidates had to answer questions on democracy. The question came up about Labour's proposals for a
        426
        two-question referendum, and the SNP candidate who stood against me gave an assurance from the platform during the election that, if elected, the SNP would hold a multi-option referendum and stand by the result.
        I took that to be SNP policy until today, when I examined the SNP general election manifesto. It shows a picture of Fergus Ewing—described as the "Cabinet Chief Secretary". [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where he is, but the manifesto said what would happen if the SNP had won the last general election in Scotland:
        "After the election of a majority of SNP MPs, the SNP will immediately initiate negotiations for independence with the UK Government"—
        and with the European Parliament.
        "At the conclusion of this period (which is likely to take between six and twelve months) the people of Scotland will be asked to approve the 'independence settlement' in a simple one question referendum."
        5.15 pm
        So the commitment in the SNP manifesto was
        "a simple one question referendum",
        and SNP Members should not say tonight that a two-question referendum is unfair and undemocratic when they have just fought a general election on the platform of a one-question referendum.
        Mr. Salmond: There is an exact parallel—that of a Labour Government receiving a mandate to pass devolution legislation and putting that, after parliamentary agreement, to the people in a post-legislative referendum. However, the Labour Government have not done that. They have said that the general election did not decide these issues, and Ministers argue that the people must be consulted. If the people are to be consulted, why not on independence?
        Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman argued earlier that if the Labour Government had simply set up a Scottish Parliament, he would have accepted that. He also said that if there is any test of opinion, it must be a fair test of opinion and it must be a multi-option referendum, yet he intended to test the opinion of the Scottish people in a one-question referendum if the SNP had won the last general election. It is very unfair of the hon. Gentleman to accuse my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of changing his position on the referendum issue when the SNP has changed its in the space of a month, since the general election.
        Mr. Graham: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly every member of the Labour party in Scotland supported devolution but did not support separatism? We told the people of Scotland that we wanted a Scottish Parliament along the lines of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. We did not hoodwink or kid the folk that we would lead them down the road of separatism. Why should we listen when the SNP tell us to follow its separatism policies, which we did not fight the general election on?
        Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about a general election mandate, and part of the Labour Government's mandate was that they should go ahead with the two-question referendum. It was in the

        427
        manifesto and was spoken about at all the public meetings in all the constituencies in Scotland by all the candidates. In fact, they were fiercely attacked by the SNP and by others for adopting such a position.
        In the event, the voters voted for us, and it should not be regarded as dishonourable or objectionable for the Labour Government to honour their manifesto commitment to introduce a referendum with two questions.
        I realised the dangers of the second question more than anything during the brief period that I spent on the Labour Front Bench. I believe that it is a very weak position to put the second question to the people in a referendum. If this Parliament were to hold a referendum throughout the United Kingdom seeking the right to vary taxation throughout the UK, I doubt that a majority of UK taxpayers would give Parliament the power to vary taxation in the way in which the Tories did in the last Parliament. We must overcome that difficulty. We have a fight on our hands to win two yes votes in the referendum in September.
        I do not mean this insultingly, but the Tory party in Parliament is irrelevant to the contest in September. We need to unite behind a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, and then the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the SNP will be even better placed to argue the case than they are at the moment.
        Miss Anne McIntosh: It is a great honour for me to address the House for the first time, as the first elected Member for Vale of York. I hope that hon. Members will consider this a good opportunity for me to pay tribute to my predecessors, one of whom is the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Another is the shadow Minister for local government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the third is my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the fourth is the former Member for Harrogate, Mr. Robert Banks. I hope that colleagues will not feel that I am insisting that it takes one woman to do the work of four men. My predecessors have paved the way for me to take over in a smooth transition as the first Member for Vale of York.
        In addition to his work as the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks did great work in north Yorkshire, especially among the farming community, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon in his previous capacity at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
        Hon. Members will recall that the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has largely been in connection with racecourses throughout Great Britain, including Scotland and Wales, and not least in my own constituency of Thirsk. Sadly, the former hon. Member for Harrogate retired at the last election. He will be remembered for the sterling work that he did for his constituency, and for the work that he did as a man of great integrity in our relations with Sudan.
        I am a Scot by birth and a Scottish advocate by profession, albeit non-practising at present. I am proud to have had the benefit of a Yorkshire education. It may not be that of, say, Fettes college, but I am proud to have been educated at Harrogate college in north Yorkshire and
        428
        subsequently at the university of Edinburgh. I am exceedingly attached to my Scottish roots, which I consider to be firmly established in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
        I shall say a few words about my constituency. The Vale of York is a special place with special people in it. I have referred to four of our number. My predecessors also include the present European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan. Other well-known residents of my home town, Thirsk, were Thomas Lord who, as hon. Members will recall, was the founding member of Lord's cricket ground, and Alf Wight—another Scot—perhaps better known for his contribution to animals as James Herriot. All those honourable people have made special contributions to the life of the Vale of York, as I hope to do in my capacity as the first elected Member. The geographic heart of my constituency is Helperby, but the population is based on the very pretty market towns of Bedale, Boroughbridge, Thirsk and Easingwold, as well as north York.
        I turn to the business in question. On amendment No. 71, I have great difficulty in understanding the need for such an amendment and in supporting it. I query the relevance of drawing on the experience of Newfoundland and Australia, unless the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is suggesting that the Scots who live there made a contribution there from which those of us now living in England can learn.
        I have a letter from a constituent who is extremely concerned that those of us Scots who are now resident in England will not have a vote in the referendum. He writes:
        "I and tens of thousands of expatriate Scots, if not more, will not be enfranchised, nor would the expatriate Welsh."
        I hope that hon. Members will consider that no less relevant than the amendment.
        I have great difficulty in sharing the philosophy of the Government and other Opposition Members with whom I share a Bench. They conclude from the result of the general election that we have a mandate from the Scottish people and the Welsh people—albeit those who happen to live within the borders of Scotland and Wales—on the question of a referendum. In my humble experience in my first parliamentary term, we fight general elections not on constitutional issues, of which the Bill forms a part, but on domestic issues such as education—for example, assisted places such as those that were enjoyed by hon. Members at Fettes college—health and law and order.
        I shall look forward with great anticipation to the referendum campaign, to see whether there is a sufficient majority of the Scottish and Welsh people in favour of the referendum, before we proceed further.
        On clause 1, I am treading on new ground as a new Member, but I have serious reservations about substantive procedural points in the Bill being dealt with by Order in Council. Perhaps the Government could put me out of my misery by enlightening me.
        One of the reasons why I sought to be the first Member of Parliament for Vale of York was that I believe that there should be proper scrutiny in the House through primary legislation. As secondary legislation, an Order in Council is not an appropriate instrument for the consideration of issues of a constitutional nature. They should be dealt with on the Floor of the House, not in Committee, in the form of a primary Bill enabling us to scrutinise draft legislation.

        429
        We can draw parallels with the European legislation that appears before the House as secondary legislation. I seek an explanation as to why the Government consider it appropriate to proceed by way of Order in Council, which I do not consider to be an appropriate instrument to use on this occasion. I believe that it infringes the heart of parliamentary sovereignty, which the Opposition hold dear.
        Returning to the Vale of York, I invite the Government to consider one point. Perhaps we could have a future referendum on how Scottish Power will transfer electricity. The Government will have to reach a view on whether a new line of pylons should be built in the Vale of York. It would be more appropriate to use any so-called windfall tax to put electricity wires underground, rather than carrying them in pylon form. Would the Government consider a referendum on the matter?
        Finally, if the outcome of a referendum in Scotland was clearly in favour of devolution, would the post of Secretary of State for Scotland disappear? Who in Parliament would take subsequent decisions?
        Mr. Dalyell: It has been the tradition in the House to welcome maiden speeches, but I do so now out of more than perfunctory politeness. I do not think that I have ever met the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), but I warmly congratulate her on using her maiden speech to make pertinent observations on the topic in hand.
        When I came into the House, it was the tradition that every maiden speech was devoted to the subject being discussed on the Floor of the House. That, alas, has rather ceased to be the tradition. It is an old tradition to which the hon. Lady returned with something pertinent and worthwhile to say. It is not for me to judge the content of her contribution to the debate, but she should be applauded by all of us for having thought about the subject under discussion and for making a highly relevant contribution. Maiden speeches are not always welcome on guillotine motions, but no one can accuse her of not treating the guillotine properly or of abusing the time of the House. She also has a locus in this matter, in that she is a graduate of the university of Edinburgh. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that we look forward to hearing her speak on many future occasions.
        I am tempted to break the habit of a lifetime and to vote for an SNP amendment, because it has the benefit of seeming transparency. Some of us believe that once an Assembly or Parliament is established, we shall be on a motorway with no exit to something that is indistinguishable either from federalism or from an independent Scottish state. For us, then, transparency has many attractions. It will however perhaps come as a relief to the leader of the SNP, my constituent, to discover that I will not be voting with his party this evening. I strongly believe that referendums should be about only concrete, definite proposals. It is wrong to have a general referendum on independence without knowing the exact terms of that independence. Independence involves divorce, and divorces can be messy. We are entitled to know the terms of the divorce settlement in the case of England and Scotland before we have a referendum on independence.
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this on a number of occasions. It is why, under my party's proposals, the referendum would be held after a negotiated settlement once the exact terms of the proposals were available. The hon. Gentleman will understand that our amendment today cannot follow that line because it deals with a referendum that the Government want to hold in September. So the fault of holding the referendum before the legislation is the Government's, not mine.
        Mr. Dalyell: It would be silly of me to say that I did not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, given what I have said before. I just thought I would explain why I will not be in the Lobby with him, greatly tempted though I was.
        Sir Patrick Cormack: I begin by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on her excellent maiden speech. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not say more than that, much as I would like to expand on my compliments. The time left for this debate goes to show the absurdity of the straitjacket in which the Government have placed us. We have to vote at 6 o'clock on the most important single issue to be debated on this Bill. Many of the Back Benchers who would have liked to take part will not have had the chance to do so by then.
        Time is so limited that we are having to vote only on an amendment which is rather confusing and which would produce a confused result. I shall confine my brief remarks to amendments Nos. 97 and 99, the latter being the substantive one. It details a third question to put before the people of Scotland, taking up the wording that the Government have deployed for the other two questions:
        "I AGREE THAT SCOTLAND SHOULD REMAIN AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
        I DO NOT AGREE THAT SCOTLAND SHOULD REMAIN AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM".
        The great virtue of the amendment and the question is that there is nothing incompatible about a voter saying that he or she wants a Scottish Parliament and that he or she wants to affirm the unity of the United Kingdom. I have always made the preservation of the United Kingdom my greatest aim. That is why I took an active part in the devolution debates of the 1970s. I would argue from a rather different position this evening if Parliament were finely balanced and if it were likely that the Government could be defeated. But I accept that the Government's majority will not be overturned; I also accept that we are in a weak position following the general election, there being no Scottish Conservative Members. I therefore want to test the Government's resolve.
        The Secretary of State has often proclaimed his personal belief in the integrity of the United Kingdom. I must therefore ask him how the amendment can fail to strengthen his cause and the cause of others who believe in the United Kingdom. It merely gives those who go to the polls in September the opportunity to put a cross in a third box. Some people may say that they want a Parliament but not with tax-raising powers. They may also want to remain part of the United Kingdom. If 78 or 80 per cent. want to remain a part of it, as the recent general election seemed to show, such a vote would represent a massive positive affirmation.

        431
        If, on the other hand, people voted in favour of Scotland not remaining part of the United Kingdom, I would deplore and regret that—but at least we would know where we were going. It is after all important to know that. That is why, on this one specific issue, I have always made common cause with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues, who wish to test support for independence. That is precisely what the amendment would do.
        I shall want to campaign vigorously on the issue. Indeed, any Member of the UK Parliament has the right to campaign in Scotland on the referendum and to support the idea of Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. If we are successful, perhaps many of the dangers that we have forecast will be lessened—but setting up a Scottish Parliament on the basis of the referendum questions proposed in the Bill would leave the whole issue wide open. Many of those who vote for a Scottish Parliament in a two-question referendum will be those who support the SNP line, but there will be no way, as things stand, of knowing whether they support that line or the Government line.
        As the Secretary of State knows, I accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament—but I want it to succeed and not to lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I therefore beg the Secretary of State even at this late stage to accept the logic of what I am saying and to introduce an amendment similar to mine in another place. We will not have the chance to vote on this question here tonight, a fact which I regret, but it is certainly right that the other place should examine the Bill in minute detail. It should not filibuster or hold up the Bill—it will not do so—and I hope that no accusations will be levelled at their lordships if they do examine the Bill in detail.
        I am not one to suggest that the Salisbury convention should be flouted or overturned; I do not think that it would be if, in another place, an amendment along these lines were accepted. The Commons would then have the opportunity to agree or disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        I ask the Secretary of State to take the initiative and to table an amendment along these lines in another place. That will give him the satisfaction of knowing that his devotion to the United Kingdom can be supported by a large majority of those who go to the polls in September.
        Mr. Dewar: I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). It is always a pleasure to see another part of the Scottish diaspora appearing in the House. I do not know the hon. Lady personally, but I do know that she is the Member of the European Parliament for the constituency of Essex North and Suffolk South. It seems that her appetite for politics is insatiable. She certainly has a remarkable geographical range, and I congratulate her on her ambition. She made a good speech—there is no doubt about that. It was not made in a particularly distinctive Scottish accent, but that was possibly the impact of Harrogate in earlier and better years.
        The hon. Lady showed a very lively style and made many pertinent points, but I will take some slight revenge on her, because she made the mistake of asking a fairly technical question about Orders in Council. I can assure her that they will have to be considered by the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, and she will have every opportunity to take part in that debate.
        432
        I must also tell the hon. Lady—here I visibly preen myself on behalf of the Government—that we have, of course, produced the Orders in Council in draft form, and they are in the Library now. Perhaps she will want to rush down there in just a few minutes to prepare her various recommendations and pleas about possible alterations, but I am sure that she will not—she is far too sensible. The Orders in Council are important, even though they might be described as crossing the t's and dotting the i's, as they deal with the small change to the mechanics of the referendum process.
        The hon. Lady is extremely welcome in the House. I suspect that I shall hear her on many occasions, particularly if she is pressed into service as a kind of bearer or bag carrier for whoever is unfortunate enough to be shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. She is obviously well qualified by her Scottish antecedents.
        Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend mentioned the referendum process. As this will be the last opportunity to raise the issue on this clause, and possibly on clause 2, will he confirm that the results of the local counts will be publicly announced in Wales and Scotland as they were in 1979?
        Mr. Dewar: My understanding is that the global result will be announced publicly, and that is the one that counts, as it is the ultimate decision-making total. We hope to be able to announce the Scottish count—I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot speak about the detail for Wales—on the night, which is a change from what happened in 1979.
        Mr. Rowlands: What about locally?
        Mr. Dewar: We also expect the local government area counts to become available. That is right. I hope that that is of some help.
        Mrs. Ray Michie rose—
        Mr. Dewar: I recognise that the hon. Lady will want to talk to me about the problems of Argyll and Bute. We shall consult her constituents. Perhaps the modern miracle of a helicopter will have to be brought into play in order to achieve this, but it will not amount to "Apocalypse Now".
        Mrs. Michie: It is a big problem. We shall not be able to afford to have helicopters flying at night unless the Secretary of State comes up with the funding.
        Mr. Dewar: I did say that it is an ambition. I am very well aware of the dangers of making of-the-cuff gifts, even to someone as charming as the hon. Lady—and that really was sucking up rather horribly. It is an ambition, but it depends on the practicalities. The House would see it as an advantage if it were possible to get the results as early as possible.
        Mr. Garnier: Will the Secretary of State give way?
        Mr. Dewar: No, I must press on, and I have some respect for hon. Members who may want to get in. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a persistent recidivist on questions of this matter.

        433
        5.45 pm
        I have some things in common with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I sometimes find it a little puzzling to recognise that he is a reasonable man, but I do so quite often. I believe very firmly that we should retain our connections with the rest of the United Kingdom—I speak here from a Scottish point of view—but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a helpful way to achieve that.
        The hon. Gentleman invites us to put another question on the ballot paper about Scotland remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom. The word "integral" is open to many interpretations and might lead to some confusion. Anyway, it seems to me that his view is based to some extent on a misunderstanding: that in some way the devolution settlement would remove Scotland from being an integral part. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but inevitably the question would be seen as an alternative and not a buttressing question. It confuses the situation and it is not one that I would be prepared to endorse.
        I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that my position—his may be different—is that if we have the good health of the United Kingdom in mind, we have to establish that the framework of government is responsive enough to adapt to changing conditions, and to give more direct access to government, not just in Scotland but in other parts of the United Kingdom. We do not see this as an isolated move on the part of the Government. Rather it is an important part of a package.
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
        Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I recognise that it looks rude, and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that I am not given to refusing information, but I must push on.
        This group of amendments would have the effect of providing a multi-option referendum of the kind described by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). This is a serious issue, and I do not underestimate the importance of the debate. The hon. Gentleman made his case in his usual compact style very fairly. I particularly appreciate his recognition that the preferred option, from the vast majority of tests of public opinion, has been a devolution option rather than an independence option. I hasten to say that I do not believe that that means that he cannot continue to ply his trade and push his wares, although I have a rather less optimistic view than he has of his likely success.
        My essential objection to a multi-option referendum is that it is using the referendum as a way to canvass a range of options. It is a snap poll. It is, in a sense—if one is being a little pejorative, although I do not mean to be—a beauty contest. That is not the stage that we are at, and I do not think that that should be the aim of the referendum. I will give an example, which I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will find persuasive. It is one that he gave me, but I did not recognise it until I heard the exchange between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
        Although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is in favour of a multi-option referendum as a general principle, when it comes—if it ever does—to the point where he wishes to implement a specific constitutional scheme, he should put that to the people of Scotland in a
        434
        single-question referendum to get it endorsed. My view is that we are at that stage now. We are trying to establish consent to a specific scheme and not merely to canvass competing options. If that scheme is rejected in the referendum—
        Mr. John Swinney rose—
        Mr. Dewar: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment—I will make one exception—as I am attacking his party. [Interruption.] Well, disputing with his party, perfectly fairly.
        If we had a rejection in that referendum, obviously we might well be back to the canvassing of options, many of us in a somewhat puzzled and disappointed state. At this stage we have a plan. We have been challenged to establish consent and we are in the business of establishing consent. It seems to me, therefore, that the single-question option is indeed the right one.
        Mr. Swinney: The kernel of this point seems to be the publication of the White Paper so that we know in specific detail the contents of the Government's proposal. That is why the multi-option referendum is relevant now, and why a post-legislative referendum—post-independence—would be relevant at that stage. The kernel is the publication of the White Paper, and that is not evident from the debate today.
        Mr. Dewar: There were some spirited exchanges on that subject earlier today and I seem to have been talking about it for some time—some might say interminably. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a referendum without a White Paper setting out the scheme would be a very odd exercise indeed. We have already made it clear that we intend to publish the White Paper before the House gets up for the summer recess. I hope that that would give plenty of opportunity for people to study it. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the essential differences between his position and mine—as, I believe, is Scotland at the end of the day.
        There is a misconception about the stage that we are at and what we are trying to achieve. It is the distinction, the endorsement of a specific proposal, that conditions and dictates the subject matter of the referendum. I recognise that that is a matter about which we will disagree, but it seems to be a sensible approach. With all respect to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, I was not desperately impressed by some of his arguments, although he put them neatly, as I said. I well remember 28 April 1992: it was probably from the top of an open-top bus in George square in the driving rain, I suspect—at any event, I remember that period, but it was in the very different context of a Government who had been badly defeated in Scotland, who were clearly not listening to the opinion of the Scottish people and who, collectively, were as deaf as a post. In those circumstances, we thought that a test of public opinion of a more general sort had some merit, although we could not persuade the then Government of that. We are now in the very different circumstances that I have outlined, so my position is consistent and justified.

        435
        I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman into international comparisons, although I am always intrigued by the hard work put in by the Scottish National party, looking at the most obscure—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted that.
        Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Australia.
        Mr. Dewar: I know that the hon. Lady comes from Australia. She is so proud of her Australian roots that it is almost a pity that she left them. However, that is not a point that I would push because she entertains us greatly now that she is here. However, I was merely referring to Newfoundland. I remember two interesting passages in Greenland's constitution being illuminated recently by the hon. Gentleman. I should plead guilty because I can remember boring the House on one occasion with some interesting information about poll tax referendums in various obscure parts of Canada. We all do it on occasion, but it is not relevant.
        I have made the main points that I want to make about the context and the aim, and in the interests of the House I shall leave the matter there.
        The referendum is directly linked to delivery. I spent 20 years of my political life—perhaps more than that—arguing the pros and cons, the difficulties, advantages and opportunities of the matter. We have now got to the point where we can make progress. However, we need to settle the issue of content. The referendum is a good way to do that.
        I never quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, but can I say to him gently that we are cracking on at some speed with these matters. He may just have caught a note of dissent from the Conservative Benches on the timetable that we have adopted and the speed at which we are moving. That is because we are determined to maintain momentum and progress. It is very much a matter of action this day.
        If the Bill completes its progress successfully today and goes on to another place and, I hope, safely to the statute book, we will allow the people of Scotland to have their say and to endorse or not endorse—I cannot be blindly confident about the outcome. Clearly, the opinion polls in today's press are immensely encouraging. I agree that we have to work, but above all we must trust the people to reach the decision that they want. I very much hope that they will give us the momentum and moral authority to bring forward and complete one of the most exciting reforms in British constitutional history this century.
        Mr. Ancram: I understand the urgency with which the Secretary of State will bring forward the White Paper. It might be helpful if he were to consider attaching a draft Bill to it so that we could see all the details. I understand that that is something that the Government are considering doing in relation to certain White Papers and it might be useful on this occasion.
        I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on an excellent maiden speech. I am delighted that even if the Conservative party has no Scottish Members of Parliament we now have as many Scottish advocates as the Labour party and more than any other party. It was an excellent speech and we look forward to hearing many more from her.
        436
        The Conservative party is in a difficult position because we agree with the principle that there should be a multi-option question, where three relevant questions should be posed. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, however, we have an amendment which goes much further than that and suggests that an order of preference should be built into that multi-option question. I do not often find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), but I do agree that to decide such constitutional matters on second or third preference is fairly dangerous.
        We support the principle because at present the Bill contains two questions—whether there should be a Scottish Parliament or not. Those who vote for a Scottish Parliament could do so for two very different reasons. The Government will campaign and vote for it because, as they have often said, they believe that it will buttress the Union. Nationalists in Scotland have made it clear that they will vote for it because they think that it will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. There are thus two completely different and opposite reasons for voting for the same option. That is a dangerous basis on which to say that there is a mandate to take this matter forward and then to take legislation forward.
        I clearly remember that after the last referendum we had arguments which lasted for a long time, which were rehearsed yesterday in the House, about non-voters and whether they should be taken as yes voters or no voters and what that meant in terms of the outcome. The idea that there could be a yes vote for a Scottish Parliament which could be based on the views of those who wish to maintain a United Kingdom and those who wish to break it up is a dangerous precedent.
        It is for that reason that I say that we would have supported the amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Both had amendments which clearly would have enabled the Scottish people to decide between three options—independence, a devolved Parliament in Scotland, or the status quo. Those are the real questions that should be asked, but as they are not available to us in the amendment on which we are about to vote, the Opposition spokesmen will abstain.
        Mr. Salmond: We have had an interesting debate, constrained by the time available, but none the less a number of important points have been made. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on her maiden speech. She said that we must not think that she would replace all four of her predecessors. Having known her four predecessors and having listened to her excellent maiden speech, I am sure that she has a good chance of effectively replacing all four of her predecessors and we look forward to more contributions from her.
        I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) announce to the House that in principle Conservatives are in favour of the amendments and a multi-option referendum. That comes as a surprise to some of us. We have been waiting for the past 18 years to see some sign of that. None the less, we must accept that this is something of a breakthrough. It is the first indication during the past four weeks that Conservative Front-Bench Members have listened to the Scottish

        437
        electorate's verdict. We now have it on the record that, in principle, the Conservative party is in favour of a multi-option referendum.
        It is rather weak to say that things should have been done differently. Preferential voting is widely used internationally. It is not confusing or difficult. There are, if necessary, other ways to do it. Newfoundland had two referendums in successive weeks. The French managed to find their way through a similar arrangement and elect a Government. If there are at least three positions, it is only fair to put them on the ballot paper. I welcome the Conservative party's conversion in principle, but I regret that that principle does not seem to want to take Conservative Members into the Lobby in a few minutes' time.
        The Secretary of State for Scotland criticises me for using international examples. He also criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). Given that he once told me that he did not obtain a passport until the age of 50, I regard my international examples as important and relevant to the debate.
        The Secretary of State said that we spoke on open-deck buses. I do not remember speaking with the Secretary of State on open-deck buses, but I do remember speaking with the Minister of State on an open-deck bus in front of 25,000 people in the Meadows in 1992, articulating the case for this sort of referendum in Scotland. I see the Minister nodding assent.
        The Secretary of State has given a number of reasons why what might have been relevant in 1992 is not relevant in 1997. The basic change is that in 1992 the Labour party was in opposition and in 1997 it is in government. The right hon. Member for Devizes is in a similar position.
        If our proposal is right in principle—if it is right to put forward all the constitutional options to the people of Scotland—surely the amendments, which are clear, are worth supporting in the Lobby. I share many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). If he examines amendments Nos. 72 to 77—all six are necessary in order to rearrange the ballot paper—I think that he will then find that the options are being put forward in a perfectly fair and reasonable way.
        I see as the crux of the debate the fact that the Government do not seem to have realised that they are offering a multi-option referendum. In their two questions, they are offering a multi-option referendum between the status quo, a Parliament with tax-varying powers and a Parliament without tax-varying powers. The difficulty with their multi-option referendum is that they offer the wrong options—the status quo has been widely discredited and a Parliament with no tax-varying powers is not supported by any substantial body of opinion.
        Would it not be fairer, more democratic and infinitely more satisfactory if the House were to find within itself the wisdom, just for once, to give Scots a genuine right of self-determination—the right to determine our future by making available to us all the constitutional options facing the nation? It cannot be said by any hon. Member that there is not significant support in Scotland for the concept and the objective of an independent country.
        438
        That option, therefore, should be on the ballot paper, along with all the other constitutional options.
        It being Six o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 45, Noes 405.

        Division No. 11]

        [6 pm

        AYES

        Bercow, John

        Loughton, Tim

        Blunt, Crispin

        Mates, Michael

        Chope, Christopher

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Norman, Archie

        Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

        Paice, James

        (Perth)

        Paterson, Owen

        Dafis, Cynog

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Day, Stephen

        Salmond, Alex

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Fabricant, Michael

        Spring, Richard

        Fallon, Michael

        Swayne, Desmond

        Forth, Eric

        Swinney, John

        Gale, Roger

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Garnier, Edward

        Tredinnick, David

        Gibb, Nick

        Waterson, Nigel

        Gill, Christopher

        Whittingdale, John

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Greenway, John

        Wilkinson, John

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

        Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Breed, Colin

        Ainger, Nick

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

        Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

        (Dunfermline E)

        Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Ashton, Joe

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Burden, Richard

        Atkins, Ms Charlotte

        Burgon, Colin

        Austin, John

        Burstow, Paul

        Baker, Norman

        Butler, Christine

        Ballard, Mrs Jackie

        Byers, Stephen

        Banks, Tony

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Barnes, Harry

        Caborn, Richard

        Barron, Kevin

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Battle, John

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

        Beard, Nigel

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

        Canavan, Dennis

        Berth, Rt Hon A J

        Cann, Jamie

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Caplin, Ivor

        Benton, Joe

        Casale, Roger

        Berry, Roger

        Caton, Martin

        Best, Harold

        Cawsey, Ian

        Betts, Clive

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Blackman, Mrs Liz

        Chaytor, David

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Chidgey, David

        Blizzard, Robert

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Clapham, Michael

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Brake, Thomas

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Brand, Dr Peter

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        439

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Goggins, Paul

        Clelland, David

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Coaker, Vernon

        Graham, Thomas

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Grant, Bernie

        Cohen, Harry

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Coleman, Iain

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        (Hammersmith & Fulham)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Colman, Anthony (Putney)

        Grogan, John

        Connarty, Michael

        Gunnell, John

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hain, Peter

        Cooper, Ms Yvette

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Cotter, Brian

        Hancock, Mike

        Cousins, Jim

        Hanson, David

        Cranston, Ross

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        Crausby, David

        Harvey, Nick

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Healey, John

        Cummings, John

        Heath, David (Somerton)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Hepburn, Stephen

        (Copeland)

        Heppell, John

        Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

        Hesford, Stephen

        Dalyell, Tam

        Hill, Keith

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Hinchliffe, David

        Darvill, Keith

        Hoey, Kate

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Home Robertson, John

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Davidson, Ian

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Hope, Philip

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Dean, Ms Janet

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Denham, John

        Hughes, Ms Beverley

        Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

        (Stretford & Urmston)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Dobbin, Jim

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Hurst, Alan

        Doran, Frank

        Hutton, John

        Dowd, Jim

        Iddon, Brian

        Drew, David

        Illsley, Eric

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Ingram, Adam

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

        Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Jamieson, David

        Edwards, Huw

        Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

        Efford, Clive

        Johnson, Ms Melanie

        Ellman, Ms Louise

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Ennis, Jeff

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Fearn, Ronnie

        Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Fisher, Mark

        Jones, Ms Jenny

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Flint, Ms Caroline

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Flynn, Paul

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Follett, Ms Barbara

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Keetch, Paul

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

        Kennedy, Charles

        Galbraith, Sam

        (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

        Galloway, George

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Gapes, Mike

        Khabra, Piara S

        Gardiner, Barry

        Kidney, David

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Gerrard, Neil

        King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

        440

        Kingham, Tessa

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Osborne, Mrs Sandra

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Pendry, Tom

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Laxton, Bob

        Pickthall, Colin

        Lepper, David

        Pike, Peter L

        Leslie, Christopher

        Plaskitt, James

        Levitt, Tom

        Pollard, Kerry

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Pond, Chris

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Pope, Greg

        Liddell, Mrs Helen

        Pound, Stephen

        Linton, Martin

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Livingstone, Ken

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Livsey, Richard

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Lock, David

        Purchase, Ken

        Love, Andy

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        McAllion, John

        Quinn, Lawrie

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Radice, Giles

        McCabe, Stephen

        Rammell, Bill

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Rapson, Syd

        McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

        Raynsford, Nick

        McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Macdonald, Calum

        Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

        McDonnell, John

        Rendel, David

        McFall, John

        Robertson, Rt Hon George

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        (Hamilton S)

        McIsaac, Ms Shona

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        McKenna, Ms Rosemary

        Rogers, Allan

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Rooker, Jeff

        McLeish, Henry

        Rooney, Terry

        Maclennan, Robert

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        McMaster, Gordon

        Rowlands, Ted

        McNulty, Tony

        Roy, Frank

        MacShane, Denis

        Ruane, Chris

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        McWalter, Tony

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McWilliam, John

        Salter, Martin

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Sanders, Adrian

        Mallaber, Ms Judy

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Marek, Dr John

        Sawford, Phil

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Martlew, Eric

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Maxton, John

        Singh, Marsha

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Skinner, Dennis

        Meale, Alan

        Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

        Merchant, Piers

        Smith, Miss Geraldine

        Merron, Ms Gillian

        (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Milburn, Alan

        Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

        Miller, Andrew

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Mitchell, Austin

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Moffatt, Laura

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

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Snape, Peter

        Moore, Michael

        Soley, Clive

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Spellar, John

        Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Morley, Elliot

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        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

        Oaten, Mark

        Stringer, Graham

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Olner, Bill

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        O'Neill, Martin

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

        Öpik, Lembit

        (Dewsbury)

        441

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Watts, David

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Webb, Steven

        Taylor, Matthew

        White, Brian

        (Truro & St Austell)

        Whitehead, Alan

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Timms, Stephen

        (Swansea W)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Williams, Dr Alan W

        Todd, Mark

        (E Carmarthen)

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Touhig, Don

        Willis, Phil

        Truswell, Paul

        Wills, Michael

        Winnick, David

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

        Wise, Audrey

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Wood, Mike

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Woolas, Phil

        Tyler, Paul

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Vaz, Keith

        Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Wyatt, Derek

        Wallace, James

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Ms Bridget Prentice.

        Wareing, Robert N

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being quarter past Six o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
        Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 360, Noes 66.

        Division No. 12]

        [6.18 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Byers, Stephen

        Ainger, Nick

        Caborn, Richard

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Canavan, Dennis

        Ashton, Joe

        Cann, Jamie

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Caplin, Ivor

        Atkins, Ms Charlotte

        Casale, Roger

        Austin, John

        Caton, Martin

        Banks, Tony

        Cawsey, Ian

        Barnes, Harry

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Barron, Kevin

        Chaytor, David

        Battle, John

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Bayley, Hugh

        Clapham, Michael

        Beard, Nigel

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Benton, Joe

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Berry, Roger

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Best, Harold

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Betts, Clive

        Clelland, David

        Blackman, Mrs Liz

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Coaker, Vernon

        Blizzard, Robert

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Cohen, Harry

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Coleman, Iain

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        (Hammersmith & Fulham)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick

        Colman, Anthony (Putney)

        (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Connarty, Michael

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

        Cooper, Ms Yvette

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Corbett, Robin

        Burden, Richard

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Burgon, Colin

        Cousins, Jim

        Butler, Christine

        Cranston, Ross

        442

        Crausby, David

        Hesford, Stephen

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hill, Keith

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cummings, John

        Hoey, Kate

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Home Robertson, John

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Hood, Jimmy

        (Copeland)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

        Hope, Philip

        Dalyell, Tam

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Darvill, Keith

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Davidson, Ian

        Hughes, Ms Beverley

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        (Stretford & Urmston)

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Dawson, Hilton

        Hurst, Alan

        Dean, Ms Janet

        Hutton, John

        Denham, John

        Iddon, Brian

        Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

        Illsley, Eric

        Dismore, Andrew

        Ingram, Adam

        Dobbin, Jim

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Jamieson, David

        Doran, Frank

        Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

        Dowd, Jim

        Johnson, Ms Melanie

        Drew, David

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Jones, Ms Jenny

        Edwards, Huw

        (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Efford, Clive

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Ellman, Ms Louise

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Ennis, Jeff

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

        Fisher, Mark

        Kemp, Fraser

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

        Khabra, Piara S

        Flint, Ms Caroline

        Kidney, David

        Flynn, Paul

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Follett, Ms Barbara

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Kingham, Tessa

        Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Galbraith, Sam

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Galloway, George

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Gapes, Mike

        Laxton, Bob

        Gardiner, Barry

        Lepper, David

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Leslie, Christopher

        Gerrard, Neil

        Levitt, Tom

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Liddell, Mrs Helen

        Godsiff, Roger

        Linton, Martin

        Goggins, Paul

        Livingstone, Ken

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Lock, David

        Graham, Thomas

        Love, Andy

        Grant, Bernie

        McAllion, John

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        McCabe, Stephen

        Grocott, Bruce

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Grogan, John

        McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

        Gunnell, John

        McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

        Hain, Peter

        Macdonald, Calum

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        McDonnell, John

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        McFall, John

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Hanson, David

        McIsaac, Ms Shona

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        McKenna, Ms Rosemary

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Healey, John

        McLeish, Henry

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        McMaster, Gordon

        Hepburn, Stephen

        McNulty, Tony

        Heppell, John

        MacShane, Denis

        443

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Sawford, Phil

        McWalter, Tony

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McWilliam, John

        Sheerman, Barry

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mallaber, Ms Judy

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Marek, Dr John

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Singh, Marsha

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Smith, Miss Geraldine

        Martlew, Eric

        (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Maxton, John

        Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Meale, Alan

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Merron, Ms Gillian

        Snape, Peter

        Milburn, Alan

        Soley, Clive

        Miller, Andrew

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Mitchell, Austin

        Spellar, John

        Moffatt, Laura

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Stevenson, George

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Morley, Elliot

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Mountford, Ms Kali

        Stott, Roger

        Mudie, George

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Mullin, Chris

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

        Stringer, Graham

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Norris, Dan

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        (Dewsbury)

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Olner, Bill

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Osborne, Mrs Sandra

        Timms, Stephen

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Tipping, Paddy

        Pendry, Tom

        Todd, Mark

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Touhig, Don

        Pickthall, Colin

        Truswell, Paul

        Pike, Peter L

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Plaskitt, James

        Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

        Pollard, Kerry

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Pond, Chris

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Pope, Greg

        Vaz, Keith

        Pound, Stephen

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Wareing, Robert N

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Watts, David

        Purchase, Ken

        White, Brian

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Whitehead, Alan

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Radice, Giles

        Wlliams, Rt Hon Alan

        Rammell, Bill

        (Swansea W)

        Rapson, Syd

        Williams, Dr Alan W

        Raynsford, Nick

        (E Carmarthen)

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Wills, Michael

        Robertson, Rt Hon George

        Winnick, David

        (Hamilton S)

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Rogers, Allan

        Wise, Audrey

        Rooker, Jeff

        Wood, Mike

        Rooney, Terry

        Woolas, Phil

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

        Roy, Frank

        Wyatt, Derek

        Ruane, Chris

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Salter, Martin

        Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

        Savidge, Malcolm

        444

        NOES

        Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Keetch, Paul

        Baker, Norman

        Kennedy, Charles

        Ballard, Mrs Jackie

        (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Brake, Thomas

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Livsey, Richard

        Breed, Colin

        Maclennan, Robert

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Mates, Michael

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Merchant, Piers

        Burnett, John

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

        Burstow, Paul

        Moore, Michael

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Oaten, Mark

        Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

        Öpik, Lembit

        Chidgey, David

        Rendel, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Robathan, Andrew

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

        Colvin, Michael

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Cotter, Brian

        Sanders, Adrian

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Duncan Smith, Iain

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

        Fallon, Michael

        Taylor, Matthew

        Fearn, Ronnie

        (Truro & St Austell)

        Forth, Eric

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Gale, Roger

        Tyler, Paul

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Wallace, James

        Greenway, John

        Webb, Steven

        Hancock, Mike

        Wilkinson, John

        Harris, Dr Evan

        Willis, Phil

        Harvey, Nick

        Wilshire, David

        Heath, David (Somerton)

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Mr. Andrew Stunell and Mr. Donald Gorrie.

        Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It arises out of the previous Division, and the conduct of Divisions in the House in the entirely unprecedented situation in which we find ourselves. According to "Erskine May",
        "Under Standing Order No. 39, if the Speaker or the Chairman considers that a division is unnecessarily claimed, he may, after the lapse of two minutes, take the vote of the House or committee by calling upon the Members who support and those who challenge his decision successively to rise in their places; and he thereupon, as he may think fit, either declares the determination of the House or the committee or names tellers for a division."
        That provision allows votes to be taken without the ritual of going through the Division Lobbies. Although it has been used rarely in the past, in the present situation, when the results of Divisions are entirely predictable—the result of one was 400 to 45, and another looks likely to be similar—for the sake of efficient running of the House and use of Members' time, it would be reasonable for us to consider using that provision on certain occasions.
        6.30 pm
        Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. Thank you for exercising your duties in the Chair so as to recognise the fact that the Division was not unnecessarily claimed, and was a very proper expression of opinion by hon. Members in the Committee. The procedure described should not be

        445
        invoked as an alternative to a proper review of the voting system in the House, in the light of the new circumstances.
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. If Labour Members are concerned about the time that we have to debate the measures before us, perhaps they should have thought twice about applying such a draconian guillotine.
        Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. As someone who has been in the House for many years, I have the impression that the excellent procedure described by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was introduced to stop time being wasted when Members call vote after vote. That is certainly not the case today. Will you also bear in mind the fact that on an issue as vital as devolution, it is desperately important that the people of Scotland and Wales should be able to see for themselves how each Member voted? That would not be possible if the other procedure were used. Do you therefore agree that although it is an excellent procedure, which has to be used on occasion, it should happen only when there is deliberate time wasting?
        The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for giving me notice, albeit short notice, that he intended to raise the matter. I think that Standing Order No. 40 was conceived with different circumstances in mind, and I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he would like to pursue his point, that might be better done through the Procedure Committee. Now, if the Committee is willing, we shall proceed to the next amendment.

        A

        DIM NEWID

        NO CHANGE

        B

        CYNULLIAD ETHOLEDIG fel a gynigir ym Mhapur Gwyn y Llywodraeth

        AN ELECTED ASSEMBLY as proposed by the Government's White Paper

        C

        SENEDD GYDA PHWERAU I DDEDDFU AC

        AMRYWIO TRETHI

        A PARLIAMENT WITH LAW-MAKING AND

        TAX-VARYING POWERS

        D

        HUNAN-LYWODRAETH O FEWN YR UNDEB

        EWROPEAIDD

        SELF-GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE EUROPEAN

        UNION

        New schedule 10—'Referendum in Wales (No. 2B)—
        Part 1
        FORM OF BALLOT PAPER
        Parliament has decided to consult people in Wales on the Government's proposals for a Walsh Assembly or independence for Wales.
        Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box:

      Clause 2

        REFERENDUM IN WALES
        Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 2, line 7, leave out `propositions' and insert 'options'.
        The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 70, in page 2, line 9, leave out '2' and insert
        `(Referendum in Wales: Form of Ballot Paper (No. 2)).'.
        No. 207, in page 2, line 9, leave out '2' and insert
        `(Referendum in Wales (No. 2B))'.
        No. 69, in page 2, line 17, leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 26 and insert
        `under prescribed arrangements determine the order of preference of those voting in the referendum as between the options to be voted upon.
        (7) "Prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.'.
        New schedule 1—'REFERENDUM IN WALES: FORM OF BALLOT PAPER (NO.2)—
        Parliament has decided to consult people in Wales on the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly and the policies of other parties. All four options are explained in the Government's White Paper
        Mae'r Senedd wedi penderfynu ymgynghori â phobl yng Nghymru ar gynigon ar gyfer Cynulliad i Gymru a pholisiau'r pleidiau eraill. Esbonnir pob un o'r pedwar opsiwn ym Mhapur Gwyn y Llywodraeth.
        Note your preferred options in order or preference by marking "1", "2", "3" or "4" by each option. You need not use every option.
        Nodwch yr opsiynau sydd orau gennych yn nhrefn eich dewis drwy ysgrifennu "1", "2", "3" neu "4" gyferbyn a phob opsiwn. Nid oes raid i chi ddefnyddio pob opsiwn.
        I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO CHANGE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF WALES
        or
        I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A WELSH ASSEMBLY
        or
        I AGREE THAT WALES SHOULD LEAVE THE UNITED KINGDOM.'.
        Amendment No. 123, in title, line 4, after 'Assembly', insert
        `and other constitutional proposals for Wales'.
        Mr. Jones: This bank of amendments allows us to shift the axis of the debate in Wales away from the rather sterile arguments about the status quo and whether we should have constitutional change, to a more intelligent and less confrontational level. Indeed, it would allow us to consult the people of Wales not only on whether they want change but on what kind of change they want.
        Such an approach is well within the spirit of inclusive politics that has been trumpeted by Welsh Office Ministers since the election, so their response to the debate will be an early sign of whether that new spirit of inclusive politics is meaningful.
        Once we lift the debate to a different level and concentrate on the powers that any Welsh body will have, we can have a mature discussion on the way ahead. Let me make it clear at this early stage in the debate that this is not simply a party political issue in Wales.
        There is a range of opinions within parties in Wales about the powers that an elected Welsh body should have. In the last Session of Parliament, the Government of Wales Bill—which called for an elected body with legislative and tax-varying powers—was given a First Reading and received support from all parties. The Bill was proposed by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and sponsored by his Labour colleagues the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). The Bill was also sponsored by the former hon. Member for Montgomery, Alex Carlile, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative former hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, Sir Robert Hicks, was a sponsor, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and I on behalf of Plaid Cymru. That clearly showed that there was cross-party support for an elected body with legislative and tax-varying powers. From the opinion polls published in Wales in the run-up to the general election, it is clear to me that of those who favour constitutional change, a substantial majority favour legislative powers and a clear majority favour tax-varying powers.
        One of the features of this debate that is in marked contrast to the debates of the late 1970s is that sections of the Conservative party in Wales and in Scotland are rethinking their approach to the topic. There was a tradition in the Conservative party of having an open mind on this issue, but that was stifled during the Thatcher years. One can well understand the Conservatives' need for change in the aftermath of the Tory wipe-out in Wales and in Scotland, and it has been refreshing to read the comments from Sir Wyn Roberts in Wales and Malcolm Rifkind in Scotland. How different their approach is from the flat-earthers now occupying much of the Tory Benches.
        Dr. John Marek: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was not in the interests of the people of Wales for the Government to have fixed the timetable motion so that the group of amendments starting with amendment No. 48—one of which was tabled in my name—has no chance of being debated?
        448
        One of those amendments would have given the Welsh people the opportunity to vote for exactly the same tax-raising powers as the people of Scotland. It is a great pity that the Government felt that they could not explain why they will not give the Welsh people that option. Does the hon. Member agree that we should appeal to the Government to come out of their shell, be honest and tell the Welsh people why the powers to be offered to Scotland are not to be offered to Wales?
        Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has strong views on the matter, for raising it in that way. I agree with him, and a number of the amendments grouped with his were tabled by me and some of my hon. Friends. I invite him to look at the wording of amendment No. 68—to which I shall refer later—which may allow him to develop his argument in that context, even if his amendment has not been selected.
        All the amendments seek to do is to give the people of Wales an opportunity to be consulted on the real choices that face them and to enable the debate to be much more positive. We understand that the Labour party in Wales will want to campaign on its own proposals for an executive Assembly, but widening the options—as the amendments propose—would give the electors an opportunity to listen to all the arguments on constitutional change.
        6.45 pm
        Within this group of amendments, there is the opportunity to support a multi-option referendum. That would be fair, because it would give the people of Wales an opportunity to vote for the programmes put forward by the four political parties in Wales at the last election. Why should the only choice facing the people of Wales be between the status quo and the Labour party's proposals? Why should the Conservative party's programme—which was so decisively rejected by the people of Wales at the general election—have priority on the ballot paper? Its position is preserved, and the people of Wales will yet again have an opportunity to reject the Conservative status quo option.
        In the circumstances, and given that hon. Members representing seats in Wales come from the Labour party, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, why should not the option favoured by the Liberal Democrats and my party be on the ballot paper? In the spirit of inclusive politics, the Government should surely take that on board. The group of amendments gives us the opportunity to vote for a multi-option referendum. The hon. Member for Wrexham has stated that had there been sufficient time, there would have been an opportunity to consider other options, including legislative and tax-varying powers. We would have liked an opportunity to have such a debate because we could then have looked at all the available options.
        There are people in Wales who are asking why Wales should be treated differently from Scotland. Why are the Scots deemed to be mature enough to be allowed to vote for a Parliament with legislative and tax-varying powers, but, for some reason, the people of Wales are not? What difficulties might be created if a Welsh Assembly was established with only secondary, not primary, legislative powers? What would happen if the framework of legislation was set up here in Westminster by a Government of a different political complexion from that running the Assembly? There will be a straitjacket.

