Sitting of 22 May 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Nursery Vouchers
    Mrs. Organ: To ask the secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the nursery voucher scheme. [188]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We have done an assessment and have found that the bureaucratic and administrative costs of the voucher scheme are unacceptable, that the loss of places in the voluntary sector and the closure of private providers are unacceptable and that, therefore, the voucher scheme urgently needs review.
    Mrs. Organ: I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment. I thank him for his reply. It has, indeed, been a damaging scheme. It has caused early years education providers in the Forest of Dean huge amounts of unnecessary work, while not extending provision, and it has caused the closure of an excellent playgroup in Churcham. What assurances can my hon. Friend give parents and providers in England that we will soon be rid of the scheme?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the voucher scheme will end as from the end of the summer term this year. The ill-conceived scheme will be set aside in favour of a new start for early years education based on a partnership between the voluntary, private and education authority sectors, which will work together to draw up development plans at local level and to ensure that, instead of bureaucracy, we can provide free places for all four-year-olds and eventually for all three-year-olds as well. The money will be ring-fenced; that provision will be based on the development plans put to the Department so that we can establish early years forums in which all people can play their part in fulfilling their pledge to give children free places rather than a paper promise.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his team on their new positions. I hope that they enjoy their work at the Department for Education and Employment.
    822
    The right hon. Gentleman will know by now through departmental briefing that the administrative costs of the nursery voucher scheme amount to just £5 million. Would he like to tell the House how many places for four-year-olds that sum will deliver and how soon and how far it will take the right hon. Gentleman towards the guarantee of a place for all 600,000 four-year-olds?
    Mr. Blunkett: I thank the right hon. Lady for her normal courtesy and welcome her back to the Commons. I hope that I can return the courtesy that she paid me.—[Interruption.] Which she did.
    The voucher scheme's bureaucracy is more than simply the £5 million to which the right hon. Lady referred. The £3 million alone that went on advertising the scheme has already been spent, but the new money that was allocated and will be applied directly to the provision of free places is available to us. Therefore, from September we hope to make substantial progress towards the guarantee that we have given, on which the previous Prime Minister reneged, of a free place for all four-year-olds.
    Dr. George Turner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his appointment and on his statement to the House today. I am sure that he will be well aware that the people of Norfolk who participated in the piloting of the nursery scheme will be highly delighted to see it abandoned. As the former chair of the education committee in Norfolk, I know that, although some good was done, the special circumstances meant that there was considerable waste. Will my right hon. Friend please repeat today the promise that he has made in the past to ensure that the people of Norfolk are not put at any disadvantage because they participated in the piloting of the scheme?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend the assurance that all existing places will be safeguarded so that those who have redeemed vouchers will be able to carry them through into the autumn where places exist this summer, as part of the new partnership with the voluntary and private sector. What is more, we will start the process of piloting early years centres to draw together nursery education and early years care and ensure that parents are involved in the process of family learning.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will approve outstanding applications for grant-maintained status. [191]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): Outstanding applications for grant-maintained status will be considered on their individual merits and will be decided as soon as possible.
    Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Lady guarantee that the grant-maintained schools that are currently in place and those that are due to be approved will continue to be free to set their own admissions policy?
    Ms Morris: We are keen to raise standards for everyone, and the key to that is to put aside the arguments on structure and begin to look at what goes on in the

    823
    classroom in terms of the quality of teaching and learning. We can guarantee that all schools will flourish under Labour under the new partnership that we have set out in our document.
    No good school has any need to fear Labour's proposals. I can tell grant-maintained schools and those currently in the local authority sector that we will work with them to raise standards for the children they serve.
    Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the parents of Meadow County primary school in my constituency who, in the heat of the general election campaign, decided by two votes to one against going grant-maintained? Will she encourage those few governors who are still trying to fight a rearguard action against the democratic wishes of the majority of the parents to realise that their efforts will be wasted?
    Ms Morris: I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend's school on the good quality of education that it provides for the pupils whom it serves. I hope that the school will now concentrate, as it no doubt has done in the past, on standards and put behind it the divisiveness that is a feature of many grant-maintained school ballots.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does the hon. Lady understand that her statement is already hollow, because the Government have closed Mount St. Mary's school in Exeter? The previous Secretary of State pledged that it would be given grant-maintained status, but that is now being refused by the current Minister's colleagues. That means that the letter sent to parents which stated that there would be places for all children at the school is completely false. Today, parents have been approaching me and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) as they try to find places for their children. When will the Labour party realise that closing good schools is a falsehood?
    Ms Morris: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is misguided in his comments; if he consults his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, he will be told that no decision was given on the school to which he referred.
    I should like to reiterate my main answer that every application for grant-maintained status will be decided on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement made yesterday and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also announced that grant-maintained status would be given to Westoning school in Bedfordshire. We are absolutely intent on judging the merits of a case when deciding on the future status of schools.

    Education Authorities (Emergency Finance)
    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for providing emergency finance for education authorities to prevent any increase in class sizes in the current year. [192]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have no such proposals. The funding that schools receive this year has been based on decisions made by the previous Administration. However, we shall
    824
    introduce a Bill later today that will lead to a reduction in class size for every five, six and seven-year-old in the country.
    Mr. Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment.
    Given his visit to Grimsby during the election campaign, he will know that a Labour local authority, North East Lincolnshire, which attaches the highest priority to education, as the Government do, has been forced to cut spending on education, with the result that we will lose 100 teachers by September. We already have 196 primary classes with more than 30 pupils and that number will now increase. Such class sizes arise directly from the underfunding of the unitary authorities by the previous Administration.
    Will my hon. Friend open discussions with his colleagues at the Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what can be done about that underfunding? Will he meet a deputation from North East Lincolnshire to see what can be done to stop further cuts in education?
    Mr. Byers: I can give my hon. Friend two assurances. First, I would be more than willing to meet a deputation led by him and including representatives from North East Lincolnshire. Secondly, there is no doubt that particular difficulties are being experienced by unitary authorities. We have begun a review of the education element of the standard spending assessment, to ensure that the distribution of that grant is far fairer than it was under the previous Administration. I am confident that, in the process of doing that, we will be able to offer some hope to unitary authorities such as North East Lincolnshire.
    Mr. Don Foster: I welcome the Minister to his first outing at the Dispatch Box. I reiterate my congratulations to him and the rest of his team.
    Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the reply he has just given offers no hope to schools throughout the country? Will not class sizes continue to increase this year as teachers continue to lose their jobs? Does the Minister further acknowledge that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced clearly in the House that it is the Government's intention to stick to departmental control limits for at least the next two years, he is offering no hope to schools for the next two or three years?
    Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the strange anomaly of the Government's amazing hyperactivity with regard to legislation and changes to the Bank of England, while there is a total lack of any promise to provide more resources to schools?
    Mr. Byers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. He has rehearsed an argument put to the British people in the run-up to the general election on 1 May. The British people spoke on that day. We have made education our No. 1 priority—which is why, 21 days after polling day, we have announced the abolition of the nursery voucher scheme and why today we are introducing a Bill to reduce class sizes. This Government are taking positive action to benefit all our children, rather than using warm words which would no nothing to help them.
    Kate Hoey: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. I thank him and his team for sending help squads

    825
    into two schools in my constituency. I know that that will be welcomed by the parents, the pupils and all those involved in the schools.
    I understand that class size is a problem, but in my borough an even bigger problem is the number of young people—more than 300—who are out of school, playing truant or excluded, but who do not have any opportunity to get any help. Even at this stage, the local authority is closing the Orchard centre. Do the Government have any plans to do something about providing out-of-school places for those children, who are becoming totally involved in crime and therefore contributing to the huge amount of crime in the area?
    Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for her initial comments. When I meet Lambeth local education authority in the next two weeks to discuss the question of failing schools within that authority, I will also raise the issue of children who are disenchanted with the education currently offered to them.
    The Government have made a commitment to offer education to all our children. No child should be excluded. In particular, we are looking at the ways in which finance from the lottery can be used to help the sort of young people to whom my hon. Friend referred.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: What contribution to a reduction in class sizes in grant-maintained schools will be made by the Minister's proposal to remove 10 per cent. of their funding?
    Mr. Byers: I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is wrong about our policy. There is no commitment to reduce by 10 per cent. the delegation of funding to grant-maintained schools. When we publish our White Paper in June, she will find our proposals for that specific area very informative.
    It ill becomes a former Secretary of State for Education and Employment to talk about increasing class sizes when, under her Administration, an additional 115,000 children under seven were in classes of more than 30. That is the right hon. Lady's record. She did nothing to deal with the problem. Today, after just 21 days in office, this Government are introducing a Bill to resolve that problem

    Age Discrimination
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about Government policy on legislation to combat age discrimination in employment. [193]
    The Minister for Employment and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government are strongly opposed to age discrimination at work. We shall be consulting widely to obtain a consensus on how we can best proceed to achieve that.
    Mr. Winnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. As there is no age discrimination in this place—there are hon. Members of 24 years of age and upwards, and I shall not mention my own age—why should age discrimination be allowed to continue? It undoubtedly causes much hardship among those in their
    826
    40s and early 50s who find tremendous difficulties in getting another job and are discriminated against simply because of their age. As we promised legislation and I introduced a private Member's Bill which was wrecked by the Opposition, would my right hon. Friend agree that a law should now be passed in much the same way as we legislated against discrimination on grounds of race, gender and disability?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to say that discrimination on the ground of age must be ended, and he is right to say that the role of legislation must be examined. I pay tribute to the efforts that he has made and the energy he has expended on campaigning to end discrimination on the ground of age. Before we proceed to legislate, we shall need to consult interested parties, groups that would be affected, including those representing elderly people, employers and those with expertise such as my hon. Friend. We strongly believe that age discrimination is wrong, and we shall implement proposals to stop it, with the support, I hope, of the vast majority of hon. Members.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front Bench and on his rapid reversal of the Labour Government's pledge to legislate. I warn him that the legislative route, while seeming attractive, has many pitfalls. Someone has to be 21 years of age to enter the House, but that age limit would be illegal under such legislation, as might requiring people to retire at 65. I urge the right hon. Gentleman genuinely to consult rather than to go straight ahead with the proposals of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
    Mr. Smith: We certainly shall consult. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. He is right to say that the subject involves many complexities, but there were complexities relating to legislation against racial and sexual discrimination—arguments similar to those that he advanced were used against such legislation. The fact that the matter is complex is an argument for careful consideration and consultation, but it is not an argument for doing nothing.

    International Labour Organisation
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to support the work of the International Labour Organisation. [194]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be representing the United Kingdom at the annual ILO conference next month. We shall give the ILO full support for its activities, particularly its promotion of international labour standards and human rights.
    Mr. MacShane: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as Minister and on his election as Member of Parliament for the great steel-producing town of Newport. You and I, Madam Speaker, who have held only one party card in our lives, will know how difficult it is to switch to another party. After the putsch by the

    827
    old Etonians and anti-Europeans of the 1922 Committee yesterday, may I invite the remaining one-nation and pro-European Tories to come across and join us before it is too late?
    I welcome my hon. Friend's strong statement in favour of the ILO, particularly as only two years ago the Conservative party, when in government, sought to take Britain out of it. It now needs a British-led agenda on employability, not over-regulation. We need a strong ministerial presence in the ILO. Britain has not had that presence in recent years; such a presence will give the ILO new leadership from a new Government—leadership which it needs and to which he and other Ministers can contribute.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Howarth: With friends such as my hon. Friend, it is so much easier. Of course the United Kingdom should support the International Labour Organisation, whose aims are to encourage productive employment and to improve standards and conditions of work worldwide.
    Mr. Forth: Rubbish.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman says that is rubbish, but he will now have plenty of time on his hands to reconsider the simple view that deregulation to the ultimate degree, a cult of low pay and the absence of employee rights lead to some sort of economic nirvana. That view has been extensively disproved in the Conservative experiment of recent years, in which the poor and the unemployed in this country have been the victims.

    Youth Training
    6. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for increasing opportunities for training for people between 16 and 20 years of age; and if he will make a statement. [195]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): We have a wide range of proposals for improving young people's participation in high-quality education and training. In England, as in Wales, the Government will take these forward in a positive and open manner.
    Mr. Llwyd: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in post. Obviously, it should be a priority to get youngsters back into work, and one avenue for doing so is through high-quality training. May I remind the Minister that there are some places in Wales where youth unemployment is as high as 33 per cent? May I therefore urge on him the need for quick and telling action in this particular field?
    Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am very much aware of the problems of youth unemployment, especially in his constituency, which suffered the closure of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and a number of other staple employers in the area. Under our new deal arrangements, we shall put 13,000 young people either to work in the voluntary sector or
    828
    into high-quality training and education opportunities; and we shall make sure that the problems he has outlined will be addressed very quickly. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is well aware of the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and he has told me himself that he will pay special attention to it very quickly.
    Mr. Barry Jones: After such welcome training, does my hon. Friend believe that there is a real chance under his policies of future jobs in manufacturing?
    Dr. Howells: In Wales, we have been fortunate in attracting a great deal of inward investment, especially in the manufacturing sector. That is due mainly to the setting up of the Welsh Development Agency, which Labour set up and which the Tories opposed right from the beginning. We recognise that, in order for us to take that forward, to attract more investment and to do something that the last Government were incapable of doing—grow indigenous industry in Wales—the next tranche of investment will go to the best trained, best educated work force, and that is what we aim to create.
    Mr. Paice: I add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his assumption of his new responsibilities. His and the Labour party's determination to reduce unemployment among young people is an entirely admirable aim; however, when he spends the money from the windfall tax, how many real jobs will that create? How many other people will lose their jobs because of job substitution? How many of those young people will end up back on the dole, because the voluntary force that he has decided on will not create a single job?
    Dr. Howells: It is rather ripe for former Tory Ministers to get up and talk about people going back on the dole, after the carnage that they created in constituencies like mine over many years, when unemployment rose to more than 3 million and probably to more than 4 million. I will tell you this—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is not an election campaign.
    Dr. Howells: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker—I forgot myself for a moment.
    I tell the hon. Gentleman this: we shall not allow people to languish on the dole: we shall use the windfall tax to get young people off the dole and back into work. That is the whole idea of it; if the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that yet, he had better do so soon, because it is going to happen.