        449
        Members of the Assembly could pass only secondary legislation on the back of primary legislation, which could have been imposed by a Conservative Government in Westminster. If the Assembly wanted to change primary legislation and invited Westminster to do so, what priority would be given in the administrative and legislative logjam at Westminster to legislation sought by a Welsh Assembly? These are questions which could have been answered if we had had an opportunity to widen the referendum question.
        The group of amendments does not allow us to have a vote specifically on legislative and tax-varying powers as a discrete option, but we may want to divide the Committee on the amendment that would allow Members to vote on the principle of widening the questions. I invite hon. Members to look at amendment No. 68, which proposes to remove the word "propositions" from clause 2(2) and replace it with the word "options". If the Committee supports that amendment, we will be content to leave it at that. In other words, the Committee would have voted for the principle of widening the options. In the spirit of inclusive politics, we would leave it to the Government to decide what second question they would want to add later—perhaps in another place.
        If the amendment is passed, the Government will need to look at the mood of the debate and the views coming from different parties to see whether there is a general demand for more questions to be included, and what kind of questions they should be. In the spirit of inclusive politics, the Secretary of State would want to consult other parties about the nature of those second or third questions. I hope that those hon. Members present who favour further questions—but who may not want to go all the way and support a multi-option referendum—will feel happy about supporting an amendment that simply looks at the principle.
        I think that the Secretary of State will realise that there is a strong argument in Wales on the issue of parity with Scotland. It is strong at not only an emotional but a rational level. People simply cannot see the difference between Wales and Scotland on the issue. I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the strength of opinion on the matter, and I know that he and his colleagues will want to carry support across the parties that have a positive attitude to the subject.
        This is the Government's opportunity to reach out to all shades of opinion in Wales and bring them into the debate in a positive and constructive way. We make this offer to the Government: if they accept the amendment and consult on the second and third question, they will have an opportunity for all shades of opinion to be reflected. I think that that is a reasonable offer.
        Mr. Martin Caton: Thank you, Mr. Lord, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate on a referendum that will decide how Wales is to be governed in the new millennium. I continue a long and proud tradition of Labour representation in the Gower constituency that goes back to 1906 when John Williams was elected as Gower's first Labour Member of Parliament. He was followed by D. R. Grenfell, supported by the South Wales Miners Federation, and then by Ifor Davies. I never knew either D. R. Grenfell or Ifor Davies,
        450
        but there are a number of people still living in the constituency who remember them both with enormous respect and affection.
        I did, and do, know my immediate predecessor, Gareth Wardell. He was my Member of Parliament for 13 of the 15 years that he represented Gower in the House. Many of the hon. Members who served alongside Gareth during that time will know much better than I do the contribution that he made in this legislature. From speaking to his colleagues, in particular his fellow Welsh Members, I find that there is clearly enormous respect here for the work that he did, and especially for his willingness and ability to master detailed subjects.
        Alongside those parliamentary colleagues, people all over Wales have recognised and valued the tremendous job that Gareth did as Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, undauntedly leading investigations into all sorts of aspects of public life in Wales over the years.
        I know and will remember Gareth best as a superb constituency Member. As a local councillor, I would take constituents to his surgery when I felt that any case needed his involvement. I honestly cannot believe that the concern that he showed for those people or the attention that he gave to seeking solutions to their problems have been surpassed by any hon. Member.
        I know that Gareth's friends here will join the people of Gower in wishing him all the very best in his return to higher education as head of geography at Trinity college, Carmarthen. I know, partly because I was told it on the doorsteps so many times during April, that I have a very tough act to follow. I intend to do my very best.
        It is probably not common knowledge this far east, but in south-west Wales the residents of the city of Swansea are nicknamed Jacks, and people who live in Llanelli are called Turks. Most of my constituency lies between those two population centres, which has led some bar-room wits to describe us as half Jack and half Turk—or Jerks, for short. People who talk in that way make a big mistake, first, because such terminology can seriously damage the health in the area that I represent, but, more importantly, because the people of Gower may be many things—indeed, they are many, many things—but a bunch of Jerks they are not.
        It is a huge privilege to have been elected to represent so beautiful and diverse a constituency as Gower. I am acutely aware of the responsibility that I now carry as its Member of Parliament and I am conscious of the problems that I may well face in the years ahead because of that very diversity.
        The Gower constituency cannot be described by any stretch of the imagination as a single homogeneous entity. It snuggles around the south-west and north of Dylan Thomas's "ugly, lovely town" of Swansea, and provides the new unitary authority, the city and county of Swansea, with virtually all its rural population.
        On the face of it, being non-urban seems to be all that the various communities that make up Gower have in common. Starting in the south, Mumbles, where I live, is an old fishing village that developed into a seaside resort and has expanded to become part of Swansea suburbia. Mumbles is currently struggling to revitalise and renew itself, always seeking to conserve and treasure the best of what we have inherited from the past.
        To the west is the Gower peninsula, which most people think of when the Gower constituency is mentioned. It was the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty

        451
        in the country, and a wonderfully fascinating combination of coast, countryside and estuary for palaeontologists, archaeologists, historians, zoologists, botanists, oceanographers or holidaymakers.
        Even the peninsula itself can be divided at least into two. South Gower, with its glorious cliffs, caves and sandy beaches, is much more anglicised, even in place names and pronunciations. North Gower, on the Loughor estuary, is equally beautiful in its own way and still holds on to the Welsh language in villages such as Crofty, Llanmorlais and Penclawdd.
        Penclawdd is, of course, the home of Gower cockle gathering, with the only commercial cockle beds in the country where people can harvest all year, every year, because they refuse to use mechanical drags; they still hand-rake and gather, thereby ensuring a sustainable shell fishery that provides an environmental example for the whole of Europe.
        South Gower also provides a fine example for sustainable living and community action. Holtsfield is a remarkable collection of wooden chalets in a wonderful woodland setting, just outside the village of Bishopston, where more than 20 families are trying to live in harmony with their beautiful surroundings and the wider community.
        Unfortunately, a property development company has different ideas. It has bought the land and is seeking to evict those chalet dwellers, who are resisting with enormous resolve and imagination and who have the support of the vast majority of the rest of the population of Bishopston, which was wrongly thought of previously by many people as merely a dormitory village for Swansea commuters.
        Coming off the peninsula on the North Gower road, one enters Gowerton and begins to meet the community whose recent history is the history of coal, steel and tin. Like the rest of south Wales, it has suffered terribly from the economic decline of, especially, the past two decades.
        Villages such as Loughor, Pontybrenin, Penllergaer, Penyrheol, Garden Village and Grovesend have over the years melded together around the central village of Gorseinon, but their sense of identity as separate communities remains strong, as I found out during the election campaign when I accused someone from Loughor of living in Gorseinon. She gave me the strong impression that she would much rather have been described as a "Jerk" than as a resident of her neighbouring village.
        Those communities have learnt, often the hard way, the importance of solidarity to achieve common objectives and to enable fulfilment of individuals. They are strong, Welsh, socialist-minded villages where people and families look out for one another and are prepared fiercely to combat what they perceive as injustice. That is probably even more true of the separate settlements of Pontardulais, Garnswllt, Craig Cefn Parc, Pontlliw, Felindre and Clydach, all directly to the north of Swansea.
        The tragedy of those communities is that so much of the tremendous talent and quality that exist there has been undervalued and wasted for so long. Very few jobs have come in to replace those lost in mining and steel. Even the small number of manufacturing employers based in the constituency have been shedding jobs in recent years. The decline is reflected in the commercial centres of the larger villages. One has only to walk the main streets of Clydach, Gorseinon or Pontardulais and see the number
        452
        of empty shops and charity shops to understand why the posters declaring "Britain is booming" that sprouted this spring seemed like a sick joke to people who live there.
        7 pm
        The different parts of Gower vary enormously because of geology, geography, history and relative wealth, yet there is much that unites us wherever we live in Gower, as became clear to me during the general election campaign.
        First, in every part of the constituency there is still a sense of community, an acceptance that we are responsible one for another; a belief that there is such thing as society. Secondly, many of the concerns are the same in the different communities. In every part of Gower, there is equal concern for improving our schools and colleges, rebuilding our national health service, protecting our environment and providing jobs for our young people and the long-term unemployed. When we come to ask the people of Gower, and of the rest of Wales, to vote for the creation of a Welsh Assembly, those same concerns will still be at the top of those people's minds.
        I believe that there are enormously powerful constitutional and democratic arguments for making the Welsh Office accountable at last to the people of Wales. Those arguments are even stronger when we consider the might of the quangocracy that has grown up in Wales over the past decade and a half. However, I do not believe that it will be those arguments in the main that will win us the referendum in my constituency or across Wales. People will vote yes if they are persuaded that a democratic Welsh Assembly will provide a vehicle for creating a first-class education system for all our children; if they believe that our Assembly will play a central role in developing a national health service in Wales that can and will deliver quality treatment and care whenever they need it; if they are convinced that a Welsh Assembly can ensure that environmental protection will be at the heart of all policy-making in Wales in the new millennium; if we can show them that our Welsh Assembly—their Welsh Assembly—will be an engine for harnessing the skills and talents of the population of our country, to regenerate our economy and create decent jobs for our people.
        We must prove that democracy in the form of a Welsh Assembly is not merely a nice idea if we can afford it, but an essential, practical mechanism for improving the quality of life of the people of Wales. I am sure that we will.
        Tempting as is the amendment so eloquently moved by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), it is time for the Labour Government to carry out their pledge to offer the people of Wales the chance to vote to create the sort of Assembly described in our manifesto. It is time for the democratic debate to move on, to engage with the people of Wales. It is time for all of us who believe that extending democratic accountability in Wales can and will help deliver the goods on education, health, the environment and jobs to prepare ourselves for the task of campaigning to secure a massive yes vote in the autumn.
        Mr. Richard Livsey: I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his excellent maiden speech. It is a test of a maiden speech as to whether one can mention all the villages and communities in one's constituency. I know his constituency well, and he had a jolly good go.

        453
        My paternal grandmother, a redoubtable Welsh speaker who hailed from Alltwen, took me to Penclawdd when I was three or four to pick cockles. That has been etched on my mind ever since. People still do that in almost the same way, but one no longer sees donkeys there. He has a wonderful constituency to which he paid good tribute, as he did to his redoubtable predecessor, Gareth Wardell, who did a superb job as Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
        Amendment No. 68 deals with multi-options. In theory, it is very attractive. If Wales had a multi-option referendum, there would be four choices. First, there would be the Government's proposals. Secondly, we would have the Liberal Democrat proposals for legislative and tax-varying powers, and a more thorough system of proportional representation, although we hope that that may be proposed in the Government's White Paper. Certainly, we favour a federal solution for Wales, which is an entirely logical way of proceeding towards the unity of the United Kingdom and a successful legislature.
        Thirdly, there are Plaid Cymru's proposals for an independent Wales in Europe. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) moved his amendment well, and that option would appear on a multi-choice ballot paper. Finally, there is the status quo, which was wiped off the map in the general election. That view has been defeated. As we have heard, some members of the Conservative party in Wales are having a rapid rethink, going back to the drawing board and saying that perhaps, after all, there is a possibility of meaningful government in Wales with devolution. I believe that more still will do so before the referendum is put to the Welsh people.
        Clearly, this is a complex situation. We are trying to maximise support for a Welsh Assembly. Perhaps the choices should include a question asking people whether they favour a Welsh Assembly, and if so, what option they favour. It might be more logical to go about it that way.
        We did not have a constitutional convention in Wales, which I regret. I approached the Labour party five years ago on two occasions to ask whether it was possible. I know that the former Member for Montgomery, Alex Carlile, did the same. We did not have the benefit of what they had in Scotland to have a proper debate. It would have been helpful, because the debates on the Scottish referendum have shown that there is perhaps a greater unanimity of purpose. It is certainly not the Liberal Democrats' purpose in Wales to frustrate the Government's efforts to create a Welsh Assembly. Polls before the general election showed that the Liberal Democrat federal proposals for tax-varying and legislative powers were the most popular options among people who favour a Welsh Assembly.
        Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has more than once spoken of a federal situation. Will he spell out his idea of a federation? We know that Plaid Cymru's patriotism is based on resentment of the English. That is why it put forward the proposition of a Wales in Europe. It does not want a Wales in Britain. What is the Liberal Democrat policy on the federal idea?
        Mr. Livsey: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is helpful. As 20 to 25 per cent. of the
        454
        population of Wales originates from the other side of Offa's dyke, if we are to win the referendum, we must get everyone, of whatever origin, to support a yes vote. We should not go down the path that he offers. He asked what a true federal situation was. I can spell that out simply.
        In a federal Britain, the functions of the Welsh Office should reside with the people of Wales. That means that primary legislation that could affect those functions should be possible. Other functions in a federal Britain should be operated from a United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster. Those functions could be defence, macro-economic policy, foreign policy and other matters of wider impact. Other functions could operate on a European scale—for example, the environment, where problems of environmental degradation know no boundaries. All those scenarios are entirely logical. There are plenty of examples around the world, including Canada, Australia and the United States, of countries that operate successfully under a federal system.
        Mr. Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that one of the responsibilities of this Parliament would be macro-economic policy. Surely the Liberal Democrat party supports a federal Europe and a single currency. If that is the case, does he recognise that macro-economic policy in a federal Europe would be in the hands not of the United Kingdom Government but of the European central bank?
        Mr. Livsey: I shall leave those questions for the contenders in the Tory party leadership contest. The hon. Gentleman opens up a big debate, and I shall not be led down that path.
        In a multi-choice referendum, we could end up with just two questions such as, "Do you favour the status quo?" and, "Do you favour independence?" We hear Conservatives debating that situation ad infinitum, as if those were the only two choices that existed. Of course, there is a coalition of view elsewhere that we need a Welsh Assembly in order to achieve devolution. Such an Assembly is a much more constructive way of going forward and of achieving meaningful and effective government within Wales.
        I have some sympathy with the multi-option referendum. It has been referred to as a preferendum. It is inclusive. People could vote for their own options and still produce an overall majority in favour of a Welsh Assembly. However, people in Wales must be united, especially at this time. They require leadership. I and my party are determined not to let slip this opportunity. We must combine across party boundaries to secure a yes vote in the referendum. That referendum is coming soon—in September. We do not have time to consider the possibilities of a multi-option referendum. That would delay a straightforward vote on whether Wales needs an Assembly and whether people in general want it.
        We have to remember that, although many of us fervently back the creation of a Welsh Assembly, many aspects of constitutional reform do not interest all the people of Wales. People look on it as an academic exercise. They just know that they are in favour of devolution. The individual powers of such an assembly, which are important, have to be debated and defined within a Wales Bill.

        455
        Those of us who have been waiting a long time for a Welsh senedd believe that it is better to proceed with one question. Although we have sympathy with a multi-option referendum, we must achieve a coalition of views in Wales if we are to win the referendum. Now is certainly not the time to hesitate, so we shall not impede the progress of the Bill. The people will decide. The options can be considered later when the Wales Bill goes through the House.
        Mr. Rowlands: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on a wonderful and excellent maiden speech. He reminded us not only of the constituency with which many of us are familiar in both campaigning and personal terms, but of the remarkable representation that he follows in the form of Gareth Wardell. I also knew Ifor Davies as a Member of Parliament and a Minister in the Welsh Office in the 1960s. My hon. Friend said that he had a hard act to follow. I think we all agree that he has made an excellent start.
        The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) moved the amendment. I recently read some internal memos and documents from the late 1950s on the development of Welsh administration and on Welsh constitutional change. In minute after minute by Mr. Henry Brook, the then Minister for Welsh Affairs, derisory, insulting references were made to the Joneses wanting to keep up with the Macs. I find offensive the notion that we have to follow the Macs; that we cannot devise a set of constitutional arrangements that suit our requirements and meet the needs and aspirations of Welsh people; the carping belief that we must follow some other model, which may or may not be suitable to another part of the country.
        The hon. Member for Ynys Môn argued that because the Scots seek to do one thing, we have to follow them. That shows a curious inferiority complex. We should devise our own means and methods of constitutional change. The hon. Gentleman also observed that all the votes except the Tory votes added up to a vote for constitutional change. I would like to believe it, because it would mean that 78 per cent. of the electorate in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney voted for devolution. I do not believe that that is the case. So one should not invoke the argument that the result of the general election was a massive mandate for a Welsh Assembly. That is why we decided to hold a referendum, to test public opinion separately.
        7.15 pm
        Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Given that the general election did not reflect the attitude of the people of Merthyr or elsewhere to the constitutional proposals that the Government may make in a White Paper in due course, how can the Government or the hon. Gentleman say that only one constitutional proposal, rather than the full range supported by the various parties at the election, can be put to the people of Wales?
        Mr. Rowlands: The vast majority of people in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney voted for a Labour Government. They did not vote for an option promoted by the nationalists, who polled only about 2,300 votes. So the notion that the nationalist option should be included on the ballot paper is not supported by the experience in my constituency or in the rest of Wales.
        456
        I put it to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that I sense a degree of ambivalence even towards a Welsh Assembly within Welsh communities. While opinion has changed, my own political instinct—I speak only for my own communities, not for anyone else's—is that if the prospect of a tax-raising, legislative Parliament is actively promoted during the referendum campaign or in any other discussion, the anti vote will grow. There will be alienation and a feeling that the Assembly will not be a measure of devolution such as we have promised during the past X years. The prospect of a tax-raising Parliament would lead not to a stronger vote for devolution, but to a stronger no vote. In terms of practical politics, it would increase the scepticism, if not the opposition to the principle of devolution.
        I do not support the amendment. Two things have changed public opinion in the past 18 years. First, people have seen for 18 years an unrepresentative Government determining Welsh affairs. We have had Secretaries of State who did not understand, feel or appreciate Wales. They all made an effort, but most of them did not have a feeling for Wales and did not have the democratic mandate of the Welsh people to implement their policies.
        The second contributory factor that has shifted public opinion in favour of our devolution proposals is the growing revulsion for the quango state, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower so eloquently described. That state offends the instinctive democratic instincts of the Welsh people. They have found the huge number of political appointments increasingly offensive. Because of that, it is far more important than any option about tax-raising or legislative powers that our White Paper and our subsequent devolution Bill should include the power to bring to an end decisively the quango state. I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench heed those remarks.
        I am concerned that we appear to be fudging the issue when we say that a Welsh Assembly may at some future date deal with the quango state. It was created by primary legislation passed by the House and it is the job of the Westminster Parliament to dismantle it. If we address that need directly in our White Paper and the devolution Bill, we shall appeal powerfully to the Welsh people. If they vote yes on that basis, they will know that they are voting for the dismantling of the quango state rather than for that possibility to be referred to a future Welsh Assembly. I stress again to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it is vital that the White Paper states our intention to do that and that our Bill contains the necessary power to do so. Our rhetoric about the quango state must be matched by our legislative action in the autumn.
        Mr. Rogers: Would my hon. Friend care to carry his argument a little further? Many of the quangos were set up by a Labour Government. However, because the Conservatives could never win seats in local government, they distrusted it—they even went to the extent of abolishing the Greater London council—and they side-stepped Welsh local authorities and gave their powers to quangos. If those quangos were not dismantled prior to the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, I am extremely fearful about whether the powers that would

        457
        normally have gone to local authorities would ever be given back to them. We would then get not devolution, but evolution upwards from local authorities.
        Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As the basis of our appeal during the referendum campaign, our devolution Bill must guarantee not only the dismantling of the quango state but, wherever possible, the return of powers to local authorities, particularly from housing quangos. We must demonstrate that we shall legislate to dismantle the quango state, because I believe that the growing revulsion towards it has been a major factor in increasing the mood in favour of devolution. I sense that that feeling has grown in the past 18 years.
        Again, I stress to my colleagues on the Front Bench and elsewhere that we must make the right case for devolution. We must not make exaggerated claims about the Welsh Assembly. We must not talk about the huge number of jobs that may be created as a result of its creation, or those that may be lost if that Assembly is not established. The proper case for our devolution Bill is a fundamental democratic one, based on the need for appropriate Welsh administration.
        I accept that, in the past, we wanted such Welsh administration and that we set it up deliberately. When one looks at the minutes from the 1950s, there was little Welsh administration, but we built it up with the development of the Welsh Office and the increasing powers of the Secretary of State for Wales. Despite our belief that the Welsh Office should be better scrutinised by a Welsh Assembly, it is accountable, through the Secretary of State, to the House. The quango state is not similarly directly and effectively accountable. We have witnessed growth of a new administration at the Welsh Office and a host of non-departmental bodies, which constitute the quango state. It is their democratic control which will be vital to our campaign for devolution, and not any of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn about the tax-raising and legislative powers of our Parliament.
        Mr. Llew Smith: Yesterday, our colleagues on the Front Bench stated that if we did not have a Welsh Assembly, thousands of our people would find themselves thrown on the dole. What evidence has my hon. Friend found to substantiate that claim?
        Mr. Rowlands: I do not have to take responsibility for the speeches of my colleagues, but I am sure that they will justify that claim.
        It is extremely important that we make the proper case for the Assembly which can be justified and which will not be received sceptically. The Assembly must not be seen just as another political creation. It must address the instinctive feelings and wishes of the Welsh people, who are against the growth of the quango state. We should appeal to the Welsh people on the need for a directly elected Assembly, which will oversee the dismantling of that state and scrutinise and deliberate on the key issues of the Welsh administration that has developed since the
        458
        1960s. We should not campaign on the options that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn wants to include on the ballot paper.
        Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) because I want to address some of his arguments in due course.
        First, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his maiden speech. Members from all parts of the Committee were warmed by his comments about Gareth Wardell, who was an excellent Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman speak on many future occasions.
        One theme that the hon. Gentleman stressed in his speech is important to the debate on a multi-option referendum. He is right to say that if we have an elected Assembly or Parliament for Wales, it must be relevant to the people of Wales in their ordinary circumstances. As he said, it must be relevant to education policy, economic policy, jobs and the health service. It must be relevant to those policies, which have been at the heart of Welsh politics down the years. It is those services which, to some extent, have been undermined by the growth of the quango state to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred.
        Therefore, the question that arises in the context of the comments from the hon. Members for Gower and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is how we can make a difference to the prospects of the ordinary people of Wales, whether they live in Merthyr Tydfil, Gower or Caernarfon. It is our belief that, unless the Assembly or Parliament has adequate powers, it will not be possible to tackle the problems that arise.
        An example is education policy. We know that the Conservative party tried to privatise education in Wales. We know that from the way in which the Tories introduced nursery vouchers. If there were another Conservative Government, particularly led by one of the right-wing contenders—
        The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I dislike interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but we are discussing the amendments. The hon. Gentleman is talking in general terms about devolution, but we are talking about a referendum and the amendments related to it.
        Mr. Wigley: I shall show you, Mr. Martin, how my remarks are relevant.
        If we have an Assembly that has nominal responsibility for education, but no legislative power for it in Wales, the reality is that our educational framework will be determined in this Chamber. Unless we have the power in Wales to pass legislation, we may find that in five or 10 years, or whenever we have the misfortune to have a right-wing Tory Government again, we shall be in danger of seeing our legislative framework being determined here. The Assembly in Cardiff will be unable to make a difference, by protecting the people from the privatisation of primary or secondary education. That will be determined by legislative capability.
        Mr. Rogers rose—
        Mr. Wigley: No, I will not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is busy going around the Welsh local

        459
        authorities advocating the policies of his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench. He is persuading those representatives that Labour's proposal is important and will help those authorities. I am sure that his time will be well cut out for him. During his rounds, he can tell the people in the various local authorities in Cardiff, Rhondda and elsewhere how the educational framework may well veer again to the right unless the Assembly or Parliament has primary law-making powers. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has some sympathy with the model of a Parliament with primary law-making powers, as it would be a body relevant to the problems.
        7.30 pm
        Our multi-option amendment deals with the central question of what the people of Wales want. A year ago, there was not to be a referendum; then, the leader of the Labour party decided, for whatever reason, that there would be one. It was meant to be an inclusive referendum to find out exactly what the people of Wales wanted. Apparently, that is something that cannot be determined at a general election—many other matters can be determined, but apparently not this issue.
        That being so, we must look at the four options being proposed by the various parties: the status quo, advocated by the Conservatives—or, at least, some Conservatives, as many Welsh Conservatives are thinking again about their party's position; the Assembly, without primary law-making powers, advocated by the Labour party; the federal model, advocated by the Liberal Democrats; and full self-government within Europe, advocated by Plaid Cymru. Apparently, the proportion of support for each of those four models cannot be judged from a general election result. That is the basis on which the Government are putting forward their proposals.
        What is the support, as far as can be told, for the various models? Based on the NOP and Beaufort polls in Wales last year, it appears that of those who are in favour of, or not against, the concept of an elected Assembly, 71 per cent. are in favour of legislative powers and 69 per cent. in favour of tax-varying powers. If that is true and the people of Wales want an Assembly that has those powers, why are the opportunities to vote for those models being denied in the referendum? If it is a consultative referendum to find out what the people of Wales want, why will they not be allowed a full range of choice? Through our amendment, which allows for a I, 2, 3, 4 vote on the four options, we could find out exactly what the people of Wales want. On that basis, it would then be possible to introduce relevant legislation.
        Mr. Gareth Thomas: The central question is how to maximise support for a yes vote in the referendum. As a representative of a party that rather grandiosely and incorrectly describes itself as the party of Wales, the hon. Gentleman should accept that that is the central question. Does he accept that a multi-option referendum would engender confusion and deny that central goal?
        Mr. Wigley: As was explained in a previous debate, multi-option referendums have been run successfully in other countries. I do not think that the people of Wales have greater difficulty than the people of other countries in comprehending these matters. If it causes the
        460
        hon. Gentleman a problem—and from what he said it clearly does—we could attack the issue from a different angle. We could have two questions: first, whether people want an Assembly, and secondly, whether people want legislative powers. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) tabled an amendment along those lines. It is another way of reaching the same determination. If the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) has difficulty with a 1, 2, 3 transferable vote, it could be overcome in that way.
        The people of Scotland are being allowed a second question, but the people of Wales are being denied that second question on the legislative powers that we believe to be essential if the Assembly is to be successful.
        Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman may find my remarks more friendly that he anticipates. Does he find it insulting that not only are the Scots to have two questions and the Welsh only one, but the Scots are to be allowed to vote a whole week or more before the Welsh? I understand that it is an attempt to use the Scottish vote to influence the Welsh.
        Mr. Wigley: Until we see the White Paper, we do not know the details of what will happen. However, one aspect of the Government's case is that it is necessary to differentiate between the arguments relevant to Scotland and those relevant to Wales. To that extent, it is a wise precaution to hold the vote on different days, so that there can be a focusing on the issue in the media—given that most of the mass media come from London and are seen in Wales and Scotland alike.
        If the people of Scotland are being offered a Parliament with law-making and tax-varying powers, which can develop considerable clout within the European Union, it is absolutely essential that Wales has the opportunity to develop those powers as well. The clout of Wales in the EU will be that much stronger if we have a Parliament that can have a credible voice in Brussels. Catalonia and the Lander governments in Germany have successfully developed their prospects within Europe and it is essential that Wales likewise has that opportunity.
        It is important that when the White Paper is published, we are able to understand exactly what the powers will be, because at the moment it is difficult to reach a decision. However, we know that there are various themes. The Secretary of State has said in the past that the status quo is no option.
        The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies)indicated assent.
        Mr. Wigley: I note the right hon. Gentleman's agreement.
        In the referendum proposed for Wales, the status quo is an option. It is the only option being offered other than the Government's policy. The options of Liberal Democrat policy and Plaid Cymru policy will not be offered. The option of a law-making Parliament, which is supported by many members of the Labour party, is not to be put to the people of Wales. Between now and the completion of the Bill's passage through the other place, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look for a vehicle to allow the people of Wales to be genuinely included in a decision-taking mechanism in the referendum.

        461
        If that is not to be the case and if there is a yes vote, the right hon. Gentleman will have his Assembly and he can build on that. I respect that. But if there is a no vote, it will not be worth the paper it is written on, because the reason for it will be unclear. Was it because people did not want that much power, or was it because they wanted law-making powers and a strong Parliament? The former Welsh Minister, Sir Wyn Roberts, has said that he would vote yes if there was the option of tax-varying powers. Without that second question, a no result would be absolutely meaningless. The Secretary of State must address that aspect. This is a vital debate and it is important that we get it right.
        Mr. Ancram: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his eloquent maiden speech. He was particularly eloquent in his tribute to his predecessor and in his attachment to his new constituency. We look forward to hearing further speeches from him.
        I listened to the debate with a certain amount of ambivalence as I heard the arguments in the Scottish debate being put slightly differently in this Welsh debate. It is interesting that in this debate, as in the other, I find myself sympathetic to the proposal to have more than two questions in the referendum.
        I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). He, like me, finds it difficult to be precise in his reaction because without the White Paper we are not certain of the nature of the proposals that will be put to a referendum. I again make the plea that the White Paper is produced in good time. I make the same suggestion to the Secretary of State for Wales that I made to the Secretary of State for Scotland—that in accordance with declarations about future White Papers, he might consider attaching a draft of the Bill to his White Paper so that by the time of the referendum the people of Wales will have a full and clear idea of the detail of the issues.
        The referendum, as currently set out, contains two questions: whether there should be a Welsh Assembly and whether there should not be a Welsh Assembly. Having listened to this and previous debates, it is clear that various people will vote for a Welsh Assembly for very different reasons. The hon. Member for Caernarfon said that a no vote would be complex; I think that a yes vote would be even more complex. I suspect that some people, such as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), will support an Assembly because they believe that ultimately it will lead to an independent Wales. After all, that is the purpose of their party. They will see it as part of that process and will therefore vote for it. On the other hand, others will vote for a Welsh Assembly—I include the Secretary of State in their number, because I have listened closely to what he said in previous debates—because they believe that it will retain and, indeed, buttress the United Kingdom. Therefore, the so-called maximisation of the vote for an Assembly, referred to by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), will be constructed on two totally contrary purposes. To claim that that is an endorsement on which an Assembly can be built would be dangerous ground on which to build.
        Mr. Rogers: Surely the right hon. Gentleman grasps the point that the issue of an independent Wales has been put in front of the electorate of Wales time after time after time by the Welsh nationalist party and the nationalists have never got more than or even as much as 10 per cent. of the vote. In the last general election, the people of Wales completely rejected the one policy on which the nationalist party stands, so what is the point of putting it in as an option in the referendum?
        Mr. Ancram: Doing so would at least underline whether people were voting for an Assembly because they wished it to lead to an independent Wales, or because they wished it not to lead to an independent Wales. That is a relevant question and the only way it can be answered is by having a multi-option question that sets out the issues fairly and firmly.
        Having said all that, however, I have to point out that because of the guillotine and the way in which it has affected the debate on the amendments, the amendment on which our vote is being sought this evening is not one that fulfils those criteria—it goes further and looks for order of preference to be part of the process. I repeat what I said in the previous debate: the idea that constitutional issues should be decided by second or third preferences would be a novel concept indeed and one that I certainly could not support.
        On that basis, I say that although I support the principle of the amendment and the reasons why it was tabled, neither I nor my Front-Bench colleagues can vote for the amendment and I cannot ask my Back-Bench colleagues to do so. Nevertheless, a relevant issue has been raised and the Government have to address it. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer the questions raised. If he does, it will be a first because none of his colleagues from either Wales or Scotland has done so in previous debates.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I begin my reply to this good debate by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his excellent speech. It was a model maiden speech—confident, articulate and witty—and I was especially delighted to hear him because we are neighbours in the Swansea valley. We share a road in the socialist village of Trebanos and I was delighted to hear him use that term. I welcome him to the House.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made several telling points and I share his desire to deal with the quango state. The White Paper will address that matter. However, we must not pre-empt the Welsh Assembly and its own obligations to deal with the matter.
        Mr. Denzil Davies: I was reading the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 16 May. He said that the Assembly
        "will have powers to reform the quangos". —[Official Report, 16 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 350.]
        But having powers to reform the quangos is not the same as the devolution Bill reforming the quangos. Will the Minister give an assurance that the devolution Bill will itself reform many of the quangos and subsume them into the Assembly?
        Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend makes a similar point to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr

        463
        Tydfil and Rhymney. The point is an important one, and it will be addressed by the White Paper. When the White Paper is published, they will see what the detailed proposals are.
        The issue of jobs was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). I say frankly that, yes, I do believe that if we do not have a Welsh Assembly, jobs in Wales will be threatened, investment will be threatened and the strength of the Welsh economy will be threatened. Let me explain why. The Scots will get a Scottish Parliament; next year London will get the opportunity to vote for an elected authority; and the regions of England will follow within a matter of years thereafter—the north-east is already pressing hard for an elected authority. Is my hon. Friend really saying that Wales should be the only part of the United Kingdom that does not have a devolved form of government? In those circumstances—especially with the English getting regional economic development agencies—I believe that job prospects in Wales will be threatened if we do not have an Assembly. A Welsh Assembly will give us the power and the authority to reorganise the Welsh economy to protect jobs and, indeed, to increase employment and tackle unemployment.
        Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend the Minister just said that if we do not have a Welsh Assembly, thousands of jobs will be threatened. First, in yesterday's press release from the Welsh Office, he was talking not about jobs being threatened, but about jobs being lost. Secondly, if we take his argument to its logical conclusion, is he also saying that we have LG investment because LG recognises the possibility of a Welsh Assembly in the near future?
        Mr. Hain: We got LG investment because the company knew that there was a Labour Government coming and knew that it wanted to be in a Wales ruled by that Labour Government. In a modern economy, inward investors will be attracted to Wales if there is an Assembly to assist with the development of our economic strategy.
        7.45 pm
        Mr. Flynn: The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made the point that the LG jobs might not have come to Wales if it had had a Welsh Assembly. He was entirely wrong. As someone who was involved in the decision to bring the LG jobs to Wales and who discussed at great length with LG executives their decision to bring the jobs to my constituency, I know that they knew, as did everyone else, that a Labour Government were almost certainly coming and that a Labour Government would bring a Welsh Assembly. They are entirely comfortable with the idea of being in Wales under a Welsh Assembly. The links between Korean investment in Wales, which stretch from Caernarfon to Merthyr to Cardiff and to Newport, are very strong and will be greatly strengthened when we have our own Assembly in Cardiff.
        Mr. Hain: I take my hon. Friend's point. This is not simply an erudite constitutional matter, and these interventions have focused our attention on the fact that this debate is about jobs, health, schools and housing. If we get a measure of self-government in Wales, we will better be able to deal with all those issues.
        464
        Let me now directly address the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). He effectively advanced the proposition that there should be what is called a preferendum and I respect his right to argue that case—indeed, given his party's policy, he has a duty to argue it. He did so constructively and in an inclusive spirit, which I acknowledge. However, I have to say that his policy at the general election was roundly defeated and that our policy won overwhelmingly. We are putting that policy in a confidence vote in the referendum, which will take place later this year.
        People in Wales do not want separatism; they do not want Wales to break away from the United Kingdom. We do not want more taxes; under the Tories, ordinary people in Wales have paid more taxes than ever before.
        Dr. Marek: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way on that specific point?
        Mr. Hain: On that point, yes.
        Dr. Marek: It is an important point, so I ask my hon. Friend to give a concise and intellectual defence of the reasons why the people of Wales are not being offered the same choice that is being offered to the people of Scotland.
        Mr. Hain: The defence is clear: we did not give in our election manifesto a commitment to give tax-raising powers to the Welsh Assembly. [Laughter.] It is no laughing matter. That commitment was given in the election manifesto to the people of Scotland. We are honouring our election manifesto in Wales, just as we are honouring it in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, Scotland is different from Wales, which is why there are different propositions for Scotland and Wales.
        People in Wales want the enormously powerful functions of the Welsh Office to be exercised by democratically elected people from Wales; that is our policy. The new Welsh Assembly will be a very powerful institution. No doubt it will evolve over the years. When, in 1964, James Griffiths was established as the first Secretary of State for Wales, it was not nearly as powerful a position as it is now, and no doubt there will be opportunity for it to evolve in future, but we need a Welsh Assembly to make it possible.
        I want to address the points made in the amendments tabled by, among others, the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Ynys Môn. There is great potential for confusion in what one might regard as a complex multiple choice examination paper, the "preferendum" that is suggested. It is quite possible that no single majority view will be expressed for any of the options. Where will that leave us, given the arguments and the momentum for devolution and decentralisation in Wales? It might leave us where the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and other Members want to leave us—with the devolution process delayed or abandoned. I urge hon. Members not to fall into that trap.
        Several technical questions have not been answered by the hon. Member for Caernarfon and his colleagues. Would the multiple choice referendum be conducted on a first-past-the-post basis, as they have suggested, or by single transferable vote? If it was conducted by single

        465
        transferable vote, which would allow a majority view to be expressed after preferences had been transferred, it would be the first time ever that that electoral procedure or form of preference had been used in any referendum or election in Britain.
        The referendum in Wales on this vital principle should not get bogged down in a complicated voting arrangement tried out for the first time. We want the people of Wales to have a simple, straightforward and clear choice—yes or no: "Do you support the Government's policy, which we advocated in our manifesto, on which we received an overwhelming mandate to establish a Welsh Assembly, or do you not?"
        The greater the yes vote, the more authority the Welsh Assembly will have, and the bigger will be the mandate from the people to make progress in the House in the months to come. In those months, the negative, destructive, filibustering tactics that have been attempted by the Tories in the past few days will be used. We do not want to give them an opportunity to pursue them.
        On one of the ballot options that the hon. Member for Caernarfon has proposed—envisaging self-government within the European Union—it is not clear whether Wales would be a sovereign state or something different. If he proposes a full sovereign state of Wales in the European Union, that would require a treaty amendment, because it would enlarge the European Union. A unanimous vote by European Union members and a new intergovernmental conference would be needed. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman seriously wants us to go down that route simply to create a Welsh Assembly.
        We made a contract with the people on 1 May for a referendum in Wales to enable the people of Wales to express their precise view on this question. We spelt out exactly the terms of the question when we said that it would be on a Welsh Assembly, and we are now implementing that commitment, as we did our commitment regarding Scotland. We are keeping our promises. It may be novel, given the Governments of the past 18 years, for an incoming Government to keep their promises, but we are doing so and deserve credit for it. We are inviting the electorate to endorse a clear principle that they will support our policy for an elected Welsh Assembly.
        Mr. Alan Williams: How can my hon. Friend reconcile his argument that we are putting a specific proposal to the people of Wales with his argument that the Assembly might subsequently evolve? If he believes that it may evolve, why does not he give the Welsh public the option of choosing an evolved form?
        Mr. Hain: I believe that my right hon. Friend, whom I respect as a colleague in the West Glamorgan area and for his role in Parliament in the Welsh group, is confusing two points. We shall outline in the White Paper our policy for a Welsh Assembly; that is what will be voted on. That is what will be legislated for in Parliament thereafter. I am simply making the obvious point that one cannot bind future Parliaments and that a future Welsh Assembly may be able to evolve in future. There is nothing contradictory in inviting the people of Wales to vote on the policy set out in the White Paper.
        466
        I see that the shadow Secretary of State for Wales has finally turned up to the debate, very late in the day.
        Mr. Ron Davies: He is canvassing.
        Mr. Hain: He is canvassing, is he, for extra votes? That displays the typical arrogance that the Tories have shown in the past few days for the mandate that we have received from the people of Wales, and which they definitely have not received. Indeed, the real opposition in Wales to the Government is sitting on the Liberal Democrat and nationalist Benches, because there is no opposition in Wales on the Tory Benches.
        I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Members who have spoken. I especially appreciate the constructive spirit in which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) made his contribution, especially bearing it in mind that his grandmother is from Alltwen. She comes from very good stock, as it is in the Neath constituency.
        I hope that we can move forward together to get a massive yes vote in Wales for an elected Assembly in Wales, because Wales must not be left behind in a movement for democracy that is being unleashed throughout Britain. We have this historic opportunity to modernise our system of government, to bring power to the people of Wales and to decentralise decision making.
        The referendum and the Bill—in defeating the amendment, we shall carry through the Bill—will give us the opportunity to take forward the battle for democracy and get rid of 18 years of degenerate, corrupt Tory rule in Wales and strike forward on a new path of democratic devolution in Wales.
        Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I join the congratulations to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his excellent maiden speech. I was proud of the fact that he mentioned the village of Garnswllt, where I was brought up and educated, so I am sure that he will be looking after the residents of Garnswllt very well, like his predecessor, Gareth Wardell.
        The Minister made heavy weather of technical arguments against more than one question. I find it rather strange—I put it no higher than that—that the people of Scotland are mature and grown up enough to consider that they might have to vote on two questions, but somehow the people of Wales are not that mature—that it would be too complicated for the people of Wales to have more than one question, but not too complicated for the people of Scotland.
        I also find it strange that the Minister should say that the people of Wales cannot be bothered with tax-raising Parliament, yet the people of Scotland can be. What is the difference? He seems to me to be making very heavy weather of it. I understand that he wants to advance the proposals made by the Labour party, and he is entitled to do so; the Government have a mandate on that.
        The Minister told the Committee—a point that I did not fully appreciate—that the people of Wales decisively rejected Plaid Cymru at the general election. They rejected the Conservatives decisively, yet the Conservative position is maintained on the ballot paper. The status quo is there. The Conservative option is being voted on. What is the problem in putting the option suggested by the Liberal Democrat party or Plaid Cymru?

        467
        I find it strange that the Government cannot make the connection there, in the spirit of inclusive politics, to bring people together.
        The amendment does not tie the Government's hands by committing them to a multi-option referendum but enshrines the principle of options. The Government can consider what options might be appropriate, after consulting the people. There is no hard and fast reason why the referendum should be multi-option.
        The Minister said that a multi-option referendum would be different from the kind of question to be put to the people of Scotland. There was an opportunity, which the Government did not take, to debate questions similar to those being put to Scotland. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) provided that opportunity, but it was denied because of the guillotine.
        I ask the Government to recognise that there are strong feelings across all parties in Wales that we should consider all options. In order to gauge the strength of feeling in the Committee, we shall divide the Committee on the amendment.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 330.

        Division No. 13]

        [7.59 pm

        AYES

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Lidington, David

        Brazier, Julian

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Chope, Christopher

        Paterson, Owen

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

        Salmond, Alex

        (Perth)

        Swinney, John

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Dafis, Cynog

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Welsh, Andrew

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Hancock, Mike

        Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

        Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Ainger, Nick

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

        Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

        Ashton, Joe

        Burden, Richard

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Burgon, Colin

        Atkins, Ms Charlotte

        Butler, Christine

        Austin, John

        Byers, Stephen

        Barnes, Harry

        Caborn, Richard

        Barron, Kevin

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Battle, John

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Beard, Nigel

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Canavan, Dennis

        Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

        Cann, Jamie

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Caplin, Ivor

        Benton, Joe

        Caton, Martin

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Cawsey, Ian

        Berry, Roger

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Best, Harold

        Chaytor, David

        Betts, Clive

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Blackman, Mrs Liz

        Church, Ms Judith

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Clapham, Michael

        Blizzard, Robert

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        468

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Healey, John

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Clelland, David

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Heppell, John

        Coaker, Vernon

        Hesford, Stephen

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Connarty, Michael

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Home Robertson, John

        Cooper, Ms Yvette

        Hood, Jimmy

        Corbett, Robin

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Hope, Philip

        Cousins, Jim

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Cranston, Ross

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Crausby, David

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Hughes, Ms Beverley

        Cummings, John

        (Stretford & Urmston)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        (Copeland)

        Hurst, Alan

        Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

        Hutton, John

        Dalyell, Tam

        Iddon, Brian

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Illsley, Eric

        Darvill, Keith

        Ingram, Adam

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Jamieson, David

        Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

        Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Johnson, Ms Melanie

        Dean, Ms Janet

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Denham, John

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

        Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

        Dobbin, Jim

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Jones, Ms Jenny

        Donohoe, Brian H

        (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Doran, Frank

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Drew, David

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Khabra, Piara S

        Edwards, Huw

        Kidney, David

        Ellman, Ms Louise

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Ennis, Jeff

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

        Kingham, Tessa

        Flynn, Paul

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Follett, Ms Barbara

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Laxton, Bob

        Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

        Lepper, David

        Galbraith, Sam

        Leslie, Christopher

        Galloway, George

        Levitt, Tom

        Gapes, Mike

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Gardiner, Barry

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Liddell, Mrs Helen

        Gerrard, Neil

        Livingstone, Ken

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Lock, David

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        McAllion, John

        Godsiff, Roger

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Goggins, Paul

        McCabe, Stephen

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

        Graham, Thomas

        Macdonald, Calum

        Grant, Bernie

        McDonnell, John

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McFall, John

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Grocott, Bruce

        McIsaac, Ms Shona

        Grogan, John

        McKenna, Ms Rosemary

        Gunnell, John

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Hain, Peter

        McLeish, Henry

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        McMaster, Gordon

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        MacShane, Denis

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Hanson, David

        McWalter, Tony

        469

        McWilliam, John

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Mallaber, Ms Judy

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Marek, Dr John

        Singh, Marsha

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

        Martlew, Eric

        Smith, Miss Geraldine

        Maxton, John

        (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Meale, Alan

        Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

        Merron, Ms Gillian

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Milburn, Alan

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Miller, Andrew

        Snape, Peter

        Moffatt, Laura

        Soley, Clive

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Spellar, John

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Morley, Elliot

        Stevenson, George

        Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Mountford, Ms Kali

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Mudie, George

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Mullin, Chris

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

        Stott, Roger

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Norris, Dan

        Stringer, Graham

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Olner, Bill

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

        O'Neill, Martin

        (Dewsbury)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Osborne, Mrs Sandra

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Pendry, Tom

        Tipping, Paddy

        Pickthall, Colin

        Todd, Mark

        Pike, Peter L

        Touhig, Don

        Plaskitt, James

        Truswell, Paul

        Pollard, Kerry Pond, Chris

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

        Pope, Greg

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Prentice, Gordon

        Vaz, Keith

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Wareing, Robert N

        Purchase, Ken

        Watts, David

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        White, Brian

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Whitehead, Alan

        Radice, Giles

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Rammell, Bill

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Rapson, Syd

        (Swansea W)

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Williams, Dr Alan W

        Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

        (E Carmarthen)

        Robertson, Rt Hon George

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        (Hamilton S)

        Wills, Michael

        Rogers, Allan

        Winnick, David

        Rooker, Jeff

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Rooney, Terry

        Wise, Audrey

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wood, Mike

        Rowlands, Ted

        Woolas, Phil

        Roy, Frank

        Worthington, Tony

        Ruane, Chris

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

        Salter, Martin

        Wyatt, Derek

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Sawford, Phil

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Mr. Graham Allen and Jane Kennedy.

        Sheerman, Barry

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Clause 2 commits the Government to holding a referendum in
        470
        Wales on the Government's proposals. Many people have talked about a referendum in the past, but the clause actually commits the Government to providing one.
        Before going any further, I want to pay tribute to the new Member for Gower (Mr. Caton)—[Interruption.]
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I appeal to hon. Members for quiet while an hon. Member is addressing the House.
        Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin, for your protection. I was just going to say how good the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower was. I have a special interest in this because of my family history. My hon. Friend is my mother's and brother's Member of Parliament, as was Gareth Wardell before him. I knew from my hon. Friend's delivery of his speech that he is going to be a superb representative of the whole constituency of Gower—including my ancestral home of Cwmcile in the northern part of the constituency. It was there that my great-great-grandfather, Morgan Morgan, at the height of the Rebecca riots, shot—I am not sure whether he killed—Colonel Napier, the head of the Glamorgan yeomanry; aided by his mother, who struck with a frying pan one of the sergeants who had been sent to arrest him.
        The relevance of all this to proceedings on the clause is that it took place in the 1840s, when the people of Wales, in Gower and across west Wales—including the area from which the former Home Secretary comes—were rioting because of the way Wales was being run. At the time, Wales was run by the squires and their friends by means of a system of quangos, very much as it was, increasingly, during the past 18 years. The squires appointed the justices of the peace, the poor law guardians, and the turnpike trusts. It was against these trusts that the Rebecca rioters rebelled. Finally, there were the school boards. It was very much the squire and his pals—a squirearchy—and there was widespread rebellion. The Chartists were active in some of the industrial areas, such as Newport, and in the rural parts of west Wales including Cwmcile and the Gower area. The rebellions were specifically against the turnpike trusts and the imposition of taxes.
        What the rebels wanted was democracy. At that time, because Wales did not have a proper democratic franchise, it was run very much in the interests of the squires and the landowners, and, by and large, only the squires and their friends could vote. That is one of the reasons why, when the secret ballot was introduced, the tenants lost their fear of being evicted if they did not vote for the squire or his nominees to come to this place and represent them. Ever since then, Wales has voted against the Tory party. It has never forgotten the lesson that it was taught by people like my great-great-grandfather Morgan Morgan in the Gower constituency, and the spirit that they represented. My great-great-grandfather may have gone too far on that occasion, but the lesson of that period of rebellion in the 1830s and 1840s—of the Chartists and the Rebecca rioters—is very relevant to tonight's debate.
        During the past 18 years, the Tories have tried to turn the clock back and reproduce a Victorian society in which the squire and his pals—or, in this instance, the Tories and their pals, by means of quangos—took Wales away from what its people thought that they had gained by

        471
        securing the secret ballot and the universal franchise. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower may not want to assault the captain of the Glamorgan yeomanry—indeed, the Glamorgan yeomanry no longer exists—but I know that he has done a very good job for all the people of Gower. I also know that, by supporting clause 2, we can do the job for which the Welsh people were looking in the 1840s.
        How do we achieve some form of democracy in Wales, and how do we ensure that the people of Wales can secure what they want by means of a democratic system? That does not mean shooting the Glamorgan yeomanry, and it does not mean riot, but it does mean using the ballot box and democratic procedures, and that can be done only if people respect the fact that there is a deep-rooted dislike of the Tory party in Welsh history.
        In that respect, there is a difference even between Wales and Scotland. Members of Parliament—perhaps they include you, Mr. Martin—may be old enough to remember a time when Scotland actually produced a Tory majority. That happened at the 1955 election. We have never done that in Wales: we have a very different history. We have not voted for the Tory party since the secret ballot was introduced, and, given the spirit of Wales, even if the ordinary people had been able to vote back in the 1830s and 1840s they would undoubtedly not have voted Tory then. It was only because of the phoney, funny franchise that operated at the time that occasionally the squire's pals would get in. Clause 2 is a way of putting right all the injustices that Wales has suffered because of its inability to secure a form of democracy that would give it some control over its domestic affairs.
        The clause will give Wales a chance to have its own Welsh Assembly. It does not commit the Government to establishing such an Assembly; it does something even better, because the Government are committed to two forms of direct democracy. The manifesto for which everyone in Wales voted so overwhelmingly on 1 May said that people could vote for the party that would bring them—among other things—a Welsh Assembly, subject to having the direct democratic right to veto that Assembly. After all, some people in Wales might be in favour of a Labour Government but against a Welsh Assembly. The manifesto said that those people could vote for Labour on 1 May, but could vote against the Government, given the right to veto a Labour proposal, in a direct referendum that would be held in the autumn.
        That is a very democratic action. That is what the Tories denied Wales back in the 1840s, and what they took away from Wales when they reduced local government powers by appointing all their pals to quangos during the 18 years which, thankfully, came to an end on 1 May. That is why I think that clause 2 is so important to the history of Wales, and to the relationship between Wales and this Parliament.
        It could be said that we have a unitary state, and that we should worry about all the anomalies that will be created if Wales and Scotland have separate Assemblies or Parliaments. We hear people express worries about the so-called West Lothian question, as though it were a reason for doing nothing to modernise the constitution. We have heard Opposition Members express, by implication, the view expressed by the Prime Minister when he referred to a thousand years of British history, suggesting that in some way the constitution of this
        472
        country was immutable; but it has never been immutable, particularly when it comes to the relationship between England and the Celtic fringe.
        Over the centuries, there has always been a need for change in regard to the way in which we deal with relationships with the small Celtic countries—Ireland in the 19th century, and Scotland and Wales later in that century and, indeed, in the 20th. In our Parliament, we have always found it necessary to adjust the relationship between England and the other countries. England is, in that context, a very big country, comprising 82 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. As for the three small countries, or provinces, Scotland has 9 per cent. of the population, Wales 5 per cent. and Northern Ireland 3.5 per cent.
        Sir Teddy Taylor: Could not the problem be solved by the establishment of three Grand Committees composed of Welsh, English and Scottish Members who would pass their own domestic legislation? Would that not avoid the extra expense, the constitutional problems and the West Lothian question?
        Mr. Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive contribution, and for his acceptance of the principle of what I am saying.
        England is a big and a dominant country, containing well over three quarters of the UK population and of its Members of Parliament. It is a case of the elephant and the three Celtic fleas. Obviously, when people have fleas they scratch from time to time, and there is currently a desire to readjust the relationship between, in this instance, England and Scotland and Wales. Under the last Government, an attempt was made to readjust the relationship between England and Northern Ireland. That does not mean that the British constitution will collapse; if it did, the British constitution would have collapsed every time we readjusted the way in which we dealt with the affairs of Scotland, Wales, Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
        I was very pleased by what the Prime Minister said about the Irish potato famine. He apologised to the people of Ireland for the part that the British Government had played in it, and that is very relevant to clause 2. Before the famine, everything was about expanding the United Kingdom constitution to take in first Wales, then Scotland, then the Republic of Ireland. The potato famine, however, was such a devastating experience for one particular Celtic country that its people never forgot it, and it eventually left this Parliament altogether.
        After the famine, the issue was no longer expanding to take over the rest of the British Isles—Wales, then Scotland and Ireland—but establishing new rights for the Celtic countries, with Secretaries of State for Scotland, then Ireland, the setting up of the Stormont Parliament in 1922 and the Republic of Ireland becoming an independent free state in the same year before leaving the Commonwealth and the Crown altogether in 1949. Since the famine, the readjustment has gone the other way. In general, it has worked to allow the Celtic countries of the United Kingdom to have more say in their own affairs, and clause 2, in two ways, gives more say to two of the Celtic countries for which this Parliament is responsible. It establishes the prospect of a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament, but establishes it via an additional

        473
        hurdle that the legislation will have to cross by way of a direct vote by the people of Wales and Scotland in the autumn.
        This Parliament should not be frightened of that. During the past 150 years, every 30 or 40 years, there has been a major change in the relationship between England and the three Celtic countries, or, putting it another way, between this Parliament as a whole and the amount of respect that is given to the diversity of those three Celtic fleas. England is in the middle, with well over 80 per cent. of the total population, wealth and representation in the House of Commons. The Government have committed themselves to a very democratic measure, which I welcome.
        One could say that, in adjusting the relationship, the Celtic fringe countries are asking for more recognition of their diversity and tradition. For instance, there is the tradition that we in Wales do not vote Tory, and our commitment to helping to bring about the welfare state.
        Looking at it from a Welsh perspective, one could say that we are looking for a boyo-diversity treaty; a readjustment of the relationship between Wales, England and Scotland. In the spirit of asking for that boyo-diversity treaty, I hope that the House will give warm approval to clause 2.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        It being half-past Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
        Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
        Bill reported, without amendment.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        8.30 pm
        Mr. Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        The Bill is short and simple and my contribution can be similarly brief. During the debate on the Scottish amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) took up a point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the provision of local information in Wales. We are discussing with the chief counting officers at county borough level the provision of information and our intention is that it will be released. But, if possible, we want the result to be declared nationally first. We are discussing how both those objectives can be accommodated and we shall announce our conclusions in due course.
        The Bill authorises the holding of referendums in Scotland and Wales as the first step in the Government's programme of radical constitutional reform. A mood for constitutional change is abroad in Scotland and Wales and the referendums will give people in each country the opportunity to express their views on the Government's devolution proposals. We promised them that opportunity and we now intend to deliver on that promise.
        We do not have to do this. Our election victory gave us a clear mandate for our policy to decentralise power to the people of Scotland and Wales. We could simply have
        474
        proceeded with the necessary legislation, but we want to secure popular support for those policies, as our manifesto promised.
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is just doing as he is told because the referendum policy was decided in London, not by Wales.
        Mr. Hain: When we have a serious contribution from a Welsh Conservative Member of Parliament, he might have a serious answer to such a question.
        We did not have to do this, but we decided that we wanted the authority of the people to support our legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is waiting for the Tory party leadership election result, will recognise that if and when we have a yes vote in Scotland and Wales, Parliament must respect that yes vote.
        Last time, some 30 days were spent on the devolution question—nearly 15 weeks of parliamentary time during which the then Conservative Opposition behaved in a typically destructive and negative fashion, filibustering through the night as best they could. We intend that Parliament will respect the mandate given by the people of Scotland and Wales in order to support the legislation that we will introduce.
        Mr. Dalyell: I was there and my hon. Friend was not. There was serious discussion. People such as Enoch Powell on the one side and others of us on the other did not filibuster. I saw it at first hand.
        Mr. Hain: The last thing that I would accuse my hon. Friend of doing is filibustering. I was talking about the Conservative Opposition. They would have done the same this time had they had the opportunity.
        Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Hain: I shall give way in a minute.
        What we are proposing is sensible and the Government have chosen to introduce the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill first. That way there will be an efficient use of parliamentary time. There is a clear mandate from the people for the introduction of legislation and that is a sensible use of parliamentary procedure and time.
        Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman, please, apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The hon. Gentleman was not here when we debated devolution. I was, as was the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The debates were serious. They showed true division on both sides of the House. Many Labour Members were deeply unhappy about devolution in Scotland and in Wales. The Labour Government of the day did not attempt to drive the Bill through like a steam roller. The hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for what he said.
        Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend does not need any assistance from the Tory Benches to make his case. He is probably the most effective and admired Back Bencher in the House. I made no criticism of his role in that devolution debate.
        Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position.

        475
        He referred to the outcome of the referendum. If, as he hopes, it is a success and he comes back to the House with a detailed devolution Bill, he has said that we should not thwart the will of the people of Wales and Scotland. To that extent, does he also accept that the detail of those Bills is important to the success of what comes about? Therefore, will he undertake not to try to do what the Government have done this time, which is to ram some tight guillotines through from day one?
        Mr. Hain: Of course the detail of the Bill is important and it will be considered with due care and attention by the House. It is a matter for the Procedure Committee to determine how that will be done. Our proposals for devolution for Scotland and Wales are different because they reflect the different historical circumstances and the modern-day realities of each country. But in each case they will allow diversity to flourish and the implementation of policies reflecting local circumstances and traditions and national needs. We must get away from the idea that London decides everything, regardless of local people's wishes, especially in the context of the nations of Scotland and Wales.
        We also intend to get rid of the unelected Tory quango state which, during 18 years, the Tory Government ruthlessly packed with their own people who could not get elected through the ballot box. One English Secretary of State for Wales has been bad enough without him reproducing himself on virtually every quango in Wales. The Tories have developed a new meaning to the word "cloning" in Wales by their use of the power of the quango exercised through an English Tory Secretary of State.
        What a rabble the Tories have represented in the debates on the Bill. They have made no constructive contributions. The only constructive, serious and intelligent contributions have come from Liberal Democrat and Scottish National party Members on the Opposition Benches.
        Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Hain: No, I will take no more Tory interventions.
        The reason why the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists have made constructive contributions is that they represent constituencies in Wales, unlike Tory Members.
        It is good to see that the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, has graced us with his presence at this late hour in the debate. Neither he nor his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) seriously addressed themselves to the issue of giving people an historic opportunity to vote for increased democracy in Wales and in Scotland.
        The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe indulged himself in his usual barrack-room lawyer style, picking up a brief and indulging in all sorts of tit-for-tat debating points, but he never addressed the substantive democratic issues. Similarly, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks employed his best Oxford Union style in taking up a series of detailed debating points without seriously addressing the democratic issues. That is no surprise because the Tories have forgotten how to
        476
        address democratic issues. In 18 years, they flouted every democratic tradition in Britain and imposed a centralised, elitist form of government on both Scotland and Wales.
        When I dealt with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks as Secretary of State for Wales, I respected the way in which he conducted his duties. I remember, however, that when he first took office, he walked into rooms all over Wales and was given a standing ovation. He thought that that was because he was popular; it was simply because he was not the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). It is important that we move forward in a spirit of unity in the House—
        Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Hain: No, I will not take any more interventions. I want to give as much opportunity as possible to Back-Bench Members to contribute to the Third Reading debate. I have taken plenty of interventions from Conservative Members.
        Mr. Robathan rose—
        Mr. Hain: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make a speech in the time left to him before 10 o'clock.
        The questions set out in the Bill invite the people of Scotland and Wales to express support for our devolution proposals. We will set them out in detail in the White Papers which are to be published before the House rises in the summer. I look forward to a constructive and informed public debate on those plans in each country. I hope that representatives of the Conservative party will make their contributions in a positive and constructive spirit. That will be the Government's intention.
        Mr. Michael Howard: On that point, will the Minister now do what the Prime Minister conspicuously failed to do earlier today, which is to apologise for the misleading information the Prime Minister gave to the House on 14 May? He said:
        "Of course the Bill will be published in time for the referendum".
        Mr. Hain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is intervening in the way for which he has become well known in the House, taking up a misleading point rather than addressing the central issue. I say to him and his Conservative colleagues who represent English constituencies that England voted for devolution as well. The Conservatives received only 34 per cent. of the vote in England—a minority vote in England. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), made the break-up of the United Kingdom, as he misleadingly put it, a central issue in the election campaign. He and his fellow Conservatives lost the argument.
        Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question that I put to him a minute ago? Will he apologise for the misleading information given by the Prime Minister to the House on 14 May? He said:
        "Of course the Bill will be published in time for the referendum".—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 64.1
        May we please have an answer to that question?
        Mr. Hain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the person who should apologise for attempting to divert the

        477
        debate from the central issues of democracy and devolution which we have been discussing. He has hardly been here to listen to the arguments. The Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear this afternoon.
        Mr. Salmond: Conservative Front-Bench Members might consider why they did not ask that question on 14 May, but we will leave that to one side. Would it not have been better if the Prime Minister had simply told the House today that he was sorry and that he had made a mistake?
        Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear. I will speak to the hon. Gentleman in a constructive spirit; I welcomed the constructive spirit in which he and his colleagues contributed to the debate. What is important, once we have the White Paper which will be published later this summer before the House rises so there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss it and consider it in the weeks that run up to the referendum, to those of us—the vast majority of Members—who support democracy and decentralising decisions to local people, on a national basis in Scotland and in Wales, is that we unite for a yes vote. That is absolutely vital. We must not allow the Tories to divert the people of Scotland and the people of Wales from our historic mission to get democracy brought back to our people and to get decisions brought down close to the individual. That is our mandate; that is our historic obligation. We were given the mandate by the people in the massive landslide victory on 1 May, and all of us—Government Members, Liberal Democrats and nationalists—have a duty to unite, grasp the opportunity, move forward and create a democracy in Britain of which we can be proud.
        8.44 pm
        Mr. William Hague: We have reached Third Reading, and in my view and that of my hon. Friends we have done so extremely prematurely. The debates have not done justice to the importance of the Bill or to its detail. We have just witnessed four clauses and two schedules of a constitutional measure being agreed to without any debate at all, which is a disgrace to the procedures of the House. That is what we have come to with the Government's arrogant behaviour. They have been unbelievably arrogant to treat the House in such a way.
        There is no finer example of such arrogance than the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). Despite the fact that holding referendums was a manifesto commitment, the hon. Gentleman proudly and magnanimously announced that the Government did not need to do so. The Government have a responsibility to implement what was in their election manifesto.
        Mr. Hain: The point that I was making was that we did not have to put the commitment in our manifesto but that we wanted to do so because we have confidence in our policies engaging popular opinion and receiving support.
        Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Labour party felt that it had to include the commitment
        478
        in its manifesto in case it lost a large number of votes in Wales and Scotland at the election. It wanted to be able to say to the people, "Don't worry, you can have a referendum about it later."
        The Under-Secretary of State not only derided people who spoke on the matter in the 1970s; he criticised Opposition Members for raising detailed points when that is exactly what debates on Bills are for. He criticised me for receiving standing ovations around Wales. If he continues to make such speeches, he will never enjoy that experience for himself.
        The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the Bill a couple of days ago as a modest measure. It is not a modest measure: it is a measure of great importance, which is how he described it a couple of weeks ago.
        Mr. Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Hague: I will not give way for the moment. Many of my hon. Friends want to speak. Debate on a measure of such great importance has either been severely limited or denied. We do not dispute that the Government have a mandate to hold referendums. We believe that it is right for them to hold referendums on the subject. Indeed, we welcome the Labour party's belated conversion to the idea of holding referendums on devolution. The Scottish Labour party had five policy positions on the matter in five years—indeed, it had three in two weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) reminded the House a few minutes ago, it was decided in London that Labour party policy would change.
        Although the Secretary of State for Wales has just left the Chamber, I make no apology for reminding the House of his famous remark on 24 June 1996, when he said:
        "The trouble with a pre-legislative referendum is that there are so many questions that you cannot answer."
        Three days later, it was his policy to hold a pre-legislative referendum. How true it has become that the trouble with a pre-legislative referendum is that there are so many questions that one cannot answer, since there have been so many questions that Government Front Benchers could not or have been unwilling to answer in the debates. The Secretary of State for Wales was right—he is not often right and it was a pity that he changed his mind—on one of the rare occasions when he came out with a perceptive and perspicacious remark about the folly of holding pre-legislative referendums.
        Mr. Salmond: On the subject of parties changing their minds on this issue, on what date did the Conservative party decide that in principle it was in favour of a multi-option referendum in Scotland, as we were told this afternoon?
        Mr. Hague: The Conservative party is entitled to set out its policies without having to report to the Scottish National party on what date it developed its policy. We have stated in the House today that the multi-option referendum policy is one with which we would have sympathy. If the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on a multi-option referendum had been selected, we would have voted for them. It has been a side effect of the guillotine motion, which has denied debate on large

        479
        parts of the Bill, that my hon. Friends have not been able to vote on or argue for the amendments that they had tabled.
        Mr. Flynn: The right hon. Gentleman would not have noticed, because he was absent himself, but for the major part of the debate no Tory Whip has been present and only one or two Tory Back Benchers have been in their places. On the subject of losing votes, does he not take responsibility for making devolution his one priority in the election? He went prancing around with balloons and told everyone that we had 72 hours to save the Union. He is personally responsible for the worst election result the Conservatives have had in Wales. If he had been standing for a Welsh seat, he would not be here now. Will he introduce a note of humility and apologise to his colleagues who used to represent Welsh seats, because his leadership destroyed their position?
        Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the final opinion polls of the general election campaign—which, as it turned out, accurately forecast the result of the general election—showed that opinion on a Welsh Assembly had moved to 34 per cent. in favour and 37 per cent. against by the end of the campaign. The hon. Gentleman should make no presumption yet about who has won the arguments or about the result of the referendum in Wales when it is held. Labour Members made assumptions about the result of the referendums in 1979 and they regretted it. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to make such assumptions on this occasion.
        The Government have ignored in their handling of the Bill the truth spoken by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on Second Reading when he said that the devil is in the detail. They will hold referendums without being able to give the public the detailed implications of what they propose. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has just reminded us, the Prime Minister told us on 14 May that the Bill would be published before the referendums were held, but he was too mealy-mouthed today to recognise either that he had made a mistake or that he was backtracking on the commitment that he had given. The Prime Minister should have had the courage and the confidence to admit that his statement was a mistake or that he had backtracked on his commitment.
        As it is, we are promised a White Paper. We do not know whether the White Paper will answer the questions to which the electorate need answers before voting in the referendum. We do not know whether the White Paper will be able to explain the relationship between a Welsh Assembly and non-departmental public bodies in Wales, or between an Assembly and local government in Wales. We do not know whether the White Paper will explain the Assembly's power to call for persons and papers, its relationship with the Committee of the Regions, the role of the civil service, the resources that the Assembly will have at its disposal, the running costs and the remuneration of its members, its impact on inward investment, or how its electoral arrangements could be changed in the future. We do not know whether a White Paper will cover those subjects.
        The Government do not know whether the commitments that they will make in a White Paper will still be intact after the referendum has been held or after the legislation has passed through the House. If the
        480
        Government are asking the electorate to vote on specific proposals in a White Paper, can they now say that the provisions of the White Paper will not be changed after the referendum has been held? They can give no such commitment. They are asking the electorate to vote for a pig in a poke; that is no way to hold a referendum in a parliamentary democracy.
        It should be a basic principle of referendums that the electorate should be as well informed as possible about the proposition on which they are voting. That principle could be satisfied only by holding the referendum after the legislation had passed through Parliament, not before. It should be a basic principle of referendums that people should know exactly what they are voting on. They cannot know exactly what they are voting on when a pre-legislative referendum is held.
        Our second objection to a pre-legislative referendum—after the fact that it leaves the electorate in the dark—is that the Government clearly intend to use the holding of a referendum as a substitute for the parliamentary process rather than as an addition to it. The Government clearly intend to use the result to say that the electorate have now voted on the general proposition and that nobody else should dare to argue with the details of the legislation.
        The Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that the House would decide how the eventual legislation would be handled, but that is not the reality. The House will not decide, because Labour Members would vote for any proposition put forward by the Government even if it meant dealing with the whole Bill in a Committee lasting five or 10 minutes. Most Labour Members would be prepared to vote even for that proposition if the Government Whips said that they should.
        The Government have to decide. It is the Government's responsibility to say that constitutional legislation should be dealt with on the Floor of the House. It is their responsibility to give us the guarantee that we have asked for—that that Bill will not be guillotined in the disgraceful way that we have seen happen to the one before us. They must guarantee that the abuse of the rights of the House will not continue. As we come to the end of proceedings on the Bill, they are not prepared to give those guarantees.
        What confidence can the Opposition and people outside the House have that debates on the legislation which may follow the referendums will be treated fairly and properly when the Prime Minister has described the prospect of debates on such legislation as "game playing", when the Secretary of State for Wales has said that he will brook no interference with his plans, and when we have seen the cavalier use of the guillotine over the past two days?
        Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is it not arrogant in the extreme to confine the principles of what the eventual Bill will contain to a White Paper while putting no detail whatever in the referendum? Members of Parliament do not know what the Bill will contain, and the voters at large do not know either: the final Bill could be totally different from what they expect when they vote in the referendum.
        Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. The effect of a pre-legislation referendum will be that the electorate can be kept in the dark and that Parliament can be told afterwards, "You had better pass this legislation in the detail in which it was presented in the White Paper because the electorate have already approved it."

        481
        We favour the holding of referendums on the proposals. Indeed, we believe that that is essential, given the rejection of such proposals in 1979. None the less, we shall vote against Third Reading, for two reasons.
        First, to hold a referendum now means that the electorate will not be properly informed: no provision has been made for the fairest possible debate and people are being asked to decide without a specific question and without the specific information that they need to come to a reasonable conclusion. The Government are asking for a referendum just so that they can get away with asking for general approval of vague proposals before the implications can be fully understood by the electorate. The Government intend to use that device to get around proper scrutiny rather than to facilitate it, and to escape full debate rather than to encourage it.
        The second reason why we shall vote against Third Reading is that the opportunity to debate the full implications of what is proposed has been denied, even in Committee. There has been no opportunity to debate the procedures to be used in the referendums or the financing and conduct of the campaigns. We have not been able to discuss whether people should be asked about the tax-raising powers of a Welsh Assembly, nor the introduction of a threshold. Ministers have derided, as frivolous or esoteric, amendments tabled in good faith. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), concerning the voting rights of service men, was protested about yesterday. Yet that is a subject that should have been discussed in the House. When we consider such amendments, we can see how the denial of debate has obstructed the proper consideration of the legislation.
        The Government have done that without need and without justification. They have relied on the argument that they have a mandate, and ignored the fact that the House as a whole has a mandate to give proper scrutiny to legislation, and that all Members of Parliament, from all parts of the United Kingdom, should have the right to propose amendments. The Government have been utterly blind to the case for any amendment to their legislation. A pre-legislation referendum was conceived by Labour party spin doctors last June, and now the Government's attitude is, "This is the law; we say this is the law." Law is permitted only if it was made in Hartlepool last June, when the decision about a referendum was made.
        The Government have been unwilling to consider the case for any amendment, and unable or unwilling to answer most of the questions that have been put to them. They have conducted the debates on the proposals in a way which can lead only to bad law. For that reason, the official Opposition will vote against Third Reading.
        8.59 pm
        Mr. Donald Anderson: A certain humility might have been expected from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in the light of his party's record and the position that he and others adopted during the election. They made devolution—or the fragmentation of the United Kingdom, as they saw it—and a little Englander view on the continent the centre points of their election strategy. The public decisively
        482
        rejected the Tories' little Englandism abroad and their wrapping themselves in the flag in respect of the future of the United Kingdom.
        One is bound to ask what claim to authority or legitimacy the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks has to make his points, since his party was so decisively rejected at the general election. He referred to the guillotine, and I think that most people of common sense—having seen the way in which the amendment paper has been swamped by often flimsy and irrelevant amendments—would say that the Opposition's clear intention was not to have a proper debate, but to prolong the debate for as long as possible. I would hope that when we come to the devolution Bill itself, the Opposition—rather than seeking to swamp the amendment paper with the aim of having excessive debates—can reach a reasonably agreed timetable.
        I am aware of the precedents in relation to constitutional Bills, but key elements of the Finance Bill, for example, may be discussed here in the Chamber, while matters of less importance may be debated in Committee. I hope that that system will be adopted in respect of the devolution Bill. Otherwise—as the Conservative party wishes—other matters will be pushed off the table altogether.
        The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks referred to the public wanting to know the details before pronouncing in a referendum. That is clearly absurd. Will the ordinary Welshman or Welshwoman—or Scotsman or Scotswoman—make up his or her mind on the broad package or on details which may or may not be included? Of course there will be a gut response: do people broadly want devolution or not? They will not be moved either way by the minutiae of details. It is therefore absurd to suggest that everything should be cut and dried in advance.
        There were many excellent speeches in the debate, but I wish to refer to the remarkable maiden speech by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who followed proudly and extraordinarily well in the footsteps of our esteemed former colleague Gareth Wardell.
        I also commend the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who made the key point that we should not try to oversell devolution by suggesting that it will be a great engine for job creation. We must get through to the people of Wales and Scotland the fact that the Tories have shamelessly bypassed local government and democratic structures for 18 years by creating quangos from which they largely excluded representatives of the majority—from whichever party—by putting in their own people, who often had no credible claim to be Welsh or to represent Wales. One can understand the way in which opinion in Wales has changed only by the strong reaction to the quangocracy created, used and manipulated shamelessly by the Conservative party in Wales. It is on the basis of democracy that the best argument will be made, rather than by trying to oversell the point in relation to job creation. There is a key point, and it is on that basis that we should put the case to the people of Wales.
        I would reject a multi-option clause because the key point is whether we want an Assembly. All progressive forces in Wales—all parties with the exception of the Conservative party—accept the case for devolution, and

        483
        to argue for a multi-option referendum has the danger that it would be a distraction from that key point; if, for instance, we put before the people of Wales an option in relation to taxation, that could have an extremely negative effect on the referendum result.
        We face a choice which arises once in a generation and I do not believe that what we have so far is a coherent package. I think that it should and will alter, because no institution is static. Every institution will have its own dynamic, according to the public opinion at the time. We should listen to the people. Options relating to federalism, taxation and primary legislation can all be debated at the appropriate time.
        I shall cite a precedent in conclusion. When the Welsh Office was created by the Labour party, against Conservative opposition, some people argued that it was a puny creature; some were absolutist and said that they rejected that silly little Welsh Office. In fact, it developed incrementally, so that the Welsh Office today is a wholly different creature from what it was in 1966.
        In the same way, by the dynamic of public opinion operating on representatives here and in Wales, the Welsh Assembly can be modified and changed and can adapt to new circumstances. That is the essential point. Let us have the Assembly—it will be dynamic, not static—and let all forces of good will and progress ensure that we vote in the same way on this key issue.
        9.6 pm
        Mr. Michael Moore: May I first say how much I appreciate being called to give my maiden speech so early in the new Parliament and in particular being able to contribute to this important debate?
        I consider it a real privilege to be elected as the Member of Parliament for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, following 32 years of distinguished service by my predecessor, Sir David Steel. Sir David made a conscious decision at the start of his parliamentary career to commit himself to the Borders and to be very much a member of the local community. I believe that his close involvement with issues directly affecting his constituents—whatever his other responsibilities, especially as leader of the Liberal party—was the key to his achievements as a Borders Member of Parliament. As I look forward to my first summer as a Member of Parliament, attending the many festivals throughout the Borders, I consider it a great honour to take over responsibility from Sir David as one of the standard bearers for the Borders in Parliament.
        The boundaries of the constituency changed over time—indeed, they were changed for the general election-and it now stretches from the Eildon hills in the south, near the towns of Selkirk, Melrose and Galashiels, along the River Tweed, through my home town of Innerleithen, past Peebles and up to the new part of the constituency in Penicuik at the foot of the Pentlands. It is a beautiful part of the world and its landscape has shaped the industries, culture and people of the area over many generations.
        Many hon. Members will be familiar with the fierce rivalry between the Borders towns. It shows most clearly on the rugby pitch, but it is evident in many different ways. As an incomer to the Borders—twice over—I am very conscious of the traditions in each of the
        484
        communities, which give them all great strength. As well as paying proper respect to traditions, people in the Borders have shown themselves to be adaptable, responding time after time to new challenges and demands.
        The challenges are significant. My area is heavily dependent on traditional economic sectors such as agriculture and textiles. Those sectors have responded to many different challenges over the years, and continue to do so. Agriculture has been a mainstay of the constituency, but now has to cope with the continuing BSE disaster and the prospect of reform of the common agricultural policy. The textile industry has constantly had to reinvent itself, responding to changing market conditions across the world. More recently, we have developed a highly successful electronics industry and are taking the lead in new businesses focused on sustainable development.
        The economic future of the Borders will depend hugely on a new approach from the Government. We desperately need investment in our infrastructure. We have trunk roads, such as the A7, which have lost their status. Others, such as the A701, desperately need further investment. It is a long time since there has been a railway station in the Borders; it is time that stations reopened. We also need a level playing field. Under previous Governments, Galashiels and Penicuik companies which sought assistance to expand their businesses were told that they should relocate to the central belt of Scotland if they wanted help. That cannot be right, and I shall campaign on that issue in years to come.
        We also require equal access to grants, not least for investment, training and machinery. Too many young people in the Borders, when they leave school also leave the area—as I did when I left Jedburgh grammar school—and do not return, except in unusual circumstances. Education is vital in the current situation. Industry is more challenging, but parents and teachers are forced to raise money for essential equipment and books in schools. School buildings intended to last 10 or 20 years have been forced to last much longer.
        In the health service, a crisis faces local hospitals as trusts debate whether they will have to close wards because of the internal market and the bureaucracy that is choking them and starving them of decent resources. There has been a new mood in the country since 2 May, but the many commitments made by the Government must be backed up by proper resources.
        The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in an earlier debate complimented the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on keeping to the subject, and I appreciate that it is appropriate for me to refer to it. Each of the issues that I have mentioned is at the heart of debate on the Scottish Parliament. For too long, especially over the past 18 years, the Government have been remote and unaccountable to the people of Scotland. A Scottish Parliament must tackle each of those issues, but ultimately its success will be judged on whether it better delivers on issues such as health, education and jobs. However, people must be persuaded of that.
        I am very conscious that in the past, and at the last referendum, the people of the Borders gave a less than whole-hearted response to the proposals for what was then the Scottish Assembly. The proposals in the White Paper will be crucial in that respect, especially the proportional

        485
        representation aspects of the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme, which must be the best defence against swapping overbearing London rule for overbearing central belt domination.
        The Scottish Liberal Democrats have argued throughout the passage of the Bill that there is no need for a referendum in Scotland. Our voting has followed that logic. Now, however, we recognise the reality of the juggernaut arithmetic that favours the Government. Our priority is a Scottish Parliament. We wish to ensure that it happens sooner rather than later. For that reason, we do not wish to hinder the Bill's progress any further.
        9.13 pm
        Mr. Rogers: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who made a fine speech outlining the aspects of his constituency that he regards as virtues. I am pleased that he did not go on too much about rugby, because his area gave the world the game of sevens. For many years, they beat everyone at it, but now neither Scottish, Welsh, English nor Irish teams can compete with those from the other side of the globe. Perhaps through his area's membership of the British Lions we can put it over the South Africans in the 15-a-side game very shortly. I wish him a long and distinguished career in the House, in the same way as his illustrious predecessor, who not only served his party with great distinction but was a valuable and respected Member for many years.
        I come to this debate like an old threepenny bit—with many sides. In 1979, in the Ystrad Mynach Labour club, I and other hon. Members whom I will not mention to save their embarrassment organised the vote no campaign. We had a 4:1 victory in Wales against the same sort of line that we get today—a Labour Government, the chattering classes, the archbishops, the moderators, the head of this and that Church, university professors, bureaucrats and everyone else who has a vested interest in extending the number of bodies that govern the poor people of the Rhondda among other places.
        Times have moved since 1979. I certainly recognise that. We had 18 years of Conservative rule. Without any doubt—this is accepted within the Welsh community—the Tories had no mandate whatever. When the injustices heaped on the people of England were also heaped on the people of Wales, it was an easy way out to blame the problems of Wales on the lack of a body to look after the interests of the Welsh people. We are now hearing the same silly arguments that we heard previously.
        A university professor wrote a letter to the Western Mail, in which he said that if the people of Wales had had the courage to vote yes in 1979, we would not have had the poll tax, we would not have had poor health and we would have had jobs and—the most stupid claptrap of all—we would not have had the miners' strike. I was sorely moved, but I resisted, to write and remind him that the miners' strike started in Nottingham. I doubt whether a Welsh Assembly, even one with powers much greater than what is proposed, could have stopped that. It could not have prevented the high unemployment or the harsh economic realities of the outside world that visited my constituency among others in the valley communities in Wales.
        486
        I am not one of those who believe that a Welsh Assembly will resolve the problems of south Wales or my community just like that. The Labour Government have to work a lot harder than that to rectify the problems that we have inherited both from the bad Government of the past 18 years and from the harsh economic realities of the world outside.
        I am pleased that a referendum is taking place because it provides an opportunity for the arguments to be put. I am sorry that my Front-Bench colleagues from Wales are not here. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said—I took the phrase down—that he wanted a constructive, well-informed public debate. So do I. I want democracy to be brought to all our institutions. If people say that we must have a Welsh Assembly in order to have democracy in Wales, are they saying that we do not have it now? I would then ask what is the Secretary of State. Is he an unelected dictator? What are Welsh Members of Parliament? Are they unelected? What are the Welsh Grand Committee and the Welsh Select Committee about? Where is the thread of accountability and democracy? On those grounds, I do not think that a proper argument has been put forward. I am not yet convinced.
        I am convinced about another matter, however, which is why I go along with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is present. There is too much centralisation of government in this country and there is a profound argument for devolving power from here to institutions closer to the people. Whether we have to set up new institutions to do that is another matter. I believe there might very well be existing institutions to which those powers could be given.
        We have heard the argument that the quangocracy was set up because the Conservatives could not win seats at local government elections. They therefore bypassed local government and transferred their functions to others, for example, Tai Cymru, Housing for Wales. If we opt for devolution, the first thing that must be done, as some other colleagues have already said, is to take those powers from the quangos and return them to where they belong—in many cases, with local government. When that is done, we must then consider the role of other institutions.
        We have heard so much about the principle of subsidiarity. This country is being torn apart constitutionally by people who want to set up new structures, so-called devolved structures. We are being torn apart because powers and functions are being given to Europe and Brussels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Somewhere in between, someone must stop and start to think about the form of government that we should have. Conservative Members think that I am on their side, but I am not. I am on the side of the Labour party because at least it is tackling the problem positively.
        Once we start breaking up the quangos and returning their functions to local government, we can start looking at the structures that we want. That is why I appeal to my colleagues on the Front Bench to consider the future of the quangos at the earliest possible moment.
        In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, some time ago he asked me, knowing my great reservations on the matter, "Why don't you do something?" I have, and I hope to present my findings to him tomorrow. The main thrust of my case will be that

        487
        we should consider such matters prior to the development of any relevant legislation because some of the fears that have been expressed are justified.
        To be honest, I do not think that the referendum will go through. The last time the vote was lost by 4:1, and my bet, if I were a betting man, would be that next time the vote might go the same way. As for the Labour party mandate for devolution, with all due respect, I was returned to Parliament by 35,000 voters in the Rhondda, but I do not think that any of them voted for me because they wanted a Welsh Assembly. I certainly did not mention that in my manifesto leaflet. Everyone I canvassed there said, "Get rid of that dirty, corrupt, sleazy Government." That is what it was all about. It was not about giving a mandate to anyone, but about getting rid of the Tories. I am glad that that sentiment is recognised.
        I will support the Government on this issue because, even with all my reservations, they are positively tackling the problem. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already said, a referendum based on a constructive, well-informed public debate is what is needed for Wales. We might eventually be able to get the right solution, but I will not support the creation of another level of government which will take functions away from existing local authorities. That is another issue which must be settled.
        I will not support a Welsh Assembly that has the power to decide its own remit, because, by the nature of any elected organisation, it would want to acquire power for itself. I do not believe that the principle of subsidiarity and proper devolution would be served by that.
        I will vote with the Government tonight, but I hope that, when the Bill is finally published, my fears, which I will continue to express, will be taken on board and treated constructively.
        9.24 pm
        Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I was greatly interested in the observations of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). In particular, I sympathised with what he said about the relationship between central and local government. As a Conservative Back Bencher, I freely admit that since the war this country has failed to get the balance right—especially the financial balance—between central and local government. If we had made a better job of that, much of the demand for alternative forms of devolution would dissolve.
        I shall be genuinely brief, in deference to other hon. Members who want to speak. I shall confine myself to one point, which follows on from what the hon. Member for Rhondda was saying. Over the past day and a half of debate, it has become clear that there are many confused and contradictory expectations of what the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will be like. The reason why the Opposition have taken such a close interest in the wording on the ballot papers is that Parliament must be clear about what questions are being asked. They must be unambiguous and they must be able to deliver a clear result and effect.
        We have found it alarming that, for example, the Scottish National party clearly believes that the entire process is aimed at breaking up the United Kingdom, whereas the Government believe that it is a way of cementing and reinforcing the United Kingdom. The SNP
        488
        believes that, at the end of the process, the Scottish Parliament will be a sovereign Parliament—or will rapidly become such.
        The Liberal Democrats believe, in general terms, in home rule and a degree of sovereignty for the Scottish Parliament. The Government, I think—although it is not clear—intend that the Scottish Parliament will be subservient to the Westminster Parliament. I should be grateful if the Minister could make it clear beyond dispute that this Parliament, in which we sit, will be legally superior to the Scottish Parliament. We must be completely clear about the constitutional arrangements.
        All the other parties are coming together to urge a yes vote, but all the parties cannot be satisfied by the outcome. The contradictory expectations will become clear only when it may be all too late. The Government say that everything will be revealed in a White Paper, but this House has no control over that White Paper. The other Opposition parties would be most unwise to rely on any White Paper to sort out matters that should be made clear in legislation before a referendum.
        Whatever the imagination put into the White Paper, we will be left with an in-built contradiction between the aspirations of a Scottish Parliament to control matters such as health, education and the environment, on the one hand, and expenditure powers on the other. This Parliament will continue to write the cheques; the Scottish Parliament, even with a tax-varying power, will remain almost entirely dependent on the financial decisions being made in London. Therefore, the imbalance that we see in local government—the subject with which I began my speech—will be magnified in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliament.
        The best way of solving the problem of confusion and contradictory expectations would be to have a referendum after the main Bill had been passed; then, the question would be clear, simple, unambiguous and enforceable. I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to show a little less arrogance and to use the Bill to reverse the order, so that at least the people of Scotland and Wales will be asked to vote on something that is clear.
        9.29 pm
        Mr. Dalyell: It was 38 and 39 years ago that I was the Labour candidate in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, as the constituency of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale then was, and I endorse what the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said about the welcome that the people there give to incomers. He represents some very nice, hospitable people, even though they may not be of his political persuasion or mine. They are welcoming people and he is very lucky to represent that seat.
        The hon. Member is sitting in the seat that, for so long, was occupied with charm and distinction by Lord Steel, as he now is, whom we knew as David Steel. When David Steel had announced his retirement and we asked about his successor, he described the hon. Gentleman, saying, "He's very nice and he's a better prop forward than I am." We wish him well.
        When I say that I have sat here for every single speech in the past two days, it is not to claim virtue but to make a judgment. I say as gently as possible to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that, in all this, they have to take into account a point that has been so often missing in our

        489
        discussions and that is that there is an English dimension. There are consequences of the English dimension to whatever action is taken.
        I hope that I will be forgiven, but, in the light of the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, it is worth making a correction—or at least saying what actually happened in 1978–79, because it is relevant.
        The then Bill was produced by two very able Ministers: the late John Smith QC and Bruce Milian, later to be a European Commissioner. They were very clever men and so was Joel Barnett at the Treasury. They were helped by some extremely clever and able civil servants: Sir Michael Quinlan, Sir John Garlick and Sir Brian Cubbon, who were some of the most imaginative civil servants.
        The fact is that there honestly was not any time wasting in the House of Commons. The Conservative Members who participated in the debate were Leon Brittan—whatever one thinks about him, he is an extremely clever lawyer—and Enoch Powell, who speaks for himself. Incidentally, it was Enoch Powell who christened the West Lothian question—it was not named by me. The truth is that I had gone on reciting, although not at unwarranted length, the dilemma of Scottish Members of Parliament being able to vote on English matters, but English Members being unable to vote on matters that pertained to Scottish constituencies. It was Enoch who said, with that marvellous overtone of irony, "In order to save time, we are finally seized of the problem. I have grasped the issue." For Enoch Powell to have any difficulty in grasping an issue really stretches the imagination, but that is how it began. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who knows Enoch Powell well, will know exactly what I am getting at.
        However, the devil is in the detail and, as the various issues came up, it was like stones being turned: all sorts of creepy-crawly things, in the form of real difficulties, emerged from under the stones.
        At the end, very many people reached the conclusion that there were two solutions: the status quo, or something indistinguishable from that favoured in general terms by the Scottish National party.
        It was not a waste of time; it was the House of Commons educating itself. My fear is that in the learning curve we may be back, not at 1979, but at 1977.
        Others wish to speak, so I leave this Third Reading by saying to the Ministers that they must soon come to grips with the problems that surround the Barnett formula. There must be a statement on that because, as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, someone is writing the cheques, and the question is, will they continue for ever writing the cheques in conditions that have fundamentally changed?
        Secondly, to save time, I say that Ministers must consider the problem that is encapsulated in the Bury, North question.
        Finally, a statement must soon be made about the responsibilities and accountability of the civil service. That is a very real problem because, if we are to have a Scottish Parliament, there is a strong suggestion that there must be a separate civil service. If there is not to be a separate civil service, we must be told what that solution is, and soon.
        490
        I make a last plea to Ministers. It is not good enough in terms of Parliament for Ministers to present a White Paper, let alone the Bill—which I thought that we were promised—on 25 July, or 27 or 28 July, in the last two days before the recess. In honour bound, the Government really must produce that White Paper by, say, 10 July at the latest, because there must be some parliamentary scrutiny from everyone's point of view. It really would be disreputable suddenly to produce it at the fag end of the Session, when people's to minds were wholly on going away. There must be a serious opportunity for Parliament to discuss what is to be the subject of the referendum.
        9.37 pm
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I feel somewhat awed to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who made yet another distinguished contribution to the debate. His speech is evidence of the fact that, as a result of the guillotine, we have had a mere smattering of the arguments that we should have had. I add, with the utmost respect to the hon. Gentleman, that he has criticised some of the amendments that have been tabled, and from him I take that criticism very much to heart; I say no more than that.
        I ask Ministers to consider a single question about the Scottish Parliament. From where will the authority of that Scottish Parliament derive? The question in the referendum is very general. The referendum question, and no doubt the White Paper—indeed, the Government's entire position—is about avoiding that issue. Legally, there is no doubt that the power is devolved from the United Kingdom Parliament, which is sovereign, but the Parliament that is being offered in the referendum has been founded on a claim of right of self-government of the Scottish people.
        This is not just a theoretical debate. The strains and stresses of real politics will excite the real expectations of the various parties involved in the struggle for power that will result from the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.
        Power does not have the quality of an object that can be picked up and transferred. Power is a fluid commodity which flows in an unpredictable way. When the United Kingdom Parliament is in negotiation with the Scottish Parliament about the issues that affect the livelihoods, health, education and well-being of the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom, how will those issues be settled without the Scottish Parliament reverting to its legitimacy directly from the Scottish people, as opposed to the powers technically delegated to it by the United Kingdom Parliament?
        The Bill is designed to obscure an unstable proposition. What is wrong with extending the arrangements of the Scottish Grand Committee, which could decide everything and anything that the British Parliament wanted it to decide, within the framework of a sovereign United Kingdom Parliament? With a Labour Government and a Labour majority on the Scottish Grand Committee, there is nothing that it could not do—and without passing any legislation—except raise the tartan tax. It deals with the famous West Lothian question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) says.
        We Conservative Members of Parliament have been criticised throughout the debate, as though we have no legitimacy to speak on these issues. We speak for the sake

        491
        of the arguments that we advance. We do not pretend to speak for the Scottish people or the Welsh people. Ultimately, the Scottish people and the Welsh people are sovereign. They have it in their power to decide their own future. If they were to vote for independence or for a majority of nationalist Members of Parliament, there would be little to argue about in terms of their future, but that is not the choice being offered in the referendum.
        This is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it referendum. It panders to the expectations and prejudices that have been aroused by whatever political tensions have existed in the United Kingdom for the past 20 or 30 years. There is no honesty in it.
        There is nothing intrinsically democratic in announcing that there is to be a referendum. Clement Attlee described referendums as potentially a device of demagogues and dictators. Old Labour may have had some respect for the niceties of the political arguments that new Labour prefers to ignore.
        Clearly, there are circumstances in which referendums are appropriate, but we have only to observe how, in our lifetime, people such as Pinochet and Ceausescu have used referendums to assert their own views. All too often we become aware that a referendum has been called by the people who think that it will help to assert their side of the argument.
        The proposed referendum is clearly an abuse of the procedure for referendums. It asks the Scottish and Welsh peoples to vote blind, without knowing the full consequences of their decision. Our opposition to the Bill involves no disrespect to the Scottish people or the Welsh people. We will have to respect the result of the referendum, although that will take some degree of interpretation, in view of the way in which the Government have attempted to fix the result in advance.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I call Mr. Howard.
        Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the Chair has responsibilities to the minority parties in the House? The Chair recognises the political situation in Scotland and Wales. Is it not extraordinary that, even in a guillotined Third Reading, no speaker from the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru has been called in the debate? Might that just make the case for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments that we are discussing?
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties voted for the guillotine, so they have got their come-uppance?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall deal with the first point of order. The selection of speakers is entirely a matter for the Chair. It is not to be criticised in that way.
        Mr. Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I correct in believing that the Chair takes into account the position of the minority parties in this House? Furthermore, does not the Chair take cognisance of the political situation in Scotland and
        492
        Wales? The Scots and the Welsh returned no Member from the Conservative party—the Chair must be aware of these things.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognises all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and always adopts a balanced view of these matters.
        9.44 pm
        Mr. Howard: The debate that we have just had has been marked by a number of distinguished speeches, however brief the time available for it has been. We heard another speech from the uniquely authoritative standpoint of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and a distinguished maiden speech by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who rightly paid a glowing tribute to his predecessor, who is missed by all in the House. The hon. Gentleman gave us an extremely interesting insight into the economy of the Borders constituency that he represents. We look forward to hearing many more such distinguished contributions from him.

        The House is now nearing the end of its consideration of the first Bill of this Parliament. It has been a melancholy experience, a chastening example of the tyranny of the large majority, laced with contempt for this House. The time allowed for discussion has been ludicrously inadequate. Debate after debate has been curtailed before the real issues at stake have even begun to be expounded.
        In a newspaper article this morning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) wrote:
        "In all my 47 years in the House of Commons I have never encountered a Government so determined to ride roughshod over its political opponents, its internal critics and the traditions of Parliament. On its very first parliamentary Bill it resorts immediately to the parliamentary bludgeon in a way which flouts every tried and tested convention, every tradition, every principle of parliamentary life. This is not the act of an efficient administration; it is the act of an elective dictatorship."
        It is clear that the central question at the heart of the legislation remains unanswered. The fundamental criticism that we have made remains as valid now as when we offered it at the outset. There is no justification for holding these referendums before the relevant legislation has been passed by the House. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow has pointed out, the only valid question to be posed in a referendum would be: "Do you approve of the Scotland Act and Wales Act of 1998?"
        We make it absolutely clear that we are not against a referendum on this issue. We would not be opposed to a referendum on the question posed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We have no objection in principle to a referendum. But we do object to a referendum that is intended as a pre-emptive strike against proper parliamentary debate. That is the effect of holding a referendum before the legislation has been passed.
        Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) put a simple question to the Welsh Office Minister. He asked for a concise answer. His question concerned whether the people of Wales should be allowed to express an opinion on whether the Welsh Assembly should have tax-raising powers. All he got from the Minister was prevarication.

        493
        Later on, I put another simple question to the same Minister. I asked him whether he would now do what the Prime Minister so conspicuously failed to do earlier this afternoon—apologise for the misleading information that he gave the House in answer to a question put to him on 14 May by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The Prime Minister said then:
        "Of course the Bill will be published in time for the referendum, because the referendum will take place on those proposals".— [Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 64]
        We now know that that was quite wrong, yet the Prime Minister was today incapable of saying, "I'm sorry: I got it wrong."
        We fear that the Bill is the first legislative step towards the break-up of the United Kingdom, and we fear that the last two days' proceedings in the House will be looked back on as melancholy staging posts on the way to that destination.
        Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I have very little time.
        If that indeed proves to be the case, the blame that will be attached to the Government on the basis of their responsibility for this measure will be compounded by the shame that will be attributed to them in view of the way in which they have railroaded it through the House.
        Later in the current Parliament, we shall see these days as having established a pattern of arrogance and contempt of Parliament, as a hallmark of the new Government. They are days that the Government will come to regret; they are days that the nation will come to regret. That is why we shall vote against the Bill when the debate concludes in 10 minutes' time.
        Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you draw Madam Speaker's attention to the fact that we shall have had precisely one and a half hours' debate on Third Reading of a major Bill, and that more than half that time has been taken up by Front Benchers? Will you ask Madam Speaker to discuss, in the appropriate quarters, what can be done to try to redress the balance?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker is always well aware of everything that goes on in the House, and I am sure that she will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
        9.51 pm
        Mr. McLeish: The debate can, I think, be summed up in three ways, especially in respect of the Conservative Opposition. First, their performance over the past three days has confirmed the wisdom of the electorate in doing the decent thing for the country on 1 May. Secondly, we have seen a remarkable example of the posturing that is going on in connection with the leadership of the Conservative party. Opposition Members have picked up briefs and arrived on the Front Bench, then disappeared just as quickly. Thirdly, we have seen no humility in regard to what happened on 1 May.
        494
        Let me ask the Conservative party in opposition to consider the plight of Scotland and Wales in relation to that party. The Scots and the Welsh simply rejected the notion of being represented by any Conservative Members of Parliament. If we needed just one example on which a bit of humility could be hung, that would clearly be it.
        Mr. Robert Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. McLeish: No. I have not much time, and I want to reply to the points that have been made.
        In the final speech from the Opposition Front Bench, many points were made relating to the detailed White Paper and to the debate and discussions that will ensue before the referendum. On Third Reading, many hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—have made points that are germane to discussion of that detailed White Paper, and to the subsequent process leading up to the referendum. Let me tell them that we shall not make progress unless we produce a detailed White Paper that addresses the issues that have been raised. In the context of tonight's debate, the Bill is a straightforward piece of legislation. It is important in that it paves the way for referendums in Scotland and Wales, but it does not change the constitution. It follows well-established precedent, and applies common sense. That is not a quality that we have observed in abundance on the Opposition Benches today or yesterday.
        The Bill provides for people in Scotland and Wales to be asked whether they support our proposals for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. It enables provision to be made by Orders in Council for the conduct of the referendums, and provides for the conduct of the votes. It also includes a prudent measure enabling expenditure to be incurred in preparation for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly.
        As I have said, the Bill is simple and to the point, but at the same time it is important, particularly for the people in Scotland and Wales. When the Bill is enacted, it will set us well on our way down the path, taking, as I said in my concluding remarks on Second Reading, the next step in the unfinished business of establishing a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly.
        The Bill will give the people of Scotland and Wales the opportunity to put beyond all doubt their views on our proposals for devolution in those countries. Its passage through the House is an important milestone on the way to modernising government in the United Kingdom.
        I have no doubt that the Government will receive resounding support. That will lend our proposals moral authority. It will provide a helpful backdrop against which Parliament will be able to scrutinise the main devolution legislation. That has been a recurrent theme in the two days of debate. The Opposition should have some patience and then we shall have a full and long-term debate on the details of the White Paper.
        The Bill has been debated on Second Reading and in Committee. For such a short Bill, of six clauses, it attracted a remarkably large number of amendments—more than 250 in total. Had they all been accepted, we

        495
        would have had before us a Bill which, among other things, would have provided for a referendum to be held in Scotland only on a Sunday, on St. Andrew's day, in daylight hours, during a two-day period and—something of a Catch-22—on any day other than a Sunday.
        The point about the frivolous nature of some of the amendments has already been well made by other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
        However, it is fair to say that many other amendments rightly sought to promote debate on important issues, including in particular the provisions dealing with the franchise and the propositions on which the people in Scotland and Wales are to be consulted. We made every effort to ensure that, despite the attempts to disrupt and delay consideration of the Bill, those issues were given a fair wind, and we have had a constructive debate on the issues that we have discussed.
        The House has had ample opportunity to consider the Bill. There is no reason why we should delay giving the people in Scotland and Wales the opportunity to vote on the Government's devolution proposals. The Bill will give them that opportunity. However, I repeat our categorical assurance that the devolution proposals will be set out in White Papers well in advance of the referendums and before the House rises for the summer recess.
        Mr. Grieve: One of the justifications for the referendum has been that the people of Scotland and Wales would not have voted in a general election solely on the referendum issue. Will the knock-on effects of the legislation on the people of England be put to them by referendum?
        Mr. McLeish: The answer quite simply is no. [HON MEMBERS: "Why?"] First, the measure primarily affects Scotland and Wales. However, as we have repeated throughout our various debates, hon. Members from every part of the United Kingdom will be able to debate the issues in the House and reflect any concerns that their constituents might have on the matter. We shall provide the detailed White Paper.
        The Opposition simply cannot listen. They seek to lecture people in Scotland and Wales, who have decided to have nothing whatever to do with Conservative representation in those countries for the next five years. Surely that should elicit some humility from Conservative Members. It is sad that the first time they oppose a Bill, they fail the first test. If they want to be taken seriously in England, Scotland or Wales, they will have to address the serious issues before the House instead of, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, indulging in game playing. The future of Scotland and Wales, the future of the United Kingdom and the future of the Union are very important. No service has been done by the behaviour of the Conservative Opposition in relation to such important items.
        The Bill, which is the first to get to this stage in the parliamentary process under the new Government, will be good for the people of Scotland and Wales, and good for the people in the rest of the United Kingdom. I commend it to the House.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 148.