    School Buildings
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he intends to take to allow local authorities greater freedom to tackle the backlog of repairs to school buildings. [196]
    Mr. Blunkett: We greatly sympathise with the position in which schools and colleges throughout the country find themselves, with a legacy of more than £3 billion of disrepair. Shortly we shall make proposals for a

    829
    public-private partnership, based on a consortium of local education authorities, schools and financial institutions, which will free the money to tackle that backlog and ensure that our teachers and pupils have an environment fit to work in.
    Mr. Baker: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Is he aware that he has inherited a terrible situation from the previous, Conservative, Government, in that one in five secondary schools and one in seven primary schools have substandard accommodation? In my constituency, Lewes, at Wivelsfield primary school, more than 60 per cent. of children are in so-called temporary buildings—ramshackle buildings that have been up for more than 10 years. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that reliance on public-private projects alone will not necessarily produce the answer? Can he estimate the likely value of private finance initiative projects to repair crumbling buildings in the next 12 months?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the first part of the question. There is a chronic situation in schools throughout the country, with leaking roofs, window frames that do not fit, temporary classrooms that have been temporary for the best part of 40 or 50 years and remaining outside toilets. We are determined to tackle that backlog and that legacy. We shall have a considered programme, which we shall want to discuss with the local authorities and the financial institutions. I of course accept that that will not be the sole answer to the question; we must apply existing capital resources and permission to borrow sensitively and carefully, to ensure that, together, the partnership and the borrowing requirement enable us to tackle that backlog during the present Parliament.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the second part of his answer today—PFI plus borrowing requirement—is an essential part of the attempt to solve that problem? It is a particular problem for flat-top schools built in the 1960s and 1970s and it is a considerable problem for schools in the voluntary sector. Will he ensure that representatives of the voluntary sector are included in any decisions?
    Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The flat roofs that exist throughout the country are a bit like the flat earth policy of the Conservative party—it has many leaks in it and consequently requires urgent repair. The need for repair exists regardless of the status of school or its category in terms of aid, and we shall discuss, with the Churches and others, ways in which they might join the partnership and work with us to tackle that backlog of disrepair.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to tackle authorities like Islington, which, whatever the date of their buildings, provide a lamentable education?
    Mr. Blunkett: After 18 years of Conservative rule—[Interruption.] After 18 years of Conservative rule at national level, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the first three weeks in government, we have acted decisively where failure exists to ensure that every child in every school—in Islington and elsewhere—receives the standard and quality of education that we would expect for our own children.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Ms Jane Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money will be available for reducing class sizes through the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. [197]
    Mr. Blunkett: One hundred and eighty million pounds will be available over time as a result of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, which is in the forward public expenditure survey predictions inherited from the previous Government, £100 million of which will be available by the year 2000 to be used to reduce class sizes and fulfil our pledge.
    Ms Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State agree that his reply represents tremendously good news for schools throughout the country—[Laughter.]—not least for schools in Reading, East, the constituency that I represent? Redlands county primary school in Reading now has two reception classes where it had three, and five-year-olds are being taught in classes of 36 and 37.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and congratulate her on her question. One can see why Conservative Members are so depleted—they laugh at the prospect of £100 million being spent in the next three years on reducing class sizes which, under their regime, went up in the primary sector by a staggering 40 per cent. in terms of those taught in classes of more than 30. It is a measure of the despair of Conservative Members that they think it is funny that children are taught in large classes.
    Mr. David Heath: We welcome any additional money for schools, but will the Secretary of State explain how a substantial reduction in class sizes will take place in Somerset if his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions imposes the iniquitous Conservative capping proposals on the county and 90 teachers are sacked?
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my party made no promises that we could not fulfil. I have stated clearly what the situation will be for the current financial year and we intend to treat all local authorities with fairness. Each of them knew what the situation was and, regrettably, will have to plan on a budget that was not of our making and in circumstances which we hope to reverse during the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend remember being told ad nauseam by the previous Government that, contrary to the common sense of most of the people of this country and to the views of parents everywhere, the size of classes in schools was of no importance? If any civil servants in his Department still give advice to that effect, will he send them away on a retraining course—preferably in small groups?
    Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are strongly in favour of small groups of people concentrating their minds on the agenda of the new Government, rather than that of the old. I can also confirm.

    831
    that class sizes make a difference, and that is why some people choose to spend a great deal of their own money on buying smaller class sizes in the private sector.
    Mrs. Gillan: I would like a direct answer to a direct question. Some 36,000 of our brightest children will be robbed by this Government of a future assisted place scheme. What will it cost to educate those children back in the state sector?
    Mr. Blunkett: I can promise the hon. Lady one thing—there will be a great deal more straight talking and straight answers from this Government than there ever was when she and her colleagues answered questions. The assisted places scheme was not geared to the brightest in the country—the brightest in the country exist in all schools and deserve a good education. There is a profound difference in values between the parties.
    We do not believe that we should abandon the state education system, nor do we believe that it is inherently so poor that we have to allow—in the words of the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—children to escape from it. We believe in investing to ensure that all children have an opportunity to experience the highest standards of education from the time that they enter school, so that not 36,000 but 7 million children benefit from the education system

    Information Technology
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to extend the use of information technology in higher education. [198]
    Dr. Howells: We shall be looking to the Dearing inquiry to take into account the new possibilities opened up by information technology in its recommendations on the future development and delivery of higher education.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I welcome my hon. Friend to his post? I hope that, within the Department for which he has responsibility, there is appreciation of the original thinking that he will bring to its work. Is not the reality that any growth in higher education in the United Kingdom will not now come by way of expanding existing single-site universities, but by developing information technology in higher education and distance learning in the way that—I might say modestly—I suggested in my proposals for a university of the lakes two years ago? What is the Government's position on the matter?
    Dr. Howells: I recall the impressive report which my hon. Friend circulated on the university of the lakes and on the state of higher and further education in Cumbria. I hope that we can now revisit it, because he is right about the need for new approaches to the delivery of education at all levels, especially further and higher education. He will understand, however, that we cannot comment specifically on any project, given that Sir Ron Dearing's inquiry will soon report to the House.
    Mr. Boswell: Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the Front Bench and, even in respect of this question, welcome some aspects of their answers,
    832
    does he agree that information technology should be the practice of all engaged in higher education, including the humanities and more obvious subjects? Will he undertake to take a sympathetic line, subject to the Dearing recommendations, in respect of access and outreach, with particular reference to remote rural areas?
    Dr. Howells: I should like to agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. The opportunity now available for the delivery of higher and further education, especially to remote rural areas, is tremendous. The sooner we get on with it, the better.

    Schools (Quality Assurance)
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policies his Department is considering to ensure that quality assurance is focused more on children within schools than between schools. [199]
    Ms Estelle Morris: The Government's overriding priority is to raise standards of achievement for every pupil, hence the clear targets that we have set for improvements in literacy and numeracy. However, we shall achieve those targets only if the weakest schools improve to the level of the better schools.
    Mr. Connarty: I welcome my hon. Friend on her appointment from the chalk face to ministerial office and, at the same time, welcome the Government's special measures action recovery team to deal with failing schools and to help them to succeed, underlining that everything about this team is SMART. Does my hon. Friend share the concerns expressed that under the previous Government judgments on failing schools were made too late? Does she accept that local authorities' quality assurance processes and schools' internal quality assurance systems must be strengthened to deal with problems in schools?
    Ms Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments and for welcoming the SMART programme. He is absolutely right. This week, the Government took action in respect of 18 schools that had been failing pupils for at least 18 months. The previous Government had taken no action to ensure that those schools improved. We should aim to have no schools failing pupils and to identify problems before that happens so that improvements can be made. One of the problems with the system has always been that, whereas an external inspection system can identify weaknesses, there has been no programme of support for schools that are in that position. That is exactly the area with which we wish to deal in the forthcoming months.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Are not parents—and tax payers, too, for that matter—entitled to know about the relative performance of different schools? I accept that it may be uncomfortable for a school to come low in a league table, but at least it is identified as being in need of some assistance.
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right. All parents have the right to know how their children perform, whether they are reaching the targets rightly set for them and how the school is performing. Parents also want to

    833
    know that, if there are problems in the school and the school is not achieving at the level expected, action will be taken. That key element has been missing from the system so far. We have made it clear that we will not accept failure in any school, no matter where it is. All the partners in the education service—school governing bodies, local authorities, central Government and parent—must now accept their responsibility for ensuring that we raise standards for all children in our schools.
    Mr. Steinberg: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment, which she fully deserves. However, why was it necessary to publish the names of those failing schools? I am all in favour of help being given to failing schools but I cannot understand why those schools' names had to be published because it decreases the teachers' morale and I do not believe that it is necessary
    Ms Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments and note the "however" that followed thereafter. It will have come as no news to anyone in the communities served by the schools that their school was failing. Parents, head teachers, governors and local authorities will have known for at least 18 months and, in some cases, for as long as two years, that their school was not up to scratch so the public airing of the school's name was not new.
    It is important to state that that gave a clear message from the new Government that we will not tolerate failure. Not only that, but where schools are not delivering the goods, we will accept our responsibility to support them in raising standards. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that this Government offered help to the schools that are struggling, and did not just criticise them. A task force will go in to help, and I hope that many of the schools will take up our offer of an experienced adviser to help them tackle the problems that they face.