        Division No. 14]

        [9.59 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Cranston, Ross

        Ainger, Nick

        Crausby, David

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

        Cummings, John

        Ashton, Joe

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Atkins, Ms Charlotte

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John(Copeland)

        Austin, John

        Barnes, Harry

        Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

        Barron, Kevin

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Battle, John

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Bayley, Hugh

        Darvill, Keith

        Beard, Nigel

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Davidson, Ian

        Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

        Benton, Joe

        Dawson, Hilton

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Dean, Ms Janet

        Berry, Roger

        Denham, John

        Best, Harold

        Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

        Blackman, Mrs Liz

        Dobbin, Jim

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Blizzard, Robert

        Doran, Frank

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Drew, David

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Edwards, Huw

        Ellman, Ms Louise

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Ennis, Jeff

        Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Burden, Richard

        Fisher, Mark

        Burgon, Colin

        Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

        Butler, Christine

        Flint, Ms Caroline

        Byers, Stephen

        Flynn, Paul

        Cabom, Richard

        Follett, Ms Barbara

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Galbraith, Sam

        Canavan, Dennis

        Galloway, George

        Caplin, Ivor

        Gapes, Mike

        Caton, Martin

        Gardiner, Barry

        Cawsey, Ian

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Chaytor, David

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Church, Ms Judith

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Clapham, Michael

        Godsiff, Roger

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Goggins, Paul

        Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Graham, Thomas

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Grant, Bernie

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Clelland, David

        Grogan, John

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Gunnell, John

        Coaker, Vernon

        Hain, Peter

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Connarty, Michael

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Cooper, Ms Yvette

        Hanson, David

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Healey, John

        Cousins, Jim

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        497

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Heppell, John

        Mallaber, Ms Judy

        Hesford, Stephen

        Marek, Dr John

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Home Robertson, John

        Martlew, Eric

        Hood, Jimmy

        Maxton, John

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Meale, Alan

        Hope, Philip

        Merron, Ms Gillian

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Michael, Alun

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Milbum, Alan

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Miller, Andrew

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Mitchell, Austin

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Hurst, Alan

        Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

        Hutton, John

        Morley, Elliot

        Iddon, Brian

        Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Illsley, Eric

        Mountford, Ms Kali

        Ingram, Adam

        Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

        Mudie, George

        Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

        Mullin, Chris

        Jamieson, David

        Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

        Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Norris, Dan

        Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Olner, Bill

        O'Neill, Martin

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Osborne, Mrs Sandra

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Pendry, Tom

        Kemp, Fraser

        Pickthall, Colin

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Pike, Peter L

        Khabra, Piara S

        Plaskitt, James

        Kidney, David

        Pollard, Kerry

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Pond, Chris

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Pope, Greg

        King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Kingham, Tessa

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Laxton, Bob

        Purchase, Ken

        Lepper, David

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Leslie, Christopher

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Levitt, Tom

        Radice, Giles

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Rammell, Bill

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Rapson, Syd

        Liddell, Mrs Helen

        Raynsford, Nick

        Livingstone, Ken

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Lock, David

        Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

        McAllion, John

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Rogers, Allan

        McCabe, Stephen

        Rooker, Jeff

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Rooney, Terry

        McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Macdonald, Calum

        Rowlands, Ted

        McDonnell, John

        Roy, Frank

        McFall, John

        Ruane, Chris

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Mclsaac, Ms Shona

        Salter, Martin

        McKenna, Ms Rosemary

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Sawford, Phil

        McLeish, Henry

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McMaster, Gordon

        Sheerman, Barry

        MacShane, Denis

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        McWalter, Tony

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        McWilliam, John

        Singh, Marsha

        498

        Skinner, Dennis

        Touhig, Don

        Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

        Truswell, Paul

        Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

        Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Vaz, Keith

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Snape, Peter

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Soley, Clive

        Wareing, Robert N

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Watts, David

        Spellar, John

        White, Brian

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Whitehead, Alan

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Stevenson, George

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Stott, Roger

        Wills, Michael

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Winnick, David

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Stringer, Graham

        Wise, Audrey

        Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

        Wood, Mike

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Woolas, Phil

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Worthington, Tony

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Tipping, Paddy

        Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Clive Betts.

        Todd, Mark

        NOES

        Amess, David

        Forth, Eric

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Arbuthnot, James

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Fraser, Christopher

        Baldry, Tony

        Gale, Roger

        Bercow, John

        Garnier, Edward

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Gibb, Nick

        Blunt, Crispin

        Gill, Christopher

        Boswell, Tim

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Brady, Graham

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Brazier, Julian

        Gray, James

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Green, Damian

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Greenway, John

        Bums, Simon

        Grieve, Dominic

        Butterfill, John

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Cash, William

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Chope, Christopher

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Clappison, James

        Hammond, Philip

        Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        Hayes, John

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Heald, Oliver

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Collins, Tim

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Colvin, Michael

        Horam, John

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Cran, James

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Hunter, Andrew

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

        Day, Stephen

        Key, Robert

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Duncan, Alan

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Evans, Nigel

        Lansley, Andrew

        Faber, David

        Leigh, Edward

        Fabricant, Michael

        Letwin, Oliver

        Fallon, Michael

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Flight, Howard

        Lidington, David

        499

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Soames, Nicholas

        Loughton, Tim

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Luff, Peter

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Spring, Richard

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Mcintosh, Miss Anne

        Steen, Anthony

        MacKay, Andrew

        Streeter, Gary

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Swayne, Desmond

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Syms, Robert

        Malins, Humfrey

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Maples, John

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Mates, Michael

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Tredinnick, David

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Trend, Michael

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Merchant, Piers

        Viggers, Peter

        Moss, Malcolm

        Walter, Robert

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Wardle, Charles

        Norman, Archie

        Waterson, Nigel

        Ottaway, Richard

        Wells, Bowen

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Page, Richard

        Whittinqdale, John

        Paice, James

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Paterson, Owen

        Wilkinson, John

        Pickles, Eric

        Willetts, David

        Prior, David

        Wilshire, David

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Robathan, Andrew

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Woodward, Shaun

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Yeo, Tim

        Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Ruffley, David

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Modernisation of the House of Commons may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Jane Kennedy.]
      Question agreed to.

      Modernisation of the House of Commons
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a Select Committee of fifteen Members be appointed to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised, and to make recommendations thereon;
      That the Committee shall seek to make a first report to the House before the summer adjournment with its initial conclusions on ways in which the procedure for examining legislative proposals could be improved;
      That five be the Quorum of the Committee;
      That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers;
      That Mr. Joe Ashton, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Huw Edwards, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. Alastair Goodlad, Mr. Mike Hall, Helen Jackson, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Clive Soley, Rachel Squire, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Nicholas Winterton be members of the Committee;
      That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
      10.16 pm
      Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Madam Speaker—[Laughter.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you played in the back row of the Cambridge university scrum, you looked rather different. I did not recognise you with your rugger jersey off.
      When the House discussed the subject of the motion, I made it clear that the Opposition welcomed the Government's decision to give priority to discussions on parliamentary procedure. The Leader of the House will remember from our debate two weeks ago that we undertook to offer constructive comment on the Government's proposals in that area.
      I begin with the Government's suggestion that the first responsibility of the new Committee should be to produce a report on improving procedures for examining legislative proposals. Clearly that is a helpful subject for the Committee to address, and I hope that we can agree that all Members should seek to improve the quality of legislation—[Interruption.]—even those who seek to conduct their discussions in the House from a sedentary position.
      The wording of the motion, however, is somewhat imprecise, implying that the new Committee will need to report on every aspect of the content, drafting and debating of legislation. If that is indeed what the right hon. Lady has in mind, I fear that the Committee might be in danger of becoming bogged down in consideration of aspects of the legislative process in which the House would think that there was no need for change.
      In dischargingits responsibilities, it is important that the new Committee should have the benefit of proper evidence and specialist advice, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be in his place. The new Committee should have the powers listed in the motion.
      I am glad that we are making speedy progress in establishing this Committee, not least because the House will be aware that the context for our discussions on the new Committee has changed rather since our amicable debate two weeks ago. It has become clear that to the Government, modernisation may mean changes to the

      501
      House's procedures in the interests of government. I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover does not regard the interests of government as being his.
      Mr. David Winnick: Do not go so fast.
      Mr. Goodlad: Am I going too fast for the hon. Gentleman?
      It has become clear that to the Government, modernisation may mean changes to the House's procedures in the interests of government and the small, secretive and unelected group of political appointees at their heart, rather than the interests of this House and our constituents. [Interruption.] Our constituents are far from the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is growling from a sedentary position. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps he was not growling—perhaps his tummy was rumbling. I would almost prefer not to think about it, and I hope we shall not be hearing it again.
      I remind the Leader of the House of her words in our debate two weeks ago. She said:
      "We need to consider what alternatives there might be to the guillotine imposed by the Government with a majority and the voluntary understandings that have been tried in the past. Sometimes they have worked, sometimes not, but there is scope to see what other mechanisms could be available to achieve better planning of legislation."—[Official Report, 22 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 907.]
      I could not have put it better myself. Those words have additional resonance given her decision earlier this week to guillotine the debate before the commencement of the Committee stage of a major constitutional Bill, leaving grossly inadequate time for debate while the usual channels were excluded from the normal negotiations.
      The Leader of the House also will be aware that the House has been concerned at the lack of consultation on important changes to the format of Prime Minister's Question Time and at the habit of Ministers of making policy announcements outside this House. The number of political appointments made by the new Government—clearly a surprise to the Lobby fodder—also has direct implications for the work of this House, but has not been debated by this House. The Lobby fodder perhaps do not wish to participate in debates in this House. They will not be allowed to, and one wonders why they came here. Despite their reluctance to engage in debate, they will, no doubt, be accepting the remuneration due to them.
      I hope that the Leader of the House will not succumb to any temptation or further pressure from her ministerial colleagues to use the new Committee as a means for the Government to entrench the abuses of their large majority. She has got off to a start in her relationships with this House which varies in the perceptions of hon. Members and outside observers between indifferent, disastrous and catastrophic. Her behaviour and that of the Government over the deliberations before us will be carefully studied.
      10.24 pm
      Mr. John Maxton: I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee and I hope that it will consider not only minor adjustments to our procedures but the whole way in which we operate. Our Prime Minister has promised to have a radical Government. He can start
      502
      by being radical in the way in which he decides to change the House itself. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is determined that that is the route that she will take.
      We are overburdened with business here and do things in terms of legislation that we simply should not be doing; they should be done at another level of government altogether and in the most appropriate area in terms of where they impinge on the public. We have started that process with devolution.
      Everyone thinks about devolution for Scotland and Wales in terms of what it will do for those countries, but in fact it will benefit Parliament, because we will free up time that is currently taken up with legislating on Scottish and Welsh matters and we will be able to devote that time to giving proper scrutiny to other matters. That is a good start, but it is only a start: we must also look at how we devolve power elsewhere in our society so that we begin to ensure that we free this place to give proper scrutiny to government.
      The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made an interesting speech a fortnight ago, but he suggested that, when we modernise, changing the forms and the style will not much matter, and I disagree with that. If we are to have a modern, efficient Parliament that works democratically, we must get rid of many of the symbols of an 18th-century Parliament that are well out of date and make us look quaint and so old-fashioned that it is almost unbelievable.
      Many of the electorate think that much of what we do is absurd, and we must consider that. I am sorry to say it with the Serjeant at Arms sitting here, but we must get rid of the uniforms, the swords and the wigs, and change the way in which we appear to the public, our electorate.
      I have heard people say that our strange customs make us a good tourist attraction, but that is not what I was elected for, however attractive I might be; I was elected to represent my constituents and do the best possible job for them, scrutinising the Government of the day—of whichever party they are formed—and ensuring that we do so efficiently. We cannot do that in a Parliament with the current style, and that is the first thing that we must change.
      The very large majority at present has made the way in which we vote seem even more absurd than it did in the past, when numbers were fairly equal on either side. Going through the Lobby these days is a long-drawn-out and unnecessary process. We should devise a system of electronic voting to ensure that we can vote quickly and efficiently, with the votes and the outcome seen straight away, and we do not take half an hour of our time doing it.
      We should consider proxy voting. I hope that we never return to the days of ambulances parked outside in New Palace yard with people lying in them while someone nods them through to vote. Their votes should be recorded without their having to be present.
      Most of my new hon. Friends are accustomed to working in an environment with an office, secretaries and computers that are connected to the Internet. Here, some of them are still waiting to get an office. It is absurd.
      I live in Hamilton, which has a population of 60,000. It was cabled in six months by a company that dug up the roads and laid the cables. People who want cable can have it their homes. It will take 10 years to complete the

      503
      cabling of this building and its outbuildings and ensure that every Member who wishes it has access to the increasing number of electronic devices that should be available to a Member who wishes to do his job efficiently.
      We have a Government who want us to think the unthinkable. It is time that we thought the unthinkable about this place; it is time that we moved somewhere else. It is time that we built a modern, efficient, new Parliament outside London altogether so that we can operate, and represent our constituents, properly in a modern democratic manner.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for his reference to my previous speech, but he may have slightly misunderstood. I did not say that there was not a good case for removing some of the antiquity of this place that gets in the way of making it a businesslike assembly. However, that should not be our main, or only, objective. Many things that need to be done to this place are nothing to do with wigs and swords. He instanced the way in which we vote, which is antique to an extreme. There is no reason why we could not still go through Division Lobbies, but with swipe cards to make the operation much speedier. As a Government Back Bencher, he will agree that having the opportunity to pin a Minister against the wall regularly, in a place where there are no civil servants to protect him, is very useful.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the obsession with wigs and swords might become a distraction? Doing away with such things might become a compensation for the lack of real radicalism. It might be better to stay with the wigs and swords, and make some radical changes to the way in which we work.
      Mr. Tyler: I have some sympathy with that view. If the new Committee is merely going to modernise the dress of the servants of the House, it will be a terrible wasted opportunity. I am sure that that will not be the case. The Leader of the House and other members of the Government have shown that they have much more serious matters in hand.
      It is equally important that we move by evolution and consultation, with special attention to Parliament's role as the scrutineer of the Executive. I think that Labour Members will agree that if all that we are asked to do is to speed Government business, we will fail in the real duty of Parliament, which is to ensure that the Government's business is handled better than it would have been if Parliament had not been sitting. It is a question not only of the speed of the operation but of the quality of the product.
      I shall not again cover all the issues that were raised in the debate a fortnight ago, but we have not yet addressed sufficiently the anxieties of Back Benchers of all parties, especially on initiation of debates in respect of motions and private Members' Bills. Under all Governments in recent years, the Executive have had far too much influence over timing and over the extent to which such business has been taken seriously.
      504
      My principal concern is to make sure that the very proper priority that has been given to the Committee of dealing with legislation does not lead to neglect of the fact that Parliament has other important concerns.
      With the help of the Library—it took about five minutes; it is amazing what it can produce—I compared the figures for the general election of 1951 with those for 1 May this year. In 1951, 96.8 per cent. of those who voted, voted for the duopoly. They voted either Conservative or Labour. A vast majority—79.2 per cent.—of the total electorate, voted for one or other of those parties. There was a legitimate two-party system in operation in the country, and it was represented here by the opposing banks of Members who sat on either side of the House.
      On 1 May 1997, 73.9 per cent. of the electorate voted for the two-party system duopoly.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: Of those who voted.
      Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend is right; it was 73.9 per cent. of those who voted. Only 52.8 per cent. of those who were entitled to vote voted for a two-party system. In that sense, this place is now an anachronism. It institutes a duopoly of Government and Opposition, which is not the reality out in the real world.
      Many hon. Members from all parties have come to this place with considerable and long experience in local government. No local government would operate on the basis of automatic confrontation.
      We have seen in the past 48 hours what absurdity automatic opposition leads us into. We spent almost four and a half hours debating a motion on whether we could find more time to debate the substance of the issue. The statement and vote on the timetable motion took up so much time that four and a half hours was taken out of the real business of scrutinising the Government's legislation. All hon. Members should be concerned about that.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman will know that in most local authorities there is provision for voting by show of hands and that only important votes are recorded. Is he aware that Standing Order No. 40 makes provision for us to vote by standing in our places? Does he agree with the early-day motion that will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow, which urges the greater use of that provision, especially when there is a series of votes in one evening, and that we should record the important votes, which would be the first ones?
      Mr. Tyler: There are two major problems with that. First, if all Labour Members were to attempt to stand in their places, it would be self-evidently impossible to find such places. So the hon. Gentleman can recognise that there are difficulties. Secondly, our constituents are entitled to know how we have voted. It is patently obvious that we could not record our vote in person if we voted by standing in our places. Nevertheless, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there may be ways in which, in certain circumstances, we could speed up the voting procedure and enable more issues to be put to the vote.
      Mr. Flynn rose—
      Mr. Tyler: I will not give way again because other hon. Members want to speak.

      505
      There are other ways in which the voting procedure could be considerably accelerated. The Procedure Committee considered them. It is absurd that when we have a sequence of votes we have to wait each time for Tellers to be appointed, Clerks to get to their places and so on. There must be ways of speeding that up.
      It is clear that we shall have to reform radically the way in which the House operates. It is not necessary to move our whole Assembly to Glasgow, but if we do not modernise the way in which it operates, if we do not make it a true reflection of what is happening in the country, the centre of gravity in the body politic will move, in terms of devolution, to other parts of the United Kingdom and perhaps to the European Parliament. We will become increasingly irrelevant if we do not make our procedures more relevant to the real life of the wider public.
      One issue is of real concern. This House, in contrast to the other place, does not recognise the fact that we no longer have a two-party system. The other place automatically recognises that there are three major parties, in terms of speeches, time, the selection of reasoned amendments and so on. The other place recognises that the third party is the third of three major parties, not simply a larger minority party. We have only one or perhaps two references in our Standing Orders to that. We shall have to look again at the Standing Orders. It is urgent.
      Hon. Members old and new, especially those who have had extensive experience of local government, are surprised at the way in which we operate this place—the confrontational jousting match, which we saw again, I am sorry to say, in Prime Minister's questions this afternoon. I accept that improvements have been made, but we are still seeing absurd confrontation, often where confrontation does not exist. It is largely a bit of play-acting. It is the Punch and Judy show. That may be of great interest to the Dutch and American television audiences, although they may get rather bored with half an hour—it is long for any cabaret—but it does not do justice to the real function of Parliament.
      Those who have come here from local government will also recognise that the potential true value of Committees in this place is not met. I hope that we will also be able to consider that. In particular, I hope that the Select Committees will be given a greater role in the pre-legislative development of ideas. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have done detailed work on that. I know that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) is particularly anxious that that should happen.
      All too often we display to the public a confrontational duopoly, but they are looking for true pluralism in their politics. The Prime Minister has given a lead in this respect, but soon we will want to see actions rather than words to ensure that that commitment was not just one given for the benefit of the general election. It must be put into practice after that election success.
      10.39 pm
      Mr. Joe Ashton: I followed with great interest the remarks by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but, once again, he is making a push for his party. Confrontation and careerism bedevil the House.
      Let us be honest. Things get bogged down in Committee because that is the place to make a reputation by tabling 1,000 amendments. I have spent nearly 30 long weary years in the House at night, so I will not detain it for too long now. We have all been through this before. Individual ambition and careerism will demand that certain hon. Members will table 50 amendments. The Government Whips will say to their boys, "Stay quiet. Fill the crossword in, do your mail or whatever you like." After two or three weeks, everyone gets fed up and the word goes round the Whips, "They'll let us have the Bill a week on Tuesday morning if you don't say anything and just nod it through."
      The Opposition educate the Government. One can see the civil servants' ears prick up when an Opposition Member moves a probing amendment and asks whether something means X or Y. That Member reveals a dual meaning behind a phrase in a Bill and argues that it would not stand up in court. The civil servants then tell Ministers that the Opposition are right, and they then table about 125 Government amendments on Report to correct mistakes that should have been sorted out when the Bill was read the First time.
      Surely we could get together and sort out such problems well before a Bill begins its proceedings. That is just not done because of the careerist ambitions of younger Members in particular. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the ladder or the limelight. One can become an instant media star on television by showing off, being sent off or acting the goat. Alternatively, Members can climb the ladder like Mrs. Thatcher—no one had ever heard of her until she got into the Cabinet—and hope to get a Cabinet job. That is the nature of politics.
      Surely with our majority we could avoid such confrontation for the next four years. The hon. Member for North Cornwall spoke about voting. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I were in the Whips Office when the Labour party started off with a majority of one in 1974 and finished up with a minority of 17. The Whips Office killed six people—I say that with deep sympathy. Some of them had to have their operations at 10 o'clock in the morning and come in here to vote at 10 o'clock at night. Others had to postpone their operations until the recess. Alex Wilson, Millie Miller and Frank Hatton all died because of that. Alex Lyon, the husband of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), died years afterwards as a result of the traumas that went on then.
      It was a wonderful macho time. We actually enjoyed not knowing what the vote would be until 10 o'clock at night. It was better than any cliff-hanger football match or whatever. It certainly did not represent government. For all we talked about getting rid of those procedures, we never did. Helene Hayman had a baby and came in, and I remember the headline in the Daily Mail, which ran, "Government hangs by a nappy pin". That was absolutely true. Perhaps people would like the House to stagger

      507
      along like that, but it is certainly not government. I wrote a play about it, but no one believed it because it was such black farce.
      We used to have a bog trotter. When the Division bell rang, we had a top and bottom bog trotter whose job it was to run around all the toilets to see if anyone was locked in. We had to look under the door for feet and, if seen, we looked over the top. If that person was one of theirs we left him, if it was one of ours, we got him out—if necessary with a screwdriver to unlock the door from the outside. That was the sort of nonsense that occurred when the House divided.
      I remember the famous case of Leslie Spriggs, the then Member for St. Helens. We had a tied vote and he was brought to the House in an ambulance having suffered a severe heart attack. The two Whips went out to look in the ambulance and there was Leslie Spriggs laid there as though he was dead. I believe that John Stradling Thomas said to Joe Harper, "How do we know that he is alive?" So he leaned forward, turned the knob on the heart machine, the green light went around, and he said, "There, you've lost—it's 311." That is an absolutely true story. It is the sort of nonsense that used to happen. No one believes it, but it is true.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) regularly used to have a row with the Speaker at about 3.30 pm. I used to hold his shoulders down, saying, "Don't get expelled, you're the majority." It was unbelievable, especially compared with the huge majority that we have in this Parliament. My hon. Friend made the best suggestion when he said that there should be three counters at the end of the Chamber so that we could get through the vote 50 per cent. faster. That could be done simply, without involving major changes.
      The Order Paper is a disgrace. If it were the programme for a football match or even an amateur dramatic production, it would say, "The leading players at 3.30 pm will be Mr. Blair, answering questions, with Mr. Howard replying for the Opposition. There will then be a ten-minute Bill", and so on. It would explain what was happening. People in the Public Gallery are bewildered by the Order Paper. They do not have a clue what is going on. There is not even a commentator on television like Freddie Truman or Brian Johnston at a cricket match, who could explain what is happening—for example, "This man has been called by the Speaker because he is chairman of the Anglo-Middle East group." He could give the background.
      When Parliament was first broadcast, for the first three days the BBC broadcast everything that came through the loudspeakers. It was libellous, it was unbelievably crude, but it was hilarious. The BBC panicked and said, "Somebody will sue us for libel. If it is in Hansard it is okay, but if it is not in Hansard we will be done for libel." So the BBC stopped broadcasting everything; now, it jams the broadcast so all people hear is, "Hear, hear, hear." It is terrified of being sued for libel.
      The Chamber sounds like animals in a zoo, but for the people in the arena who can hear, it is often witty and sometimes caustic and destructive of careers—but that is politics. It is a rough old trade. We have to find some way of getting that across so that the public can get a taste of what is happening without it denigrating Parliament.
      The system for Gallery tickets is a farce—hon. Members get two every 18 days. It is a farce to have to go into a ballot for Prime Minister's questions. We could
      508
      spend a year entering the ballot in the hope of coming within the first six questions, but in fact getting nowhere near the top. Constituents want to know why we do not ask the Prime Minister about such and such a hospital, a factory, a bypass, and so on. We cannot, and we get frustrated. Everybody is bobbing up and down. People want to know why we are jumping up and down, but they are not given any explanation about the Speaker trying to be impartial. Our constituency parties do not understand why we have not been able to ask our questions.
      It would be better to have a rota for Prime Minister's questions, like the rota for tickets for the Public Gallery. I could then say that, for example, on 27 June it is my turn for the Prime Minister and try and get my constituents tickets for the Gallery. At least the constituency would have the opportunity for one of its problems to be put to the Prime Minister, whereas under the present ballot system we could go on trying for ever.
      This place was set up 100 years ago for people who lived in London and never went to their constituencies—except when the stink from the River Thames became so bad in August that they went to their country houses and waited for the harvest. They never bothered about their constituencies. Most of them worked in the City or were lawyers who earned a guinea a word at the Old Bailey. They came in at 4.30 with a red bag on their backs which they hung up in the cloakroom. They came to have a drink and relax. Everything was fitted around their day.
      It cannot go on. Everybody in the world thinks that we are crazy. They ask, why can we not start at 9 o'clock like they do at the town hall, or at some reasonable time; and why can we not finish at a reasonable time? I feel tremendously sorry for the women who have come into this Parliament. Even we men know the problems of bringing up families. The divorce rate in the House is horrendous, because of the breakdowns in marriages. I can remember when, 20-odd years ago, my wife had a youngster at 20 minutes to 9 and I was here voting on a three-line Whip. I told the Chief Whip and he said, "Good lad—get through the Lobby and don't forget the three-liner tomorrow at half-past 3." It was two days before I got up north to see my youngster. It is crazy. People do not give us medals for doing that—they think that we are absolutely stupid. There is no reason why we could not work normal hours. With modern trains, people could get down here for half-past 10, go home after a vote to see their kids at 10 o'clock at night and then come down again the next day.
      Let us face it, the most important thing in politics now is the pressure from our constituents. The members of the parent-teacher association really believe that their Member of Parliament meeting them is more important than his speaking on an amendment to the Budget. Whether we like it or not, that is what they think. The public and the voters will call the tune and, if we do not respond to them, we shall see other elections in which the turnout goes down to 65 per cent., 60 per cent., or 58 per cent. as it was in the American elections when Bill Clinton was elected. At the end of the century, we have to grasp the nettle: change is going to come and we had better make a start on it.
      10.50 pm
      Mr. Mark Oaten: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the reform of

      509
      the House of Commons. It is important that as a new Member I have been given this chance to express some of the views shared by many new Members coming into the Chamber.
      Many of us are quite astounded by some of the things that we have discovered since coming here and we are now learning to get to grips with them. Although it may appear arrogant for a new Member, so early in his parliamentary career, to want to make suggestions about reform, it is important that new Members should have a say in some of the procedures to be considered by the Committee. It is important that new people, seeing all this afresh, can express their views. Of course, we must also respect those individuals who have been in this place for many years and who are aware of the traditions and know far more than I do about the need for reform in certain areas.
      One of those traditions is that in a maiden speech it is normal for the new Member to praise his or her predecessor. Some hon. Members on both sides might recognise that, as the new Member of Parliament for Winchester, that tradition presents me with a slight dilemma. To praise my predecessor might be perceived as insulting him, because it is clear that he has yet to admit that he is my predecessor. What should a new Member do in these circumstances? I can certainly say that the former Member of Parliament for Winchester is an individual who never gives up. In his time as a Health Minister, he brought a great deal of intellectual debate to the Conservative party; and he should be credited for having helped the Conservative Government to stabilise their health policy during the past couple of years.
      When elected, as I was, by a majority of only two, one starts to realise the importance of democracy and of the tradition of voting. I am amazed by the number of people who have come up to me in the past month and laid claim to those two votes. Many of the police in the House have told me of a relative of theirs living in Winchester, someone who organised a postal vote, or someone who dashed to the polling station just before 10 o'clock. I go to great lengths to inform them that I know where those two votes came from: they are obviously the votes of myself and my wife, so we are responsible for my election.
      The message for hon. Members in that tale is the importance of living in one's constituency. I am delighted to be able to live in the constituency of Winchester. It is a constituency with a great history; unfortunately, that history has recently been added to by the longest count ever and the smallest majority in 80 years, but it is nevertheless a most beautiful area in which to live. It stretches to the north to the borders of Basingstoke and vastly to the south, so that one can look out to sea from the outskirts of Portsmouth.
      Winchester is a very rural constituency, with a proud tradition, which goes back a long way. I am pleased that I have been called in tonight's debate about the House of Commons because, very many years ago, the Commons did sit in the capital of Wessex, at a time when it was a tradition for Parliament to move around the regions. That would be a radical choice for the Committee to consider, but there may be merit in looking at ways in which we can move some of our debates around the country, to
      510
      engage the public in what we are doing and to allow them to see our procedures and debates at first hand in their region.
      The constituency's history of democracy is strong. That is demonstrated by the fact that in two years' time we shall elect the 700th mayor of Winchester. Most recently, the city has become established as a centre of excellence in education, not only with the college of Winchester but with King Alfred's college, the art college, Peter Symmonds sixth-form college and the agricultural college at Sparsholt, which helps serve the very rural and agricultural tradition of the constituency that I am proud to live in.
      Because I love living in Winchester and am proud to live there, I want to spend more time there and less time in the House in the evenings. I do not want to spend my time—as many new Members have had to—voting at 10 o'clock and realising that a 10 o'clock vote means that we end up leaving the House at 11.30, have a mad scramble to catch a cab and must spend the night in a hotel, when I realise, and must explain to my wife, that I could have pressed a button at 10 o'clock and at least got home to see her at the end of the evening.
      I believe that many new Members I have spoken to feel very strongly about that issue, and I hope that they have a chance to express those views later. I also hope that new Members will not succumb to this place and in a year's time start saying "Oh well, that is how it works. Let's not move on." Let us remember how we feel now about being obliged to vote late at night and not forget that when—perhaps in a year's time—we have a chance to vote positively to change that.
      I ask the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), please to look very hard at moving the Committee reports through as soon as she possibly can, while the impetus for change is there, and to be radical about it. While preserving the best traditions of this building, let us be radical about the shape and size of the Chamber and the way in which the Lobbies work, and let us be radical and consider as far as we can reforming this building.
      I would also ask the Committee, where possible, to look beyond the reform of the Chamber, because part of the public's perception of the Chamber is not only how we work in it and the procedures that we work by, but the role of Members, and the way in which they operate in the Chamber. Radical reform is needed. We need to consider ways to improve our accountability as individuals to the people who elected us, linking ourselves to them. Members should have much more responsibility for reporting back on their appearance in and representation of constituents' views in the Chamber.
      To some extent we can achieve that aim by improving the hours that we work and the voting mechanisms, but more radical solutions may be needed. In the run-up to the general election, I gave a clear commitment to the residents of Winchester that I would abide by several principles. One principle was that I would report back much more fully than many of my predecessors in that constituency had done.
      In nearly all forms of public life, Parliament has imposed citizens charters on organisations, and it has required companies and public bodies to produce annual reports. However, when it comes to our own role, which is very much in the public eye, our only form of

      511
      accountability is to appear at general elections every four or five years. We need to strengthen that accountability. There should be a principle that hon. Members be obliged to produce an annual report to their constituency. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) may laugh, because he would not like what would be in it.
      The report would list the way in which the Member voted and the type of meetings that he or she had attended, and it would publicly list the Member's earnings. I believe that that would be a proper form of accountability, much more accessible than constituents having to collect together a year's worth of Hansard. The principle of an annual report from Members is very hard for anyone to argue against.
      If hon. Members wanted to be much more radical, we would set down standards for the time within which we answer letters. We require many Government Departments to do that, so why should we be different? If we wanted to be radical, we would set down standards for the number of surgeries that hon. Members must hold and for the number of times that they should be seen in their constituencies. Why should hon. Members object to that suggestion? If they want to be good Members of Parliament, they should sign up to it.
      Is it not interesting that Conservative Members choose to ridicule such ideas? Perhaps they should note the result of the general election and realise that if they had introduced such policies, they may not have lost so many seats.
      I ask the Leader of the House to consider these broader principles, to examine the role of Members and to try to improve accountability.
      There is a further way in which we could improve the Chamber and our debates. I refer to the length at which hon. Members speak. We must have shorter speeches. I shall take my own advice and draw to a close, but I call on hon. Members to be as radical as they can, while preserving the best traditions of the Chamber.
      11 pm
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: It is a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on a fine and lucid maiden speech. In a debate such as this, which challenges the way in which Parliament usually conducts its business, it was interesting to hear him break with the parliamentary tradition that maiden speeches are non-controversial.
      I was particularly interested to hear a Liberal Democrat Member singing the praises of the first-past-the-post electoral system, but I understand why, with a two-vote majority, the hon. Gentleman does that. I hope that he will come over to my way of thinking and back electoral reform when the House gets round to discussing that subject.
      The hon. Gentleman dealt skilfully with the tricky matter of paying tribute to Gerry Malone, his predecessor, to whom many hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to pay tribute.
      I have one piece of advice for the hon. Gentleman. He indeed secured a two-vote majority in Winchester, but those were not his vote and his wife's. Those were the votes of two Tory party members who decided that Winchester was so safe for the Tory party that they used their votes in their holiday home constituency in Scotland to try to retain a Scottish seat for the Conservatives.
      512
      I would not go so far as to describe the House as a house of ill repute, but it has a low reputation in the minds of many members of the public. There is an onus on us in a new Parliament to reorganise our affairs in a way that gives the House greater respect among those who vote for us and send us here to represent them.
      We could do a great deal to make the House and the Palace more welcoming to the public. I once had a party of disabled visitors coming to see me in the House. I wanted to know how they could get access to the Central Lobby, and the Serjeant at Arms suggested a route that involved using the lift round the back of the post office and passages that led through to the Central Lobby. The passages that I was advised to use were too narrow for an electric wheelchair to go through. It is intolerable that the House should exclude people with disabilities from seeing what goes on and from lobbying Members of Parliament.
      There are no refreshment facilities for the public who come to the House. We need an overflow Gallery. Naturally, the Strangers Gallery is not full at this time of night, but during Question Time it is, and with the television link, there could easily be a small cinema or theatre so that people who do not get into Gallery but who come to London to find out what happens in the House of Commons could listen to debates. It could be used in the morning to put on educational shows for schoolchildren and other visitors to the House to explain how Parliament works.
      When I was first elected, I told myself that I would never get involved in debates about parliamentary procedure. My constituents ask me to do something about the local hospital, about unemployment, about the school that their child goes to and so on, but no one has come up to me and said, "And another thing, Mr. Bayley—there is a little parliamentary procedure that you ought to change." However, having been here for a short time—five years—I think that it is imperative for us to modernise the House so that we can more effectively do the job that we should be doing for our constituents. Page 115 of "Erskine May" deals with contempts, one of which is long overdue for abolition:
      "Strangers have been punished for contempt for disorderly conduct … for refusing to stop taking notes of proceedings when requested to do so by an officer of the House."
      This came to my attention because one of my constituents was told to stop taking notes. He was sitting in the Strangers Gallery during an esoteric debate on a Friday morning about the Medicines Information Bill, brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). There was virtually no one in the Chamber or the Gallery at the time, and because my constituent had a particular interest in the pharmaceutical industry he was following the debate and taking notes of what was said. He was told to put his pen and notepad away because that was a contempt of the House.
      What an idiotic way to carry on. If we want to restore our reputation in the eyes of the public, we should encourage them to come in and understand what we are doing. That naturally involves following our debates. Nowadays it is possible, after all, to switch on cable television and take notes of our debates from the comfort of one's own home. Why, then, do we regard note-taking as a contempt of Parliament? It is indicative of the sort of barriers that this place builds between the institution and the public whom we should be serving.

      513
      I hope that the new Committee, as well as looking at procedures of the House and its Committees, will look at how we relate to the public.
      This House must do more in future to set a good example. I had to make a special request that the stationery cupboard in Norman Shaw North be stocked with recycled notepaper. I find it extraordinary that we still print stationery on unrecycled notepaper. Why do we?
      Today the Government launched a good initiative to encourage people to cycle to work. As it happens, I cycle from my flat to the House of Commons every day. Because I come down Millbank I used to cut in through Chancellor's Gate. It has now been closed, so I cut in through the new entrance, the gates at the House of Lords end of the Palace. It is a wonderful new entrance which has been beautifully cobbled. It is very convenient for cars, but it is very bumpy for those riding bicycles. No one thought of putting through a small path with a smooth surface to encourage people to come here on bikes.
      Achieving change of any sort in this place is enormously difficult—
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I cycle as well, but the hon. Gentleman cannot expect everything to be organised for his own convenience. If he cannot take one or two bumps, he should not be in the job.
      Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman may enjoy the feeling of a bumpy saddle beneath him when he cycles in. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a public school boy."] He is indeed. My point is simply that when the House spends money on its own infrastructure, it costs no more to get it right than to get it wrong. It costs no more to serve the needs of pedestrians and cyclists as well as those of motorists. It simply involves thinking through the problem.
      What this House desperately needs is a chief executive to manage the place efficiently, so that we do not need to spend months bringing about minor changes such as cycle paths. It took me, as a new Member, three months to find out which Committee was responsible for the note-taking in the Gallery problem, and a further three months for the House to decide that, for an experimental period, it would see whether our parliamentary democracy was robust enough to allow the public to take notes in the Gallery. That is not good enough. If we want change, we need a mechanism that allows the House to achieve it quickly.
      11.9 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution, and I have been interested to hear the observations that have been made about how the House should be reformed.
      I start from the premise that the House is here to represent democracy, and that any modernisation should lead to better legislation. I do not start from the premise that the House is here for the convenience of Members of Parliament, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me on that point. I say that because I am—I hope—privileged to have been appointed to the Select Committee as one of four representatives of the Conservative party.
      514
      The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), as always, made an entertaining speech and he mentioned certain matters that he considered important. I believe he said that he had been in opposition for 18 years. There are some who say to me, "Mr. Winterton, you have been in the House for nearly 26 years and you have been in opposition for all that time."
      I think that the precedents and procedures of the House have been established over the years for a good purpose, and on the basis of experience. Although I want our procedures to be improved and our structures modernised, I want that to happen so that we can achieve more for our constituents, improve democratic accountability and ensure that the legislation that is put on the statute book is better considered by Members of all parties.
      I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) for his constituents. His constituency is probably as far from London as my constituency of Macclesfield, but I encourage my constituents to visit the House and I encourage schools and other organisations in my constituency to send parties here. Over nearly 26 years, many thousands of my constituents have come here, and apart from one or two criticisms of the way in which we behave at Prime Minister's Question Time there has been very little criticism of the House; it is held in great respect, and the reasons for our structures are appreciated.
      I believe, however, that much of the legislation that comes before the House should be considered by a specialist Standing Committee or, when that is inappropriate, by a Select Committee. I have been privileged to serve on Select Committees for nearly 18 years, and for a limited time—until my own party prevented my being reappointed—I chaired the Health Committee. Perhaps I did too good a job on behalf of the people of this country and the House in doing the job that Select Committees are there to do: holding the Government of the day—the Executive of the day—to account. Once the House appoints a Member in that way, whether Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, that Member is there as a servant of the House, not of his or her political party. I believe fervently in that tradition. In my view, the Select Committees of the House represent the most effective way of holding the Executive of the day—now the Labour party, and until a little while ago, the Conservative party—to account.
      Much of the legislation that comes before the House—often hastily drafted and often, sadly, as we have experienced in recent hours, considered under a guillotine—would be much easier to consider if it had been considered either by a Select Committee, if it concerned a particular Department of State, or by a Special Standing Committee, which could take evidence and produce papers which could then be published.
      One of the unsatisfactory features of Standing Committees is that many organisations, many interest groups in Britain, send members of Standing Committees important documents that are referred to but which cannot be published as part of the Committee's report. That is wrong.
      That is one of the areas in which we can do a great deal to help the House pass well considered, well detailed and well thought out legislation. We need the greater use of Special Standing Committees. In addition, Select Committees should consider legislation that falls within the remit of a particular Department of State.

      515
      The House has an exciting opportunity to modernise without revolutionising itself—to provide the House with the necessary facilities and structures to do a better job in the interests of democracy. As—I hope—a member of the Committee, I shall seek to do my best to bring that about.
      11.15 pm
      Ms Joan Walley: There are a huge number of issues that I should like to raise and many anecdotes that I should like to recount—such as how it took three years as a member of the Finance and Services Committee to get water in the Committee Rooms—but time is short, so I shall be brief.
      The most important thing that I want to say is that the Committee has before it the most wonderful opportunity to modernise the way in which we do our work—how we go about our business here in the mother of all democracies. When the Committee considers ways of reforming the procedures of the House, I hope that it will particularly consider the timetabling of business and the hours that we work here.
      If we are truly to be a Parliament for all the people, where Members of Parliament are in touch with those whom we represent, we must spend time in our constituencies. That has nothing to do with working a shorter week; it is about being in touch, being able to make visits to organisations, community groups and people so that when we do come here we know what matters to those who elected us.
      Above all else, I hope that the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who I know will do an excellent job in chairing the Committee, will consider the working week. I hope that the Committee will consider other European Parliaments and how we can so organise our business here that we can encapsulate what we do, perhaps with two, three or four issues going on at the same time, so that in the middle of the week we can concentrate our work in the House and have, say, a fixture list for a full year ahead so that we know when we can be in our constituencies and when we can make commitments to attend meetings. That would be to the benefit of the House. If we can meet that challenge, we shall see the benefits of a Parliament for all the British people.
      11.18 pm
      The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. We have heard enough from both sides of the House to justify the establishment of a Committee on modernisation of our procedures and the working of the House of Commons. We have had positive contributions from both sides which should be welcomed because they will stand us in good stead when the Committee meets.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who made his maiden speech this evening. He mentioned that he had a majority of two—I doubt whether he can go anywhere without mentioning that fact—and that he had had the longest count ever. I thought that he would get an offer from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to write another play, this time called "A Majority of Two". I can certainly recommend the first contribution that my hon. Friend
      516
      made: his play about the workings of the Whips Office was, I am afraid, incredibly accurate, as were most of the stories he told this evening. There is scope for change—everyone can agree on that.
      When we had the debate on modernisation a couple of weeks ago, I came into the Chamber hoping that we would get a greater attendance than usual for a debate on procedure. I was hoping that instead of the normal five, six, seven or eight attenders, we might have got into the teens. I was absolutely staggered and incredibly pleased to see that at 7.30 pm there were 78 Labour Members in the Chamber when there was no vote and the next day was a recess. Many Opposition Members were also present. That showed just how much interest there is in the changes that need to take place.
      It was important that we should move quickly to establish the Committee. I express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), the shadow Leader of House, and also to the minority parties, for their co-operation in getting the names selected and getting the Committee up and running quickly.
      We have suggested that the Committee should have wide terms of reference. All the points that have been raised this evening can be considered by the Committee because of the way in which we have suggested the terms of reference. However, we must look at the priorities for the Committee; that is why I agreed very much with what the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) said about making sure that we got our priorities right and did not think that by one or two superficial or cosmetic changes we could make any radical reforms to the workings of the House.
      We have suggested that the priority should be how we deal with our legislative procedures. I am glad to say that that proposal has been agreed to by Opposition Members. We have had constructive suggestions. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned Special Standing Committees, which we suggested on several occasions in opposition. I hope that we can suggest such Committees again in government. The whole framework in which we examine legislation must be looked at and I hope that we can come up with some initial conclusions relatively quickly in these vital areas because it is important that the House should change as quickly as possible. The Government want to help, perhaps by having piloting of different procedures if that seems appropriate. We should all work together to achieve that.
      The motion gives the Select Committee the usual powers to have a special adviser and things of that kind. I hope that the right hon. Member for Eddisbury, who was somewhat worried about the remit, will acknowledge that given the range of issues that have been raised this evening, we are right to make sure that it is as wide as possible. We should indicate some priorities to the Committee, but I think that the Committee may wish to ask Members of the House for evidence or ideas and at that stage, we shall have to decide what the priorities are.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I did not speak earlier in the debate so that we could get to the end of these proceedings. I have two or three suggestions which should be dealt with. The Committee should look at the possibility, at long last, of providing more time for private Members' Bills. It should also deal with the Order Paper. Many suggestions have been made over many years about changing our antediluvian Order Paper.

      517
      There is also the question of voting, which is pretty chronic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made a point on my behalf about deaths. The two minutes that we lose at the beginning of Divisions should also be considered.
      If there is any attempt to go to a 9 to 5 parliamentary day, the House should bear this point in mind. What we need is to cut out all the moonlighting. One Member of Parliament should do one job, which means that we can do the thing at a stroke.
      Mrs. Taylor: I am not quite so optimistic as my hon. Friend about modernising at a stroke. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, we can at this stage only make a start, but make a start we must.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has come up with some suggestions. Although I would not agree with all of them, it is right that the Committee should consider all such things—certainly private Members' Bills and the Order Paper. As has been said, anybody—especially a new Member or a visitor—is extremely puzzled by the Order Paper. I am sure that more can be done in that area.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has suggested having three desks in the Lobby. He made that suggestion two weeks ago. I understand that it has been tried in the past, but that does not mean that it should not be considered again. When he talks about the House sitting from 9 to 5, in a sense I return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said. I agree with her that we need a sort of concentrated week so that hon. Members with non-London constituencies can spend guaranteed time outside Westminster being in touch with and representing their constituents. We must ensure that we get the balance right so that we can protect interests there.

      I hope that the new Committee will meet as soon as possible, work quickly and look at the four areas that I indicated were our priorities: legislation, accountability of Ministers, best use of Ministers' time and customs and practices. The Government have already announced that they intend to publish a record number of draft Bills. That presents us with extra opportunities to explore possibilities and see how the Bills would work in practice.
      Mr. Tyler: I think that the Leader of the House made a slip of the tongue just now, which is very important to correct. I think that she referred to the best use of Ministers' time, but she probably meant the best use of hon. Members' time. That is a very important distinction.
      518
      Since we are very concerned in this debate not simply to expedite Government business but to improve it, perhaps she would like to correct that impression.
      Mrs. Taylor: If I said "Ministers' time" I certainly did not mean it. Ministers have to spend more time in London, so getting to their constituencies is an extra problem. If we concentrate the parliamentary week, we shall allow Ministers—those who are also hon. Members—to do their constituency work as well. However, I was thinking primarily of hon. Members and not Ministers in that context.
      There seems to be a great deal of good will towards the whole idea of modernising our procedures. We have a different type of opportunity from any ever before—certainly in all the years that I have been in the House. I therefore hope that the Committee will undertake its task as speedily as possible and ensure that we make this Parliament as efficient and as effective as we possibly can. I am sure—at least, I hope—that the Committee will meet the expectations of the House since there is now more interest in change than ever before. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the change that we adopt is practical, workable and will improve our parliamentary democracy.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Ordered,
      That a Select Committee of fifteen Members be appointed to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised, and to make recommendations thereon;
      That the Committee shall seek to make a first report to the House before the summer adjournment with its initial conclusions on ways in which the procedure for examining legislative proposals could be improved;
      That five be the Quorum of the Committee;
      That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers;
      That Mr. Joe Ashton, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Huw Edwards, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. Alastair Goodlad, Mr. Mike Hall, Helen Jackson, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Clive Soley, Rachel Squire, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Nicholas Winterton be members of the Committee;
      That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.

      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Colin Burgon, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Ms Rosemary McKenna, Ms Diana Organ, Mr. William Ross and Mr. David Tredinnick be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Janet Anderson.]

      Local Government Finance (Oxfordshire)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Janet Anderson.]
      11.28 pm
      Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful for being granted this debate. It seems appropriate that, as I have just witnessed a debate on the modernisation of the House, my first speech following my maiden speech should take place at this hour. However, as a former hospital junior doctor, I am well used to working at such nocturnal times. I hope to ensure in what follows that the House is not the victim, as the national health service sometimes is, of slowness and errors caused by overtired people working under too much pressure.
      It may be argued that the difference between then and now is that, during the long nights in hospitals, I had direct influence over people's welfare, their care and their lives. However, I would argue that in our treatment of the revenue support grant, budget and capping of Oxfordshire county council, we in the House also have the lives and welfare of the people of Oxfordshire in our hands. They rely on the services, especially education and social services, provided by Oxfordshire county council for their care and well-being.
      I shall not attempt to parade all the arguments that the county council would use to seek to persuade the Government to redetermine the capping level at the budget already fixed by the county council. Those arguments will be put clearly if—and, I believe, when—the county council decides to appeal against the initial designation by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. With other hon. Members for the county of Oxfordshire, some of whom are in their places tonight, I will support that appeal at the appropriate moment.
      I will not seek to make a party political or partisan speech, because the issue does not divide people along party lines in Oxfordshire, since the above-cap budget has all-party support there. Oxfordshire is not the sort of place where politicians are usually shy about disagreeing with opposing politicians. I think especially of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who is the Minister for Employment and Disability Rights, and, of course, of my predecessor, John Patten. I will seek instead to outline why Oxfordshire has an excellent case for its appeal and why there is no reason, with such cross-party consensus locally and in the House tonight to some degree, why the Government—committed as they are to listening and dispensing with blunt instruments—should not agree, on close examination of the detailed case, that the budget set by the county council is right and proper.
      In the spirit of constructive opposition that saw the Liberal Democrats vote for the Queen's Speech, I shall quote from the Labour manifesto, although one of the most appealing aspects of the Gracious Speech was that it contained items to be found only in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The section in the Labour manifesto headed "Good local government" stated:
      520
      "Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government, and also more accountable to local people."
      That is the first point that I shall address tonight. The manifesto continued:
      "Although crude and universal council tax capping should go, we will retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax rises."
      I will address that point second. The manifesto also stated:
      "Labour is committed to a fair distribution of government grant."
      I will conclude briefly on that point.
      On the first point about local democracy and accountability, there is a strong argument, put ably by the Labour party in last year's debate:
      "The Government are acting against the wishes of the people of Oxfordshire"—
      in redetermining the budget at the capping level—
      "The people want the opportunity to fund their schools and their social services properly, but they know that the Government will manipulate the figures to ensure that they cannot do that. That is not good enough."
      The speaker, appropriately enough, was the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who is now the Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The right hon. Member for Oxford, East strongly supported his colleague, and said:
      "As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) said, except in the most exceptional circumstances, it should be up to local people to make that decision, and councillors should be accountable through the local electoral process."
      At the time, the right hon. Gentleman was shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury and charged with showing that his party could be responsible with the public finances, which is a task that I believe he performed well then and which the Labour party seems to have performed well in the election campaign—perhaps too well on occasions for Liberal Democrats. When the right hon. Gentleman was pressed on that subject, later in the debate, he said:
      "we intend to review the system for local government support … to enable local democratic preferences properly to be expressed and reflected in local budgets, so that local people have the say in determining the level of resources for local services, which are there to meet local needs."—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 359–73.]
      I could not have put it better myself.
      The fly in the ointment last year was that the above-cap budget was not fully supported by the local Conservative group so it could have been argued that, had there been county council elections, the people would have swept to power a pro-capping local Conservative group.
      However, that argument was tested this year, and not only did the Conservative group support the budget—indeed, with the Labour group, the Conservatives actually made the above-cap budget—but the council has just been completely re-elected on a huge turnout, and the new council, meeting after that election, unanimously supported that budget.

      521
      The Labour party scored well in those elections, and its election platform, as stated in its local manifesto, was:
      "Labour believes in quality public services financed by fair local taxation. We also believe that power should be exercised at the lowest relevant level and that local people should be free to decide through the ballot box on the level of local service and taxes".
      Liberal Democrats support those sentiments. The manifesto continued:
      "We deplore the years of successive cuts which Tory Governments have imposed on Oxfordshire services. We welcome the reversal of that trend which will follow the election of a Labour Government, as part of a new constitutional settlement which will change the relationship between local communities, their public services and their elected representatives."
      It is just possible that Oxfordshire county council's Labour group, in its reforming zeal, may be slightly ahead of the Government, but I believe that the redetermination decision will present the Government—a Government who hit the ground running, and may merely have stumbled over designating our budget for capping—with the opportunity to pick themselves up and sprint forward towards the land of local democracy and accountability, and towards that new constitutional settlement.
      Those may be grand words—
      Ms Julia Drown rose—
      Dr. Harris: I give way to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), who was an active member of the Labour group on Oxfordshire county council in former years.
      Ms Drown: I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to take part in the debate. I wanted to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my constituency borders on Oxfordshire, and some of my constituents work in, and many are affected by, services in Oxfordshire.
      My constituents have raised with me—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. In such debates it is customary not to give way unless there has been some prior agreement. I understood that the hon. Lady was simply making a brief intervention. If she is making a speech, that is rather a different matter. Was there a prior agreement?
      Dr. Harris: I was warned that the hon. Member for South Swindon might intervene, and I am happy to give way so that she can briefly make the points that she wishes to make, in an intervention.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady may complete a brief intervention. Then the debate can continue.
      Ms Drown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have three brief points to make.
      First, my constituents, too, are affected by what the hon. Member is describing. Secondly, all parties on Oxfordshire county council agree on the need to point out that the county's budget has been slashed by
      522
      £52 million over the past six years. That may have produced some efficiencies in the past, but it is now causing great pain.
      Thirdly, I shall give an example of the sort of thing that is happening in Oxfordshire. The 400 children on the child protection register are not being properly supervised.
      The spending level that the county proposes represents a very modest increase. All parties on the council are asking for that degree of flexibility. I support what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is saying, and urge the Minister to do all that he can to give Oxfordshire the modest flexibility that it requests.
      Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making those points, which I shall not repeat.
      To continue from where I left off, the words that I used may have seemed grand words to describe such a small sum. The difference between the budget that in the view of all groups in Oxfordshire is needed to preserve essential services, and the capped level, amounts to 54p per week on the council tax for a band D property. Indeed, the council tax rise at the capped level—2.4 per cent—will be the lowest rise of all the shire counties.
      The £6 million that we are talking about amounts to less than 0.03 per cent. of the public sector borrowing requirement, and a mere 0.008 per cent. of total local authority spending. It is salutary to note that as a percentage of total public spending, the figure amounts to 0.000023 per cent.—approximately one fifth of a millionth of total public spending.
      Another point in Labour's manifesto—which swept the Government to power with such a large majority—concerned the need to get rid of crude universal council tax capping and to retain only measures needed to prevent excessive council tax rises. I would agree that Oxfordshire is extreme—it is extreme in that it is the lowest spender per head of all county councils. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), who is in the Chamber, is a former leader of the Labour group on Oxfordshire county council. No one could describe him as an extremist.
      Labour's manifesto also said that the party was committed to a fair distribution of Government grants. Clearly that complex subject has been mastered only by a few distinguished intellectuals with patience and insight, and I include the Minister in that description. That is why the Liberal Democrat group on Oxfordshire county council has chosen a mathematics don to lead its arguments. That will take a lot of time to review, and I urge the Government to listen in the meantime to the views of the local Labour party and the people of Oxfordshire as expressed at the ballot box.
      Oxfordshire has been through a lot. The revenue support grant and capping levels have led to more than £51 million of cuts in the past six years, and the capped budget itself followed a decision to cut funding and services needed in Oxfordshire by £12 million—mainly, I am afraid, from social services. That cut is not the action of an irresponsible or extreme, high-spending council. The council has used all its reserves and balances, as the Government would request. The standard spending assessment takes no account of

      523
      rurality or of the sparsity of population which, in Oxfordshire, is the worst in the south-east in financial terms—although it is the best for those of us who live there. I stress also that the cap is particularly rigorous in the case of Oxfordshire because it is only 1.3 per cent. above the SSA. It is a fierce cap, as the average for shire counties is 2.4 per cent.
      I conclude by quoting the present Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for North-West Durham, who, in the debate last year, referred to the exasperation at the cap imposed on Oxfordshire following a cap that had been imposed the previous year. She said:
      "Once again, I have found that the words used one year are not followed up in succeeding years".—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 355.]
      She added that the then Secretary of State for the Environment had learnt nothing from the previous year. All we are now asking is that Labour Members do not forget what they said—and, I think, believed—last year.
      11.42 pm
      Mr. Robert Jackson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on winning the ballot for this debate in which he spoke for our county of Oxfordshire, and I thank him for inviting me to take part briefly in it. I am pleased that he recognises the consistent support that I have given to the county's efforts to spend on locally provided services what local people judge to be both prudent and necessary.
      In replying to the debate, the Minister will doubtless tell us that Oxfordshire has to prove that it is different. That is what his civil servants will advise him to say, just as it was their advice to his predecessors. This brief debate is not the occasion for that demonstration, which will have to come when he meets representatives of the county and local Members of Parliament in due course.
      I want to make two political points. First, I recognise that the Labour party won the general election in part because it responded to people's quite reasonable resentment at what had become an over-centralised system of Treasury control of local government and its services—particularly education. Everywhere in Oxfordshire and throughout the country, Labour candidates campaigned on the basis that centralised local authority expenditure capping would be abolished and replaced by an efficiency audit to ensure that money raised locally was being properly spent.
      The Audit Commission studies show that Oxfordshire is undoubtedly one of the more efficient counties, and the message that our constituents want to be allowed to spend more of their money on local services has come over loud and clear in Oxfordshire.
      During the general election campaign, the Labour party tapped into a widespread sense of grievance about those matters. I trust that those of my constituents who succumbed to its blandishments will not find that they have voted simply to exchange grievance for disappointment.
      I had hoped that the matter might have been settled in favour of the county before the election. To that end, I took part in various conversations and private
      524
      meetings with Conservative Ministers, before the shutters came down when the election was announced. It was always my clear impression that Ministers at the time were sympathetic to Oxfordshire's case.
      The House, the new Government and the Minister might like to know that I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the former Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, to say that it was his intention, after hearing Oxfordshire's detailed case, to recommend to his colleagues in the previous Government that Oxfordshire be permitted to levy a council tax at a rate above the capping limit. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to speak at least as fairly as that.
      11.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on his good fortune in securing this debate and on articulating in a forthright way the concerns of his local county council and his constituents. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on her brief intervention expressing similar concerns. We have heard, too, a short but useful contribution from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who spoke in the equivalent debate a year ago, although I note that he voted in favour of the cap on that occasion.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall that that was on the basis that the Government were allowing Oxfordshire to make some supplementary borrowing—not an increase in the cap, but some additional borrowing.
      Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, the Government did not adjust the cap, and he voted in favour of that cap. Clearly, he has had a further think in the meantime and is advocating a different course. He has told us that the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), said that he would have taken a different view this year. That may be; it is interesting how people can change their point of view after the event, and not least after an election defeat. We as a Government, however, must consider the position that we have inherited, and that is not an easy position.
      I want to make some general points about the new relationship between central and local government, to which the Government are committed. The Government have a new agenda for Britain's future, and a vision for local government's place in that future.
      We want to reinvigorate local government, in ways that encourage increased democracy, with local people having the chance of more of a say in the affairs of their council. We want local government to have increased autonomy, with more freedom for authorities to take their own decisions; increased accountability, with elected representatives being more visibly accountable for their actions; and increased partnership between central and local government and between local authorities and people, businesses and groups in their area. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon alluded to a number of those aspirations and quoted from our election manifesto, to which we are committed.

      525
      Within that framework, local authorities have important roles as both commissioners and deliverers of a wide range of local services. Authorities are responsible for assessing service needs for groups and individuals; for balancing priorities; for setting objectives; for procuring delivery and/or providing services directly; and for monitoring quality and standards, reviewing performance and acting on complaints. Those are all important tasks.
      We have been busy in the month since the general election. In the Queen's Speech, we announced a major programme of legislation for the first Session, including many Bills affecting local government, on the release of capital receipts, the establishment of a new strategic authority for London and the establishment of regional development agencies throughout England, as well as Bills on education and on crime and disorder and one setting up the welfare-to-work programme.
      Only this week we have signed the Council of Europe's charter of local self-government and set out our proposed approach on replacing compulsory competitive tendering with a duty on local authorities to secure best value.
      That pace will continue. We shall examine with local government the scope for pilot studies on a range of issues, such as best value, a new approach to regeneration, community planning and partnerships with other agencies, and democratic innovations. We shall also work on the scope of the new duty to promote economic, social and environmental well-being that we intend to place on local authorities, to strengthen their community leadership role and encourage innovation and local partnerships in the delivery of services and development and regeneration projects.
      That volume of local government business reflects the importance that we attach to local government. The local government agenda will keep us all very busy over the length of this Parliament and, I hope, beyond it, but we shall also make prompt progress. Our agenda is positive. Our Government want to be judged on our success in improving the quality of life for all people and on the extent to which we have made a difference.
      On local government funding, all public expenditure programmes have to be examined rigorously each year, and local government spending, which accounts for a quarter of all public expenditure, is no exception. Decisions on local government spending must take into account not only the pressures on local authorities, but the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness in local authorities.
      We have, of course, inherited this year's local government spending plans, and have given a clear commitment to retain them. Although we are committed to reviewing the local government finance system in future years, for this year at least we must work within the current spending plans.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned standard spending assessments, as did the hon. Member for Wantage. SSAs are the basis for the distribution of revenue support grant. They are based on measures of spending need that apply to all local authorities, and are discussed with representatives of local government. The SSAs for 1997–98 have been announced. As with total local government spending plans, we have said that they will not be revisited and we do not propose to do so now.
      526
      Having said that, we are committed to a fairer distribution of Government grant among authorities, and believe that there is scope for improvement in the arrangements in future years. My colleagues and I will look closely at the SSA system with that aim in mind. We shall listen to local government views on how SSAs might be improved, both for 1998–99 and in the longer term.
      If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon feels that the SSA system does not treat Oxfordshire fairly, I should be happy to examine any proposals that he has for different methods of calculation or other appropriate changes. However, any system of this nature must be universal and any changes would need to apply to all local authorities equally. In making any changes, we will, of course, want to be sure that they will produce a sounder assessment of needs. I should welcome any specific proposals that he may have.
      The local government finance settlement for 1997–98 saw the total standard spending assessment for all local authorities increase by £1.1 billion or 2.5 per cent. on 1996–97. Oxfordshire county council's SSA increased by more than £8.7 million, or 2.7 per cent. That is above the average increase for counties, which was 2.1 per cent., and is well above the overall increase for English authorities of 1.5 per cent.
      Two important areas—one was mentioned tonight, and the other featured in a recent publication by Oxfordshire county council—are education and fire services. Oxfordshire's education SSA increased by the shire county average of 3.5 per cent., while the fire SSA went up by 6.4 per cent., compared with an average of only 5.5 per cent. The county also did well with a 4.4 per cent. increase in its highways maintenance SSA—while the shire county average showed a fall—and with a 3.9 per cent. increase in the other services SSA, compared with an average increase of only 2.1 per cent. Those figures do not suggest that Oxfordshire has suffered unfairly in relation to other counties in this year's SSA; quite the contrary, if anything.
      Dr. Harris rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I have only five minutes in which to complete my reply. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that in a time-limited debate, I cannot give way. If he wishes to make observations, I should be happy to accept them in writing. RSG distribution for the 1997–98 settlement is a closed matter, following approval of the local government finance settlement by the House in February, and it will not be reopened. We must look to the future and build a successful partnership, with local government playing its part.
      With regard to capping, we gave clear signals that while we proposed to replace in due course the crude capping system that currently operated, that would have to wait for future years. We said that in the meantime we proposed to follow the intentions of the previous Government for 1997–98—a financial year which, as everyone knows, began almost a month before the general election that returned the Labour Government. All authorities, including Oxfordshire county council, knew that when setting their budgets.
      Only three out of the 436 authorities in the country set budgets significantly over their provisional capping limits. Our decision to designate those authorities demonstrates

      527
      that we are taking our commitments on spending seriously. Indeed, we have also made it clear that under our plans for replacing the current capping system in future years, we shall retain reserve powers to deal with exceptional cases where unreasonable budgets are set. The hon. Gentleman also alluded to that. So this year all three authorities will be required to reduce their budgets unless they can convince us that they should not.
      Under the capping legislation, capping principles apply to classes of authority, and we can consider an individual authority's circumstances only if it budgets over cap. Oxfordshire was permitted to increase its budget by 2.2 per cent., which was the average permitted increase for shire counties. Certainly on the basis of the information that we have seen so far, there is nothing to suggest that Oxfordshire is in a tougher position than other counties that have budgeted within cap. Our proposed cap would still allow the county to increase its budget by £7.35 million compared with 1996–97. We consider that to be reasonable and achievable.
      Decisions on priorities in services is a matter for the authority itself. It is not for me to suggest that the authority should make reductions, or where those reductions might be made if the cap is confirmed. Local authorities would understandably object if we sought to dictate exactly how each pound was spent.
      At this stage in the capping process, authorities can accept the caps that we have proposed. When that happens, the cap limit is then set by notice and the authority can immediately set a revised lower budget and recalculate its council tax. Sending out new bills will obviously impose an extra administrative burden, and that
      528
      expense will have to be met from within the authority's revised budget. However, that is a direct result of the authority's decision to breach the provisional cap, and all authorities are aware of the implications of doing so.
      When a county council is required to recalculate its council tax, the burden of rebilling will fall on the district councils in the area. However, those billing authorities can recover the costs from the county. In terms of the effect on services, it will be for the authority itself to decide spending priorities within the resources available to it.
      Should Oxfordshire wish to challenge its cap—from what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, I suspect that we shall receive representations from the authority and hon. Members who have connections with the county—it has 28 days from the date of designation, that is, until 18 June, to propose an alternative amount, together with its reasons for doing so. As well as submitting its written case, the authority will have an opportunity to meet me or one of my colleagues to put its case directly to us. We shall be open to such representations and we shall consider them carefully, as we shall the points that have been made in tonight's debate. We shall then consider all the relevant points before reaching our decision.
      Final caps will be set out in—
      The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at two minutes to Twelve midnight.

HEALTH

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means his Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1671]

  Mr. Boateng
  Publications for those with special needs, including people who are sensorily impaired, are generally distributed through agencies that have regular contact with such people. The Department sends mail shot samples and bulk orders on demand to these specialist agencies.

  This is backed up by distributions via public libraries, Citizen's Advice Bureaux and other advice centres, local authorities and patient waiting areas in family doctor surgeries and hospitals.

  Where an advertising campaign is associated with the topic concerned, the special versions of a publication may be offered through press advertisements. The publications are also available via the Department's literature response lines.

  The Department is in the process of building its own direct mail database which will allow precise targeting of agencies and individuals who will act as channels through which this kind of information can be passed to the end user.

  The Department's Internet site is being used increasingly to publicise the existence of its publications, including those for people 7with special needs, and additional publicity routes, such as public information kiosks, are currently being investigated.

  Examples of the types of publication available are given in the following list:

  TITLE/TYPE OF PUBLICATION

  Braille

  Patient's Charter (also available in audio cassette version)

  Practical Guide for Disabled People (HB6)

  NHS Reforms and You (also available in Moon and audio cassette versions)

  NHS Complaints—Listening, Asking, Improving

  Maternity Services—Patient Charter

  How to get the best from Maternity Services

  While You Are Pregnant—Safe Eating

  Audio cassette

  Health of the Nation

  How to get the best from Maternity Services

  While you Are Pregnant—Safe Eating

  Keep Well Keep Warm

  Practical Guide for Disabled People (HB6)

  NHS Complaints—Listening, Asking, Improving

  172

  Large print

  Keep Warm Keep Well (also available in audio cassette version)

  Practical Guide for Disabled People (HB6)

  Health and Well-Being: A Guide for Older People

  NHS Complaints—Listening, Asking, Improving

  While You Are Pregnant—Safe Eating

  General Osteopathic Council
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he took to comply with the consultation requirement of the Osteopaths Act 1993 in respect of the nomination of the General Osteopathic Council; [1836]

  (2) for what reason principals and vice-principals of osteopathic training institutions are excluded from membership of the General Osteopathic Council; and when the decision was made to exclude them; [1837]

  (3) if directors of companies engaged in the registration and training of osteopaths are excluded from membership of the General Osteopathic Council; and if he will make a statement. [1838]

  Ms Jowell
  The nominations exercise leading to the appointments of the Chairman and members of the first General Osteopathic Council was conducted by the previous administration.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Chairman of the General Osteopathic Council is a lay member; and if he will make a statement. [1776]

  Ms Jowell
  The Chairman of the General Osteopathic Council, Mr. Simon Fielding OBE, is one of the eight lay members of the Council. Under the transitional provisions of the Osteopaths Act 1993, a lay member of the initial Council is defined as 'a person not appearing to the Privy Council to be a practising osteopath'. Although originally qualified as an osteopath, Mr. Fielding has not been able to practise as an osteopath since September 1988, as a result of injuries sustained in a violent assault. Under the transitional provisions described above, he therefore qualified for appointment as lay member of the Council.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the composition of the General Osteopathic Council. [1834]

  Ms Jowell
  We have received several letters of support from osteopathic organisations for the Chairman and members of the new General Osteopathic Council, and expressing appreciation of their work towards full implementation of the Osteopaths Act.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make the General Osteopathic Council more representative of the profession. [1835]

  Ms Jowell
  The Osteopaths Act 1993 makes provision for 12 osteopathic members on the General Osteopathic Council. Arrangements to fill the current vacancy in the osteopathic membership of the Council will be commenced shortly.

  Neurological Damage
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the link between the E4 gene and increased risk of neurological damage; and if he will make a statement. [2116]
  173
  Mr. Boateng
  The APO E4 allelle is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease. However, this risk is not absolute with only half of those with Alzheimer's disease having E4 and not everyone with E4 developing Alzheimer's. APO E4 is not the only risk factor associated with the disease. There is considerable medical research ongoing in this field including work sponsored by the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the key business targets for the Medicines Control Agency for 1997–98. [2255]

  Ms Jowell
  We have today placed a copy of the 1997–98 key business targets of the Medicines Control Agency in the Library. We shall, of course, be reviewing the Agency's plans and targets for the longer-term.

  Prisoners (HIV/AIDS)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what combination therapies are available for prisoners being treated for HIV/AIDS. [1155]

  Ms Jowell
  The issue of which therapies to prescribe in combination for individuals with HIV/AIDS is a matter for the treating clinician in consultation with the patient, and taking into account clinical circumstances. Clinical Guidelines outlining the circumstances in which combination therapies would be suitable have recently been published. They are "The British HIV Association Guidelines for Antiretroviral Treatment of HIV Seropositive Individuals", and "The PACT (National Association of Providers of AIDS Care and Treatment) Framework for Antiretroviral Therapy," copies of which are available in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those areas of the European convention on human rights which he proposes to incorporate into UK law; and if he will make a statement. [1580]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We propose to incorporate all the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the convention and the First Protocol to it. Some of the provisions in the Convention, such as those relating to the composition of the European Court of Human Rights, are purely procedural and therefore of no domestic relevance.

  Assisted Prison Visits
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was his Department's total expenditure on assisted prison visits for people in receipt of specified benefits for the latest year for which figures are available; how many individuals were assisted by such payments; and if he will make a statement. [1569]
  174
  Ms Joyce Quin
  The total cost of assisted visits to prisons in England and Wales for 1996–97 was £3,824,324.

  It is not possible to specify the actual number of individuals who received assistance. The Assisted Prisons Visits Unit computer system records only the number of claims forms received and paid (or rejected) but a person eligible for payment under the scheme is entitled to a maximum of 26 assisted prison visits each year.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many visits were made between September and November 1996 by the Named Veterinary Surgeon appointed under section 6(5)(b) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to monitor the welfare of the beagle dogs kept in the Dog Toxicology Unit at Huntingdon Life Sciences; [1761]

  (2) on how many occasions between September and November 1996 the named day-to-day care person appointed under section 6(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to be responsible for the welfare of the protected animals being held in the Dog Toxicology Unit at Huntingdon Life Sciences, notified personal licence holders that they were concerned for the health or welfare of an animal, in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 6(6)(a) of the Act. [1762]

  Mr. George Howarth
  These figures are not recorded.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which are currently valid at Huntingdon Life Sciences cover procedures classified as being of(a) mild, (b) moderate and (c) substantial severity. [1765]

  Mr. Howarth
  Nineteen of the current licences are rated as mild, 27 as moderate and two as substantial. The classification of individual procedures is not recorded on the central database.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to carry out scientific procedures at Huntingdon Life Sciences were subject to the scrutiny of the Animal Procedures Committee. [1763]

  Mr. Howarth
  Two of the current licences were considered by the Animal Procedures Committee prior to granting.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the project licences authorising the carrying-out of scientific procedures at Huntingdon Life Sciences have been issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [1764]

  Mr. Howarth
  There are currently 48 project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at that establishment.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions between September and November 1996 the Home Office Inspectorate visited Huntingdon Life Sciences, under section 18(2) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; how many of these visits were to monitor scientific procedures in the
  175
  Dog Toxicology Unit; what reports were made to him in accordance with section 18(2)(e); and how many animals were considered to be undergoing excessive suffering and dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 18(3) of the Act following these visits. [1760]

  Mr. Howarth
  Six inspectorate visits were made to the establishment in that period. Dog Toxicology Units were visited on three occasions; on two of these, the performance of regulated procedures was observed. One visit involved two Inspectors.

  Reports on each of these visits were produced and forwarded to the Chief Inspector.

  No excessive suffering, requiring animals to be put down, was observed.

  Dogs (Scientific Procedures)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds an exemption was granted under section 10(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to allow the use of non-purpose bred dogs in scientific procedures in 1995. [1740]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The grounds were that suitable dogs were not available from designated sources.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the source and breed of the 66 non-purpose bred dogs acquired from non-designated sources in the United Kingdom used in scientific procedures in 1995. [1741]

  Mr. Howarth
  The dogs were provided by their owners who gave informed consent. A range of crossbred and pedigree animals was used.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means his Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1683]

  Mr. Straw
  For all publications, consideration is given at an early stage to the needs of the blind and partially sighted.

  My Department has produced the fire safety publication `Fire Safety in the Home' in Braille, on audio tape and in large print. These are publicised in a catalogue made available to all fire brigades in England and Wales which can order supplies for free distribution to the public. Copies have also been supplied to the Royal National Institute for the Blind for distribution on request.

  Audio cassette versions of 'Your Practical Guide to Crime Prevention' and 'Domestic Violence—Don't Stand For It' have been produced. These are publicised in a catalogue sent to all Crime Prevention Officers in England and Wales, through whom copies are made freely available to the public.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspections were carried out by his Department's inspectors under the 176
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at each of the Ministry of Defence establishments conducting animal experiments under the Act in each year since 1993. [1877]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Two Ministry of Defence establishments are designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. In each respective year since 1993, the Inspectorate has carried out three, two, six and five visits to one establishment and seven, six, 13 and 13 to the other. In the first five months of 1997, one and four visits (respectively) have been carried out.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances reports arising from Home Office inspections under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are available to the public. [1878]

  Mr. Howarth
  The role of the Inspectorate is to advise the Secretary of State. Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the publication of any information which has been given in confidence. Reports from visits of inspection are not therefore made public.

PRIME MINISTER

  National Competitiveness
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he will be taking to improve national competitiveness. [557]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, has set out today our plans for a competitive economy.

  1. We will ensure that our workforce is equipped with the skills necessary in a modern, competitive economy.

  2. We will reform Britain's competition laws because we know more competitive markets are a spur to firms to become more competitive.

  3. We will cut unnecessary "red tape" and simplify government to reduce burdens on business.

  4. We will legislate on late payment because we know late payment hurts small firms and thriving small firms will be the foundation of a more competitive Britain.

  5. We will set a deadline for the completion of Europe's Single Market, clearing away trade barriers and unfair state aids, to give Britain's business access to the world's largest market.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 706, if his words mean that no one on his behalf gave an indication that British Telecom would not be included in the windfall tax. [1707]

  The Prime Minister
  No undertakings have been given to any individual company.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United Nations (Dues in Arrears)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which are currently in arrears with their dues to the United Nations; and if he will make a statement. [1883]
  177
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 30 April 1997, 79 Member States owed assessed contributions for prior years to the UN regular budget. These Member States are listed below. We urge all Member States to follow the UK example and pay their UN dues promptly and in full, in accordance with their legal obligation to do so.

  Member States with outstanding contributions for prior years to the UN regular budget at 30 April 1997

  Afghanistan

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Armenia

  Azerbaijan

  Belarus

  Bolivia

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Brazil

  Bulgaria

  Burundi

  Cameroon

  Cape Verde

  Chad

  Central African Republic

  Comoros

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Djibouti

  Dominica

  Ecuador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Estonia

  Gabon

  Gambia

  Georgia

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  Guinea Bissau

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Honduras

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  Iraq

  Israel

  Kazakstan

  Korea (Democratic People's Republic of)

  Kyrgyzstan

  Latvia

  Liberia

  Lithuania

  Macedonia (The Former Yugoslav Republic)

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Mali

  178

  Mauritania

  Moldova (Republic of)

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Peru

  Qatar

  Romania

  Rwanda

  Saint Kitts and Nevis

  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  Sudan

  Suriname

  Swaziland

  Tajikistan

  Togo

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Turkmenistan

  Ukraine

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Venezuela

  Yemen

  Yugoslavia

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her plans to promote competitiveness. [2121]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As a first step, I intend to publish an audit of the UK's competitiveness to provide an objective benchmark of how well the UK is performing in every factor of competitiveness.

  This will be followed by a period of extensive consultation with people who play a leading role in business, beginning with a Competitiveness Summit in July.

  I am also setting up an Advisory Group on competitiveness, which I will chair and which will comprise leading business figures, people from small firms and representatives of the workforce. This Group will be assisted by a number of working groups which will examine specific aspects of competitiveness. Its remit will be to report to me on all aspects of the competitiveness agenda, including giving advice on policy development for a White Paper on Competitiveness to be published early next year.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the representations she has received from the small business sector regarding the implications of a statutory national minimum wage; and if she will make a statement. [846]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A majority of members at the annual conference of the Federation of Small Businesses recently voted for a motion in support of the National Minimum Wage. The independent Low Pay Commission will undertake a wide ranging consultation exercise seeking the views of employers, including small businesses, on the National Minimum Wage and related issues.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will use the Treasury model to estimate the impact on employment of the introduction of a statutory national minimum wage at(a) £4.00 per hour, (b) £4.25 per hour and (c) £4.60 per hour; and if she will make a statement. [845]

  Mr. McCartney
  We will ask the independent Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the National Minimum Wage might be set, to take into account all the economic circumstances, including its likely impact. Any model will be sensitive to the assumptions put into it and I will not speculate about the possible effects of hypothetical levels before the Commission has had a chance to consider the issues.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to advise the Low Pay Commission to consider a regional element to the minimum wage; and if she will make a statement. [1278]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 3 June 1997]: The Government has made clear its intention to introduce a National Minimum Wage.

  ECGD
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the amounts of ECGD exposure in each member country of the present Gulf Co-operation Council in each year since 1983. [1344]

  Mrs. Roche
  ECGD is currently in the process of migrating its business database to a new computer system and for this reason exposure figures can be provided immediately for the last two years only:

  Amounts at risk

  £ million

  31 March 1996

  31 March 1997

  Saudi Arabia

  976

  976

  UAE

  270

  148

  Bahrain

  179

  167

  Qatar

  362

  544

  Oman

  677

  603

  Kuwait

  509

  348

  I shall write to my hon. Friend with fuller details next month and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the total outstanding sum of ECGD(a) exposure and (b) amounts (i) recovered, (ii) not
  180
  recovered, (iii) written off and (iv) rescheduled in each year since 1987–88 for (A) Iraq, (B) Jordan and (C) Nigeria. [1343]

  Mrs. Roche
  ECGD is currently in the process of migrating its business database to a new computer system and for this reason I am not immediately in a position to provide the details my hon. Friend has requested.

  These details will be available next month and I will write to my hon. Friend with them as soon as possible thereafter and place a copy in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Retail Prices Index (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will produce a retail prices index for Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [1581]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are no plans to produce an RPI for Scotland.

  Windfall tax
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider imposing a windfall tax when Green Belt land is rezoned for development; and if he will make a statement about the removal of incentives for the owners of such land to seek such rezoning. [1888]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  It would not be appropriate to comment on any possible tax changes during the run up to the Budget.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of the United States/United Kingdom Tax Treaty and Totalisator Agreement on the payment of a windfall tax by United States entities; with which other countries similar agreements exist; and if he will make a statement. [1736]

  Mr. Robinson
  The treatment under the United States/United Kingdom Tax Treaty and Totalisation Agreement of a windfall tax paid by United Kingdom companies can be determined only when the details of the tax are announced and can be considered by the United States authorities. The United Kingdom has similar tax treaties with around 100 other countries worldwide. I understand that the Totalisation Agreement concerns social security matters which do not appear relevant to a windfall tax.

  No. 11 Downing Street (Catering)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of the contractual arrangements for catering for No. 11 Downing Street. [1468]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  There are no contractual arrangements for catering at No. 11, as the choice of caterers used is a matter of personal preference. Those used at official functions are security cleared and chosen by officials. Organisers of non-official functions are also strongly advised to use caterers with security clearance.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the estimated average savings per week produced by the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. for(a) the average household, (b) those in the lowest decile of income distribution, (c) those in the highest decile of income distribution and (d) old age pensioners. [1880]

  Ms Primarolo
  A reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. would result in estimated savings in 1997–98 of about:

  35p per week for the average household; and

  35p and 40p per week for those in the lowest and highest deciles respectively. The deciles are based on net income adjusted for household size.

  30p per week for households with a pensioner head.

  Additional Voluntary Contributions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow the holders of additional voluntary contributions to delay receiving their annuity from additional voluntary contributions beyond their retirement; and if he will make a statement. [1802]

  Ms Primarolo
  The payment of benefit from additional voluntary contributions is under review.

  Political and Personal Appointments
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many political and personal appointments he has made; and at what cost to public funds. [1116]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Treasury Ministers have appointed four Special Advisers to be paid from public funds. No salaries have yet been agreed. I will write to the right hon. and learned Member with information about the cost to public funds at a later date.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which lead indicators the Treasury evaluated in March 1997 in determining whether interest rates should be eased, tightened or remain the same. [1873]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The minutes of the Monthly Monetary Meeting held on 5 March between the previous Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England were published on 23 April 1997.

  Monetary Policy
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 May,Official Report, column 508, (1) what is his definition (a) descriptively and (b) numerically of price stability; [1861]

  (2) over what time scale the Bank of England will be expected to achieve new inflation targets when they are set. [1870]
  182
  Mrs. Liddell
  [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.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 May,Official Report, column 508, what factors could prejudice the Bank of England's ability to achieve price stability whilst supporting the Government's economic policy. [1862]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The Government believe that low inflation is an essential precondition for high and stable levels of growth and employment. However, as we have seen over the past 18 years, excessively loose monetary policies have encouraged short but unsustainable booms, followed by higher inflation, recessions and unemployment. The Chancellor will set out the Government's approach to monetary policy in his Mansion House speech on 12 June.

  European Union Grants
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum provided in grants, loans and subsidies to the United Kingdom over the past five years from the European Union; and what part of the total was given to bodies within the borough of Southend on Sea. [1692]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The United Kingdom's total public sector receipts from the European Community, together with details of grants from the European Coal and Steel Community, for the financial years 1992–93 to 1996–97 are set out in the following table:

  £ million

  Public sector receipts

  ECSC grants

  1992–93

  2,810

  47

  1993–94

  3,865

  13

  1994–95

  3,603

  42

  1995–96

  3,783

  51

  1996–97

  4,542

  28

  In addition to public sector receipts there are certain receipts, for research and development, which are mainly paid direct to the private sector and are not covered here.

  European Investment Bank loans to projects within the United Kingdom over the period 1992 to 1995 were as follows:

  1992: £1.80 million

  1993: £1.50 million

  1994: £1.92 million

  1995: £1.87 million

  Information on 1996 is not yet available.

  I regret that information is not available on how much of these receipts, grants and loans went to recipients in Southend on Sea.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the average percentage reduction in household income which would result from the withdrawal of mortgage interest relief for home-owning households with income in each of the ten deciles of household income. [1852]

  Ms Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: Information for 1997–98 is given in the table. The estimates are based on information projected from the 1994–95 Family Expenditure Survey and are therefore provisional.

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

  Household income decile group

  Average percentage reduction for households with a mortgage

  Lowest ten per cent.

  2—

  Second

  1.3

  Third

  1.6

  Fourth

  1.9

  Fifth

  1.9

  Sixth

  1.6

  Seventh

  1.4

  Eighth

  1.2

  Ninth

  0.9

  Highest ten per cent.

  0.7

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

  2 Insufficient data to provide a reliable estimate.

DEFENCE

  Armed Services (Redundancies)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men and women were made redundant in the armed services in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [1884]

  Dr. John Reid
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Departmental Computer Systems
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure that his Department's computer systems will be millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [1252]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since early last year the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has been embarked on a programme to tackle the Year 2000 problem across all aspects of Defence, from routine support systems through to front line operational equipment.

  My Department is managing its Year 2000 programme under the auspices of guidelines set by the Cabinet Office IT Unit (CITU) and is working closely with the Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA) as a member of its Year 2000 Public Sector Group. Guidance which details the actions that need to be taken has been made widely available within the Department. All candidate systems are being surveyed and any necessary corrective action is being planned/undertaken. To ensure that suitable skilled resources are available without delay, "enabling" contracts have been placed with a number of companies.
  184
  An MOD Steering Committee has been established to oversee the programme with representation covering the breadth of the Department. In addition, a central help desk is operating successfully and an extensive awareness campaign is being mounted across my Department, with the aim of engaging the commitment of everyone in ensuring that all Defence systems are Year 2000 compliant before the 31 December, 1999.

  MOD Homes (Isle of Wight)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the homes owned by his Department on the Isle of Wight are currently empty. [1773]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has just one house on the Isle of Wight and this is underleased from Annington Homes Ltd. The house is presently occupied.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment (Young People)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy towards unemployed young people; and what will be the maximum period of being out of education and training yet seeking work which will not count as unemployment. [1646]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our policy is to help young people gain the skills and experience they need to enable them to find and sustain employment.

  The precise way in which measures of unemployment and labour market activity should be treated as the subject of public consultation by the Office for National Statistics.

  Unemployment Benefit Disqualifications
  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many unemployed claimants for the north London district of the Employment Service have(a) been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claim referred to an adjudicating officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims allowed or disallowed for not actively seeking work and (d) had their claim referred to an adjudicating officer for refusing suitable employment; and how many of those in (d) have had their benefit (i) disqualified and (ii) not disqualified in each year since 1989; [828]

  (2) how many employers have participated in job interview guarantee work trials in respect of the north London district of the Employment Service in each year since 1991; how many claimants have participated in such work trials; how many claimants are currently participating in work trials; and how many participants have obtained full-time employment with their work trial employer; [829]

  (3) how many people have joined job clubs in each year since 1991 in respect of the north London district of the Employment Service; how many have left; how many leavers obtained jobs; what were the other outcomes of leavers broken down by (a) ethnic origin and (b) gender; and if he will make a statement; [830]
  185
  (4) how many unemployed people have been referred to (a) restart courses, (b) jobplan workshops, and (c) workwise courses, by Employment Service counsellors in the north London district of the Employment Service in each year since 1991; how many attended and completed the course; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had benefit penalties imposed for (1) not attending and (2) failing to complete their attendance at the workshops or courses; and if he will make a statement; [831]

  (5) if he will list the (a) gender, (b) duration of unemployment and (c) ethnic origin of those who have entered Training for Work; and if he will indicate whether they have a disability (i) in respect of (1) the North London training and enterprise council and (2) the London region and (ii) in total; [832]

  (6) how many income support and unemployment benefit claimants for the north London district covering the London borough of Haringey have (a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully claimed income support under the hardship rules in each year since 1989, showing those whose claim was in doubt due to (a) not actively seeking work, (b) refusing suitable employment, (c) availability for work and (d) not attending a restart course, a jobplan workshop or a workwise course; and if he will make a statement; [833]

  (7) how many people have attended a restart interview in each year since 1991 in respect of the north London district of the Employment Service; and what were the results of those interviews broken down in the same way as the answer of 18 December 1990, Official Report, column 148. [834]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Bernie Grant, dated 4 June 1997:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions requesting various statistics about the North London District of the Employment Service. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  You asked a number of questions about our North London District and I thought it would be helpful if I answered them in turn in one reply.
  It may help if I first of all explain that North London District was created as part of the boundary review, which saw the introduction of the district structure to the Employment Service, in April 1994. This and the fact that we only keep information regionally for three years unfortunately means that we can only provide the material you require going back to 1994. However, I hope the data given below is helpful.
  I should explain that the information on number of warning letters issued to job seekers for not actively seeking employment is not recorded. It may, however, be helpful to explain that since August 1992 it has not been a requirement for warning letters to be issued in every case of inadequate job search. Since this date warning letters have only been issued if Jobcentre staff consider a job seeker genuinely not to have understood what was required of them. The number of referrals to Adjudication Officers for not Actively Seeking Employment and for Refusal of Employment have only been recorded since April this year. Prior to this only the number of decisions made were recorded.
  186
  The following table shows the information available in respect of Actively Seeking Employment and Refusal of Employment in our North London District since 1994.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Actively seeking employment

  Decisions made

  244

  413

  462

  Allowances

  29

  56

  56

  Disallowances

  215

  357

  406

  Refusal of employment

  Decisions made

  47

  288

  247

  Allowances

  13

  61

  53

  Disallowances

  34

  227

  194

  In relation to your question about Job Interview Guarantee Work Trials, it may help if I explain that Work Trials were established as a separate programme from the Job Interview Guarantee scheme in April 1993. The table below shows the number of Work Trials and subsequent job placings in the North London District since 1994. I should explain that we do not record the number of employers that participate in Work Trials, only the actual number that takes place.

  Work trials

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number of work trials

  226

  427

  420

  Number gaining employment

  125

  227

  189

  The following table shows the information on Jobclubs you requested for the North London District since April 1994. We do not record information on leavers broken down by gender and ethnic origin.

  Jobclub

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number of starts in period

  6,502

  5,624

  3,421

  Number of leavers in period

  5,975

  6,081

  3,377

  Job entries

  2,746

  2,237

  1,069

  Referred to other programmes

  —

  —

  137

  Other outcomes

  787

  842

  139

  Total positive outcomes

  3,533

  3,079

  1,345

  Restart

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number of referrals

  5,057

  4,189

  3,150

  Number of starts

  2,560

  1,935

  1,556

  Number of completers

  2,222

  1,665

  1,310

  Job entries

  —

  55

  45

  Referred to other programmes

  —

  531

  421

  Other outcomes

  —

  124

  143

  Total positive outcomes

  532

  710

  609

  Cases referred to BA

  —

  358

  149

  Workwise

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number of referrals

  1,005

  802

  Number of starts

  384

  246

  Number of completers

  284

  163

  Job entries

  34

  14

  Referred to other programmes

  100

  90

  Other outcomes

  32

  18

  Total positive outcomes

  166

  122

  Cases referred to BA

  92

  17

  NB: The difference between "starts" and "completers" arises because some people leave Jobplan, Restart or Workwise courses prior to completion.
  187
  The statistical data you asked for in relation to the number of people attending Restart interviews and their results are detailed in the table below. You asked for the results to be broken down in the same way as the Answer of 18 December 1990, Official Report, column 148. It may help if I explain that the range of employment and training opportunities offered has altered and increased since 1991. Training for Work has replaced the Employment Training programme, and the Enterprise Allowance scheme, has been replaced by Business Start-up. The numbers shown for Business Start-up reflect the actual number of people who have opted for self-employment whereas, under the Enterprise Allowance scheme the number of people attending a seminar was measured.
  It may help if I explain how the figures above are made up. In the year 1994/95 for example, 6,502 people went into Jobclubs in North London and 5,975 left of which 2,746 went into jobs and 787 into "other outcomes": ie there were 3,533 positive outcomes in total. However, it does not follow that the other 2,442 simply left Jobclubs and returned to unemployment. The Employment Service is only allowed to score as results people who leave a programme and find a job within 13 weeks of their time on the programme ending. People who have been in Jobclubs may well find jobs shortly after that, because their experience in the Jobclub has helped them improve their employability, but in such cases these would not be included in our Jobclub figures.
  You asked for similar information about Jobplan, Restart and Workwise courses. It may help if I explain that although we keep records of the number of referrals made to the Benefits Agency where clients fail to attend or complete courses we do not keep records on the outcome of these referrals. I should also explain that we did not keep records of the number of referrals made to the Benefits Agency in 1994/95 and that in 1996/97 we only recorded the number of referrals made up to the end of September prior to the introduction of JSA. Subject to that, the tables below show the information that you requested for the North London District since 1994. You will want to note that the Workwise programme was not introduced until April 1995.

  Jobplan

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number of referrals

  10,239

  6,998

  5,026

  Number of starts

  4,866

  3,124

  2,371

  Number of completers

  4,518

  2,836

  2,168

  Job entries

  —

  94

  146

  Referred to other programmes

  —

  1,023

  707

  April-September

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996

  IS (Gen) Reg 8(3) hardship decisions

  Awarded

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Refused

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  IS (Gen) Reg 10A(2) hardship decisions

  Awarded

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Refused

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jobplan

  40 per cent, reduction

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  387

  235

  37

  20 per cent, reduction

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  5

  0

  No reduction

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  102

  161

  69

  Restart

  40 per cent, reduction

  1

  0

  95

  304

  126

  32

  20 per cent, reduction

  0

  0

  15

  24

  2

  4

  No reduction

  0

  0

  45

  65

  71

  29

  Workwise

  40 per cent, reduction

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  61

  15

  20 per cent, reduction

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  1

  2

  No reduction

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  12

  9

  I hope this information is helpful.

  188

  Jobplan

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Other outcomes

  —

  219

  229

  Total positive outcomes

  1,406

  1,336

  1,082

  Cases referred to BA

  —

  694

  303

  Restart interviews

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number of interviews

  68,201

  50,031

  48,090

  Outcomes

  (a) Job placings

  398

  788

  1,196

  (b) Training for work

  2,037

  1,810

  1,542

  (c) Jobclub

  6,150

  4,861

  2,246

  (d) Restart course

  2,7001

  1,618

  1,322

  (e) Business start-up

  142

  29

  46

  You asked for details about the numbers of clients applying for Income Support under the hardship rules. It may help if I explain that this is the responsibility of the Benefits Agency, who have provided the table overleaf which provides most of the information you asked for. I understand from the Benefits Agency that they do not keep records of the number of Income Support hardship claims for clients who refused suitable employment. This information may be included in the data relating to availability for work and those not actively seeking work.
  When studying the table you will need to take the following points into consideration:
  1. Income Support (General) Regulation 8(3) relates to a person who is not treated as available for employment and the Adjudication Officer is satisfied that, unless Income Support is paid, the claimant or member of his family (if any) will suffer hardship.
  2. Income Support (General) Regulation 10A(2) relates to a person who is not required to be actively seeking employment and is either pregnant, or one member of a couple is pregnant, is responsible for a child or young person or receives the disability premium and the Adjudication Officer is satisfied that, unless Income Support is paid, the claimant or a member of his family (if any) will suffer hardship.
  3. Prior to April 1994 data was collated jointly for Restart and Jobplan.
  4. Information has been provided by the BA's Central Data Unit and is subject to amendment.

  Class Sizes
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the way in which pupil:teacher ratios and class sizes are currently calculated by his Department. [1538]

  Mr. Byers
  The pupil:teacher ratios (PTRs) within schools are calculated by dividing the total number of pupils on school registers (counting each part-time pupil as 0.5) by the total number of qualified teachers (adjusted to reflect the part-time working of some teachers).

  Class sizes are calculated by dividing the numbers of pupils being taught together in classes at a particular point in the school timetable by the number of teachers, qualified or unqualified, deployed in such classes. Average class sizes are normally calculated for those classes involving only one teacher.

  Both measures are derived from information collected from the annual count of pupils and teachers in schools in January each year.

  Assisted Places
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places, at which schools and at what cost were provided under the assisted places scheme in Northamptonshire in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [1808]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of assisted places taken up and the cost of those places for each participating school in Northamptonshire in academic years 1995–96 and 1996–97 are given in the following table:

  Assisted places schemes: Northamptonshire

  School name

  Academic year

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Laxton (Oundle) School

  Number of assisted pupils

  8

  8

  Cost of places £000s

  20

  20

  Northampton High School for Girls

  Number of assisted pupils

  168

  174

  Cost of places £000s

  564

  628

  Wellingborough School

  Number of assisted pupils

  65

  71

  Cost of places £000s

  277

  301

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places, at what schools and at what cost were provided under the assisted places scheme in Derbyshire in 1995–96 and 1996–97. [1534]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of assisted places taken up and the cost of those places for each participating school in Derbyshire in academic years 1995–96 and 1996–97 are given in the following table:

  Assisted places scheme: Derbyshire

  Academic year

  School name

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Derby High School

  Number of assisted pupils

  30

  39

  Cost of places £000s

  98

  141

  190

  Assisted places scheme: Derbyshire

  Academic year

  School name

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Mount St. Mary's College

  Number of assisted pupils

  71

  68

  Cost of places £000s

  309

  294

  Repton School

  Number of assisted pupils

  64

  73

  Cost of places £000s

  429

  512

  Trent College

  Number of assisted pupils

  137

  136

  Cost of places £000s

  608

  636

  Disability
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [1682]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our manifesto commits us to establishing "comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work, developed in partnership with all interested parties." We shall be consulting widely and developing our proposals in partnership with disability organisations, employers, employers organisations, trade unions and others. An essential issue will be the definition of disability. It is not appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation.

  Nursery Places (Dorset)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure the provision of nursery places for children in Dorset who would have been eligible for nursery vouchers in the September term 1997. [1777]

  Mr. Byers
  All Local Education Authorities in England have been invited to submit an interim Early Years Development Plan to secure places for all eligible four year olds in their area for the period until April 1998. LEAs will be expected to consult and co-operate with the private and voluntary sectors in these arrangements.

  Where interim Early Years Development Plans are approved, recognised places in all sectors filled by eligible four year olds will be funded by grant provided by the Secretary of State. Where LEAs are unable to bring forward an acceptable interim plan, recognised places chosen by parents in the private and voluntary sectors will be funded by grant from the Secretary of State by reference to certificates of eligibility issued to those parents.

  Teaching Redundancies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teaching redundancies are expected in each local education authority at the end of the present academic year; how many there were in each local education authority in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [1370]

  Mr. Byers
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Newly Qualified Teachers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many newly qualified teachers failed to gain employment on leaving college in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [1371]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the number of students who successfully completed initial teacher training and their employment status at 31 March in the year after completion, for the most recent years available.

  Position of BEd and PGCE completers at 31 March following calendar year of completion2

  Calendar year of completion

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total completers in England and Wales

  15,830

  17,300

  20,700

  23,340

  25,440

  In service3 at 31 March of year following completion in England and Wales:

  Maintained schools

  12,080

  13,240

  14,550

  16,240

  17,290

  Other service4

  520

  460

  750

  880

  980

  Never in service1 in England and Wales

  3,160

  3,520

  5,320

  6,150

  7,110

  Source:

  DfEE, Database of Teacher Records.

  Notes:

  1 The position at 31 March in the year after completion comes from service records collected for the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (TSS). Qualified students who obtain a teaching appointment in an institution that is not covered by the TSS are shown as "never in service". For example, those who take up appointments in the "old" university sector, in the independent sector without TSS membership, or outside England and Wales.

  2 A considerable number of newly qualified teachers take a year or more before starting teaching. Data from teachers qualifying in 1993 indicate that around 8 per cent. were not in service in March 1994, but were in service one year later.

  3 Including less than 100 teachers who entered service following completion of ITT who had already left by 31 March of the year following completion.

  4 Any other sector or institutions with TSS membership, eg some independent schools, further education.

  Office for Standards in Education Reports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make available hard copies of Ofsted reports to(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [2139]

  Mr. Byers
  At present each inspected school is responsible for making its Ofsted inspection report available to parents and others. Each report is freely accessible on the internet. Hon. Members can obtain hard copies through the Library.

  Primary Class Sizes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority in England and Wales how many classes for five to seven-year-olds had more than 30 children as at Easter 1997. [2219]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on class sizes for local education authorities in England is not available in the form requested.
  192
  Information on class sizes for local education authorities in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Open Government
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to increase openness in government. [527]

  Dr. David Clark
  In our manifesto, the Government were clear in their commitment to the regeneration of our democratic process. Central to that is the White Paper on New Government I announced yesterday.

  This will set out how we will deliver accountable, accessible, responsive and efficient Government.

  These proposals alongside our Freedom of Information Act will bring an agenda of openness to our system of Government at all levels.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce a freedom of information Bill; and if he will make a statement. [533]

  Dr. Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend, the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones).

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish his proposals relating to freedom of information. [535]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to promote open government. [538]

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his proposals in respect of open government. [540]

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives he is taking to promote open government. [541]

  Dr. Clark
  I refer hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson).

  Quangos
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what timetable he proposes for(a) reducing the number of quangos and (b) making the remaining quangos more democratic. [531]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government propose to undertake a review of quangos with a view to reducing their numbers. The issue of making the remainder more democratic will be addressed in the context of the forthcoming White Paper on Better Government, announced yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Freedom of Information (Commercial Confidentiality)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to ensure that issues of commercial confidentiality do not restrict the scope of freedom of information legislation. [536]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Provision to protect genuine commercial confidentiality is necessary in freedom of information legislation but this must be kept to the minimum consistent with the public interest in openness.

  Government Departments (Electronic Access)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce greater electronic access by citizens to Government Departments. [539]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Government are determined to use the tremendous potential of IT to bring government closer to the people and provide them with a more direct and accessible service for the 21st century.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will meet representatives of civil service unions to discuss conditions of service. [542]

  Dr. David Clark
  I have already met civil service union representatives and morale and conditions of service were among the issues raised.

  Government Agencies
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to review the relationship of Government agencies with(a) Government Departments, (b) Ministers and (c) Parliament. [543]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  In the first instance, it is for the Minister responsible for each particular agency to keep these important relationships in good order but we are considering whether there are any matters of general application that need to be addressed. We will do this in the context of our commitment to modernising Government services and making them more responsive.