    Grant Maintained Schools Foundation
    Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are his reasons for proposing to abolish the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation. [200]
    Mr. Byers: The Grant Maintained Schools Foundation is a private company and its future is a matter for its directors.
    Sir David Madel: Subject to parental support, do grant-maintained schools have a permanent place in the education service?
    Mr. Byers: We made it clear in the run-up to the general election that we want to introduce a new structure into our school system, under which all schools will be treated fairly. A White Paper will be published in June which will give effect to those proposals. The Government's priority, however, is not to concentrate on structures, as did the previous Administration, which gave £2.5 million of taxpayers' money to the Grant Maintained Schools foundation—enough to pay the salaries of 100 primary school teachers. Our priority is to ensure that we improve the standards and quality of education that we offer to all our children.

    Educational Scholarships
    Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's policy towards educational scholarships. [201]
    Ms Estelle Morris: Scholarships are a matter for those organisations that award them.
    Mr. Chope: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful reply. Will she join me in congratulating Charles Mannon, the candidate that the Labour party put up in the Christchurch constituency in the general election, on the exemplary conduct that he displayed during the campaign? Does she agree that Mr. Mannon, who was educated at a public school with the benefit of an assisted place, is a supreme example of the value of the assisted places scheme, and of educational state scholarships?
    Ms Morris: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Mr. Mannon on his behaviour during the general election campaign. I am only sorry that I cannot congratulate him on being in the House today. The Government are far more intent on the educational future of the children who are now at school than we are on the educational past of Labour party candidates.

    Youth Unemployment
    Miss Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of young people who have been unemployed for over six months who will be helped off welfare and into work. [202]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: At present there are 178,000 people aged between 18 and 24 who have been claimants, unemployed for longer than six months. In addition, on current trends, we envisage that each month around 25,000 young people reach the six-months threshold. The Government's commitment is to get 250,000 young people off benefits and into work.
    Miss King: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which is most welcome. Nowhere is that news more urgently needed than in my constituency, Bethnal Green and Bow. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency has the highest number of under-25s in Britain, and also one of the highest levels of youth unemployment, with more than one quarter of the unemployed being under 25? The situation is particularly bad for the ethnic minority community: 36 per cent. of Afro-Caribbeans and 48 per cent. of the Bangladeshi community are suffering from unemployment. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that Bethnal Green and Bow in particular, and east London in general should receive immediate assistance from the scheme?
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her question and the passion with which she rightly speaks about the needs of the young unemployed in her constituency. We shall carry forward the programme with jobs with private sector employers, work with the voluntary sector, places on the environmental task force and the option of full-time education and training to address basic skill needs. We shall carry the programme forward as quickly as possible to ensure that my hon. Friend's

    835
    constituents and others who are unemployed get the help that they need, which they have been denied for far too long, so that they can make the most of their potential.
    Mr. Nicholls: No one would doubt the hon. Gentleman's commitment to helping the young unemployed—a commitment that is shared on both sides of the House. However, his problem is that, on the one hand, he has that aspiration and, on the other, his party is committed to a national minimum wage that will destroy low-paid jobs. All experience shows that the low-paid jobs often sought by the unemployed will disappear first. Does the hon. Gentleman feel comfortable with that?
    Mr. Smith: Experience from elsewhere—including the United States, which has implemented the minimum wage—shows that it does no such thing: it is perfectly consistent with increasing the number of people in employment. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely shares our concern for the unemployed and our commitment to providing opportunities for them, he would listen to the electorate and what the people said in the recent general election campaign and get behind our drive to get people off welfare and into work.

    Sixth Form Colleges
    Mr. Viggers: Toector is ca ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the operation of the system of the sixth form colleges. [203]
    Dr. Howells: The 109 sixth form colleges in England make a vital contribution to the education and training of our young people. The Government are determined that sixth form colleges shall continue to flourish.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the sixth form sector has been extremely successful in making efficiency gains? What extra efficiency gains does the Minispable of making? Can he assure the House that, whatever demands are made upon the sector, the Government will provide the funding?
    Dr. Howells: We are aware of the efficiency gains that have been made in sixth form colleges, and of the increasing co-operation between those colleges and other further education institutions. We shall ensure that those efficiency gains continue, and that there is adequate provision for decent education through both sixth form colleges and colleges of further education.
    Mr. Tipping: Can the Minister confirm that he has taken urgent steps to fill the funding gap left for sixth form colleges and for the further education sector generally as a result of the withdrawal of the demand-led element? Is it not right that colleges should meet the commitments that they entered into by September?
    Dr. Howells: I confirm that the Government have no intention of reneging on the financial arrangements made by the previous Government amid the shambles of the demand-led funding element. We shall ensure that the contracts that have been entered into are maintained.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister anticipate any end to the efficiency gains that can be made by sixth form colleges and colleges of further education?
    Dr. Howells: There are many opportunities for continuing efficiency gains, not least of which is the
    836
    proper application of information technology and other new technologies for education. I am looking forward to future gains and to better quality education all round.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Sir Richard Body: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the sums that will be taken from grant-maintained schools under his proposals will be delegated directly to schools. [204]
    Mr. Byers: We are committed to establishing a funding system that does not discriminate unfairly between schools or pupils. We shall take work forward on that basis and will consult widely on specific proposals.
    Sir Richard Body: Will the Minister give us some idea of what principles will guide the re-allocation of that money?
    Mr. Byers: The principles will be fairness and justice —and we saw very little of that under the previous Administration. This Government are about valuing all our children, not just a few. All of our policies will be based on those clear, fundamental principles.
    Mrs. Browning: On the subject of fairness and justice, I remind the hon. Gentleman of the letter that he sent me two days ago, outlining why the Secretary of State had refused GM status to a Roman Catholic senior school for girls in Exeter. In the final paragraph of that letter, he informed me:
    "At local level, a spirit of partnership will prevail to help those parents whose children will not be able to return to Mount St. Mary's in September."
    Presumably, that partnership will come from the local education authority.
    Is the Minister aware that I received information today that the LEA, the chief education officer and the council's officers have sent e-mails to people who opposed GM status for Mount St. Mary's, congratulating them and thanking them for their support? What fairness and justice is there in asking parents to send their children 60 miles away in order to access a Catholic education when the person that the Minister recommends as having a "spirit of partnership" has congratulated people for supporting his right hon. Friend's decision?
    Mr. Byers: I am pleased to see the hon. Lady in her place. I thank her for the small part that she played in ensuring such a victory for the Labour party at the general election.
    Mrs. Browning: Come on, let us have it. What about fairness and justice?
    Mr. Byers: It is clear that the hon. Lady is not aware of the specific recommendations that were made by officials for grant-maintained status. Clear recommendations were made, and on balance my right hon. Friend decided to reject the application. The application was rejected, based on the principles of fairness and justice.