  Government Appointments
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new procedures he proposes for the appointment to paid posts nominated by the Government. [544]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government will continue to support the principle of selection based on merit. Ministerial appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies have been subject to the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice since 1 July 1996. The Government will be considering with the Commissioner whether his remit should be extended to other public bodies.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his policy towards deregulation. [545]
  194
  Dr. David Clark
  Our aim is to create the economic conditions in which business can flourish. We want to modernise Government for business—particularly small firms—and citizens. That is why we have undertaken to cut unnecessary red tape and not to impose burdensome new regulations.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what role he has in relation to Her Majesty's Government's proposals for Scottish devolution. [546]

  Dr. David Clark
  I will take part in collective discussion of the issues with my colleagues, especially in relation to those issues which fall within my departmental responsibilities.

  Internet
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends to continue to implement government.direct. [532]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Green Paper government.direct contained many good ideas. The Government will harness the power of IT to bring government closer to the people and provide better services for everybody. We will consult interested parties on a range of ideas for taking this forward, including those in government.direct and the paper responding to the initial comments on it.

  Civil Service (Staff Morale)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to meet representatives of the civil service unions to discuss staff morale. [537]

  Dr. David Clark
  I have already met civil service union representatives and morale and conditions of service were among the issues raised.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals she has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in her Department. [739]

  Mr. Field
  The Department supports the Cabinet Office Programme for Action on Race and is fully committed to developing a culturally diverse workforce. Its recruitment procedures are designed to encourage people from ethnic backgrounds to be successful in job applications. Recruitment is by fair and open competition and selection is based on merit. Advertisements are placed in the ethnic minority press and with Local Racial Equality Councils and we also undertake outreach projects. Recruitment exercises are monitored to ensure equal treatment for all applicants and to ensure that those involved in the monitoring process have all received equal opportunities awareness training.

  In addition the Department sponsors 20 Windsor fellows a year, which is an opportunity for ethnic minority undergraduates to undertake work placements within the DSS.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the working of current rules governing the consequences of long-term unemployed people obtaining temporary work and then returning to benefits; and if she will make a statement.[840]

  Mr. Field
  Our New Deal measures will offer new opportunities to the long-term unemployed of all ages. Employers who take on long-term unemployed people aged over 25 will receive a subsidy of £75 per week, and the employee will receive an opportunity to demonstrate both their existing skills and their potential for acquiring new ones.

  Over the next few months we shall be looking closely at all the features of the benefit system which might have an impact on work incentives.

  Appeals Tribunal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the existing operation of appeals tribunals for applicants to(a) the jobseekers allowance and (b) incapacity benefit. [858]

  Mr. Bradley
  We intend to bring forward legislation to improve current decision making and appeals arrangements for all social security benefits. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Child Support
  Ms Roseanna 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 the absent parent is in arrears(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1359]

  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 3 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number and percentage of cases in which the absent parent is in arrears.
  The latest available data on the total number of live cases with a full or interim maintenance assessment (FMA or IMA) held on the child support computer system shows that on 30 April 1997 there were 599,600 live and assessed cases. A breakdown is not available by Child Support Agency Centre.
  The total number of Child Support Agency cases with arrears outstanding from the absent parent is 300,903, or 50% of all live and assessed cases. This figure comprises 61,992 category A IMA cases, (10% of all live and assessed cases) and 238,911 FMA and other IMA cases, (40% of all live and assessed cases). Arrears include, initial payment period maintenance, current maintenance, maintenance arrears, interest and rescheduled arrears. The table below shows a breakdown of these cases by Child Support Agency Centre.

  FMA and other

  IMA cat A

  IMAs

  Total

  Dudley

  11,025

  41,196

  52,221

  Hastings

  8,031

  31,565

  39,596

  Falkirk

  11,132

  40,474

  51,606

  Plymouth

  11,430

  43,235

  54,665

  196

  FMA and other

  IMA cat A

  IMAs

  Total

  Birkenhead

  8,530

  39,200

  47,730

  Belfast

  11,844

  43,241

  55,085

  Agency total

  61,992

  238,911

  300,903

  The Agency does not have historical data on the number of cases with arrears outstanding to give comparisons for previous years. The information above represents a 'snapshot' view of the number of arrears cases at 23 May 1997.
  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 FMA. They are intended to encourage compliance.
  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. The vast majority of IMAs issued are punitive Category As which are intended to encourage compliance. Category B and D IMAs may or may not be punitive depending on the circumstances of the case. Category C IMAs are non-punitive and are used to allow self-employed absent parents extra time to provide the required financial details.
  I hope this is helpful.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of the cumulative savings which have resulted from compulsory competitive tendering. [235]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Research commissioned by the Department identified savings alongside changes to the quality of local services. It shows average annual savings on contract prices of blue-collar services of 6 per cent. for the first round of tendering under the Local Government Act 1988, and 9 per cent. for the second round. The research also indicates that these savings have been accompanied by only minor improvements in service standards, and that more attention needs to be given to the development of local performance indicators.

    Other research, commissioned outside the Department, suggests a wide variation in estimates of savings depending upon the way in which social costs and benefits are treated.

    Whales and Dolphins
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to take to increase protection for whales and dolphins within UK waters; and if he will make a statement. [1074]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    All cetaceans are subject to the highest level of statutory protection in UK waters.

    The UK is a signatory to the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS), and a member of the International Whaling Commission.
    197
    A biodiversity species action plan for the harbour porpoise is in place which has as its objective the maintenance of the current range and abundance, with a longer term aim of ensuring that no anthropogenic factors inhibit the return to waters that previously held the harbour porpoise.

    The Government will be considering the effectiveness of these measures.

    Plutonium Waste
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the predicted dose level attributed to plutonium wastes in the HMIP report TR-Z2–9 Tyrer et al. 1995; and how this compared to the target levels set out in the Radioactive Waste Management Policy White Paper (Cm 2919). [1778]

    Mr. Meacher
    The maximum dose calculated in the report was 9 sieverts per year as a very unlikely worst case. But as no estimate of probability was made for the scenario producing this dose, it cannot be compared with the target of a one in a million per year risk of developing a fatal cancer or serious hereditary defect, set out in the White Paper, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy" (Cm 2919).

    In undertaking this work, HMIP rehearsed some of the procedures and methods which it might need to apply in detailed examination of modelling studies underlying a post-closure safety case for a radioactive waste repository. The studies were not designed to inform HMIP about the suitability of a particular site for the development of a repository.

    Mr. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the level of plutonium contamination in the plutonium contaminated wastes which would be produced by the Sellafield MOX plant. [1798]

    Mr. Meacher
    My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has made no estimate of his own. I am informed that the operation of the Sellafield MOX plant would be likely to give rise to some 120 cubic metres of plutonium contaminated material (defined as solid waste containing more than 0.1 gigabecquerels per tonne of plutonium) per year.

    Magnox Power Stations
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what licensing and planning arrangements are planned to govern the transfer of Magnox power stations from operational to decommissioned status. [1783]

    Mr. Meacher
    Licensing of civil nuclear sites under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended) is a continuous process, from when a licence is granted until decommissioning is complete and the site presents no danger. There is no need, therefore, for any changes to the licensing regime as Magnox power stations transfer from operational to decommissioned status. Nuclear operators are required under the licence to agree detailed plans for decommissioning their plant with the Health and Safety Executive's HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
    198
    Under Directive 97/11/EC, which amends Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, an environmental impact assessment will be required specially for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. The new Directive is due to be implemented by March 1999.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the research reports prepared by the Disposal Safety Assessment Team managed by AEA Technology on behalf of Nirex. [1789]

    Mr. Meacher
    My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has undertaken no assessment of these reports.

    Internal Migration
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the extent of internal migration between each region of the United Kingdom; if he will place this research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [1366]

    Mr. Caborn
    My Department is planning to commission research to review existing data and evidence on the determinants of migration flows in England, to help assess the feasibility of formally modelling migration flows as part of the economic modelling of household formation and the demand and need for housing at regional and sub-regional level. The work should be completed towards the end of 1997, and the usual practice is then to publish a research report.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) analyse recent migration statistics to derive population estimates for England and constituent local authority areas. Assumptions about future migration flows between the four countries of the United Kingdom are developed by the Government Actuary's Department, as part of the process of producing national population projections—the latest projections are published by The Stationery Office in the volume "1994-based National population projections". Assumptions about future migration flows within England, based on recent trends and informed by consultation with local authorities, are prepared as part of the development of the ONS sub-national population projections for shire counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs. The latest projections are published under the title "1993-based Subnational population projections".

    Capital Receipts
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the capital receipts from the sale of council houses currently held by each local authority; and if he will make a statement. [1368]

    Ms Armstrong
    A table setting out the information requested has been placed in the Library of the House. We will be consulting the Local Government Association and local authorities on the Government's Capital Receipts Initiative in due course.

    Household Projections Survey
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will evaluate the findings of the Household Projections Survey; and if he will make a statement. [1369]

    Mr. Caborn
    My Department has not commissioned any survey as such into the household projections.

    The most recent (1992-based) household projections 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 household projections have been subject to considerable public scrutiny, 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 continue 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 should 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 would expect the report to be published as soon as practicable.

    Local Authority Financial Support
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the changes proposed in the Elliott report on local authority financial support; what further studies he has initiated; and if he will make a statement. [1570]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The work of Professor Elliott and the Review of the Area Cost Adjustment provided a useful examination of the issues, though not one which the Local Authority Associations wanted implemented for 1997–98 SSAs. The Department has recently commissioned research to examine some of the concerns of local government about the Review's proposals. It will report in early July and we shall discuss with local government both the findings and the way forward on the Area Cost Adjustment.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each of the areas to be covered by regional development agencies; and if he will make a statement. [1367]
    200
    Mr. Caborn
    I will be making an announcement shortly about our intention to set up Regional Development Agencies.

  TRANSPORT

    Marine Safety Agency
    Mr. Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how his Department will enforce the implementation of British Marine Safety Agency staffing requirements and the new EU VAT directives. [1429]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Andrew George, dated 4 June 1997:
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about the enforcement of UK qualification requirements for masters and officers of large privately-owned commercially-operated yachts.
    It may be helpful if I summarise the background. Until recently, masters and officers on vessels of this kind were required to comply with the deck officer qualification requirements in UK merchant shipping regulations. Many people working in the professional yachting industry, however, found it impossible to obtain the necessary certificates because they had come to professional yachting from leisure yachting and could not meet the requirement to have worked on merchant navy vessels for a minimum specified period. In consequence, the regulation were not being observed. This resulted in substantial variations in the standards of competence of officers working on these vessels.
    Therefore, in consultation with the industry, sail training organisations and the Warsash Maritime Operations Centre, the Agency has developed an alternative qualification. This is the Deck Officer Class 5 (or 4) with command endorsement and is limited to yachts and sail training vessels. It requires a base qualification of the Royal Yachting Association/Department of Transport certificate of competence Yachtmaster Offshore (or Ocean) with commercial endorsement. This is more readily obtainable by those who work in the professional yachting industry and, when allied with a number of additional mandatory training modules, provides the knowledge and experience which we and the industry consider necessary for the safe operation of these large yachts. It can be seen that the MSA has worked closely with industry and other interested parties to develop a qualification which will be relevant to the operation of these vessels. You should also be aware that this Code and the associated qualifications for the Masters and Officers will be adopted by the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Isle of Man and, in due course the British Virgin Islands.
    Our approach on enforcement will be to allow our recognised classification societies to carry out the survey and certification of vessels classed with them. The enforcement of these requirements will in general be through our usual practice of inspecting both ships and the service providers to ensure that the standards are being complied with. However we would envisage further discussions with the industry and all other interested parties on the details of the enforcement regime to be employed in view of the distribution of the vessels throughout the world.
    I am sorry I cannot comment on the new EU VAT Directive which falls outside my areas of responsibility. May I suggest that you direct this enquiry to HM Custom and Excise.

  SCOTLAND

    Special Needs Education
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the percentage of children recorded as having special needs in primary schools in each council area in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, and (c) 1997. [1364]

    Mr. Wilson
    The percentage of children with Records of Needs in publicly-funded schools for 1995 and 1996 is as follows:-

    Education authority

    1995

    1996

    Aberdeen City

    0.7

    0.7

    Aberdeenshire

    0.8

    0.7

    Angus

    1.6

    1.5

    Argyll and Bute

    0.6

    0.7

    Clackmannanshire

    0.5

    0.4

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1.5

    1.8

    Dundee City

    2.0

    1.9

    East Ayshire

    1.4

    1.2

    East Dunbartonshire

    0.3

    0.3

    East Lothian

    0.7

    0.7

    East Renfrewshire

    0.8

    0.9

    Edinburgh City

    0.6

    0.7

    Falkirk

    0.7

    0.8

    Fife

    0.3

    0.4

    Glasgow City

    0.7

    0.6

    Highland

    1.8

    1.6

    Inverclyde

    1.0

    1.2

    Midlothian

    0.4

    0.4

    Moray

    1.2

    1.2

    North Ayrshire

    0.9

    1.0

    North Lanarkshire

    0.7

    0.6

    Orkney Islands

    0.4

    0.5

    Perth and Kinross

    1.2

    1.3

    Renfrewshire

    1.0

    0.9

    Scottish Borders

    1.1

    1.2

    Shetland Islands

    1.8

    1.8

    South Ayrshire

    1.1

    1.1

    South Lanarkshire

    0.7

    0.7

    Stirling

    0.5

    0.4

    West Dunbartonshire

    0.3

    0.3

    West Lothian

    0.3

    0.5

    Western Isles

    2.3

    2.6

    All Scotland

    0.8

    0.8

    The information requested is collected each autumn as part of the Scotish Office Education and Industry Department's census of schools and information for 1997 is not yet available. The data for 1995 has been disaggregated from the returns compiled on the former regional council basis.

    Scottish Homes
    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to allow Scottish Homes tenants to have a local authority option in the event of a housing stock transfer. [1730]

    Mr. Chisholm
    We are reviewing the arrangements for the transfer of Scottish Homes houses in the light of the Government's commitment to give tenants choice in their landlord.

    Whisky Industry
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in the Scotch whisky distilling industry for each year since 1990. [1362]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 3 June 1997]: The information requested, for September each year, is given in the table.

    Number of employees directly employed within the Scottish whisky industry

    Number

    1990

    16,376

    1991

    15,310

    1992

    15,035

    1993

    14,768

    1994

    13,804

    1995

    13,698

    1996

    13,345

    Source:

    Scotch Whisky Association.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Departmental Publications
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the President of the Council by what means her Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1669]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    None of my Department's publications is currently made available in any of these formats, and there have to date been no requests for this to be done.

  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Privy Council Office (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Council how many civil servants, of each grade, in the Privy Council Office were of Asian origin, on 5 May. [720]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    On 5 May 1997 there was one staff member of the Privy Council Office of Asian origin, at the grade of Personal Secretary, out of a total staff of 38.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in the Privy Council Office. [721]

    Mrs. Taylor
    There are currently two staff at the Privy Council Office of ethnic minority origin, out of a total staff of 38. My Department's policy in recruiting and promoting staff is to provide equality of opportunity to suitably qualified candidates, irrespective of their racial origin or religion.

    Disability
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the President of the Council if she will make it her policy to adopt a social model of disability in framing all future and amending previous relevant legislation and guidance; and if she will make a statement. [1670]
    203
    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    The Privy Council Office does not sponsor legislation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has described in his answer to the hon. Member the steps which the Government will be taking in pursuit of our manifesto commitment to establishing comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work.

    Drugs Misuse
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the President of the Council how she proposes to tackle the rising incidence of drug misuse. [534]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    The Government will appoint an anti-drugs supremo to co-ordinate our action against drugs across all Government departments and key agencies. She or he will report directly to me as Chairman of the Cabinet's co-ordinating committee on drugs misuse. One of the "drugs czar's" first tasks will be to review urgently the existing drugs strategy and put forward proposals for tackling the problem with renewed vigour. This will build on action already underway at both national and local level, including legislative proposals to break the links between drugs and crime, and the work of Drug Action Teams across the country.

  WALES

    Devolution
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) financial and (b) other support the Welsh Office intends to give the organisation Senedd i Gymru for its yes campaign on devolution; and if he will make a statement. [1280]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    I do not intend to provide financial and other support to the organisation Senedd i Gymru.

    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to set up, fund and support an official all-party organisation to campaign in favour of a yes vote in the devolution referendum; and if he will make a statement. [1279]

    Mr. Davies
    I have no plans to set up or fund an official all party organisation to campaign in favour of a yes vote on the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly.

    Mr. Alan Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the current powers and duties of the Secretary of State he assesses will remain his responsibility in the event of devolution. [1089]

    Mr. Davies
    I will continue to represent Welsh interests in Cabinet contributing to the formulation of the Government's policy and proposals for legislation. Details of the Government's proposals, including my role will be set out in the White Paper to be published in the summer.

    Mr. Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what budget has been allocated by his Department to support the Government's campaign for devolution.[1088]
    204
    Mr. Davies
    The Welsh Office running cost and publicity budgets set for 1997–98 by the previous Government made no specific provision for expenditure related to devolution. Welsh Office budgets are being reviewed.

    Departmental Publications
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what means his Department makes available its publications in(a) braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1661]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    Details of Welsh Office publications produced in formats other than normal print have been publicised through information releases to the media and through direct contact with relevant organisations, e.g. RNIB.

    The Welsh Office has produced the following publications in braille; large print or audio cassettes. Some have been produced bi-lingually.

    Council Tax—A guide to the New Tax for Local Government in Wales (braille, large print and audio tape)

    Council Tax—Valuation and Banding (braille, large print and audio tape)

    Council Tax—How to Appeal (braille, large print and audio tape)

    Council Tax—Liability, Discounts and Exemptions (braille, large print and audio tape)

    An Inspection of Services for the Visually Impaired in Gwynedd (large print and audio tape)

    Published Information for Users and Carers and General Public—A Guide to Good Practice (large print)

    Keep Warm, Keep Well (audio tape)

    Code of Practice on Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (audio tape)

    Charter for Higher Education for Wales (audio tape)

    Charter for Further Education for Wales (audio tape)

    Patients Charter for Wales (audio tape)

    Parents Charters for Wales (audio tape)

    Tenants Charter (audio tape)

    A Brief guide to the Disability Discrimination Act for People with learning disabilities (large print and audio tape)

    A consultation on Part M of the Building Regulations (audio tape)

    The Mental Handicap Strategy Guidance (audio tape).

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Rowlands
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the running costs of each non-departmental public body in Wales in 1992; and if he will compare these in percentage terms with the current running costs of each body. [1235]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    The following table sets out the running costs outturn for 1992–93 for each NDPB, together with plans for 1997–98 and the percentage change. In some cases the comparisons between the two years are not straightforward. The running cost definition of the Welsh Development Agency, Development Board for Rural Wales, Wales Tourist Board, Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and the Land Authority for
    205
    Wales were rebased in the intervening period; and the Further and Higher Education Funding councils did not assume their full responsibilities until April 1993:

    Advisory NDPBs and tribunals

    Outturn 1992–93 £

    Plans 1997–98 £

    Percentage change

    Environment Agency Advisory Committee for Wales

    1,581

    1,314

    -16.8

    Agriculture Dwelling House Advisory Committee

    1,000

    1,000

    —

    Hill Farming Advisory Sub-Committee

    4,000

    3,000

    -25

    Historical Buildings Council for Wales

    12,688

    15,000

    +18.2

    Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

    5,341

    8,000

    +49.8

    Local Government Boundary Committee

    62,000

    500,000

    +706.4

    Local Government Staff Commission

    Not in existence in 1992

    11,000

    n/a

    Welsh Council for Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education

    5,411

    5,500

    +1.6

    Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee

    17,224

    16,000

    -7.1

    Welsh Medical Committee

    20,103

    21,000

    +4.5

    Welsh Optical Committee

    1,106

    1,500

    +35

    Welsh Dental Committee

    3,371

    7,500

    +122.5

    Welsh Nursing and Midwifery Committee

    3,657

    8,000

    +118.8

    Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee

    10,723

    18,000

    +67.9

    Welsh Committee for Post Graduate Pharmaceutical Education

    2,895

    8,940

    +208.8

    Library and Information Services Council

    9,000

    13,000

    +44.4

    Place Names Advisory Committee

    600

    600

    —

    Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

    57,342

    53,000

    -7.6

    Welsh Committee on Drug and Alcohol Misuse

    Not in existence in 1992

    10,000

    n/a

    Valuation Tribunals

    621,524

    860,000

    +38.3

    Registered Inspectors Appeals Tribunal

    Not in Existence in 1992

    10,000

    n/a

    Mental Health Review Tribunal

    95,000

    323,000

    +240

    Agricultural Lands Tribunal

    6,000

    5,000

    -16.7

    Rent Assessment Panel

    189,600

    163,500

    -13.76

    Agriculture Advisory Panel for Wales

    8,500

    4,500

    -47

    NDPB Running Costs

    Executive NDPBs

    Outturn 1992–93 £

    Plans 1997–98 £

    Percentage change per cent.

    Welsh Development Agency

    14,300,000

    120171000

    1+41

    Development Board for Rural Wales

    3,276,000

    13580000

    1+9

    Wales Tourist Board

    3,936,000

    13958000

    1+0.5

    Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

    3,320,000

    14497000

    1+35.4

    Land Authority for Wales

    1,796,000

    14497000

    1+5.23

    Countryside Council for Wales

    8,500,000

    8900000

    +4.7

    National Museums and Galleries of Wales

    9,129,000

    10452000

    +14.5

    National Library for Wales

    4,188,000

    4870000

    +1.63

    Sports Council for Wales

    1,023,000

    1995,000

    1-2.7

    Welsh Language Board

    Not in Existence in 1992

    1,109,000

    n/a

    Arts Council for Wales

    Not in existence in 1992

    2,004,000

    n/a

    Housing for Wales

    2,870,000

    2,770,000

    -3.5

    Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales

    Not in existence in 1992

    1,573,000

    n/a

    Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

    981,000

    975,000

    -0.6

    Royal Commission for Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

    919,000

    1,125,000

    +22.4

    206

    NDPB Running Costs

    Executive NDPBs

    Outturn 1992–93 £

    Plans 1997–98 £

    Percentage change per cent.

    Higher Education Funding Council

    500,000

    1,616,000

    +223

    Further Education Funding Council

    1,000,000

    2,425,000

    +142.5

    Wales Youth Agency2

    301,000

    310,000

    +3

    Residual Body for Wales

    Not in existence in 1992

    920,700

    n/a

    Agriculture Wages Committee

    2,000

    3,286

    +64.3

    1 Revised definition of Running Costs compared to 1992–93

    2 The Wales Youth Agency was an NDPB until 31 March 1997; since that date, it is a grant aided body.

    Beef Farms
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Pwll Farm, Trevddyn and Carreg y Llech Farm, Trevddyn, Alyn and Deeside, to meet beef farmers. [1306]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    I have no immediate plans to do so, but I have already had meetings with the NFU and the FUW and our discussions did include the problem currently facing the beef industry.

    Transport Minor Works
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review his funding policy for transport minor works schemes; and if he will make a statement. [1299]

    Mr. Hain
    Transport Grant is available for schemes costing over £5 million. Smaller projects are funded at individual local authorities' discretion from unhypothecated resources. I am currently reviewing these arrangements and anticipate that any changes will be introduced for the 1998–99 bidding round.

    Ministerial Visit (Broughton)
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a visit to(a) the Raytheon Jets Service Centre, Broughton, Flintshire and (b) British Aerospace, Broughton, Flintshire. [1266]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    My officials are in regular contact with both companies. I am delighted at their recent successes and congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in saving the Raytheon plant in his constituency. I hope to visit at a suitable opportunity.

    Departmental Computer Systems
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that his Department's computer systems are millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [1241]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    An assessment of the effect of the millennium date change has been undertaken. I do not expect there to be any major costs involved in ensuring that my Department's computer systems can cater for the year 2000.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Compensation Agency
    Mr. Desmond Browne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Compensation Agency's Corporate Plan for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 and the Business Plan for 1997–98 will be published. [2154]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Compensation Agency's Corporate and Business Plans will be published today. The plans explain the Agency's business and organisation and set out assumptions about workloads and resources which underpin the plans and targets.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Chickens
    Mr. Etherington
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many chickens have been dead on arrival at United Kingdom poultry slaughter houses since 24 April. [1121]

    Mr. Morley
    On the basis that my hon. Friend is referring to 24 April 1996, the information requested is as follows:

    Total throughput

    Dead on arrival

    Percentage

    Great Britain

    695,243,052

    11,378,892

    0.2

    Northern Ireland

    58,091,168

    2154,657

    0.3

    1 To 27 April 1997.

    2 To 24 March 1997.

    Animal Exports
    Mr. Etherington
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs were included in the consignments exported on(a) 15 May and (b) 19 May; what factors led him on 16 May to issue a notice under the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994 preventing the export from Dover of a consignment of pigs; what steps he plans to take to ensure regular compliance in the future with the health and welfare laws governing the export of live animals; and if he will make a statement. [1273]

    Mr. Morley
    A total of 2,919 pigs were exported on the MV Caroline on 15 May and 1,583 on 19 May. Officials delayed the 16 May consignment by serving a notice because they were not satisfied with the information given as to the destination. This is part of the Government's overall policy of applying the highest possible standards to this trade and of pressing the other Member States to do likewise.

    The Government strongly prefer meat to be exported on the hook rather than on the hoof. Where animals are exported live, the public must have full confidence that the strictest possible welfare rules are being applied to this trade. We will not compromise on these standards.

    A consultation letter has gone out to interested parties seeking suggestions and comments by 18 June. I have commissioned an urgent review of the arrangements for ensuring that animals are rested, fed, watered, cleared as fit and certified prior to export in accordance with the law.

    BSE
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report columns 95–6, (1) which of the typical selection of identified landfill sites, where checks in respect of ground water quality have been or will be carried out, have a chalk base; [1509]

    (2) if the part of Beddingham landfill site where carcases of cattle infected by BSE were disposed of was lined to prevent seepage into the chalk below; what other classes of waste have been permitted for disposal in that section of the site; and what monitoring of that section of site has been carried out subsequent to the disposal therein of the carcases referred to; [1510]

    (3) if Beddingham landfill site is one of the typical selection of identified landfill sites where checks in respect of ground water quality have been or will be carried out. [1511]

    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 2 June 1997]: The Environment Agency has responsibility for the safe regulation of landfill sites in England and Wales under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Agency has advised that the Beddingham landfill site is licensed to accept industrial, commercial and household waste; there was no sub-division of the site to keep these different waste streams apart; and that the carcases landfilled there (fewer than 10) were deposited in an unlined area of the site with a chalk base.

    The Environment Agency monitors ground water quality in the vicinity of licensed landfill sites to check for leachate contamination as part of their statutory duties. It is understood that there are ten boreholes at Beddingham where regular monitoring of groundwater is undertaken by the operators of the site.

    The Agency has carried out a qualitative assessment of all the sites concerned taking into account the number of carcases buried, the degree of containment and the proximity of water sources. It has carried out a further more detailed quantitative assessment of a selection of sites. This includes a chalk based site but not Beddingham itself.

    The Agency presented its quantitative assessment to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee for comments. The Agency is preparing to publish the final results of the assessment very shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Disability
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make it her policy to adopt a social model of disability in framing all future and amending previous relevant legislation and guidance; and if she will make a statement. [1660]

    Clare Short
    This Department currently has a policy of equal opportunity but is developing an action plan to achieve equality of opportunity specifically for disabled staff.

    Overseas Aid
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the amounts of money Britain has given in overseas aid(a) in real terms and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [1882]

    Clare Short
    International comparisons of figures for official development assistance (oda) are normally presented in relation to gross national product on a calendar year basis. UK assistance between 1991 and 1995 (the latest year for which figures are available) was as follows:210

    Real terms (million at 1995 prices)

    Oda/GNP (Percentage)

    1991

    2,044

    0.32

    1992

    1,988

    0.31

    1993

    2,029

    0.31

    1994

    2,138

    0.31

    1995

    2,000

    0.28

    The Government is firmly committed to working for a safer, more decent and environmentally stable world, and the eradication of poverty. As announced in The Queen's Speech, our development strategy will be set out in a White Paper to be published in the Autumn.

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

Baroness Lestor of Eccles
Miss Joan Lestor, having been created Baroness Lestor of Eccles, of Tooting Bec in the London Borough of Wandsworth, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and the Baroness Gould of Potternewton, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Unemployment: Statistics
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to alter the method of counting the unemployed; and, if so, when.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, 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. The Office for National Statistics is presently consulting customers on the future presentation of labour market statistics; the consultation exercise was launched in May with responses invited by 14th June. Subject to the responses received changes will be introduced later this year. The proposals 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 International Labour Organisation definition.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Sunday 27th April the Prime Minister said that the then Government had been cooking the books and that the real figure of the unemployed was 529,000 higher? As this is an urgent matter in view of the need to pay these people the unemployment benefits which they justly deserve according to the Prime Minister, surely the Government should be getting a move on. Will they also give an estimate of the cost of adding 529,000 people to the unemployment figures who were previously not counted as unemployed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the process that I described of change in the presentation of statistics was of course initiated by the previous Government. We are giving the matter all the urgent
640
attention that it deserves. However the statistics are presented, not a single extra person will be made unemployed.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the economic policy of the previous Government has been responsible for consecutive reductions in unemployment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there have certainly been real reductions in unemployment as well as reductions which depend on the way in which statistics are presented.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister revert to the figures and the criteria that were used in 1979 and dispense with those we inherited from the previous Government which recorded only selective groups of unemployed people? If we revert to the original method we should find out the total number of unemployed rather than have massaged figures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think I am capable in the time available of recounting all the changes that have taken place in the calculation of unemployment figures. However, I refer to the most recent example concerning the jobseeker's allowance which was introduced in October of last year. The principal effect that can be estimated—it is difficult to do this—is that it has led to about 5,000 extra claimants leaving the count each month. That means that the figures are by now 25,000 lower than they would otherwise have been.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the system is so unsatisfactory will the noble Lord tell the House what is the current cost of the monthly unemployment count; what is the current cost of the quarterly Labour Force Survey; and what would be the cost of a monthly labour force survey which seems to be the route down which the noble Lord's party wishes to proceed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot give an answer on the total cost of the claimant count or indeed of the total Labour Force Survey. They are used for a whole variety of other purposes. However, the introduction of monthly moving quarterly totals from the Labour Force Survey—which is the main proposal being made by the Office for National Statistics—is estimated at a quarter of a million pounds a year extra over the existing costs.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most recent ILO rate of unemployment for the United Kingdom was 7.1 per cent., for the United States of America it was 5.3 per cent. and for Japan 3.3 per cent.? Can the Minister say whether the Government have a target rate of unemployment on the ILO scale bearing in mind the authority of that scale?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the main thrust of the noble Lord's question is wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. However, I can confirm that to give greater prominence to the ILO figures rather than to the claimant count figures would mean an increase of approximately 20 per cent., or 350,000, in the numbers which are presented to the public and used by government.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is this not a case of the Government breaking one of their pledges having promised these unfortunate 529,000 people that they should be counted among the unemployed and receive their benefit? The Government are now going back on their word.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that question shows such a wide range of misunderstanding of unemployment and of unemployment figures that it is difficult to address it directly. No one extra is made unemployed by a change in the way in which the figures are calculated.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the exchanges to which we have been listening illustrate the case for the proposal in our parties' joint constitutional declaration for an independent commission to manage government statistics?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I of course support the proposals of our parties' joint constitutional committee. I should point out that it is to the credit of the previous Government that the presentation and calculation of unemployment figures was taken away from the Department for Employment and given to the Office for National Statistics. A start has been made on an all-party basis.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I apologise for calling him my noble friend; I have not quite become used to the system—is the Minister aware that whenever we produced these employment figures year after year they were always said to be fiddled? The Labour Party said that they were fiddled. What is going on now? Is this a fiddle proof system that they are seeking to introduce?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the claimant count which has been used has been changed a number of times. It is a curious coincidence that it always seems to reduce the figures presented. What is now proposed—if consultation supports that—is that we should give greater prominence to an internationally agreed definition of unemployment which surely is the right thing to do if we are to make the comparisons that the noble Lord, Lord Acton, made with other countries as regards our unemployment rates.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would it not be right to say that what we are now doing is "unfiddling" the figures?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend simplifies the issue admirably.

Operation Granby: Medical Assessment Programme
2.57 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy concerning the medical diagnosis and treatment of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who served in Operation Granby, and their families, who are suffering undiagnosed illness.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, all patients referred to the Ministry of Defence's medical assessment programme are diagnosed as fully as possible and appropriate treatment is recommended to the doctor who made the referral. Where it is not possible to arrive at a complete diagnosis, it is normally possible to recommend treatment for specific symptoms. For those veterans who are still serving treatment is carried out by the Defence Medical Services, while for ex-service personnel it is arranged by the patient's GP through the National Health Service. The healthcare of other members of veterans' families is normally a matter for the National Health Service. However, where medically appropriate, veterans' partners are welcome to attend the medical assessment programme.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Is he aware that on 13th March 1997 I had a meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and three Gulf veterans? It was the first time that Gulf veterans had seen a Minister. I am delighted that this Government have already seen two groups of Gulf veterans about this matter. At that meeting I was promised that we would be given answers as quickly as possible. It is now three months since the meeting. Will the Minister please tell me when I shall receive replies to the questions that were posed at that meeting? Is he also aware that there is profound disturbance about the way in which the medical assessment programme is working and that up to 100 patients who have been assessed under that programme are now saying they will attend no further assessments because they are unhappy about the way in which Lieutenant Colonel Bhatt is dealing with them? On the other hand, 30 members of the Princess of Wales Regiment at the Dale Barracks in Chester are being refused referral by their medical officers. Will the Minister say what he will do about those two matters?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Countess for her extremely kind remarks at the beginning of her Question. I was not aware that there were questions to which she was awaiting an answer. I shall look into the matter as soon as I return to my office this afternoon. Nor was I aware that there was a degree of dissatisfaction on the part of certain veterans with the treatment that they had been receiving. I am quite sure that the Minister for the Armed Forces will look into that as his attention is drawn to it, again later today.

643
I fully recognise that the noble Countess has taken a serious and dedicated interest in these matters. The door to my office is as open to her at any time as was that of my predecessor.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the previous Defence Committee in another place recommended that an account should be given as to why Parliament was misled on the issue of organophosphates and an account given of the action taken. Will the Minister confirm that the recommendation of that committee that a report should be made by 1st October of this year will be adhered to?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have full confidence that the Minister for the Armed Forces will meet the recommended dateline of the House of Commons Defence Committee. Other than that I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add. The points about which the noble Baroness inquires are being addressed by my honourable friend in another place.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, further to the noble Countess's Question regarding those who are looking after the Gulf veterans, will the Government consider at the same time the possibility of bringing back Group Captain Coker from Washington? It would seem that he is the one man in whom all the veterans have great trust.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to bring to my ministerial colleague's attention the noble Lord's recommendation. I am sure that the noble Lord recognises that we receive recommendations from many directions regarding who should be involved in this research. I assure the noble Lord that I shall bring his suggestion to my noble friend's attention.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the noble Countess on being the only living evidence for the proposition that Parliament controls the Executive? Since the rest of us lack the noble Countess's skills, does he agree that this story illustrates the urgent need for a freedom of information Act?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, long before I reached this hallowed Chamber, I was warned about the noble Countess and how I would get away with nothing at this Dispatch Box. I have been very careful in the preparation of this Answer, and shall be in all future answers that I give her.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House welcome the Government's determination to continue the policy of thorough medical assessment for those who need it? However, will he confirm that organophosphate poisoning cannot be an explanation of so-called Gulf War illness other than perhaps for a very small handful of cases? Can he also confirm that despite the commendably open-minded approach adopted by his department, there
644
is so far very little hard evidence that nerve agent poisoning might be an explanation for unidentified illness?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful again to the noble Earl for his preliminary remarks. The fact of the matter is that we are unable to say what the illness is. We are able to acknowledge that people are ill; we cannot say why people are ill. At this stage we cannot confirm that any negligence was involved. The United States, too, has spent tens of millions of dollars on research into these fields. I am afraid that the United States is no further towards finding the truth than, regrettably, so far are we.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister did not answer the question of my noble friend Lord Russell. Does the Minister agree with my noble friend that the work of the noble Countess and the failure of governments over the years to respond to the repeated questions that she puts reinforces the case for a freedom of information Act?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, a freedom of information Act runs much wider than this issue, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. I am happy to endorse his encomium of the noble Countess. However, as the noble Earl was good enough to acknowledge, this Government are being more open than has been the case with respect to this matter. It is a little harsh to say that this Government have been involved with another Government for some years in misleading the public when we have barely been in power a month.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the House for the kind remarks made.
Is the Minister aware that I have never maintained that organophosphate poisoning or chemical weapon poisoning is the sole cause of the veterans' illness? I rather think that it is a combination of factors, including the vaccinations that they were given. It is no good crying over spilt milk now, but it would have helped considerably if vigorous action had been taken to find the cause of the illness when it was first reported in 1992. We are held back somewhat by the fact that the illnesses have developed and that no cause has been found. Can the Minister say whether this Government will now fund causal research as well as epidemiological studies?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Countess deserves all the encomia that she has received this afternoon. With regard to the precise nature of the research, I think that I had better see her remarks in writing before I reply because I do not wish to mislead her in any way. I am sure that she will be aware that, as one of his new attacks on this problem, the new Minister for the Armed Forces has addressed himself to the question of multiple vaccinations.

Digital Terrestrial TV: Licences
3.6 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect a decision from the Independent Television Commission on the licences to operate digital terrestrial television multiplexes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure the commission appreciates both the complexity and importance of this decision and the need to complete and announce it as soon as possible.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that completely opaque reply. Word in the street is that the decision will be made on 13th June. Have the new Government made the ITC aware that they are as committed to quality, diversity and choice in broadcasting as were their predecessors? In the light of that, will the Minister suggest to the ITC that it would not be in keeping with those objectives for any individual or organisation to have the foot on the windpipe of both digital terrestrial and digital satellite broadcasting?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the commission operates according to the remit given to it by the Broadcasting Act of last year. We have hardly been in a position to introduce any amending legislation. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the Broadcasting Act says that the applications have to be judged on the basis of the proposed coverage, the speed of rollout of the service, the ability to establish and maintain the service, the appeal of the programme services to a variety of tastes and interests, plans for promoting or assisting the acquisition of receiving equipment by viewers, and the applicants' plans to ensure fair and effective competition in their dealings with service providers. That is the remit which the commission has at present.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the Minister encourage the ITC to look carefully at the financial strengths of the two bidders bearing in mind that if digital television is to be a success there will also have to be a large financial investment in digital cable so that cable users can view digital television?
Will he also encourage the ITC to look closely at the amount of money that will be required by each bidder in their rollout programme to ensure that whoever wins the application can achieve that success?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the financial strength or otherwise of the bidders is of the greatest importance to the commission. It has obtained a great deal of detail from the bidders on that. The Government do not know some of that detail because it is commercially confidential.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the remarks in today's Financial Times by the commissioner responsible for competition in the European Union. He comments on the rival bids being considered by the ITC. Will the Minister explain the
646
status of the European Community on this, and whether there will be any delay in responding to these bids as a result of that intervention?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend draws my attention to a very important article in today's Financial Times, in which Commissioner van-Miert expresses concern about one of the two bids. However, the issue as to who is to receive the contract is a matter for the commission and not for us. As I said, the ITC is required to take into account the whole question of the development of the market and competition issues; but those are a matter for the competition authorities, including the European Commission.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the live showing the other day of the Poland versus England match was extremely popular? Do the criteria to which the ITC must pay regard include an attempt to break the monopoly of certain broadcasting entities on the live showing of important sporting fixtures?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there has so far been no time to review the issue of listed events. As the noble Lord knows, we had serious criticisms concerning the events currently listed.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, do the Government have full confidence in the ITC, or do they have their doubts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Government had any doubts about the competence of the ITC I should hardly be likely to express them at the Dispatch Box today. If it is any reassurance to the noble Lord, the ITC, when it announces its decision, will be required to give the rationale for it as well as the decision itself. Any wish on the part of the Opposition Front Bench to seek a parliamentary occasion on which to debate these matters can be referred to the usual channels.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to explain to the House in plain English the meaning and significance of the word "multiplexes"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not in the time available, my Lords. There are six multiplexes available for digital terrestrial broadcasting; each can carry approximately four to six channels. That should at least give the noble Lord an idea of the extension of variety of choice that is possible from the introduction of digital terrestrial broadcasting.

European Union and the IGC
3.12 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to accept the proposal that the European Union shall have legal personality at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is already the case that the European Community has legal personality. However, the Government see no case for extending legal personality to the intergovernmental areas of common foreign and security policy, or to justice and home affairs.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the main thrust of my question and his reply was described in the Sunday Telegraph of 27th April 1997 as,
"a single arcane sentence in the draft treaty".
The single sentence to which specific reference is made is:
"the Union shall have legal personality".
The significance is that it will mark the moment that the European Union assumes the power to act as a single entity on behalf of all countries that are members. This, more than anything else, will mark the subsuming of Great Britain Limited into a European superstate. What evidence do the Government have that that is the desire of the British people? If there is any evidence, will the Minister tell the House in the clearest possible terms what that evidence is?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord but I do not think he listened carefully to me. I said that it is not the Government's view that we should extend legal personality to areas that are essentially intergovernmental. They must remain under the sovereignty of national member states. We therefore oppose what is currently proposed in that area and what was referred to in the newspaper article.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Answer. To what extent will the Government oppose any possible recommendation that there should be such an extension? Does he agree that all the evidence shows that a lack of legal personality has never hampered the European Union's ability to act effectively on the international scene and would, if accepted by other nations at Amsterdam, represent an unacceptable transfer of competence that he will resolutely oppose?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there have been minor difficulties in that the European Union has on occasion to negotiate agreements which cover areas where there is a legal personality in the Community area on trade agreements, while at the same time reaching agreements on areas where there is not a legal personality. That is the technical reason that the proposal was advanced. However, it has massively greater political implications and we therefore oppose the move. We are not alone among member states in doing so, and we will continue to do so. All these points are matters for negotiation. The noble Lord will forgive me if we do not disclose our final hand. However, we are strongly opposed to the concept in the current draft or anything like it.
I believe I am correct in saying that this is the noble Lord's first intervention from the Front Bench in his new role. I very much welcome him to it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that under Pillar 3 there is now a great
648
deal of intergovernmental negotiation going on and, in effect, agreement about police and intelligence operations among European Union member governments, the United States and others which is not covered by any method of law, domestic or national, and has now escaped national scrutiny? Is he happy that the IGC will nevertheless come out with a means of providing some form of accountability short of legal personality?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is true that there has been considerable progress on police co-operation on an intergovernmental basis. We wish to build on that. There has been some concern, as the noble Lord indicates, about the degree of democratic accountability in relation to that. We shall examine ways in which that can be achieved without prejudicing the essentially intergovernmental nature of these agreements.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is the first time since I came to this House that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has not used a Question on Europe to attack the European Community? Can we he assured that this is not the influence of Peter Mandelson at work in this place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord had waited another two minutes before asking that question! The Government are quite prepared to take questions from any side of this House on their European policy. We have a clear, positive and constructive European policy which we are prepared to defend here or anywhere else.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was just about to ask a supplementary question but in my usual courteous way I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord McNally? I simply ask my noble friend to confirm that the decision on a legal personality is one that must be taken by unanimity and therefore if the British Government oppose it, it will not come into operation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am very happy to confirm that position. That matter, as with every other treaty change that will be negotiated in Amsterdam, will be subject to unanimity and therefore will not happen unless the British Government agree it. I am very happy to be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on this European issue.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.19 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Viscount Cranborne set down for this day shall he limited to five hours.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Delegated Powers and Deregulation: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): 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 report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; to report on documents laid before Parliament under Section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft orders laid under Section 1(4) of that Act; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Alexander of Weedon (Chairman),

L. Ampthill,

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Dahrendorf,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Kingsland,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

B. Perry of Southwark;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the committee or a sub-committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the committee do meet on Monday 9th June at half-past 10 o' clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Service: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving it, I must point out that because of a printer's error, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, has been left off the list of proposed Members of the Committee. I apologise to noble Lords and to the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, for that. I therefore propose that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, be added. I beg to move the Motion with that amendment.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the present condition and future development of the public service in Great Britain with particular regard to the effectiveness of recent and continuing changes and their impact on standards of conduct and service in the public interest;
650
That, for the purposes of the Select Committee, the public service shall be deemed to exclude local government, the National Health Service, schools and institutions of higher and further education, but to include all government departments, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations created by or working for the public service;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Brabazon of Tara,

L. Croham,

L. Cuckney,

L. Gillmore of Thamesfield,

L. Hayhoe,

L. Lane of Horsell,

L. McNally,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

E. Russell,

B. Serota,

L. Slynn of Hadley (Chairman),

B. Turner of Camden;

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Public Service Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the committee do meet on Tuesday 17th June at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Intergovernmental Conference
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne Viscount Cranborne rose to call attention to the case for measures at the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam designed to enhance the ability of the European Union to compete economically worldwide and thereby lay the foundation for jobs and prosperity throughout Europe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of jobs and prosperity in the context of the IGC. This afternoon I particularly look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber.
The Government have put job creation at the top of their agenda. They also clearly recognise that a prosperous Europe with high levels of employment is important for us as well as for our European partners. I fully agree with the Government on both those objectives. Jobs and prosperity are after all self-evidently good and, like everyone else in this

651
House, I do not share the instincts still to be found that there is something morally superior in squalor and dependency. It smacks perhaps too much of some of the less attractive early Christian fathers before the Bench of Bishops. A prosperous Europe with jobs is more likely to be a Europe that is politically stable and less susceptible to the lure of authoritarian parties of both left and right.
There is no doubt that that part of Europe which forms the European Union is rich in the broadest sense of the word. Gross domestic product per head ranges, I think I am right in saying, from something over 22,000 dollars per capita in Denmark to about 12,000 dollars in Greece. The EU is the world's largest trading bloc. It has a combined economy as broadly based and as diverse as any, rivalled perhaps only by that of the United States of America. Our combined cultural and intellectual inheritance is a source of both pride and, I venture to say, of strength. Our geopolitical position ensures that we are at the fulcrum of world stability. If Europe is at peace, the world as a whole will be unlikely to be engulfed in war.
We are all aware of these formidable assets. It was perhaps above all the sense that Europe had wasted them in the first half of this century, particularly in self-destructive war, that impelled the fathers of the European Union to found the European Communities in the first place.
We also know that in the last few decades, certainly until the 1980s. the core western European economies were the cynosure of all expert eyes. Growth was steady, social compacts brought industrial harmony, prosperity was high and unemployment low. They were the envy of many, particularly, dare I say it, of the United Kingdom itself. One felt the British almost sighing: "Would that we could be like them".
It is a matter for people infinitely more expert than I to say how much of those countries' economic success was due to competitive exchange rates, lack of competition from other economies and the United States' role as the locomotive for the world economy. But it is surely becoming increasingly clear that the performance of what I think are coming to be called the large Rhineland model economies has begun to stumble over the past decade.
It is a stumble that is most starkly evident in the European Union's unemployment figures and, equally important, the employment figures. Since, quite rightly, the Government stand or fall by their performance on jobs, I am perfectly happy, for the purposes of this afternoon's debate, to use jobs as our touchstone. I have also noticed, particularly in the wake of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, this afternoon, that there is some argument about the calculation of unemployment statistics. So let me use the Eurostat series which is perhaps as near to a uniform basis as we can get. That series would suggest that of the four biggest European Union economies. Germany's unemployment rate was, last February—the latest figures I can obtain in the series—9.6 per cent.; France's was 12.5 per cent. and Italy's was 12.2 per cent. The United Kingdom's was 7.1 per cent. As at last April, the
652
United Kingdom also had the highest proportion of its population of working age in employment—68 per cent. as against 65 per cent. for Germany, 59 per cent. for France and 51 per cent. for Italy.
Apart from the United Kingdom, where unemployment is falling—and I think the Government would agree that it is falling quite rapidly. however we measure the figures—unemployment in the other three countries remains at best (let us put it no higher than that) stubbornly static. It is clear that our own performance still has some way to go before we can pat ourselves unreservedly on the back. But at least we are going in the right direction. For the moment at least, we seem to be doing appreciably better than the other three big economies in the European Union.
Why are we doing relatively well and why are they doing relatively badly? I believe that in the beginning, and in the end, only successful businesses create jobs. Of course, businesses must be competitive to be successful. It may seem a glimpse of the obvious to say so but I sometimes wonder whether the obvious is forgotten in the Councils of Europe. Economies which provide an environment in which businesses can thrive will be economies which create jobs. They therefore have no alternative but to be competitive.
The Foreign Secretary characterised today's world in terms which I quoted during the opening day of the debate on the gracious Speech—terms with which I agreed at the time and with which I agree now. The world which the Foreign Secretary described is not a world which allows economies to thrive on protectionism. Capital nowadays is too mobile for that, if it ever had been the case, and an increasing proportion of what is sold is in the form of information and services—which are notoriously difficult to control or to measure and which are self-evidently highly mobile. This development alone makes protectionism a loser's game. Governments must be able to compete not just within their own trading blocs but with economies further afield.
As we know, protectionism takes many forms: tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers of a conventional kind, of course, but also a trickier and more insidious form. It is a form often presented in the guise of our old friend the level playing field—an expression of which I seem to remember to my cost the late and very much lamented Lady Seear strongly disapproved. In the interests of fair competition, countries within the existing trading bloc agree to harmonise their tax rates or impose the same social costs or even ban so-called competitive devaluations. The result may eventually be to construct a level playing field, but it will be a playing field which will need a tall ladder to climb up to it and will be expensive to maintain at such a height. The competitiveness of the trading bloc which builds such a high level playing field will decline in relation to its commercial rivals just as surely as if it erected tariff barriers of a more conventional kind.
Part of the motive for this structure is thus to prevent one part of our trading bloc enjoying a competitive advantage over another—a rather questionable procedure at the best of times, since competition is one

653
of the things that induces commercial success. But it is also proposed to compound the felony—if I may call it that—by addressing another objective. That objective is by any measure a noble one. It is to protect the jobs of workers in the European Union, to protect their health and safety and to ensure that they are not exploited by unscrupulous employers. In doing so it is hoped that the direct effect will be beneficial, of course, but it is also hoped that all sectors of society will discover an interest in the great European project—that they will, if you like, become part of the team. Much of the cost of those measures which is ratcheted up ever increasingly is borne by employers.
The difficulty about that approach is that, although it worked until about 10 years ago, it does not altogether seem to be working now. The high levels of unemployment in France and Germany are evidence enough of that. In fact, your Lordships will be aware that in comparison with the United States, which I believe has created about 36 million new jobs in the past 20 years, the European Union has created only about 5 million, half of them in the public sector. Indeed, it is hardly surprising that employers are reluctant to create jobs in sufficient numbers when for every £100 in wages a German employer must pay an additional £31, a French employer an additional £41 and an Italian employer an additional £44. As your Lordships will also be aware, the figure for the United Kingdom is £15.
The burden on employers is also compounded by a burden on the state which is reflected in high levels of taxation and, since people worldwide are increasingly unwilling to pay high taxes, in high levels of deficit in government accounts. The result is a vicious circle which locks in high levels of unemployment to government fiscal overstretch. It is a vicious circle which contributes very substantially to an increasing lack of competitiveness. It is also a vicious circle from which the United Kingdom has begun to escape, very largely thanks to the reforms initiated under the leadership of the governments led by my noble friend Lady Thatcher, whom I am delighted to see in her place today.
The World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report as recently as a fortnight ago highlighted the fact that the United Kingdom had risen to seventh in the world competitiveness league. Incidentally, I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer implied on the "Today" programme that he did not accept the report's findings. He said that he preferred another report that put the United Kingdom in a much worse light. I must say that the right honourable gentleman has made downplaying good news almost a way of life. I know that in the long years of opposition it is arguable that it has served his party well. But, with the responsibilities of office, it would perhaps in the end serve this country ill. So perhaps the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal could tell us when he comes to reply whether he welcomes that report. If it is right that our policies over the past 18 years are raising competitiveness and creating jobs, it would be precisely wrong now in Amsterdam to open this country to a European social model.
Let me remind the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal of what the report said. Of the United Kingdom it said:
"The two decade long restructuring in terms of privatisation and deregulation is finally paying off, putting the United Kingdom into a strong competitive position for the new global economy".
It goes on:
"What we see in the United Kingdom is an economy reborn".
By contrast, the authors expressed alarm about the position in other major European economies. I quote again:
"The chronic crisis in declining competitiveness in the European Union stems from its fiscal and labour market policies. Strong points—such as outstanding technology, management and infrastructure—are weighed down by the extensive welfare state and a rigid labour market. France is stuck in its 23rd ranking. Germany has slipped two places to 25th and Italy ranks 39th".
The report goes on to say:
"Until the painful but essential reforms are met, these countries will continue to suffer from sluggish export growth and excessively high rates of unemployment".
That is the reason for the concern that I expressed to your Lordships during the debate on the gracious Speech, when I said that the advocates of the European Union social model were "Little Europeans" and that they covered their nakedness by accusing its critics of being "Little Englanders". The Little Europeans think that the economies of western Europe are together powerful enough to be able to afford the European social model and to prosper in the new world economy that the Foreign Secretary so eloquently and elegantly described to us. The trouble is that powerful economies often think that. If the House does not think me too fanciful in drawing the comparison, the Ming and Manchu empires thought that and their economic weakness led to their political annihilation at the hands of what they considered to be barbarians.
I also noted that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—I am sorry to see that he is not in his place today and I apologise to him for not giving notice that I intended to refer to him—described my remarks in the same debate as a "farrago of nonsense". I cannot quite imitate his pronunciation and I hope that the House will forgive me for that. I know that the noble Lord is a very great man of extraordinarily wide experience, whose judgments, he may feel, must be accepted without supporting evidence. However, in view of the importance of the subject, I wonder whether, this once, he might have favoured us with a little supporting argument instead of merely bald assertion, particularly when all the known facts seem to be against him.
Businessmen in Europe are, contrary to what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in the same debate maintained, concerned about over-regulation and high non-wage labour costs, since they damage investment and jobs. For instance, Technic, a British tyre manufacturer, relocated a factory from Germany to the United Kingdom. As short a time ago as 17th February 1997, the chief executive, Mr. Peter Webber, stated:
"Productivity in Germany was low because the workforce was limited to the number of hours and days it could work".