    Unemployment (Seaside Towns)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review Her Majesty's Government's plans for dealing with unemployment levels in seaside towns in the south-east. [206]
    Mr. Alan Howarth: We will indeed. We cannot accept unemployment at its present level, whether in seaside towns in the south-east or anywhere else. That is why we are already engaged in detailed and urgent work to introduce our new programmes to help the long-term unemployed and get 250,000 young people into jobs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his constituents are benefiting from the European programme KONVER II and that they are eligible to benefit from European social funding objective 3. Possibly the hon. Gentleman would regard those as tainted sources.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister prepared to be serious and to tell me how much cash has come to Southend, East, as set against the monstrous amount of grants, loans and subsidies going to other parts of the country? Perhaps he should take the issue more seriously. Does he accept that the seaside towns have a real problem of high unemployment? My constituency has unemployment of more than 10 per cent. That creates a great deal of misery and lack of opportunity. Will the Minister be prepared to consider establishing a special study to examine whether there is an equal sphere of public investment? Secondly, should there not be a study of the utter distortion that is created by grants, loans and subsidies that are given to other areas with much lower rates of unemployment?
    Mr. Howarth: The funding from the KONVER II programme to the hon. Gentleman's constituency is £105,000. Much more substantially, the hon. Gentleman's constituents are benefiting from single regeneration budget funding of £2.2 million to regenerate the area of Shoeburyness. The hon. Gentleman is right in contending that these programmes must be kept under review, and that is what we shall do. Apart from anything else, we need the most accurate and up-to-date map of unemployment. Much unemployment is concentrated in compact, tightly drawn geographical areas. In those areas, we need to understand as much as we can about the nature of the local unemployment problem.
    I shall value the hon. Gentleman's advice, as will Ministers and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry. We shall have much in mind the real and distinctive problems that are suffered by the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

    Information Technology
    Ms Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to agree and publish national targets for training in appropriate IT skills. [207]
    Dr. Howells: The development of appropriate IT skills is a clear priority both for young people and adults. We are currently considering whether setting a national target is the most effective way to proceed.
    Ms Moran: I wish warmly to respond to my hon. Friend's positive note. I know that national standards will help young people in Luton to obtain access to jobs in future. I commend to my hon. Friend particularly a project involving Luton council and the Luton-Dunstable partnership, which involves IT skills and standards, and which is of particular benefit in helping women in my constituency to gain access to employment.
    Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall examine closely the Luton scheme if she will furnish me with details of it. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the value of information technology skills. It is no exaggeration to say that if children do not have IT skills it is a loss as great as not being able to write or to be numerate when it comes to finding employment in what is becoming increasingly an electronically based economy.

    Nursery Vouchers
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery vouchers had been issued to parents in England at the latest date for which information is available. [208]
    Ms Estelle Morris: At the beginning of this week, some 618,000 vouchers for the summer term had been sent to parents of eligible four-year-olds in England.
    Mr. Lidington: Can the hon. Lady say how great an increase she expects to see in the provision of nursery places for four-year-olds in the first year of the new scheme that the Government now plan to introduce?
    Ms Morris: Yes. We do expect to see an increase in the number of places available for four-year-olds and we have a target to achieve that by September of next year. The hon. Gentleman must remember that what we now have available is all the money that his Government wasted in expensive advertising and bureaucracy. We intend to put that towards providing good-quality education for four-year-olds.
    Mr. Pike: I welcome all that the Minister and my colleagues on the Government Front Bench have said this afternoon about nursery education and the ending of nursery vouchers, but will she say that the Government now recognise the importance of nursery education to our children and that, in due course, nursery education will be included in the standard spending assessment for education?
    Ms Morris: We have always recognised the importance of early years education. In fact, many Labour local authorities throughout the country have excellent records in ensuring that the children in their areas receive it. We will, of course, develop plans so that not only will all four-year-olds receive good quality nursery education, but that that opportunity will also be available to three-year-olds.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for after the Whitsun recess?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for the first week back after the recess will be as follows:

MONDAY 2 JUNE—Until 10 pm, Second Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill.

Motion on the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 (Revival of Section 3) Order.

TUESDAY 3 JuNE—Consideration in Committee of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 4 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Starting at 3.30 pm, conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.

Motion on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.

THURSDAY 5 JuNE—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Education (Schools) Bill.

FRIDAY 6 JUNE—Debate on the governance of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 9 JUNE—Debate on the European Union on a Government motion.

Motion on the Draft Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 compensation scheme.

Mr. Goodlad: I thank the right hon. Lady. May I remind her that she said that she would give us two weeks' business, where possible? Can she give any indication of the likely business for the rest of the week beginning Monday 9 June?
We are grateful that the Committee stage of the referendums Bill is to be taken on the Floor of the House. Can the Leader of the House give us a commitment, which she could not last week, that all constitutional Bills will similarly be taken on the Floor?
Can she say—rather more precisely than her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland did yesterday—when the White Papers on the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will be published? Does she believe that Parliament's right to amend the legislation following the referendums will be constrained by the results of those referendums or not? Does she agree that the Government's plans to introduce a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly diminish the authority of the House? Will she undertake to provide more time, if necessary, for the House to reflect on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill?
Will the Leader of the House provide more than one day for consideration in Committee and for the Third Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill, not least as it is the Governments's intention not to publish that important Bill until tomorrow, when the House will have risen for the Whitsun recess?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate on Monday 9 June will be the pre-Amsterdam intergovernmental conference debate, and that that will
840
be the first day only of a two-day debate to allow for contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House who will wish to participate in large numbers?
Will a White Paper or other document be published before the debate on the governance of London on Friday 6 June?
Does the Leader of the House agree that the debate on the modernisation of House of Commons procedures will be a serious one, in which many hon. Members will wish to participate, and that it is most inconvenient that it should be taken at the end of what may turn out to be a late night on the Committee stage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill? Would it not be more appropriate to take it at the beginning rather than at the end of a day?
Will the right hon. Lady give time for a debate on the massive increase in political appointments in Whitehall, which is giving rise to increasing concern about the potential politicisation of the civil service by the Government? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady will wish to compare the number of political appointments made by this Government in Whitehall with those made by the previous Government. It will be a salutary figure, particularly for Labour Members who have come here as Lobby fodder.
We welcome the Government's expression of their determination to set up the Select Committees as soon as possible—an intention which we support. When will the motions to set up the House of Commons Commission and the Select Committees be tabled? In particular, when will the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges be set up? It is clear that there will be a strong desire on both sides of the House to proceed as a matter of urgency, not least in the light of the allegations about the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar).
Will the Leader of the House please tell us the proposed date for the Budget, and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a further statement on the Bank of England in the light of the Governor's reported proposal to resign over the proposed changes to the regulation of financial services?
May I remind the Leader of the House that on Tuesday, the advance copy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, which should have been in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer by 3 o'clock at the latest, was in fact not delivered until after 3.15? Can the right hon. Lady confirm that she will make representations to her Cabinet colleagues to ensure that such a practice will not recur?
Does the right hon. Lady accept that, following the Prime Minister's remarks at Question Time yesterday, there is now great uncertainty about the Government's proposed windfall tax, and will she confirm that it is the Government's intention to allow time for a proper debate in the House on that matter in advance of the Budget, so that some of those uncertainties can be resolved? [Interruption.] Watch this space.
Finally, will the right hon. Lady ensure that her ministerial colleagues do not follow the Deputy Prime Minister's example in seeking to talk out the debate on the Queen's Speech—an humiliation from which he was

841
rescued only by your intervention, Madam Speaker—and that Ministers make some small effort to abide by our rules of procedure?
Mrs. Taylor: I shall endeavour to answer all the questions that have been put to me, which I hope will reduce the number of questions that others might put later, particularly in view of the time.
I hope that we can move towards achieving our ambition to produce two weeks' business, but I think that the shadow Leader of the House forgot that next week is a recess, so he does have the second week's business, and some indication of what is happening.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we were taking the referendums Bill on the Floor of the House, and he asked whether all constitutional Bills could be dealt with in that way. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to him last week about that. The Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland have made it clear that the White Papers will be produced in good time for proper consideration by those who will vote in the referendums.
The right hon. Gentleman invited me to anticipate what will happen after the referendums. That is somewhat strange, as it would be unreasonable to second-guess the outcome. We are clear that, if the referendums result in a mandate for the devolution proposals, we will press ahead with legislation. We believe that a mandate was given in the general election, and the referendums invite people to confirm that opinion.
I regret that the Education (Schools) Bill, which will be considered next week, is not published today, although the long title is available. From education questions, it is clear that Conservative Members are aware of the content of that Bill. We have increased the time for Second Reading at the specific request of the Opposition. Therefore, hon. Members will have a considerable time in which to make their views known.
I confirm that the debate on the European Union will be the pre-Amsterdam debate. It will be a one-day debate, which is in line with the previous Government's practice of holding a one-day debate in such circumstances.
I do not think that there will be a White Paper in advance of the debate on London, which will be an opportunity for hon. Members to raise issues with the Ministers with direct responsibility. There should be a fair amount of interest in that debate.
Modernisation of procedures is a serious issue, and I hope that much interest will be shown from both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that the motion to establish the Select Committee on modernisation will be the second stage. We shall debate modernisation tonight, and I hope that we shall have the attendance in the Chamber that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on making his complaint about the increase in political appointments and the politicisation of the civil service with a straight face, although his face was about to crack towards the end of his remarks.
We need no lectures from Conservatives Members on that issue. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friends as Lobby fodder. He has not got it quite right: my hon. Friends are here to make their voices heard. In the
842
three-hour Adjournment debate yesterday, it was evident that Labour Members want to make their voices heard. During the whole three hours, there was only one Conservative contribution, there was not even a winding-up speech by an Opposition Front-Bench Member, and at times the Front Bench was empty. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is complaining with his Chief Whip's hat on because he has no Lobby fodder.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comments about Select Committees. I am grateful for what he said through the usual channels about hoping to establish Select Committees as soon as possible. We share that feeling, and I hope that we can make early progress after the Whitsun recess.
I cannot give the House today a date for the Budget, but we shall make an announcement as soon as possible. If the shadow Chancellor did not receive yesterday's statement by 3 pm, that was wrong, and we should apologise for it. I have mentioned the matter to colleagues, and we shall take steps to ensure that statements that should be available to the official Opposition and anyone else, including you, Madam Speaker, will be delivered at the appropriate time. We complained about such slippage when we were in opposition, so we have no reason to repeat it.
As for the windfall tax, I think that our policy purpose is clear, and I see no point in debating the matter before the Budget. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I thought that the situation at the end of the debate was handled admirably.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Of necessity, that was a long exchange. I do not intend to take long statements from Back Benchers; they should be brisk, limited to one question and directly to the point.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 38?
[That this House welcomes the commitment of over 70 heads of government, including the British Prime Minister to attend Earth Summit II in New York from 23rd to 27th June; calls for an early parliamentary debate to ensure that the British delegation is fully briefed on this House's concerns, concerning climate, finance, forests and fresh water to ensure a sustainable future for the planet.]
The motion concerns the summit that is to take place in New York at the end of the month. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is extremely important. Will she arrange for the House to be able to discuss global warming and environmental sustainability before the large and important British delegation goes to the conference?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that it will be possible to arrange the kind of debate that my hon. Friend envisages. He may know, however, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced his intention to attend the summit, and he will be addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York towards the end of June. The Government have made it clear that the goal of sustainable development is one of the major challenges we face, is important to Government policy, and will be

843
taken on board by all Ministers. Although I cannot promise the debate that my hon. Friend wants, I hope that he will think that that is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In view of the leadership bid that we heard just now from the acting shadow Leader of the House, may I reassure the House that I am making no such bid in relation to my party?
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Not until the second round.
Mr. Tyler: We might make a bid for the leadership of the hon. Gentleman's party in the second round.
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us a specific assurance about important announcements relating to local government, particularly in respect of the capping of local authority expenditure limits, and both the release and the distribution of capital receipts from the right-to-buy programme? Those matters are extremely important to local authorities, as I am sure the Leader of the House understands, and it would be intolerable if such statements were made outside the House rather than in the House, so that hon. Members can hear them and explore their implications.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of capping was raised by one of his hon. Friends during yesterday's Adjournment debate. We believe that caps are necessary in certain circumstances, and, when an authority is capped, it has 28 days in which to challenge the decision. The hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has secured a debate on Wednesday week about one of the authorities concerned.
Mr. David Winnick: May I ask my right hon. Friend—in a constructive way—whether it would be possible, during the week when we return, to hear a statement outlining what the Government intend to do to ensure that all parties represented in the House of Commons must themselves ensure that hon. Members have a vote in the leadership ballot? Would that not prevent a situation in which 164 Tory Members of Parliament can decide who should be the Leader of the Opposition?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will, I think, acknowledge that I have no responsibility for elections in other parties. [Interruption.] The hon. Member says, "Quite right." I must admit that I am very glad that I do not have any such responsibility, and I think that many Opposition Members wish that they did not, either.
I am, however, concerned about the fact that there are occasions on which the leadership ballot dominates the official Opposition to such an extent that they spend all their time on that, and very little time considering the business of the House.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Can the Leader of the House clarify the position relating to the referendums Bill? Will there be a timetable motion before we debate it on the Floor of the House? If so, how much
844
time does the right hon. Lady expect that the House will be given to discuss that extremely important Bill? Is she prepared to extend the time when she sees how many amendments have been tabled, if there are a great many?
Mrs. Taylor: We have provided a day and a half for Second Reading. The Bill is simple and straightforward; there has already been considerable debate on it, and more will follow today. We are providing two full days, and I hope that that will be adequate. Given the nature of the Bill, I think that it will be.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the last Government left a number of nasty little time bombs ticking away in the transport world, including the franchises that have been granted to privatised railways. Will she assure us that, when the Select Committees are set up, there will be a separate Select Committee on Transport to consider many of the problems that we face?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sympathetic to the need for a separate Select Committee, which will form part of the discussions through the usual channels.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The Leader of the House will be aware that the NATO summit takes place in July in Madrid. One of the most important items on the agenda will be the enlargement of NATO, which will have profound effects not only on the defence of our realm but on the cost of NATO membership. As no specific day was set aside for a debate on defence during the debates on the Loyal Address, could the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate defence matters between now and the end of June? In particular, some reports from the Select Committee on Defence in the last Parliament are still on the Table awaiting a Government reply.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The parliamentary timetable is extremely crowded, but I will look at the matter that he raises. I remind him that there will be Defence questions on 16 June, during which he could raise some of the issues that he mentions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for Tory Members who have already taken part in these exchanges to ask for extra time for common market debates, when, not so long ago, in the memory of almost everybody here, we had to drag a Tory Minister kicking and screaming from a Committee Room upstairs to have even a one-day debate on the common market?
Will she ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to look not only into the backlog in Child Support Agency applications but into the growing backlog of appeals on disability living allowance? We shall have to clean up the two Tory Acts relating to those matters. That will take a bit of time, but we must have some assurances that those backlogs will be removed.
Mrs. Taylor: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about EU debates in the past. I hope that we will not see such spectacles in future. He asked about social security issues and outstanding work. We all know from our casework the problems that the CSA and other agencies