655
He added:
"There is no doubt that if Britain were to follow the example set on the Continent, small businesses would find it very difficult to flourish or even survive".
I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House would agree with me that the main source of new jobs is in small businesses, as we have demonstrated in this country over the past few years.
It would also be worth reminding the House that as recently as 17th January this year the head of the German CBI, Hans Olaf-Henkel, said:
"We have too rigid labour laws. We have too high social costs and taxes. We work the shortest working week in Europe. The German government spends 50 per cent. of GDP as opposed to 42 per cent. in Britain. No wonder we have a problem".
I could continue. There are endless examples at my disposal but I do not wish to weary the House.
So, when very shortly the Prime Minister goes to Amsterdam, he will have to decide whether he agrees with the diagnosis of our European partners or whether he wants to pursue the policies that have begun to work here. I must confess that he shows slight signs of schizophrenia on this subject. As Mr. Peter Riddell pointed out in The Times on Monday, the Prime Minister shows some signs of accepting our diagnosis. Indeed, I understand that he has repeatedly expressed his belief in flexible labour markets and the importance of the single European market, which, if he will allow me to say so, is perhaps the greatest achievement of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. Those expressions of belief are extremely welcome from the Prime Minister, particularly at a time when the French elections have shown that France would rather duck making herself competitive and when, as we have seen, the German Government seem to have surrendered their determination that any single currency should be a strong one, much to the Bundesbank's displeasure.
For similar reasons, I am delighted that the President of the Board of Trade, according to this morning's news, wants to examine ways of making our economy more competitive. I must say to her that she could do worse than examine the conclusions of her two immediate predecessors. Those conclusions and the policies that flowed from them have not only received the approval of an academic report—the one from which I quoted—however eminent; they have also received the endorsement of businessmen worldwide, which is perhaps more to the point. We are now the largest recipient of foreign direct investment into the European Union, totalling (I am informed) in 1995, £160,000 million.
As I said, those signs are welcome. However, they are only one side of the story. I am sorry to return yet again to the social and employment chapters and the working time directive, but they encapsulate so completely the spirit of the policies that have produced high unemployment in Europe that it is difficult not to do so.
The Government are fond of pointing out that so far only two measures have been introduced under the social chapter: works councils and unpaid leave for fathers. The important words are "so far". Equally, four
656
important categories of directive under the social chapter are subject to qualified majority voting: working conditions; consultation of workers; equality between men and women in the workplace and health and safety—classic opportunities for closet protectionists intent on building a high-level playing field to exploit on the grounds that everyone is against sin and no decent person would dare question provisions under such heads.
When in opposition the Prime Minister promised to do what he has now announced; that is, that he would sign the social chapter. However, at the same time he promised we would be able to pick and choose which provisions we would accept. That is fine for the five areas where unanimity is necessary; but what about the areas where QMV applies?
Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal could confirm what he failed to confirm during the debate on the gracious Speech—I accept that time was at a premium—that the only way the UK could pick and choose, as the Prime Minister used to want, is to maintain the opt-out we negotiated and to introduce those provisions of which the Government approve in the British Parliament? If that is indeed so—and I am advised that it is—the Lord Privy Seal might also like to reflect that that approach has another advantage. It would mean we could repeal provisions that did not work without the consent of our partners. The Prime Minister's approach is to bet the Bank on a rank outsider on an extremely tricky, small country course. It is not too late to change his mind.
I hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be able to tell us which Prime Minister the British people will have negotiating on their behalf at Amsterdam. Will it be the Prime Minister we have sometimes glimpsed, who understands that competitiveness is what sustains a successful economy? Or will it be the Prime Minister who is willing to sacrifice British interests for the sake of European unanimity? Lloyd George is alleged to have said of Sir John Simon: "He sat so long on the fence that eventually the iron entered into his soul." By Amsterdam the Prime Minister will not have had time to have to suffer that painful experience. But he is nevertheless going to have to make up his mind. It would be nice for all of us to know the answer before he goes.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, and hope that his maiden speech will be as successful as his music—albeit to a smaller audience: one of better quality if I may say so.
I promised the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when we came into the Chamber earlier, that I would try to agree with some of his comments. It would make too long a speech for me to refer to the points with which I disagree; but I agree strongly with his Motion,
"to call attention to the case for measures at the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam designed to enhance the ability of the European Union to compete economically worldwide and thereby lay the foundation for jobs and prosperity throughout Europe".

657
From listening to his speech, one could be forgiven for wondering whether or not the noble Viscount himself agreed with the Motion. If he agreed with it and that jobs are, as he put it, the touchstone of the matter, one would assume that he agrees that that requires the UK to work within the European Union for precisely that objective. However, he did not seem to be saying that. Indeed, he went on to refer to the social chapter as though that was the reason for the high unemployment in various countries in Europe. That is simply not the case, as he must be well aware.
The noble Viscount spoke of taxation. I shall not follow him; I spoke enough on taxation matters when the noble Baroness and I debated them in another place. He spoke of the fact that we are now seventh in the world competitive league tables. He argued that that was because of the low levels of taxation under the previous Administration. That is what I understood him to be saying, but I presume he meant personal taxation and not total taxation. If it was a reference to total taxation, he would be incorrect and I am sure that the noble Viscount would not want to be incorrect.
I want to concentrate this afternoon on the real issue; that is, economic and monetary union. It may not strictly be on the agenda at Amsterdam, but with France and Germany in the situations in which they find themselves at the moment and approaching only 18 months from January 1999 when economic and monetary union with the single currency is intended to start, it is impossible not to discuss the issue. One recognises that there are other important issues on the agenda at Amsterdam, but there is none more important than economic and monetary union and a single currency.
I should have liked the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to have been more positive in his endorsement of the European Union. I hope he was not intimidated by the presence of his noble friend Lady Thatcher—I see from his face that he was not. It is vital for the long-term future of the United Kingdom that we play a full and positive role in the European Union. I hope that my noble friend Lord Richard will be making a positive speech today as opposed to one such as that which we have just heard.
I strongly support the idea that economic and monetary union should be on the agenda at Amsterdam. That does not mean that I support the idea of a federal European Union state. That is not on anyone's agenda other than that of the extreme Eurosceptics. Nobody is in favour of that kind of policy. The major issue therefore concerns what is to happen to economic and monetary union. As I say, it must be placed on the agenda at Amsterdam. If it is not, can my noble friend say that we will seek to put it there? I am sure that he intended to answer that question. I mention it en passant so as to remind him in case it is not in his notes.
There is much uncertainty following recent events. However, we know certain things about the background to economic and monetary union. We know that there is much uncertainty about the French and German position. I have done a fair bit of creative accounting in my time, but never to quite the same extent as that
658
which is taking place in France and Germany. I never sought to revalue gold and transfer it to the Treasury. It is not a bad idea, though at that time it may not have given us quite so much money. Equally, I never thought of transferring pension funds from a publicly-owned corporation to the Treasury, as happened in France. I tried to stop people spending money when I was in the Treasury; I never thought of bringing it in in that way. We know that without France and Germany at the outset there will not be any economic or monetary union. The committee which I had the honour to chair reporting on the consequences of, An Economic and Monetary Union of "Ins" and "Outs" was unanimous when it too came to that conclusion.
We know that the presidents of France and Germany, though much weakened at the moment, are still determined, if not desperate, to take their two countries into a European monetary union on 1st January 1999. We know, not just in terms of the Maastricht criteria for 1997, that many countries which want to be in the first wave, including France and Germany, on a strict view—even if we ignore the fiddles—do not meet the criteria on the grounds of the convergence sustainability. That is the crucial matter; it is not simply a matter of achieving 3 per cent. GDP and borrowing in 1997. What happens thereafter is much more important.
I understand that the new French Prime Minister wants to relax the criteria in two crucial areas: first, unemployment, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was extremely concerned, as we all must be; secondly, the political accountability of the European Central Bank. I hope my noble friend will tell us whether the Government support the new French Prime Minister in that regard. I certainly hope so for myself. If he does not feel like upsetting the Government at this early stage in his career as a Cabinet Minister by telling us his personal views, perhaps he can get our noble friend Lord Simon to tell us instead. I have an idea what his views are. I am not sure about the views of my noble friend.
Even more important is the need to press for some delay in the start of economic and monetary union. I say that recognising that some have now come off the fence on this issue and have come down on the side of delay. I am happy that I made the case in your Lordships' House before the election. I hope my noble friend Lord Richard will also support delay. Will we be proposing it ourselves if no one else does?
I make it clear again that I strongly support both the European Union and economic and monetary union. But as I have said before, there is no reason to rush into this. The European Union is not a temporary union. It will be there for centuries. So why on earth do we need to rush to have it start on 1st January 1999? That will only benefit the extreme Euro sceptics, who, I am bound to say—I do not know whether I see any of my noble friends here—are too stupid to recognise that to push ahead at the wrong time will only help the Euro sceptics in their objective of destroying the European Union. It would certainly help to destroy the European Union if economic and monetary union started without members having sustainable convergence. I fear that there are far too many member states which do not have

659
that sustainable economic convergence, leaving aside the whole matter of whether one gets into it in the 3 per cent. of GDP and borrowing in 1997. We have already seen the political damage which countries like France and others have done to themselves in terms of rising unemployment in a blind dash to meet the Maastricht criteria. I hope we can do something about deferring the whole question of the starting date of economic and monetary union.
I sum up by asking my noble friend these questions. Will he seek to put EMU on the agenda at Amsterdam? Will the Government support the new French Prime Minister in his wish to relax the Maastricht criteria in terms of employment and the accountability of the European Central Bank? Will he favour delay in the start and will he propose it? Those are the real issues which I hope will be discussed at Amsterdam. I hope my noble friend will be able to give us the kind of reply which the debate deserves.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will excuse me if on this occasion I do not follow him in debating the future of monetary union. I prefer to stick more narrowly to the Motion moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I agreed with one or two parts of the noble Viscount's speech. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for his general thesis, which I summarise in his own words, "At Amsterdam we must not open the United Kingdom to the European social model".
The trouble with the approach shown by the noble Viscount was the rather facile generalisation about the contrast between the UK/US model and the continental model. It is argued that it is the unregulated flexible labour markets of the United Kingdom and the United States which create jobs and that it is the heavily regulated and inflexible labour markets of the rest of the European Union, with their heavy social security burdens, which destroy jobs. United States and United Kingdom good; the rest of the European Union bad. With great respect, that seems to be a meaningless generalisation which is riddled with fallacies and which obscures some of the real issues that have to be addressed.
I shall look at the generalisation first. Because of the barriers of language and culture there is immense diversity between the labour markets of the different parts of the European Union. Indeed there is probably more diversity within the individual labour markets of the countries of the European Union than there is between the European Union and the United States. Perhaps I may give as an example the present levels of unemployment. Those have to be treated with great care because different figures are produced and one has to consider the different stages of the cycle in which different countries find themselves. If one takes the average, in recent years at least 30 per cent. of the population of the European Union have lived in conditions of lower unemployment than the United States. The United States has one unique difference in that it has a much higher degree of regional mobility of labour, although one could also say that inside Sweden
660
there is a high degree of mobility of labour. However, there is no evidence that jobs are created and destroyed more rapidly in the United States than in the European Union. Next, there is no evidence that wages are more flexible in the United States than in the European Union.
I wish to cite an article by Professor Stephen Nickell of Oxford University which analyses differences in labour markets. If one looks at the percentage increase in wages in response to a 1 per cent. fall in the unemployment rate, in the long run one gets a very large effect in Italy of 12.9 per cent. and in Sweden of 12 per cent. but a low response rate in the United States of 0.94 per cent., in the United Kingdom of 0.98 per cent. and in Germany of 1.01 per cent. Again, there is no uniformity inside the European Union in the regulation of employment in job protection. It is very low in the United Kingdom and very low in Denmark. It is very high in the southern countries of the European Union, but one has to take into account that they have a far higher level of self-employment, which is the most flexible form of employment of all.
There are different benefit systems within the European Union. I cite again the article by Professor Nickell. One finds that there is a low level of unemployment benefit, and a replacement rate in the United Kingdom of some 38 per cent., which is much lower than that in the United States. But one also finds a very low rate of unemployment benefit replacement in Italy. Elsewhere it is much higher. What is perhaps in some ways more important is the duration of unemployment benefit, which has a considerable bearing on the willingness of people to return to work. It is very low in Italy and it is relatively low in the Netherlands, but the period is four years in the United Kingdom, Germany and Ireland. One finds a very diverse pattern indeed.
If one looks at the question of union structure and the influence of unions in terms of bargaining, one finds that the influence of unions is weak in the United States and strong generally in the European Union. However, that can be balanced, and the effect to some extent mitigated, by the strong collective role of employers throughout most of the European Union. There is a wide difference in the active policies to get people out of unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, and into work. There is a wide variation in terms of payroll taxes, with Denmark having practically no payroll taxes at all.
Professor Nickell's article goes into great depth about the different factors in the labour market which affect unemployment. What are its conclusions? First, there seems little doubt that a very high level of unemployment benefit with a high replacement rate is harmful to unemployment if it is allowed to run on. But if it is of short duration and if there are very active policies to encourage people to take jobs, then that harm is negatived. Secondly, there seems little doubt that strong union influence tends to have an adverse effect on employment, particularly if there is collective bargaining on a unified national basis, but not if that is offset by strong employer co-ordination, as in the

661
Netherlands, for example, where inflation is extremely low and unemployment is lower than it is in the United Kingdom.
There is little doubt that, overall, high taxes, not just payroll taxes, but also income tax, have an adverse effect on employment. However, it is the overall tax picture that one must look at, not just that of payroll taxes. There is also little doubt that poor educational skills at the bottom of the market have a very adverse effect on long-term employment. But the evidence also suggests that laws of employment protection and those which relate to hours of work have little employment effect.
In the past a number of commentators have mentioned the stress experienced by Germany, and the noble Viscount has also referred to this. It is interesting and significant that nobody cites the case of the Netherlands, which is probably the most successful economy in Europe, bar possibly Ireland, at the present time. It has a lower rate of inflation, a higher rate of growth, and a lower rate of unemployment than us, although again the figures have to be treated with some caution.
Let us look at the case of Germany. There is no doubt that there are many weaknesses in Germany and that a number of German industrialists are complaining about the high level of taxation and other disadvantages from which they suffer. Of course, it is nothing new for industrialists to complain. Sometimes their complaints should be taken with a pinch of salt and one should look at the overall picture. Nevertheless, at the moment Germany suffers from a high rate of unemployment—higher than it has had for a long time. While it is not dissimilar to that of the United Kingdom, if one takes into account the OECD adjustments, it is still rising whereas ours is falling, as the noble Viscount rightly pointed out.
Germany suffers from high costs and, as a result, often new factories are no longer built in Germany, but in places where labour is cheaper. That applies particularly to unskilled labour. There is also a certain lack of innovation under the German system. particularly in developing the newer technologies which seem to depend on a liquid capital market of the kind for which the German system does not provide. However, one should bear in mind that the main reason for high German unemployment has been its macro-economic background. It has been the result of unification and the settlement with the East of one ostmark for one deutschmark. It has been the result of the very high wage settlements of 1989, 1990 and 1991 in which the German unions also insisted on maintaining a high level of wage settlements for unskilled workers.
The result of these high wage settlements was to produce a reaction from the Bundesbank to create a much more disinflationary climate than would have otherwise been the case. The whole of Europe has suffered from the deflationary policies of the Bundesbank, which flowed directly from German reunification and its consequences. It is the disinflationary policies of the Bundesbank in contrast to the much more balanced policies of Mr. Greenspan of
662
the United States, which are the main cause of German unemployment and which have had a pretty adverse effect throughout the rest of the European Union.
The second point which needs to be made is that one should not underestimate the strength of German industry. When the noble Viscount referred to the sluggish export growth of Germany and France, one should bear in mind that German export growth has been better than ours. If one looks at the German record over the past 10 years it has been quite impressive. There has been a steady increase in the unit costs of labour of 0.9 per cent., but, despite that, there has also been an increase in their share of the export markets of 0.1 per cent. per year. The reason is that they have sold on quality. When we boast about our competitive position and our labour costs, let us remember that in the long term our future cannot lie in selling on low costs. In the end we cannot compete with the low wages of the Pacific Rim countries; we have to sell on quality.
We have many lessons to learn from Germany in this respect. They sell on quality and the key to their success in that regard, particularly in the medium technology companies, has been the very high level of intra-company innovation, which in turn has been based on a very high level of training, which in turn has been based on a very high level of security of employment and a steadiness of shareholding and ownership. It would be incompatible with an economy in which companies were bought and sold like widgets.
So one must remember that the German achievement has been considerable, despite their disadvantages. They have a very high level of skills which we would be sorely pressed to match. They are not likely to abandon their institutional structures and it would be an error if they did. Those structures have brought them strength in the past, although there are many respects in which they too could learn from the Anglo-Saxon experience.
What are the morals to be drawn from this? The first is that one should not preach at Amsterdam or anywhere else about British superiority and how the British miracle should now be the model for the rest of Europe. We have caught up a bit on productivity, but we are still a long way behind compared to Germany or France. Certainly, we have certain strong points in the creation of new innovative companies through a liquid capital market, particularly in areas like bio-technology.
But the rise in German unemployment and the fall in our own has a very great deal to do with the economic cycle. We had a deep depression and started coming out of it earlier. They had depression and disinflation at a later period. The cycles of the two are out of whack. Indeed there is some evidence now that German industry is beginning to recover. We must also remember that our levels of retraining and skills are very low. We have something like three times as many unskilled people in industry as Germany.
I suppose that I agree with the noble Viscount that to pursue some of the measures which some people seem to advocate, including an employment chapter in the IGC, is not likely to be very productive. I doubt that they will have much effect. I believe that he is absolutely right that the most important single struggle

663
must be against protectionism. We would be very well advised—as the Government seem keen to do—to stress the need for the completion of the single market as one of the prime objectives of the European Union.
I have not yet had time to digest it, but there has been published recently a report which looks extremely interesting. It has been produced by the Action Centre for Europe. It is the Sheppard Report which looks at the whole question of competitiveness in Europe. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Simon, here. He is a great expert on that subject and he has made a great contribution to the question. It would be wise to concentrate on the completion of the single market and to promote measures to create a more liquid capital market in Europe as a whole. But let us avoid generalisations and boastful talk about the marvels of the British miracle and economic recovery. Let us not caricature the social market as something which it is not.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am afraid that it is true that old economists never retire, not while there is breath in their body to deplore the overweening ambition of politicians to play fast and loose with the orderly operation of markets. I begin by congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, on his economic tour d'horizon which saves me the fatigue of going over the record of Britain's superior performance compared with the more recent record of the French and Germans. I agree with what he said despite what I thought was a good deal of nitpicking by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
I want to take a more reflective and nostalgic view of the political follies that we have witnessed in this country in the past and which we now see in full force on the Continent. As an economist, I must confess to positively rejoicing in the impending failure of the European monetary union. I rejoice in its failure not least as another example of the grandiose political schemes that are brought down by humdrum economic realities. I have said before that if there is one fault in this House—if this House has any faults—it is that we are not sufficiently backward-looking. We have a great advantage compared with the young MPs in another place: we can look back further. Most of us here can recall from direct observation and experience the high political hopes of the post-war years. In 1945 we were all young—at least, some of us were. We were then, as now, enjoying a post-election euphoria. We held our breath as we saw both the great parties—in fact, including the Liberals, all three parties—set their collective sights on combining Beveridge's welfare state with Keynesian full employment, economic growth, stable prices and a fixed exchange rate. It all seemed so simple to brush aside economic constraints.
Alas, 50 years later, we can trace the frustration of each one of those well-intended hopes. Rather like today's innocent Bishops, the Butskellites of those days had the most elevated ideals but, as the Dunkirk spirit faded, they shrank from the economic disciplines necessary for success. That collapse of ambitious party programmes conforms precisely to the predictions of the Austrian economists some 100 years ago. Their
664
elaborate theories can be succinctly rendered as asserting the supremacy of economics over politics. Transient politicians may propose, but permanent economic realities have a way of disposing. In the end, market forces prevail and show themselves to be stronger than puny politics.
Let us take another more homely example which we might now in these post-Thatcher times find it easier to agree upon; namely, the doomed pursuit throughout the 1960s and 1970s by all parties of an incomes policy as a remedy for inflation. How politicians strove to establish what might now be called "convergence criteria" between trade union wage claims and inflation targets! Exhortation gave way to sanctions, yet the result was escalating inflation alternating with recession.
When today's CBI loftily pronounces in favour of the single money, or when Mr. Blair hand picks highly paid businessmen to support his European administration, we should all fasten our safety belts. In the 1960s and the 1970s, the same CBI and some of the great captains of industry meekly fell for every fashionable spoof political panacea—from incomes policy to national planning, from the NEDC to the NEB to the IRC. In his absence, I truly wish the noble Lord, Lord Simon, more success than some of those earlier hopefuls whose names I am tactfully omitting to mention.
So we come to the chequered history of this doomed European project. Growing public disillusion can again be ascribed to the fundamental conflict between noble political ambitions and inescapable economic realities, culminating in a flawed attempt to impose a unitary monetary policy on 15 diverse economies. The baneful consequences of that high-handed political dictation have long been clear in the rigging of the single market. Thus competent market economists would have allotted a major role to clear per se rules outlawing tariffs, subsidies and other restraints of trade, enforced by a truly independent European Court of Justice. As for that "ever-closer union" about which we read, liberal economists would have relied chiefly on spontaneously evolving integration through free trade, based on mutual recognition of national goods and services.
Instead, we have had the bureaucratic nightmare of pervasive, pernickety controls over every aspect of the shape, size and quality of products. At the last count, in 1995, there were 24,000 regulations and 1,700 directives. In an earlier debate, my noble friend Lord Moran compared the 297 words of the Ten Commandments with the 29,911 words of the EEC directive on the export of duck eggs. That misguided crusade for a level playing field is like ruling that competitive cricket is allowed only on perfect pitches where every blade of grass is trimmed to the same length. Such a dirigiste perversion of free markets is attractive to Commissioners whose power, perks and pensions depend on their monopoly of the grass-trimming business. Coming very near home, there are seven former Commissioners among the Members of this House. They are spread around all three parties. I venture to say that apart from occasional mild doubts expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Dahrendorf, I can recall very few occasions when the other retired Commissioners have paused in

665
their Euro-eulogies to put a warning shot across the bows of the Brussels juggernaut—for example, over the abuse of health and safety regulations, the contempt for subsidiarity, the missionary partisanship of the European Court of Justice or the recent devious bending of the rules to permit Gordon Brown to repay his voters by knocking tuppence halfpenny off the VAT on fuel.
On EMU, instead of persevering with the hard ecu as a parallel currency accepted throughout Europe as legal tender and competing with national moneys to win acceptance, we have had this grandiose, artificial, political counterfeiting of a single Euro-currency. Since it is now collapsing of its own accord—or even of its own discord—I turn to warn the Prime Minister against another danger.
I perfectly understand and am being very patient when I see Mr. Blair feeling obliged to go to Europe to sign the social chapter as a political sop to the Cinderellas of the TUC, but I noticed that at the same time he called urgently for labour market flexibility and warned Commissioner Flynn not to take the social chapter too seriously. He wanted no avalanche of regulations under its cover. Unfortunately, it is the same egregious Mr. Flynn who dreams of a level European playing field in sexual harassment and may yet get round to imposing a common European bedtime. Furthermore, he is an Irishman—I mean no disrespect—but he will not be as easily silenced as Mr. Blair's docile Back-Benchers. So, as a well-wisher, I urge Mr. Blair to beware. According to an MEP, Graham Mather, there could be up to 87 further social measures in that particular pipeline.
Just as the Bundesbank has at last spoken out against EMU, the German President, Roman Herzog, recently returned from Asia to warn his countrymen of what he called "the German sickness". He referred to 4.3 million unemployed. In describing the state of his countrymen he used the words "despondency", "angst", "ossification", "paralysis" and "a mountain of regulations". I must send to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, a clipping of this particular speech. Uncharacteristically, the German President even made a quip. He said that if Bill Gates had tried to start up in Germany,
"his garage workshop would have been closed down by the health and safety inspectors".
Even the pioneers of the market economy have discovered the old Austrian principle that in the end politics must yield to economics. I urgently warn Mr. Blair that if he amiably allows himself to be ambushed in Amsterdam he will relearn that timeless bitter lesson from early experience.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, the day of my introduction to this House was one of the most memorable in my life. It is an immense honour for me to take my place among so many noble and learned Lords who have made notable contributions to our society. I hope that in some small measure I too can make a contribution on issues of which I have some experience and a few others about which I care passionately.
666
Today it is my privilege to address your Lordships in my maiden speech. I hope that the traditional courtesies that the House extends to new boys will also be extended to me. My confidence in this regard is based on the many kindnesses already shown to me by the Officers of the House and by many noble Lords who have expressed their condolences at the near-impossible task of having to refer to myself as Lord Lloyd-Webber, particularly after six o'clock.
The debate about Britain's future in Europe has centred on the single currency, the exchange rate mechanism, Britain's sovereignty, fishing disputes and common foreign policy—in other words, where we stand in the European Union. However, one matter that I have not heard discussed to any great extent is tourism. Tourism is worth some £40 billion a year to our economy, which amounts to 5 per cent. of GDP. I am happy to say that theatre and related leisure activities contribute hugely to that figure. However, the Government's commitment to signing up to the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty may well change that. Recently, I read a report that a restaurant in Paris was considering closing down and moving to London. I discovered that the social and employment costs demanded by the French Government's interpretation of the social chapter added nearly 50 per cent. to the staff costs of that particular restaurant. If that were not enough, a restaurant in France must pay tax for putting tables on the pavement, gas and electrical fittings and for training staff. In the United Kingdom at the moment employers are liable only for national insurance contributions of between 7 and 10 per cent.
The new French Government propose to reduce unemployment by cutting the working week from 39 to 35 hours. No wonder there is already talk of certain businesses not opening on Friday at all; no wonder that Paris is losing its role as world leader in food to London. This concern extends to a business about which I know something. The imposition of the social chapter as interpreted by the German Government more than doubles the cost of theatre tickets. The London production of "Cats" charges £32.50 for a top price ticket, whereas in Hamburg the identical show charges the equivalent of £66.50. The top price ticket for "Phantom of the Opera" in Hamburg is £75.50, whereas in London it is still £32.50.
German work practices insist on a maximum 48-hour week as well as full sick pay for six weeks. My German colleagues tell me that that is often used as an excuse for extra holiday. With 28 days paid holiday and public holidays that adds up to 12 weeks paid holiday. I would have thought that even fat cats would be impressed by that. One can translate all of that into the production of "Cats". In London there are eight performances a week, as there are in Hamburg. However, the London production, which at present is free from the rigours of the social chapter, employs 25 actors in the cast. In Hamburg the identical show must employ 45 for the same effect. In London there are 36 backstage staff; in Hamburg 105 must be employed. This extra staffing is the only reason why the London production of "Cats" has a top price ticket of £32.50 while in Hamburg it is

667
£66.50. The top price ticket for "Phantom of the Opera" is an absurd £75.50, as discussed earlier. I must tell your Lordships that the figures for the "Phantom" are worse.
I am encouraged by the Prime Minister's stated commitment to develop and promote the arts—we all are—but I am worried that the signing of the social chapter and the consequences of introducing the working practices currently in place in both France and Germany will stifle the arts to such a degree that only publicly subsidised theatres will be able to mount large or adventurous productions. There is a near certainty that extra costs cannot be passed on to the public and thus that shows and the thrillingly newly-burgeoning restaurant business may be in danger of closing. That will have an immediate effect on the contribution of tourism to Britain's balance of payments as well as the money available to encourage and feed the next generation of artists who can continue to build the reputation that this country has earned for its art, restaurants, fashion and theatre.
I have every sympathy, in theory, and respect for the European social model. It is based on a real desire to create jobs and protect employment. It has deep and honourable origins, not least in the social teachings of the Church. However, the problem is that in its present form it simply does not protect employment; it undermines it and makes it more difficult to employ people. I speak only from my own experience, but I trust that your Lordships understand that I do not make a personal plea. I am well aware that I must steer clear of controversy in my maiden address to your Lordships' House. I merely state the facts in the hope that the Government's commitment to signing the social chapter will not jeopardise the pre-eminent position that this country enjoys in the arts. I urge your Lordships to consider carefully the experience of fellow member states and to support an environment that continues to allow Britain to be a world leader in the theatre and the arts in general.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, on behalf of the whole House for his maiden speech which, while steering clear of controversy, did not steer clear of trenchancy and was all the better for that. I welcome the noble Lord here particularly for one achievement in his achievement-studded career. I refer to his ability to add music to the already very well known words of T.S. Eliot and carry them into even more households and into the minds of even more children than was already the case. That is an extraordinary achievement and one for which he will be remembered, even if he is not remembered for all the others as well.
I should like to make only one minor point this afternoon. It concerns research. At the moment there is a complete blackout on anything military in the activities of the European Commission. The European Union is perhaps the most puritanically civilian and absolutely non-military organisation that the world has ever seen. It blushes if it beholds a rifle. In most fields that is an intended effect. It was set up as a non-military outfit and it has remained so. However, in the field of
668
scientific and technological research it has an effect that reduces the benefit that it is able to confer on Europe. I discovered this on a recent visit to the International Technology Foresight Institute in Seville, which is the joint research centre of the European Commission. It receives a very large amount of research money.
The many research stations all over Europe, which are 100 per cent. Commission funded, are not allowed to back any research that has any military bearing, however remote. As one gets larger and larger industrial agglomerations in multi-purpose firms, of which the aircraft industry is a prime example—half of what they do is for military purposes and the other half is for civilian purposes—there is the lowering of a green baize curtain through the middle of the whole entity of international research in Europe, which is to the detriment of Europe. This is referred to in the original Treaty of Rome, and it is maintained in the Maastricht Treaty. It does not appear to be questioned in the draft Amsterdam treaty. I ask my noble friends on the Front Bench whether it would be possible to see if there could be some small derogation from the ban on all things military to permit a freer flow of interest, money and the employment of scientists on the research front?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as the first speaker from these Benches perhaps I may be allowed to add my words of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber. One of the great contributions that he has been able to make, not just to our life but worldwide, is to put, with immense clarity, points which are of great importance. That applies to many of his great musical productions. They may have reminded us of happy poems that we have loved; they may have portrayed some fundamental things to do with the Bible: they may have been about major political events throughout the world. When we discuss Europe, one feels that the public as a whole, not just here but elsewhere, is immensely confused. As I heard the noble Lord, I felt that if he could somehow produce in such an entertaining, agreeable and clear way a musical to explain some of the crucial issues facing us on Europe, that would be a tremendous service.
I say that because I believe that the EU is now facing one of its periodic crises. There is a danger—it is a real danger; I hope a remote one, but still a real one—that we might lose the EU as a result of two forces of opposite extremes, as is so often the cause of bad events. On the one extreme are those who are wholly opposed to Europe and all its works, and on the other are those who are unashamed federalists.
Let us think of the great achievements of the EU. The first 10 years (1957 to 1966) were successful. We established a free trade area and a common external tariff. We then had a period during which a battle was fought by President de Gaulle. It is a battle which would have had to have been fought by my noble friend Lady Thatcher if he had not fought it. It was to sustain—something under real threat at that time—a Europe des patries. That of course resulted in the famous Luxembourg compromise of 1966. It was a crucial development. Although it led to some extent

669
to what is commonly called Eurosclerosis for a while, it was a battle that needed to be fought. Europe des patries survived.
My noble friend Lady Thatcher then made a tremendous contribution when she fought the battle of the budget, because the EEC had descended into total economic and financial unreality. Again, that is relevant to what we face today.
We then had another great success—I believe that it is a success—to which we should hold firmly; that is, the Single European Act of 1986. M. Delors then came on to the scene. In an infamous speech on 6th July 1988 to the European Parliament he declared his ambition that 80 per cent. of all legislation (domestic, social, financial and economic) would, within 10 years—we are just coming to the end of the period—originate from the European Commission.
A perhaps even more important occasion—certainly for the old Labour Party—was M. Delors' descent on the TUC conference at Bournemouth on 8th September 1988 when he revealed his vision of a socialist Europe. The consequent TUC strategy envisaged Europe-wide bargaining. It may be difficult for workers in Greece to know that they are being paid different rates for the same job from people in Finland and Austria when the currencies are different. It would be a great deal easier for them to know that the rates were different were there to be a single currency. But can anyone imagine anything more economically unsustainable than that people in wholly disparate countries be paid the same wage for doing the same job with different levels of productivity?
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was right to focus on the crucial role of the relationship of France and Germany. There are three things that we must bear in mind. First, the French have a great desire for, based on an assumption of a right to, hegemony in Europe. That is of course coupled with the centuries-old conflict with England. I say "England" advisedly, because of course at many stages the French were united with Scotland against England. Let us remember that the real fault line in the political geology of Europe is not between Britain and Germany or France and Germany; it is between France and Britain.
The relationship between France and Germany has always struck me as paradoxical, and yet it is crucial to understanding what is happening now. Germany, which beat France in three wars, has, since the Second World War, been constantly seeking the approval of France. It may all be mixed up with the fact that France had a Roman civilisation while Germany wishes to live down the reputation of the Germanic tribes of Goths and Vandals who 1,500 years ago did so much to challenge that civilisation, and, let us be fair, it may be due to the undoubted cultural supremacy of France in the 18th century.
The problem with the French—we have seen it with this week's election, which is of great importance—is that there is a certain flabbiness: an unwillingness to face up to the real challenges which affect their nation. All too seldom do they seem to have rulers who can
670
lead them to greatness. Of course they had them in Louis XIV, Napoleon and de Gaulle. That flabbiness descends all too often into an effeteness and even into a corrupt and unattractive society. I cannot help but remember the difference between the administration of President Mitterrand in his sleaze and President de Gaulle who, when he dined alone with his family in the Elysée Palace, insisted that the cost of the dinner be deducted from his presidential salary.
That flabbiness is, in a sense, a product of, and yet contrasts strangely with, the arrogance of a ruling élite who lead the people of France to believe that the state is indeed all-powerful. There is nothing new in that. It dates back to Louis XIV; it survived the revolution. France, after the revolution, was run by very much the same type of people who had been running it before the revolution. It applies now to the products of that magnificent higher education system, to which I pay great tribute, which produces the polytechniciens of the Grande Ecole and the enarques who run the grands corps of the French civil service. Parliament has of course a very modest role in France.
The present structural problems of Europe, about which my noble friend Lord Cranborne was right to speak, have been referred to by others. They include taxation and the added cost of labour, and how dramatically that was illustrated by my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber although I am not sure whether the examples he gave were wholly a result of the social chapter. The added costs of employment are indeed a fundamental structural problem in many European countries. It is not levels of employment as such that matter; it is real jobs that matter. Without real jobs—that is, with huge amounts of under employment—economies quickly descend into a Soviet type of system where everyone is working and yet no one is well off. I emphasise that to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who was trying to make a case for there being very little difference in employment levels.
Finally, on the question of European monetary union, of course there is a value from the discipline of fixed exchange rates. We have been through that for years, ever since Bretton Woods. However, it has a very high political cost because all too often, if a discipline is imposed by exchange rates, whether it be a Bretton Woods type system or something like the ERM, a country is forced to run its economy in a way which is not in the interests of the people of that country. As we saw when the ERM collapsed, that is very dangerous and can be extremely costly.
It is a great deal better to have self-discipline and to achieve necessary structural changes on one's own. That is a real problem that we have. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is now most unlikely that we shall have EMU but if we were to have it. we should lose that crucial function of exchange rates which adjust to strains. There are three other ways in which those strains can be adjusted if exchange rates are not available: first, deflation, which means unemployment; secondly, inflation, which leads to unemployment; or thirdly, there can be, and must be, on a massive scale, regional or sectoral subsidies. That implies that a federal budget must be available and therefore axiomatically it

671
transfers from rich to poor countries. We have had something of that in embryo in the common agricultural policy. Indeed, although the CAP applies fairly evenly, there was an attempt at the time of the MacSharry CAP reforms to introduce a differential policy. I am glad to say that that was seen off by Mr. John Gummer when he was Minister of Agriculture.
I believe that EMU is almost certainly doomed as a result of what happened last weekend when France turned its back on the need to restructure its economy. I am fearful of the consequences of the kind of measures which may as a result be adopted at Amsterdam. I hope very much that the new Prime Minister with the policies of new Labour—and it seems to me that new Labour has disposed of all the clothes, and perhaps even the underwear of old Labour—will use his undoubted position of tremendous power and his formidable reputation as a politician, which he has justly earned, to begin, perhaps at Amsterdam, to acquire the reputation of a statesman.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, for giving us the opportunity to express our views on such an interesting and wide-reaching topic as we have before us today.
It is no matter that those views vary widely, and that has been evident from the not so many interventions that we have had in the debate. The noble Viscount will not be surprised to hear that my gratitude does not extend to all the views that he has expressed to us and he will not be surprised either to hear that I do not agree with many of those views. But this topic is particularly timely since the IGC, which began in Turin in March 1996, is due to be completed at the Special European Council on 16th and 17th June in Amsterdam.
The aim of providing a basis for increasing employment and prosperity throughout the world is one which I should certainly hope commands universal support and is, of course, dear to the hearts of the Labour Party as well as to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, as he indicated. The Labour Government have made clear already that among their priorities in the European Union is action against unemployment and for flexible labour markets.
The IGC is very much about, among other issues, completion of the single market and paving the way for enlargement. Enlargement negotiations will start within six months of the end of the IGC and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are at the head of the queue. As well as strengthening countries which are neighbours to the EU, both in terms of their economy and stability, enlargement will open up new markets and opportunities for the UK and other member states.
The IGC is also about bringing the European Union more into touch with its citizens. The need for that was demonstrated only too clearly by the problems encountered in various member countries when ratifying the Maastricht Treaty.
672
The Commission's action plan for the single market will be considered in Amsterdam. In brief, that has broadly four main strategic targets. The first is to make the rules more effective. That includes simplifying the rules at Community and national level whenever possible in order to reduce the administrative burden on businesses and to create more jobs. It includes also proper enforcement of existing single market legislation which, to be effective, must be adopted and enforced in member states.
The second deals with key market distortions. That includes tackling anti-competitive behaviour. The third is removing sectoral obstacles to market integration. The fourth is to deliver a single market for the benefit of all citizens. That must include measures to ensure that people are made aware of their rights and opportunities in a single market.
The European single market is the world's largest domestic market. While it has already achieved much, its potential is still to be realised. Europe needs a better single market for more growth, innovation and jobs. It must be a market which works for the benefit of all—for large companies and small businesses as well as for consumers and citizens. It must be a dynamic market as well as socially responsible and sensitive to the concerns of all who are affected by it.
The single market is not simply an economic structure. It is 370 million people who want better employment opportunities, better living and working conditions and better choice of products and services. That is what the single market must deliver and what we must be working towards achieving.
There is no contradiction between competitiveness for a company and a well-educated, involved and satisfied workforce. It is quite the reverse. They are inextricably linked. The Motion refers to worldwide competitiveness. Of course that is exactly the context in which the European single market must function and be judged. Everything that makes for a productive and effective single market aids that competitiveness.
As my noble friend Lord Barnett said, one important factor in all that, which is not part of the IGC, is EMU. In this particular debate, I do not wish to enter the many-faceted and complex discussions on the future of EMU but I say only that a single market would, in my opinion, undoubtedly work better if there were a single currency.
I make no apology for repeating a point that I have made before in your Lordships' House. Europe creates one-third of the world's wealth and the USA creates one-fifth. But global invoicing is carried out in dollars. In other words, the dollar is used as a settlement currency in 40 per cent. of international transactions. That brings significant advantage to American business. A single currency could offer the same kind of advantage to European business which no single European national currency could do.
I am not in any way underestimating the enormous hurdles on the course to EMU for everyone, including not least for Britain. I speak in the full knowledge that the British Cabinet, Parliament and people would have to agree before the United Kingdom could join. I also

673
strongly believe that sustainable convergence among the economies which take part is essential for a successful EMU. However, I also strongly believe that it is a subject deserving of more informed, detailed, rational and national debate than it has had in the past in the UK, especially under the previous government. I conclude by quoting one sentence from the excellent report from the Select Committee on European Communities, entitled An EMU of 'ins' and 'Outs', where it is said:
"The current debates should be conducted in the language of progress. not the rhetoric of the battlefield".
That was true when the report was written about a year ago and I believe that it is equally true now.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Reay:My Lords, as a preliminary, perhaps I may say how pleased I was earlier to see the noble Lord, Lord Simon, in his place—although he is not now in the Chamber—on the Government Front Bench. His appointment and job title, Minister of State for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, embody the promising aspect of the Government's approach to Europe, the one which is only too likely to run into conflict with their approach to the social chapter, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne pointed out earlier. As someone who has sat on the Government Front Bench in your Lordships' House, I regard with awe someone who has given up an annual income of the better part of £1 million to be able to do so. I look forward to the times when he is able to contribute to such debates in this House.
I should like to continue, if I may, with what may appear to be a digression by congratulating the Government on their decision to let the Bank of England in future determine interest rates. Such arrangements are now in force in most other successful modern economies and their record in maintaining monetary stability, except in the most recent years, has, for the most part, been vastly better than ours. I wish the previous Government had taken that decision. My noble friend Lord Lawson proposed independence for the Bank of England in 1988, and even had a chapter in his memoirs headed "Towards an independent Bank of England", in which he concluded:
"I sense that its time will come—as indeed it should".
But somehow we never arrived there. I suspect that the reason why, latterly at least, it did not happen was that it would have been represented as a step towards, and a preparation for, joining a single European currency. In such ways did the government become increasingly paralysed as their majority shrank, and the Eurosceptics and the Europhobes increased their influence and grip on policy.
I welcome therefore the recovery of room for manoeuvre by the Government of this country in their conduct of European policy. They will be able to, and indeed have been able to, adopt a constructive approach, even make concessions, in a way which is essential if full use is to be made of our influence in Europe. The debate will be about what those concessions should be.
674
I have no difficulty myself with the agreement reported today on a limited extension of the use of qualified majority voting in foreign policy matters.
On the other hand, the Government's rush to join the social chapter, though well advertised in advance, is nonetheless disturbing for those who want to see the economy of this country continue to operate as a job-generating economy. It was encouraging, however, to hear the Prime Minister follow that up by stating his intention to oppose new laws proposed under it that might impede competitiveness. I sincerely hope that he pulls this trick off although, like my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I am sceptical. I must say that I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for tabling the Motion today because it has given us the chance to probe the Government further in this vital area. No one did that better than my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber in his brilliant and devastating speech on the social chapter which gave the Government many questions to answer.
I should now like to know how the Government intend to react to the Commission's proposal—which, according to press reports, is to be published today—to require all companies with a workforce of more than 50 to establish workers' councils. Business leaders have said that this is a matter which should be left to member states. In his concluding speech, perhaps the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can tell us if he agrees with that view.
Large multinational companies may be able to live with Europe's social legislation; indeed, to some extent, they may find it simpler to have the same legislation covering all their European operations. But that is not so with small firms. Additional social legislation can be extremely burdensome to them and could easily stunt their growth. Yet it is small firms that have largely created the additional jobs in this country and that have been encouraged and have proved successful in a way that has not happened on the Continent. Other member states are simply not in a position today to ask us, in this respect, to follow their economic example. It is they, surely, who have lessons to learn from us, as our respective levels of unemployment show and as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition fully illustrated with the relevant figures in his excellent speech.
The Amsterdam summit has of course been completely overshadowed by the unfolding drama of the single currency. Indeed, I agree with other speakers that the likelihood of a viable single currency coming into being seems to be receding all the time. In Germany, the Bundesbank's reaction against the government's proposed gold reserve revaluation, and the threat that that implied to a strong euro, has alerted the German public to those dangers. I find it almost impossible to believe that the German public will accept the prospect of a weak currency.
Meanwhile, France has been preparing to move in the opposite direction. In the election campaign the Socialist Party, now in government, demanded a relaxation of the Maastricht criteria and insisted on the entry of Italy and Spain as a precondition to joining themselves. The party

675
also promised 350,000 new public sector jobs, which would be unlikely to do much to improve the public finances.
So a rift threatens to open up between France and Germany, the two countries without whom a meaningful monetary union is impossible. On top of that, the French leadership will cease now to speak with one voice. So Chancellor Kohl's policy of economic and monetary union, on time, at whatever the cost, is beset with new difficulties. Despite his passionate reiteration even today in the Bundestag of his commitment to it, there must be grave doubts as to whether it will really come off.
I have no objections on principle to a single currency. I can see that if a single currency was introduced in more appropriate economic circumstances than we have today, with convergent economies and flexible labour markets and with the likelihood of it becoming successfully established, the arguments for us to join, rather than to stay outside, might be very strong.
I believe that the former Prime Minister's policy of refusing to rule out joining a single currency, thereby maintaining the right to continue to be involved in preparations for its adoption, was entirely correct and heroically persisted in. One day in the future, however far off that may be, the country may have cause to be grateful to him for it.
Recent developments in France do not, on the face of it, look very helpful for a policy of seeking to improve Europe's competitiveness if that, as I hope, really does emerge as being the policy that the Government intend to pursue. France has voted to escape austerity. But everything depends on how the new French Government decide to proceed in practice. As a French banker, quoted in today's International Herald Tribune, said:
"The people around Jospin are not naive about global economic realities, and they are probably in a better position to ease through changes than the right—if they want to".
So the British Government may acquire allies over time if, as I hope, they pursue such a policy, or they may have to continue having to endure the silent response that President Chirac told us greeted the Prime Minister's appeal for labour market flexibility at the recent summit in Noordwijk. At least I hope that the British Government develop and stick to the song, of which they have so far only sung snatches, are true to it in practice, and simply forget that they once used to say that, unlike a Conservative government, they would never be isolated in Europe.
I hope I may ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal one specific question relating to quota hopping and the Amsterdam summit. The previous Government intended to withhold agreement at Amsterdam unless the treaty was modified to make quota hopping illegal. As I understand it the present Government have maintained the objective but not the threat. Can the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal say what the Government hope to achieve at Amsterdam on that issue?
I conclude on a wider note. Whatever our differences in Europe with the other member states, even if on matters of great importance to us we are in an isolated minority, nevertheless I believe that our future lies within the European Community. I see no future for us
676
outside, nor do I interpret the election result as giving any sign that a majority of the public are ever likely to vote in favour of a policy of disengagement from Europe. We must fight our battles from within, making our own contribution to the creation of the sort of Europe we can be happy to live in. Once we used to turn our backs on Europe and then after some years were forced to fight another war for our survival or in the defence of our other interests. Now we must face and argue with Europe continuously. Surely it is much better that way.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was intrigued when I saw the Motion on today's Order Paper because it seems to me to be an integrationist Motion, recognising the European Union as a total entity—a sort of federal union—not as an organisation of co-operating and competitive independent nation states, which I understood was the policy of the Conservative Party. I was even more intrigued when I heard the Leader of the Opposition speak against his own Motion, because that was what his speech appeared to me to be. I appreciate that he is in some difficulty at the present time. It may well be that his speech was compiled by a committee of six and had to be hastily revised to reflect the views of a committee of five. Nevertheless his speech seemed to show some confusion.
The Motion seems to indicate that the Conservatives never learn. They have just lost an election by an enormous majority. However, they do not appear to have learnt that the reason they lost that election was their involvement with Europe. There was the ERM which caused the slump that made the Government so unpopular, the signing of the Maastricht Treaty and the forcing of the Maastricht Treaty through Parliament in the House of Commons on a guillotine, and their refusal to rule out a single currency during the lifetime of this Parliament. The Conservatives never seemed to learn that their policy on Europe was deeply unpopular. It will remain unpopular so long as we have such integrationist Motions on our Order Paper.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is the noble Lord not prepared to give his own party any credit for winning the election?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, indeed I am. My party, or at least my party leader, learnt that to bruit abroad his British patriotism was the way to win an election. He ruled out the possibility of a federal Europe and said that he was a British patriot. He hung the Union Jack behind him at every press conference and every meeting he attended. He spoke for Britain while the leader of the now Opposition havered about his commitment to Europe and his commitment to this country. If the former Prime Minister had wished to be, and set himself, at the heart of Britain instead of the heart of Europe he might indeed still be sitting on the Government Benches. However, I doubt whether that would be the case as there were other issues involved.
At the present time there are enormous dangers for Europe, and not only for Europe but also for the rest of the world, as we see the problems that this mad gallop

677
towards a country called Europe is causing. It is causing political instability. We have seen the electoral backlash in France and indeed in our own country as they strain to meet the Maastricht criteria for the third stage of EMU. It is creating uncertainty in world markets. Indeed there is a danger of increased currency speculation, greater volatility in stock markets, loss of confidence worldwide and increasing dangers of a serious slump. That is what is happening at the present time and that is what does not seem to be understood.
In spite of that there are Conservatives calling in this Motion before us for European-wide action at the Amsterdam IGC. It seems to me that they still do not understand and they do not realise that it was the measures agreed at Maastricht on EMU that have caused mass unemployment throughout Europe and reduced prosperity in Europe. It seems to me that they now want to compound the disaster of Maastricht by urging more European action. They simply cannot get themselves out of the heart of Europe and put themselves—as I said earlier—at the heart of Britain. If they really believe that the IGC will agree measures to free up markets—as the Leader of the Opposition told us—and get rid of restrictive legislation, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. That simply is not on the agenda. The likely outcome of Amsterdam is an employment title leading to more bureaucracy, central control and additional costs loaded on to industry leading to loss of competitiveness and therefore destruction of jobs.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am glad that some noble Lords say, "Hear, hear!". But they want more European action and that is the kind of action they will get at Amsterdam. It is about time they started learning. It is about time they started listening to me for a change. Of course the problems will be compounded in manufacturing industry. The only jobs that will be created by this Euro-wide action are more jobs for bureaucrats. If the new Government have any sense—I wish them well—and really mean to be friendly to business (not just big business and the multinationals but also small and medium-sized businesses) they will reject further interference through a new employment title.
Britain's long-term economic prosperity will be assured not through more integration but less. There is positive action the Government can take at Amsterdam to help to tackle unemployment. Here I find myself in agreement for a change with my noble friend Lord Barnett. He spoke about creative accounting, and said that he knew nothing about it. But I remember the time when he sold off 49 per cent. of BP—the first privatisation. That was a bit of creative accounting. However, I agree with him that we need to call for delay in agreeing to Britain going into a single currency. I should like the Government to rule it out for all time, but at this stage they could rule it out for the lifetime of this Parliament. That would have a great benefit: it would create a certain amount of stability in what has become a very unstable situation.
678
If we wish to gain real employment in industry, the Government should refuse at Amsterdam to agree to any amendment to the treaty until all countries agree to a root and branch reform of the common agricultural policy. Let us stop up the £30 billion black hole of waste and over-production, reduce the environmental damage of extensive farming, open up world markets in food, and lower costs of food to consumers, thus reducing pressure on wages, reducing unit costs and making us more competitive in the world. Does anyone disagree with that? No, of course not, my Lords. That is one of the policies which I urge on my noble friends when they go to Amsterdam.
Furthermore, I believe that they should make good progress on fishing. They should again go for a root and branch amendment of the common fisheries policy to ensure that it is amended to give Britain back control over its fishing waters with a resultant boost to fishing jobs and economic gain to the economy generally.
I believe that the Government should also urge and support measures to cut the European Commission down to size. Indeed, they should prevent it from acting as though it were the government of Europe. I am sure that no one agrees that it should be the government of Europe. If anyone does, let him stand up and say so. But the Commission is acting more and more as though it were, and it should be put in its place.
The Government should not agree to any extension of the European Parliament's powers. It is about time they reined in the arrogant ambitions of the European Parliament to have a say not only in economic decisions but also in defence and foreign policy decisions.
That is my advice to my noble friends. I hope that they will listen to it rather more than the previous Government did. The Government know my views on Europe. Nevertheless, there is much that the Government can do in Europe by ensuring that British interests are put first, second and third, and are always paramount. I believe that if they do that they will have the continued support of the British people over a long period of time; and I wish them well at Amsterdam.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I am serious. This afternoon started with a Business Motion from the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal that this debate should be limited to five hours. The number of speakers, and the admirable brevity of some speeches, mean that we have a good deal of time at our disposal and I am sorely tempted to revert to my normal habit of a 50-minute lecture. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will take this for granted if I hold him up a little while in pursuit of that.
I have sat through the whole of the debate, as the last Back-Bencher to speak, with increasing puzzlement. I was puzzled by the terms of the Motion; I am puzzled by the debate. What is to happen at Amsterdam on the 16th and 17th of this month is the consideration of a draft treaty—a treaty to be known, if it is agreed, as the Treaty of Amsterdam—which is to take the form of a revision of the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Rome and the other documents which make up the corpus of the organisation of the European Union.