845
have created. I know that my hon. Friends in the appropriate Department are anxious to streamline procedures and to move quickly, because, as my hon. Friend says, there is a significant backlog of work, which requires a great deal of attention.
Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Lady referred to the spectacle, as she put it, of a past debate. Of course, the need to hold that debate on the Floor of the House had to do with the stability pact. Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the forthwith motion that was tabled in consequence of the recommendations of the Select Committee on European Legislation has not yet been taken? Can she assure us that it will be dealt with soon? The Prime Minister is going to Noorddjik tomorrow, and that means that there will be a European Council meeting without a subsequent statement. Does she not agree that that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs?
Mrs. Taylor: There will be a chance to raise all those issues in the debate that I have announced. The debate on 9 June will be to discuss all the issues raised at Amsterdam. I am sure that, given his usual interest in these matters, the hon. Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, during that debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Thanks to the initiative of hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), we have had an Adjournment debate on opencast mining. May we have a fully fledged debate on this matter? Labour published a 10-point programme on opencast mining which I used widely in my constituency, and we are keen to raise some matters from that. For instance, I should like to raise the question of the Avenue Court works, because I twice asked the previous Government to call in the planning agreements to operate in that area, and I ask for that to be done by this Government.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject, because, like him, I have a constituency interest, and, also like him, I campaigned on the issue during the general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth was fortunate to have an early debate on this, and I know that opencast mining concerns many people. I will bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my ministerial colleagues.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement about the problems that are being experienced by Dayavanti Pictures, a film company that is trying to make a major feature film in the Scottish highlands? It has found that 16 of its cast and crew of 80 have suggested that they might be denied entry visas. A message has been passed to me in the past few seconds to the effect that circumstances might be improving.
Does the right hon. Lady understand that many of us had hoped that the behaviour of entry clearance officers would change with the change of Government, but that that does not seem to have happened? Does she appreciate that such matters are vital to Scotland's economy at a time when we are trying to market the country as a major film location? The behaviour of entry clearance officers is deeply insulting and embarrassing to the Asian
846
community in Scotland, who have done so much work in trying to persuade this major film company to choose Scotland as a film location in Europe.
Mrs. Taylor: I will look into the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I presume that it is a matter of entry visas and work permits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here on the Bench, and has also noted the hon. Gentleman's comments. We have not had any messages in the last few seconds such as the hon. Gentleman has had, so perhaps we are not so up to date as him, but we will look into the issue.
Ms Joan Walley: May I add my concern to that which has already been expressed that there should be an early opportunity to discuss early-day motion 38? The earth summit in New York is approaching. It will be attended by Heads of Government. We have a wonderful opportunity to put the environment at the heart of our new Government, after it was abandoned by the previous Government. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the matter closely.
Mrs. Taylor: I note the comments of my hon. Friend. Perhaps this is a matter on which she and her colleagues could consider making an application for a Wednesday morning debate.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Lady consider a short debate on standards in public life? Would it not give the House an opportunity to explore the paradox that, when the former Member of Parliament for Tatton was accused of impropriety, the Labour party said that he should be rejected from the House right away? As the Labour party has taken an entirely different attitude to the allegations in respect of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), such a debate would provide an opportunity at this early stage in the Parliament to reject the charge of double standards, or perhaps no standards whatever.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should welcome what the Labour party has done in Scotland in calling in the police. If there are any double standards, they have just been demonstrated by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does my hon. Friend agree that any great reforming Labour Government would give priority first and foremost to its pensioners? When does she expect that the pensions review will take place? Has she seen and noted early-day motion 1, the first of this new Parliament?
[That this House celebrates with joy and hope the election of what will be a great reforming Labour Government; applauds its manifesto declaration that `all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation'; asserts that this can be achieved for the present generation of pensioners only by restoring the link between basic pensions and average earning; urges an immediate start to the promised manifesto review of 'all aspects of the basic pension and its value, second pensions including SERPS and community care' and a renewal of the commitment to retain SERPS.]

847
It expresses concern that, according to our manifesto declarations, pensioners should be able to share in the economic prosperity of the country as soon as possible. When does she expect the review and a debate in the House?
Mrs. Taylor: A review cannot take place overnight, but my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Social Security are considering the matter with a view to making progress as quickly as possible. I think that all hon. Members will acknowledge that it is a complex matter. We have made some clear commitments in the manifesto about the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, but an overall review will inevitably take some time.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I refer back to the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), about local authority capital receipts? The right hon. Lady failed to respond to that part of his question. When do the Government intend to make some statement on the matter? Is it their intention to allow the authority in question to retain its own capital receipts and spend them, or to take that money away from some authorities and distribute it elsewhere?
Mrs. Taylor: I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who froze capital receipts. We have made it clear that there will be action to release capital receipts on a phased basis as soon as possible. It was mentioned during the debate on the Queen's Speech. When we come to the next stage, the appropriate statements will be made.
Mr. Barry Jones: What is the prospect of a debate on Britain's aerospace industry? British Aerospace workers in my constituency are asking questions about grant aid for the CXX project—the future large aircraft project—and Raytheon workers are asking for a share of the Government's Astra project. Can my right hon. Friend help by providing a debate?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure whether we can have such a debate in the near future, but I will pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to right hon. Friends at the Department. My hon. Friend may want to consider that particular constituency interest as a matter on which to apply for an Adjournment Debate.
Mr. David Lidington: Will the right hon. Lady give priority to re-establishing the Select Committee on European Legislation and the associated Standing Committees? Will she assure the House that the Government will not agree to any European directive or other legislation that might now be pending until the proper process of parliamentary scrutiny has been followed through?
Mrs. Taylor: I have made it clear that I am extremely anxious to move quickly on the re-establishment of all
848
Select Committees, and that would include all the Committees which also consider delegated or secondary legislation and European legislation.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it might be possible to find some time in the near future for a major debate on foreign affairs? I understand that it was not possible to hold such debate on the Queen's Speech. I am sure that she will appreciate, however, that current conditions in Kashmir, in Sri Lanka and particularly in the middle east are of great concern to a number of hon. Members who would welcome the opportunity for such a major debate, when we could raise our concerns with Foreign Office Ministers.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, because he has always taken an interest in foreign affairs. As I said earlier, the parliamentary timetable is somewhat crowded at the moment. It was decided through the usual channels that there would not be a foreign affairs debate during the Queen's Speech, which would have normally provided an opportunity for hon. Members to express their concerns. We are therefore aware that there is a potential gap for such a debate, but I can only repeat that the parliamentary timetable is somewhat crowded. It might be difficult to find a suitable space, but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's representations.
Mr. Peter Luff: Notwithstanding the right hon. Lady's earlier reply, may I urge her to give absolute priority to the establishment of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, since those of us on the Conservative Benches at least believe that that is the right place for this House to reassert its belief that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, whether in Glasgow, Govan or in Tatton?
Mrs. Taylor: I have made it clear that I am very much in favour of the Standards and Privileges Committee continuing its work as quickly as possible.
Mr. Dafis: May I add my voice to those of the two Labour Members who have stressed the importance of a debate on the Earth summit II? There are various ways in which that could be managed. It is terribly important that hon. Members who are interested should be able to convey to the Government the great importance that they attach to that major international event, probably the most important such event in which the Government will be involved this year. May I also suggest that there should be a statement following that summit?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman, who tabled the relevant early-day motion, is well known for his interest in such matters over many years, and I congratulate him on his persistence. He has said that the summit is an important event, and I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government have recognised it as such, because the Prime Minister himself has decided to attend. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's request about any possible need for a statement following the Earth Summit.