679
That draft treaty. we understand, has now been circulated and I have a feeling that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has seen a copy. He cannot be behind a number of journalists who certainly have done so. But we have not had a text that we could debate, upon which to discuss how the Government might proceed in negotiation. We have had a number of leaks dealing with different topics in the vast array of issues which fall to be discussed.
It was because of that that early in our debate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said—and I see his point—that that issue pales before the problem of EMU; that all the other changes which might or might not be agreed to would be less important than whether or not we have a single currency. Therefore he devoted his speech to indicating what was happening about the single currency. But it is conceivable, since the single currency is part of the agreement reached at Maastricht, that the Treaty of Amsterdam might include a revision of those clauses. It would not be beyond the bounds of legality. But that is unlikely to be achieved in two days in Amsterdam.
The Motion suggests taking note of the desirability of certain approaches to the other economic aspects of these arrangements. The problem is who is to take note of them. We always "take note" in our Motions in this House. We sometimes mean that we should all take note, and sometimes that the Government should take note. But it is not much use our taking note of the desirability of measures for competition, or however one defines it, or of the Government embracing such ideas, unless there is a reasonable prospect of the countries with which we shall be negotiating being, if I may so put it, on the same wavelength—if there are still wavelengths in the digital world. I find it difficult to believe on recent evidence that that is so.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is not in his place. I wished to refer in some detail to what he said. Basically he called our attention to the extreme differentiation between what we call continental Europe, the different countries within it—Rhineland Europe, however one defines it—and the different parts of those countries. When one talks of Germany, there is no lack of prosperity in Bavaria, but there are whole areas in northern Germany where the textile industry once provided employment and no longer does so since, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out, it has been cheaper to have those items manufactured in countries with lower labour costs.
Therefore it is extremely difficult to think of a set of policies that would have equal appeal throughout this number of countries and within many of these countries. Italy is perhaps an even better example than Germany. It has always been a problem of the European Community, now the European Union, that as soon as any attempt is made to devise common policies on a variety of issues we come up against the fundamental differences between their components. As was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, the United States' advantage is that in many respects it has a single national identity, and a greater readiness therefore in
680
relation to labour or capital mobility than is easy to find in Europe or will remain easy to find in Europe whatever changes we make.
The other objective referred to of the revising conference in Amsterdam is to provide a means of expansion, of bringing other members into the Union. and to make the necessary administrative, political and financial arrangements that such expansion will demand. Again, I believe there may be under-estimation of the even greater difficulty in creating common policies which will confront an enlarged Union. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who referred to the impact on Germany of the unification, of the financial problems created by having to sustain a very different level of productivity and a very different standard of living in a country suddenly under single government and inevitably adopting a single currency.
These are serious issues. It is not sufficient for the Government to enter negotiation with quite the optimism which Members of the Government sometimes show. I have no precise quotation with me; however, noble Lords will recognise the general thrust. One hears, for instance, the Foreign Secretary saying that we have a vision of a Europe of co-operating nation states and that we must be the leaders in Europe in order to have that vision adopted. I take that also to be in some respects the position of the Prime Minister.
But that assumes that people are capable of being persuaded. Evidence that that is the kind of Europe they want is, to say the least, somewhat sparse. For instance, it is generally recognised—various speakers referred to this point, including the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—that recent events in France and Germany, ending with last weekend's elections, make the 1999 date for the start of a single currency highly improbable. Yet when I listened to the French election results coming in and to various members of the French establishment giving their reactions, as people in this country do on the "Today" programme, there was not the slightest indication that they had taken this lesson to heart. One would have thought from hearing M. Jacques Attali and M. François Poncet (with whom the noble Lord, Lord Barnett will be familiar) that a single currency is totally unaffected by the result of the elections and by the change of government. The German élite is beginning to be a little more appreciative of realities, but there could be similar quotations from Germany. When we think of the huge gap between the reality of the economic situation and the objectives—perhaps in the long run the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, is right—of economic growth which will in the end determine what happens, there is bound to be a very considerable difficulty facing those who represent Her Majesty's Government at the Amsterdam conference.
I hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who must have seen the draft treaty, will tell us how our representatives are likely to approach, not the whole range of policies set out in what I understand is a thick document, but at least those of primary importance and those that relate specifically to the economy. Maintaining the relatively high level of the European standard of living at a time of global changes in the economy is bound to be extremely difficult. It is more

681
difficult than the competitive position of individual countries within a relatively similar economic framework. It probably means a vast and continuing transfer from one branch of manufacturing or services to other branches, with enormous consequences for education and training.
If there was common agreement that that was what was necessary, the result of the French elections would have been different. The result suggests that at present the majority of the French population—and an election in Germany would not produce a very different result—still believe that by protection, by holding onto the—I shall not say acquis communautaire—acquis français, they can continue to enjoy a standard of living well above that of much of the developing world and equivalent even to that of North America.
So long as that is the case, how do we negotiate? Is there anything we can do? I agree that we should not be triumphalist and wave a banner in relation to our own achievements since they themselves may come under pressure. But how can we persuade people whose view of the world is wholly different that our view is the one that is more likely to be correct? The Prime Minister was probably aware of that difficulty when he modestly demanded a tutorial from the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I am sure that he profited by it. Let us hope that is true. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not in her place to tell us what marks she awarded him on that encounter. I hope that he will not go to the conference with hopes which might be disappointed. So long as there is a fundamental difference of approach as between participation in the world economy and withdrawing on Europe, there are very difficult times ahead.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, with permission I wish to speak in the gap. I apologise for not putting my name down; I had a previous engagement and had thought I would not be present for the summing up at the end of the debate. However, since the debate has not been long I wish to speak briefly.
As I read the Motion, it is surprising that all one can say is that not much will be discussed at Amsterdam concerning jobs and prosperity throughout Europe. The only point at issue is the employment initiative. Even that initiative will be disagreed to not only by Her Majesty's Government but also Germany. So as regards the substantive Motion, we have nothing to discuss. Therefore, we have been discussing everything else: the single currency, which is not an issue. I should like to speak on it but in my four minutes I cannot do so and I am sure we shall have another debate. The single market is an important issue, as my noble friend Lady Ramsay pointed out. It is important to note that if we want a single market and labour mobility across Europe, as many of us do, we must have a common framework of some kind. We must have basic rules so that someone trained in Spain can practise in Germany, Greece or Sweden. If you say that you want a single market but do not want a framework, you are contradicting yourself. What we must do is to calm
682
down about how good we are and how bad they are. We all agree on that. If we wish to create a single market we must ask what are the issues which affect the framework to be constructed for mobility of capital, labour, commodities and so on. Unfortunately, that vital issue has not so far been discussed and it is important. It leads to a certain set of rules which we must discuss.
I do not believe that the social chapter is part of that. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, in a brilliant maiden speech, gave us a nice account of what he knows best: the theatre industry in different countries. But with respect, the figures for employment and unemployment that he gave have little to do with the social chapter. However, they indicate that labour legislation in each country is different. The labour legislation in Germany requires different things from the labour legislation in France, Italy or the UK. They show that there is no uniformity of labour legislation across Europe, we do not have a single social chapter. What we have is different chapters.
My last point on the Motion before I sit down is that the European Union does not compete: different companies in countries of the European Union compete. If we want companies to compete, we must ask what is the minimum the European Union can do not to obstruct competitiveness but to enhance it as best it can. That may require us to agree to have labour market flexibility, differentially in different countries perhaps, but we must also agree that the safety net which we would all like to have may have to be different in different countries. The European Union is not yet ready to have a single uniform safety net across Europe because we do not yet have a single European economy. We have a cluster of economies. Therefore, the best thing to do is to choose the best, with as much subsidiarity as possible, and have the degree of uniformity that is essential for the single market.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a puzzling debate because it has not been clear what was its purpose. I must admit that I am even more puzzled because I thought I had read the draft treaty. I went into our Library yesterday and asked for a copy of the draft treaty. They produced a December 1996 draft, a March 1997 draft and a document marked UKREP, United Kingdom Representation to Brussels, 16th May 1997. That seemed to me to be up to date with the latest Dutch presidency draft. I read through it as fast as I could, looking hard for all the social dimensions. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, I found remarkably little.
There is a suggestion that we should add to the preamble that the promotion of employment is a good thing. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, would agree with that; indeed it is what his speech was about. But there is very little else about employment or the social chapter in the draft. There is a lot on Title VI, the third pillar, which worries me stiff. I hope that the Government are looking through it carefully and that they have read the Schengen acquis in detail, because I know that a number of senior officials in the British Government had not read the whole Schengen acquis in detail until recently.

683
In this debate we could perhaps have been discussing the unresolved issues in the IGC. It would have been a worthwhile exercise. Perhaps as a contribution to open government, our new Government should have put that down as a Motion for debate because there are some important unresolved issues which we have not reached.
One of the things I found most frustrating about the last government was their deliberate avoidance of open debate in Britain. The last Foreign Secretary went round giving speeches about the important issues at stake in European integration, all of which he delivered in other countries. He did his best not to talk about them here. The misrepresentation of what is at stake in the treaty of Amsterdam, the current IGC, reached what was to me its height or depth in the article by John Redwood in The Times the other day. It suggested that this would be the end of Britain. Having read the draft treaty, I have to say there is not much in it. The representation by the last Government of it as a small adjustment, a 5,000-mile service, suggests that that is where we are heading.
Alternatively, the debate could have been about chasing the chimera of the social chapter which the Conservatives have been hunting ever since the last intergovernmental conference. I remember the stories of John Major as Prime Minister phoning Michael Howard as Secretary of State for Social Security several times during the last negotiations, the end game of the Maastricht discussions, just to make sure that the form of words for our opt out was acceptable to the hard-line Eurosceptics in the Government. They made as much as they could of the social chapter because it covered their retreat on a number of other issues: on the inclusion of defence in the Maastricht Treaty, on greater powers for the European Parliament which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, loves to hate and so on.
Alternatively, we could continue the ideological argument of Anglo-Saxons versus Rhinelanders or the pursuit of a completely deregulated world economy, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, was pursuing. One thing that I thought we had discovered in the past 15 years is that when you deregulate you have to impose new regulations. The question is: what new regulations do you impose and at which level of government—national, European, or global—do you impose them? The idea of a totally deregulated national or global economy is also a chimera.
However, we understand that the Anglo-Saxons are not themselves Anglo-Saxons, they are descended from Austrians; or perhaps they are descended from Austrians for whom the British economy in the 1920s (or was it the 1930s?) was the golden age from which we declined from 1945 onwards.
I have been puzzled over the past 15 years or more by the repeated need for free traders, the new Conservatives in this country, to denigrate the German economy. We are now witnessing the third attempt since 1979 to tell us all that the German economy is finished. I can remember in the early 1980s and the late 1980s long articles, even in the Financial Times, on why the German economy no longer worked. Spending time in Germany over the past few years, I have noticed on
684
several occasions that, according to the laws of Anglo-Saxon economics, the German economy should not work. It is a standing insult to Anglo-Saxon economics, as taught in my institution and other British universities, that the German economy works at all. However, surprisingly it seems to. Worse than that, it carries on producing an export surplus, whereas the Anglo-Saxon economies work well for consumers but tend to run export deficits.
What is wrong with the German economy at present is that it has two major failures. The first is the impact of unification which for Chancellor Kohl was a great tactical success but an enormous strategic error. The second is the weakness of the German Government now in following through from where it started some years ago in the economic and industrial transition. It was clearly a mistake to fix the deutschmark to the ostmark at one to one and that had disastrous effects on the East German economy. It was clearly a mistake, though electorally very convenient for Chancellor Kohl, to promise that it would not cost any extra money and there was no need for higher taxes. We are aware, particularly in my party, that other parties are sometimes tempted to win elections by promising that no higher taxes need be levied and one can nevertheless find ways of spending extra money. So our own Government—the last Government or the present Government—are not in a very strong position to criticise.
We know that the German economy now needs to go through a number of genuine reforms. We also know that there are many people in Germany who argue that case. Those of your Lordships who were at the last Königswintel Conference will remember Herr Biedenkopf giving an extremely bitter speech about the CDU in the West, which spends money subsidising miners in west Germany but is prepared to go on leaving people out of work so long as they are in east Germany. There are many critics within Germany whom we need to support.
We have also heard a certain amount about the French economy, which is also clearly in crisis, having failed to push through the logic of economic adjustment, privatisation and deregulation. It is a painful adjustment. I fear that with the new socialist government which has now arrived in France we are about to witness a repetition of what happened between 1981 and 1983. It took some time for a socialist government, once it had taken office, to recognise that there were no alternatives but to pursue a policy of economic adjustment and allow some of the old comfortable public service attitudes of the French elite to give way.
The third example quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was Italy, where there has been a deep political block on economic change which, it seems to me, is now at last beginning to unblock. The Prodi Government is the most useful and progressive government in economic terms that there has been in Italy for the past 50 years. One could have added Belgium and Austria as corporatist states favouring a more protectionist Europe—five out of 15.
On the other side, one could have remarked on, as did my noble friend Lord Taverne, the Dutch example of an economy which has gone through a most remarkable

685
transformation within the terms of the social chapter and the regulation of the European Community. One could also have noted that Ireland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden—a further four countries—are natural allies of the British Government in pushing for the kind of open completed single market, open to economic adjustment, that we need if we are willing to play constructive coalition politics in Europe and are confident therefore that we can find reliable allies.
Let me, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, come to some of the issues which are relevant to the Intergovernmental Conference and which, in the terms of this Motion, will help:
"to enhance the ability of the European Union to compete economically worldwide and thereby lay the foundation for jobs and prosperity throughout Europe".
There seem to me to be four such issues.
The first is the issue of Community competence in international economic relations—the revision of Article 113. The last Government resisted the extension of Community competence on grounds of sovereignty. It seems to us within the Liberal Democrat Party that there are very strong arguments for widening Community competence in international economic negotiations to include all those issues covered by the World Trade Organisation, including services and intellectual property. Here again, I question one of the underlying assumptions in the opening speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne; namely, the assumption that somehow the Anglo-Saxons and everyone else are in favour of free trade and it is the Continentals who are protectionist. In fact, the United States and Japan—and, heaven knows, that large, new and emerging economy, China—have their own balance between wanting to have free markets and wanting to have protection. The reality is that we need to bargain hard with all those other major international economic players and that we will do better to use the European Union to bargain hard in favour of open markets and stronger rules for world trade than try to go it on our own.
For the past three or four years I have acted as an adviser to the Transatlantic Policy Network and been involved in the Transatlantic Business Dialogue with the Americans on how we design the rules for transatlantic free trade and, indeed, cope with creating new regulations to cover new areas of trade, such as biotechnology. A few weeks ago in Washington, I sat in on a discussion with a number of US Congressmen, most of them Republican. I distinctly remember one of them saying, "You have to understand that the American people are in favour of free trade provided they do not have to accept imports".
We must recognise that we have our free traders and our protectionists; they have their free traders and certainly have their protectionists. It helps occasionally on airlines, with telecommunications and with intellectual property to have the weight of the European Union behind us in bargaining with the United States in order to promote open markets, rather than to play old sovereignty against the European Community. I should very much like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his reply to answer that point.
686
Secondly, there are the competition rules. I am sure noble Lords will have noted the story in the Financial Times about the German and the French Governments now asking for their own opt-outs from the competition laws in order to protect the public Landesbank in Germany and, in the French case, those public utilities of gas and electricity which are still under public control in France, which are now partly French-owned within Britain. There must be a majority to block those. There is a great deal of opposition in Germany and even some unhappiness in France. I hope that the British Government have that well in hand.
The third issue is the incorporation of Schengen. There is a whole range of complex issues which have not been resolved by the British Government managing to negotiate an opt-out. Schengen necessarily covers the movement of goods as well as people because people tend to move goods. We need some efficient and rapid border controls for those who have legal standing, not oppressive border controls of any sort; and we need to make sure that the weight of the Schengen acquis and the various contradictions between the Schengen acquis and the treaty are resolved in an efficient way. Incidentally, I have my own severe doubts about the accountability side of Schengen and the civil liberties issues involved with the whole third pillar, with which I am glad to see Sub-Committee F of this House will deal.
I touch very briefly on the fourth issue, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, has already mentioned and which is the question of enlargement. If we are talking about the promotion of prosperity and competition, pushing ahead with enlargement is by far the best way to promote greater growth and more rapid prosperity within the European economy. The most rapidly growing economy in Europe at present is the Polish. If we are able to incorporate those countries more rapidly and give them assistance, they will create new markets for us and we shall gain as they grow. Last week, I found it extremely distressing that the first time this year that any political leader gave us any sense of vision about how we could create a new European economy and new European order was when President Clinton told us what we should do. If our new Government is to provide some leadership in Europe, I hope that we shall shortly hear British Ministers themselves talking on that scale of language and having that scale of ideas.
There are other issues which are clearly still unresolved in the Intergovernmental Conference but I do not have time to touch on them at present. There is the whole question of accountability to national parliaments and to the European Parliament; the whole question of transparency, on which there has been some rather vague language in the draft treaty which I saw; the whole question of the reform of Community institutions; and—not really touched on—the reform of the Commission, which had we been a little less negative, we might ourselves have usefully been able to raise.
Perhaps I may just reply to the noble Lord. Lord Harris of High Cross, who followed the customary habit of criticising those Members of the House who

687
used to be commissioners. The first usefully critical speech on the Commission that I ever heard was given in 1971 by the then commissioner Ralph Dahrendorf, who has remained one of its most trenchant critics ever since.
I do not recognise the image of a protectionist European Union and free trade Anglo-Saxons or proto-Austrians standing up together against it. We have a much more complex image which we must negotiate through the Intergovernmental Conference. I recognise the importance of the European Union as a vehicle for promoting global prosperity and open trade. I see the United Kingdom as playing an important, active and positive role in building coalitions rather than sulking in corners. My party will give this Government its critical, but not unquestioning support in so far as they assume a more active and positive role.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber on a brilliant maiden speech in this House. His insight into the social chapter implications on pricing, taxes, employee legislation, even ticket pricing and labour, came from a great deal of personal experience. But content is one thing; delivery is another. Noble Lords who witnessed his eloquence this afternoon will remember for a long time an outstanding maiden speech.
I am tempted immediately to change places with my noble friend. This is my second speech in your Lordships' House and I can neither match the quality of delivery nor the content. Perhaps, therefore, I should quickly disappear to the Back Benches. At least this evening I shall attempt to raise some of the important issues that have been admirably debated in this House. I intend to concentrate on areas of the IGC which have the most economic impact and which therefore have the most effect on jobs and prosperity.
I start from the premise that, other than the issues of the extension of QMV and the powers of the European government machinery, much consensus exists on both sides of this House on key controversial issues—for example, the opposition to quota hopping and the retention of Britain's frontier controls. But one of the serious issues is the question of rhetoric versus substance. Earlier this afternoon in response to a Question in your Lordships' House on the legal personality for the Union, the Minister gave an interesting response which said, first, that the Government opposed it; he went on to state that the Government strongly opposed it but quickly added that of course everything was open to negotiation.
We need to see how tough the Government will be. It is important that we have the opportunity to consider in substantive discussion many of the issues that have been raised—thus the welcome afforded to my noble friend for raising this subject in your Lordships' House today. It is deeply sad that your Lordships' House, and indeed another place, has had no Statement on Noordwijk or debate on the implications of those discussions. That is unprecedented. I hope that we can conclude—perhaps we will learn from the Minister this
688
evening—that the revised treaty agreed at Amsterdam should be less ambitious than the Europe federalists had hoped.
It was a privilege to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to this debate. His brilliance, acerbic wit and incisive analysis were well-known to many of us in another place. However, it was interesting that he raised a subject which will be of key importance in Amsterdam. I say that because, though the EMU is not on the agenda, I predict that it will be impossible for politicians to resist raising it on that occasion in the light of recent developments.
When the matter is raised, I hope that Ministers and Prime Ministers will recognise that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, were exceptionally important and accurate in the context of the necessity of the delay which he proposed. We understand that emanating from No. 10 is an edict that discourages new or brilliant ideas coming from the Front Bench. I only hope that this is a way of the Government signalling—perhaps we shall hear in a moment—that they propose to take the lead on a proposed delay. If so, they will have support from many sides of this House, especially in the context of the noble Lord's comments that people would be stupid not to recognise that to push ahead at the wrong time, without sustainable economic convergence and without a key recognition that a "blind dash" to meet the Maastricht criteria would be unwise,
"would help to destroy the European Union".
This debate is about competition. There is growing worldwide consensus that Britain leads Europe in terms of economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity—an issue with which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was in agreement. The CBI believes that the UK was the first to recognise the competitiveness and employment challenge in Europe,
"and should be in a good position to influence the future shape and scope of a more competitive European Union".
That is where our role at the heart of Europe should lie. We all understand that competitiveness and job creation are two sides of the same coin. Job creation follows from competitiveness. Competitiveness is nurtured by creating the right climate for growth; encouraging enterprise; scrapping unnecessary regulation; keeping business costs low; and tackling fraud and waste. Our deregulated enterprise policies, combined with low taxation and low state spending, have transformed economic prospects in Britain. We now have one of the strongest economies in Europe as a result.
Compassion is shared throughout your Lordships' House for the merciless distress caused by unemployment. But the solution is in the model of the dynamic market, not in the French socialist model of public sector programmes and state intervention. I hope we have agreement that a prosperous and competitive Europe will be a flexible Europe which is outward looking, free trading and democratic. It will need to be fully accountable to accommodate the sheer diversity of all its member states. I hope it will be a Europe where any new European proposals will have to be open to all and agreed by all; a Europe which accepts that competition flourishes best in an atmosphere of

689
European peace and intergovernmental co-operation; a Europe where supranational institutions act only when they can achieve more than member states acting individually and where the nation state is accepted as the bedrock of the European market. A rigid Europe where decision-making is centralised will severely hamper our global economic competitiveness. The ability of the European Union to compete economically is vital to Britain's interests as the economic benefits of Europe cannot be overstated.
Britain leads by attracting one third of all inward investment into the European Union and 40 per cent. of all investment from Japan and the United States. The positive effect of that can be seen in the increasing number of foreign companies which have relocated in Britain. For example, the favourable climate for inward investment enabled BMW to make a major £500 million commitment here. The praise of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for German exports was well placed; they have an excellent record. But no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, knows that Britain is the number one destination for German overseas investment.
If we are shy of boasting about our record, our partners in Europe will do it for us. Jacques Delors described this country as "an investor's paradise", while Hans-Olaf Henkel, President of the Federation of German Industries, blamed "excessively high" German labour costs for unemployment and praised Britain's policies for attracting investment. He said that,
"Great Britain has become the most attractive location for investment in Europe. Although the German market is twice as large as the British, since 1985 foreigners have invested twice as much in Britain as Germany".
The reason for setting this backcloth is that I hope that the Government will lead on job creation. No one disputes the fact that one of Europe's greatest challenges is to cut unemployment and make its businesses competitive. The priority of the European Union must be to create the right conditions for employment and prosperity by completing the single market and working for further global trade liberalisation; not a fortress Europe, falsely protected by increased bureaucracy and state intervention. There is consensus, and rightly so, that unemployment has continued to remain high on the Continent because Europe does not have our flexible labour market, again a point well put by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber. There is logic in this. If it costs more to employ and hiring and firing is made difficult, then employment will be damaged.
Britain has an outstanding record in Europe on creating jobs and our example could successfully be transferred to Europe. Since 1979, the UK economy has created as many jobs in the private sector as the whole of the rest of the European Union. We must continue to move forward with policies that enhance the competitiveness which creates jobs. This is no accident because the policies have been based on free trade and competition, reform of inflexible labour market regulations, the reduction of non-wage costs, investment in skills and sound macro-economics.
690
Therefore, I believe that the role of the Government in any European negotiations is to protect and advance from this position. When Britain's interests are at stake, isolation in place of popularity is not a dirty word. It is artificial to draw a fault line between co-operation and integration on the one hand and isolationism and protectionism on the other. Indeed, the Government's right to opt in to the Schengen agreement demonstrates what is common sense—that sometimes Britain's geography, culture and traditions mean that our national interests differ from those of our European partners. But I hope that this common sense can be applied across the board. I urge the Government not to compromise British interests in their haste to sign up to the social chapter and support the proposed new employment chapter.
What worries me in those two contexts is the subtle salami-slicing of our current competitive position. Signing up to the social chapter jeopardises not only our economic success but the chance for our partners in Europe to compete competitively following our example. Some directives in the social chapter are covered by QMV (qualified majority voting) making it difficult to avoid legislation which could impose the high costs of the European social model on British businesses, because Britain would have no veto. Why open up the route to potentially damaging regulation on social security and social protection? Why rekindle employers' fears by putting an end to the flexible decentralised arrangements that have made the United Kingdom so attractive to international investors? Why, when unemployment is 7 per cent. and falling in Britain, but 10 per cent. and rising in many countries of Europe, threaten the very competitiveness and job prospects we have worked so hard to put in place?
In recent days, the Prime Minister has emphasised his admirable aspirations for European job creation and unburdened, deregulated labour markets which assist in the reduction of unemployment. He has downplayed the possibility that other countries may now try to use the social chapter to end so-called "social dumping" by countries which have lower non-wage costs, on the grounds that there is no appetite in Europe for "great rafts of additional legislation". But is it worth even taking the risk? The CBI issued a warning against the spectre of damaging labour practices. We would all suffer if damaging practices took on an unfortunate double meaning.
The second issue is the working time directive. The new treaty will not now recognise that our hard-won opt-out from the social chapter enabled us to be exempt from the working time directive. The working time directive will burden employers and cost jobs. It will not necessarily limit the working week to 48 hours. I genuinely fear that it will limit the working week to no hours for many people because there will be fewer jobs.
The Government support the proposed new employment chapter. But what benefit can Britain's signature on such a chapter bring to the people of Britain? I hope that we will not forget that although such treaties can create the right conditions for businesses to create jobs, treaties themselves only create jobs for treaty drafters. High or even full employment levels are the goal of every government. Physical enshrinement of

691
this goal in treaty form has no positive effect, but it does have a negative effect of raising expectations without delivering a job. If raised expectations do not ring sufficient warning bells for a new government, the risk of the imposition of continental employment policies less successful than our own should do so, otherwise the brightly-feted new employment chapter could fast become the reviled unemployment chapter.
In conclusion, I want to concentrate on one point—the development of policies and the manner of the development of policies in this sector in recent weeks. The Prime Minister will have a hard enough job in Amsterdam negotiating for Britain on quota hopping and border controls. He talks of tough negotiations but I am worried that the Government may have broken the cardinal rule of negotiating by revealing a hand before the first round of cards has been dealt. For example, the Government have already proposed to extend qualified majority voting to four new important areas of policy—social, industrial, regional and environmental. Only two countries out of 15 put forward such specific proposals on the extension of qualified majority voting. The Prime Minister has talked of a "third way" between the European social democrat model of "worker participation" and the Anglo-Saxon model of free market capitalism. But the haste to support the employment chapter, and the end of the opt-out on the social chapter, belie the Government's words.
The Government say that they want an alliance of independent nations choosing to co-operate to achieve the goals they cannot achieve alone and that they oppose a European federal superstate. How do proposals to increase the powers of the European Parliament so that legislation currently decided by qualified majority voting by the Council of Ministers is subject to a simplified form of co-decision in the European Parliament enhance an alliance of independent nations? Every increase in the powers of the European Parliament by definition must reduce the powers of national parliaments, limiting democratic accountability and centralising more powers.
The Government have said that they want to make the Union more open, democratic and efficient. That is an admirable aim, but not if it is at the expense of democracy, efficiency and competition in our economy. The Government's rhetoric relies on talk of promoting employment and improving competitiveness, yet their actions speak louder than any rhetoric could. To date they have chosen to pursue policies which have distinctly failed to achieve these goals in Europe. It is certainly a fear that in their speed to integrate, the Government will concede in haste and repent at leisure.
As my noble friend Lord Marlesford eruditely said, the European Union should be a partnership of nations, with Britain at the heart of that partnership. The European Union is and has been a success story. The degree of co-operation in Europe today, from the fight against international crime and drugs to higher environmental standards, is extraordinary, unprecedented and praiseworthy in history. It is a partnership that is more than a free trade area, but must be less than a federal state. The European Union should
692
do less as time goes on, but do it better. In this case, less will really mean more, because more trade, more jobs and more prosperity will flow.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of these points. There is no doubt about the depth of feeling and good wishes that go with the Minister and the Government to Amsterdam to obtain the best possible deal for Europe and to build on the unquestioned motivation and drive that the Government have displayed to date. Our top priority should be job creation and prosperity. If the Government want to benefit both the people of Britain and the people of the European Union, at the IGC they will work for a decentralised, deregulated and competitive Europe. I seriously hope that the creation of private sector jobs and prosperity will be the measure of this Government's true leadership in Europe, for which I wish them well.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as is very often the case, your Lordships' debate today has been fascinating. We have heard various contributions from all sides of the House expressing all kinds of views. Before I begin answering the debate, perhaps I may first express my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber. It is difficult to say "Lord Lloyd-Webber". I have the same trouble with saying "Lord Boyd-Carpenter". I express my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, on his speech. On 2nd May I wondered whether we would have the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, having regard to the result of the election, but we are delighted that he did not do what the newspapers reported: that he intended to emigrate. Not having emigrated, we were delighted to hear him this afternoon and we look forward very much to hearing him again in the near future. He spoke on a subject which he knew something about. That is one of the qualities of this House which is not always displayed in other debating chambers. On the whole, but not invariably, speakers in this House do have something to say and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, said something this afternoon.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on what I believe was his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. I agreed with a large part of it and it seemed to me to be the pattern for the position of the Opposition in this debate. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his Leader the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I am not absolutely certain why we are having this debate at all. I share the puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I think I can agree with the Motion which is before us. It calls for measures,
"designed to enhance the ability of the European Union to compete economically worldwide"—
there is no problem there—
"and thereby lay the foundation for jobs and prosperity throughout Europe".
I find no difficulty with that. The Motion then states,
"and to move for Papers".
I have no difficulty with that either.

693
As the debate progressed it became perfectly clear that we were going to have the kind of debate that the Government, as they then were, used to try to have when the Labour Party was in Opposition; that is, what the then Government thought Labour Party policy would be when we had won the election. If it had been a debate with old Conservative versus old Labour attitudes towards the European Community, I could have well understood the speech from the noble Viscount. But looking at what this Government have actually said and done in relation to the Community over the past four weeks, frankly, and with respect to the noble Viscount, I found his speech to be overblown and his concern somewhat synthetic.
Perhaps I may deal with two or three specific questions which I have been asked. My noble friend Lord Barnett asked me about EMU and whether it was going to he discussed at Amsterdam. Like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I find it inconceivable that it will not be mentioned at some stage in the course of the discussions. He wanted to know the Government's position. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister answered a Question at Question Time in the other place. He told the Commons that we would keep our options open on whether the UK should join a single currency. He stressed,
"We have made it clear … that it is highly unlikely that Britain would want to join the first wave of monetary union. I … also made it clear, as we have always said, that the criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way. If they are, the answer is not to delay—the answer is not to proceed".
That is the Government's position as expressed at 3.30 p.m. this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked a few specific questions which I would like to answer specifically right at the outset. He asked about the Government's attitude towards a Commission proposal (which I thought he believed was due to be published today) for obligatory workers' councils for all firms with more than 50 workers. If that is proposed today, the Government will obviously need to consider it very carefully indeed. Under the social chapter there is already provision for workers' councils for large firms with over 2,000 employees. We are doubtful whether it makes sense to legislate on this new measure at EU level. We believe that it should be left to member states to decide and, within that, it should be left to individual employers. It will clearly impose additional cost. That is the provisional view that the Government have on this matter, which I hope may be somewhat comforting to the noble Lord.
The second question the noble Lord asked was about quota-hopping and what we expected from the Amsterdam Summit. Negotiations in the IGC are still going on. The Government attach great importance to achieving progress on quota-hopping before the conclusion of the IGC. Therefore, we are looking actively at all the available options with the European Commission and the presidency. I am sure that the House would not expect me to disclose a greater part of one's negotiating hand. It has been a strange debate. On the one hand I have been told that we should be more
694
open. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that we have been too open and that we have disclosed too much. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not. I shall disclose as much as I believe it prudent to do.
Like many other speakers in this debate, I and the Government recognise that our future lies unequivocally in the European Union. That means that we shall play a central part in the Union's affairs. I believe that we have a clear view of Britain's interests in Europe. A month ago the Prime Minister outlined in Manchester the five key priorities for this Government. He also explained them to other European leaders in Noordwijk a little under two weeks ago. Perhaps I may set out those priorities as we see them. First, the position of the single market; secondly, enlargement to the east; thirdly, reform of the common agricultural policy; fourthly, major action against unemployment and for a flexible labour market; and, finally, real foreign policy co-operation.
That agenda is very largely shared by other governments in the Union. If I can use the analogy, the UK is now swimming in the European mainstream. That is a change. As far as we are concerned, the fresh start that we have initiated means no more posturing and confrontation for the sake of the posture; no more alienating partners for the sake of alienation; no harming of British interests for no conceivable, sensible purpose.
We are helping to shape the European agenda. We are going to use our presidency to push the European Union in a more competitive direction; for instance, to take firmer action against state aid which leads, as we know, to substantial competitive distortion. Our recent proposals to the IGC on fraud are setting the agenda now in financial management. The IGC, of course, is only one in a rolling programme of EU negotiations in which the Government will be pursuing those objectives. They also include EMU, future financing and enlargement.
As regards EMU, substantial convergence among the economies which take part is essential for its success. In principle it could have substantial benefits such as lower long-term interest rates, reduced speculation and transaction costs and, perhaps most important, greater stability. A single market may well work better if there were a single currency. The Government are quite determined to be at the centre of the debate ensuring that if EMU goes ahead it does so on a strong and sustainable basis.
We recognise that there are formidable obstacles in the way of Britain being in the first wave of membership if EMU takes place on 1st January 1999. In any case it is quite clear that the Cabinet, Parliament and the people will need to agree before the UK can join. It seems to me that what is missing on this whole issue is a real national debate about the economic effects of EMU, particularly on the prospects for growth and employment, to enable us to judge as objectively as we can whether EMU membership is in the national interests of the United Kingdom or not. On this important subject, we are not going to rule anything in

695
and we are not going to rule anything out until those arguments have been debated and until we have considered them in full detail.
I turn now to enlargement. We believe that enlargement, as rapidly as is feasible, would strengthen the stability of the Union and prosperity among our neighbours. We believe that it would help to open up new markets and opportunities for British business and British citizens. Enlargement negotiations will start within six months of the end of the IGC. In the context of enlargement, as we said in our manifesto, we shall be pursuing reform of the common agricultural policy as an urgent priority. We have debated this previously and I remember saying then that if ever there was an occasion which would demand reform of the CAP, it would be enlargement of the Union into Eastern Europe and the incorporation into the Union of the agricultural sectors of some of those countries. The CAP could not cope with that and it therefore seems to me that enlargement and the reform of the CAP are, in many ways, linked. In the context of enlargement, we also want to look hard at the structural funds and at the ways in which they may be reformed.
I have said that various negotiations are to take place at the same time as the IGC. However, since the Motion and the debate are supposed to be about the IGC, perhaps I may now turn to it. The first challenge in Europe for the new Government will be to obtain a clear and satisfactory outcome of the IGC at Amsterdam. It is an opportunity to secure two broad goals, as my noble friend Lady Ramsay said: preparing EU institutions for enlargement and making Europe more relevant to ordinary people. That is important so that the vital objectives of securing enlargement and prosperity—increased prosperity, we hope, for this country—and democracy and transparency can be carried through. We have already taken the initiative in the IGC by tabling proposals to strengthen the fight against fraud. This House has urged that upon governments on many occasions. We seek also to increase transparency in the Union. At the same time, we have agreed to a wide range of IGC proposals on strengthening fundamental rights and on the environment.
We have also dropped some non-negotiable UK proposals on, for instance, the reform of the European Court of Justice. We are now back in the European mainstream, unlike the previous government, who, frankly, tied themselves into ideological knots and isolated us in Europe—very frequently to no purpose whatsoever.
As I said last month when I opened the debate on the gracious Speech in your Lordships' House, the UK Government have a positive agenda at the IGC. We do not see it as simply a 5,000 mile service of the treaty on European Union, as did the last government, and as was repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We hope that we shall be able to complete the IGC at Amsterdam. In doing so, we shall of course pursue and defend our national interests. We shall achieve real benefits for British citizens rather than making us widely disliked for ideological Euro-scepticism that shrieked "No, no, no" rather than considering proposals on their merits. We are not going down that road.
696
The main point which the noble Viscount made this afternoon related to the social chapter. He seems to believe that there is a contradiction between social protection and the creation of new jobs and rising prosperity. Looked at with any kind of historical perspective, that is, frankly, false. The most advanced countries in the world, including the United Kingdom, have significantly higher overall levels of employment, health and safety, and consumer protection than ever before. The UK now has higher standards than many of its competitors, including Asia and America, yet UK firms continue to win export markets. Higher standards that lead to higher skills and a stable framework can promote, not undermine, growth and competition.
In our view, it is dangerous to take a totally one-sided view of the labour market. We agree that businesses should not be weighed down with unnecessary red tape which can prevent them creating jobs, but it is equally important to empower employees so that they can realise their skills and potentials. That is the other side of the labour market. It involves providing a stable framework of minimum standards and interventions to improve skills. I conclude that we should do more—not less—to enhance the quality of UK products and the skills, training and employability of employees.
The social agreement has been the basis for two modest proposals to date, on parental leave and on works councils. There are no ogres in the pipeline (if I may mix two metaphors), although we will be on our guard to ensure they do not arise. Some of our EU partners may have excessive social costs—but that is a problem of their national arrangements not of Community or European Union agreements. By playing the UK's rightful role at the centre of EU debate, we can push the agenda in social affairs in our direction.
There have been two main attacks this afternoon on the social agreement. One came from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who said, "You are taking a terrible risk and you must not take risks". Elevating stagnation to a test of government competence seems to be going a little far. The other attack came from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber. With respect to the noble Lord, perhaps I may repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said to him: his argument is not against the social chapter but against the domestic worker protection legislation of Germany, to take the case that he indicated.
The number of issues that it will be competent for the social chapter to deal with at European level is very much more limited than the scope or the number of measures with which a domestic government can deal in this area. Nobody is suggesting that we have opened the door to the mass importation of all the details of so-called "Continental" labour practices and labour laws into this country by signing up to the social chapter. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, does not say that. He says that it is a risk; not that we have done it. There is a contradiction between those two arguments. As I have often said in your Lordships' House, the social chapter is actually a pretty mild and pallid document.

697
I turn now to some of the other issues that will arise at the IGC and in Amsterdam. The problems of employment and labour market flexibility are bound to be addressed, as are the single market, enlargement and the Agenda 2000 reform agenda, which is mainly aiming at improving and modernising the Community's management of its resources. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a detailed account of each of those issues, but should like to say a word or two about at least two of them.
I turn first to the single market. The IGC is, of course, not the only issue which is being debated at the Amsterdam European Council in June. The meeting will also discuss the Commission's action plan for the single market. This proposes ways in which single market legislation can be better enforced and implemented across the European Union. It also proposes further ways in which the single market can be further improved. Completion of the single market is a top EU priority for this Government. It is good for competitiveness, good for business and, most importantly, improves the prospects for jobs and prosperity across the Union. We have set ourselves the target of completing the single market by the end of our Presidency of the European Union—in other words, by July next year.
There is a great deal still to be done. We have identified a number of areas for immediate action. We want to see better enforcement, and enactment into member states' laws, of the single market legislation which already exists. There is no point in agreeing to drop barriers to trade between member states if the legislation which ensures that is not effectively adopted and enforced in all member states. We want to see the existing rules simplified where that can be done without making them less effective. We need the minimum legislation that works—not legislation which ties up our businesses in red tape. Parallel with this, we want action to be taken against the unfair use of state aids that can distort competition. Major aids for rescue and restructuring can be particularly damaging; so can subsidy competition between member states for corporate investments. Finally, we want to see the single market improved in those areas where it has been previously neglected.
This evening we heard a good deal about the importance of competitiveness and that the policy of the Government may endanger competitiveness, or that at least it may not foster it. We support the proposals for a new employment chapter in the treaty. We believe that it responds to citizens' concerns about jobs and sets out a framework for co-ordinating employment policy with other member states where that is of benefit. The United Kingdom supports the German proposals to prevent the employment chapter from being used as a basis for extra EU spending or the movement of competence over employment policy to EU level. We also welcome language on employability and labour market flexibility in the new employment charter. The House will be aware that we support the inclusion of the social agreement in the treaty. That will allow us to play a
698
central role in setting the European agenda for action on social policy as well as providing decent minimum standards across Europe.
We believe that competitiveness should be written into the treaty as one of the objectives of the Union. This will ensure that the various Union institutions—the Commission in framing proposals and making decisions, the Court in its rulings and the Council in its lawmaking and executive decision-making—take into account the impact of their decisions on competitiveness. We also believe that there should be a reform of infrastructure financing to allow a wider variety of public/private partnerships. The Government are committed to public/ private partnerships as key elements in implementing large-scale infrastructure projects both in the UK and throughout the rest of the European Union. For example, in the Intergovernmental Conference we are pressing for an amendment to Article 129C of the treaty, to make it clear that financial assistance from the Union's budget can be offered to trans-European networks.
As part of our drive to complete the single market we will work to try to eliminate unfair state aids. I make one point on state aids that perhaps I should have made earlier. They are particularly unfair to poorer member states which are unable to match the sums that are paid out by their richer neighbours. In line with this policy, in the IGC we will strongly oppose proposals to legitimate state aids in some areas where that may be a retrograde step. For example, in our view the proposal at the IGC to give blanket exemptions to services of public interest, or suggestions that state-owned bodies should be exempt from the requirements on state aid, risk undermining our reform agenda. We intend to resist them.
This is an answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. We support the extension of competence under external economic relations to intellectual property rights and services where this helps in the liberalisation of world trade. We believe that more liberal world trade will bring economic gains in the form of more competition and so lower prices for purchasers. It should bring more export markets to UK businesses. Therefore, we find it an attractive proposition. However, we will negotiate the extension of competence so that it is strictly defined to make sure that it does not spill over into taxation, prudential regulation or other international fora such as the IMF and the World Bank. The current presidency proposal broadly reflects that view, although we will be pushing to tighten up some of the wording. I hope that I have given at least the spirit of the Government's answer to the spirit of the noble Lord's question.
I hope that this has been a serious reply to what I thought would be a serious debate. I thought that it was worthwhile putting before the House in some detail the Government's approach to the IGC in a number of different areas. I resist the temptation to go down the well-worn political paths that have been followed in this House on Europe and debates certainly since I have been here over the past seven years. Having listened for many years to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, my noble friend Lord Stoddart and various Euro-sceptics who are not here in person tonight but who are certainly here

699
in spirit, I still do not understand why 14 of the 15 countries in the European Union are able to co-operate on what they perceive to be their common interests but the United Kingdom cannot. Ever since I became interested in a more united Europe that has always seemed to me to be a mystery. I can only say that this debate has done nothing to dispel that mystery.
6.35 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. One of the agreeable aspects of your Lordships' House is that if your Lordships are disposed to go in for an early bath nothing will stop them from doing so. It is an agreeable change in your Lordships' House in debates of this kind that we do not find ourselves being delayed way beyond your Lordships' accustomed dinner hour.
700
If this debate has been brief I am grateful that it has not lacked quality, particularly as regards the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber.
I bite back my instant rejoinder. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House tempted me to make it when he said that he sat down still mystified by some of the opinions of your Lordships. I have always found that some of my thoughts have been clarified by listening to your Lordships in debate. I am sorry that the Leader of the House has not followed my example, but no doubt with practice he will do so. With the leave of the House, and with gratitude to those who have taken part in the proceedings this afternoon, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before seven o'clock.

  Written Answers
  Written Answers
  RAF Bentwaters
  RAF Bentwaters
  Defence Expenditure Comparisons
  Defence Expenditure Comparisons
  Gulf War Illness: Research
  Gulf War Illness: Research
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Mr. and Mrs. Robert Oliver Hill
  Mr. and Mrs. Robert Oliver Hill
  Scrapie
  Scrapie
  Alleviation of Poverty
  Alleviation of Poverty
  DSS Change Programme
  DSS Change Programme
  Saunders v United Kingdom: Execution of Judgment
  Saunders v United Kingdom: Execution of Judgment
  Human Rights: Incorporation of European Convention
  Human Rights: Incorporation of European Convention
  Medicines Control Agency: Key Business Targets
  Medicines Control Agency: Key Business Targets