Orders of the Day

  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to the Question [21 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Which amendment was: To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof—
  this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill because it would ask voters to give blanket approval to proposals in advance of legislation being published, debated, amended or agreed; and believes that such referendums should only be held after full and detailed scrutiny of the legislation in question on the floor of the House of Commons'-[Mr. Howard.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order as I think I have the answer that he wants.
  Mr. Cash: In my exchanges with the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, I raised what I termed the United Kingdom question. I then found it necessary to table an instruction last night, the effect of which would be to ensure that, if the House deemed it necessary, amendments would be tabled to the Bill to extend the franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Following discussions this morning, I have been given to understand that you, Madam Speaker, may be prepared to give a ruling on the matter so that we can be sure that we shall be able to table amendments to extend the franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. May I ask for your ruling on the matter?
  Madam Speaker: I have carefully considered the instruction tabled by the hon. Gentleman and decided not to select it for the simple reason that, in this case, it is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members may table such amendments as he has in mind.
  4.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): My contribution to the Welsh part of the Bill will be brief and will serve as an hors d'oeuvre to the main course provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is a privilege and an honour to be a Minister in the Welsh Office during one of the most exciting and reforming periods in the history of Welsh politics. For the first time in 18 long and miserable years, is it not wonderful to have a Secretary of State who can speak with authority for Wales because he represents a constituency in Wales? He is not a Welsh leader who treats his important office as a platform for his crackpot ideology or one for whom the office is a youth training scheme. The Secretary of State is a man of the people and will govern for the people of Wales.
  The referendum is an important step towards creating a new democratic settlement that will take Wales into the next century with confidence and dynamism. The referendum is a passport to a new participatory Welsh

  853
  democracy in which decisions will be brought closer to the people. Under our new Welsh Assembly, power will shift down from Westminster to Wales. There will be a new partnership with local government, which will be liberated from the suffocating centralised control of the Tory years. It will unite all parts of Wales—north and south, east and west, valleys and towns, rural and urban areas.
  Details of the referendum will be in the White Paper; every voter will be well aware of the Government's plans. The referendum will be held on the principle of an Assembly, and that has been well publicised and well argued. It was set out clearly in our election manifesto and in documents issued by the Welsh Labour party over the past two years, so it has been widely debated in Wales.
  We have one of the biggest mandates for this policy ever enjoyed by an incoming Government. May I remind Conservative Members that the people of England also gave an overwhelming mandate for this policy? The Tories polled just 34 per cent. of the vote in England, compared with a combined pro-devolution Labour and Liberal vote of 62 per cent., despite the Tories trying to frighten the pants off everyone during the election campaign by having as one of their main planks spurious claims that devolution would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Our mandate included an absolute promise to consult the people before proceeding with legislation to introduce an Assembly. We are now keeping our promise with this Bill.
  A new assembly will mean employment policies tailored to the needs of Wales; health programmes geared to the needs of Wales; housing policies that reflect Welsh wishes; and education policies determined by Welsh priorities and not by those of an alien dogma, which turned our classrooms into laboratories for right-wing extremists. In the referendum vote in September, we shall invite the people to say yes to Wales—yes to an Assembly, yes to having a bigger say in decisions affecting their own lives. It will be an historic test of whether Wales is ready for the new millennium. Those who vote no will be locked in the past, saying that they have no confidence in our capacity as a nation to make decisions about our own future. Those who vote yes will be saying that we can build a better Wales —we can utilise our talent to forge a new future. As a Government, we shall work hard to persuade the people to vote yes and the Labour party will mount a vigorous campaign, led by the Prime Minister, to persuade the people to vote yes.
  We say to each and every Labour supporter, this is a loyalty vote in your new Labour Government. Do not side with the Tories in undermining such a crucial part of our programme by voting no or by not bothering to vote at all. The new Assembly will include the views of supporters of other parties. We have had enough of government by one-party diktat—we want a Government for all the people. We say that the views of Liberals, nationalists and even Conservatives—if any are ever again elected in Wales—views will be respected in the new democratic era.
  I say bluntly to those Conservatives who appear not to have noticed that they were wiped out in Wales: "You lost—in fact, you got hammered." The victory on 1 May of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) did a great favour, not only for the Labour party, but for humanity. Rod Richards was the only Conservative who could make even the right hon.
  854
  Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) seem popular in Wales. It is important to ask why the Conservatives are so frightened of giving the people a say. Is it because many Tories will also vote yes? I remind the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that only one Welsh Conservative—Viscount St. Davids—has so far spoken on devolution in this Parliament, and he supported a Welsh Assembly. Is that to be a pattern for the Conservative party in Wales, or part of the constantly shifting fudge of Welsh Tory politics in the new era?
  There is now a great tide flowing through Wales in favour of grasping this opportunity for devolution. We shall not be left behind when the Scots get devolution or when even Londoners get an elected authority. We shall not throw away this opportunity to replace the Tory quango state with democratic government. Nearly 700,000 people who were not old enough to be on the electoral register in 1979 will have the chance to vote for the first time for a Welsh Assembly. Through bands such as Catatonia and the Manic Street Preachers, Welsh youth is leading the way, not only in the pop world, but for a yes vote as well. Leading Welsh business men and women are uniting with trade unionists, with the churches and with prominent figures from sport and the arts to say yes for Wales. Even those who do not support every detail of Labour's proposed Welsh Assembly have said that they will vote yes for Wales.
  People who want a stronger assembly, or a different one, or a different voting system, can still vote yes with integrity—indeed they must, because otherwise there will be no Bill in the House to try to amend. Only if we get a yes vote on the principle will there be an opportunity to test the different arguments on the detail. Only if there is a yes vote will there be the opportunity to review the assembly's operation in future years and to consider whether changes would be desirable in the light of such a review.
  Mr. Dafydd WigleyI welcome the Minister to his post. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is considerable support among those who want an elected tier of Welsh democracy for that assembly or Parliament to have primary law-making powers for at least some functions. He has now said that there may be opportunities to amend the Bill if there is a yes vote. Will he undertake to ensure that the Bill will have a long title broad enough to include provisions for primary law-making powers?
  Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my appointment. I am not inviting amendments to the Bill and I shall not necessarily greet them with enthusiasm, but he, Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberals have the right to press their arguments, which we shall listen to although we shall also be bound by our overall policy. My argument is that unless the Bill gets into Parliament as a result of a yes vote in the referendum, that opportunity will not arise.
  Unless the Government win the referendum, devolution in Wales will be dead in the water. There will not be another chance to create a Welsh Assembly or a Welsh Parliament. If Wales votes no to devolution for the second time in a generation, Wales can kiss goodbye to devolution. That is the blunt truth. No Government will bother with it again. This is our one and only chance. It is a once-in-a-lifetime vote. Let us go for it.
  4.21 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a privilege to be called so early in the debate. Newer Members will be aware of the nightmare of Back Benchers—that of waiting for hours, sometimes without being called in a debate. It is a privilege, for the first time for many years, to speak quite so early. I shall be brief.
  The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the spokesman for the Opposition, has just given us a sincere speech.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The Government, not the Opposition.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: For the Government; my apologies. The Minister must be aware that a fundamental constitutional change is taking place, which will cost a great deal of money and involve a great deal of change. How would he feel if such a proposal were put into practice on the strength of 21 per cent. voting yes, 19 per cent. voting no and the rest of the community in Wales saying that they could not care less?
  The Government should be aware of another point. Older people such as myself were told passionately by the media that everyone was excited about and very much taken with the idea of devolution, and then, when the referendum was held in Scotland, we found out that a large proportion of the population were not remotely interested in the issue.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the Government because they are going through exactly what Sir Edward Heath's Government went through. They have adopted the principle of devolution. I am ashamed to say that, in our case, I gained the impression that we adopted that principle not because we believed in it but because we thought that it would help us as a defence against the Scottish nationalists.
  I have a horrible feeling about the attitude of Labour Members to devolution. I mean this in all sincerity: I am not trying to attack politicians. The impression that I have gained from speaking to the majority of Labour Members, with a few exceptions, is that they are not at all keen on this business. They envisage huge problems, and they say that they adopted the proposal for the same bad reason that we did—because they believed that it would help to cope with Scottish nationalism. The House of Commons must appreciate that although there is a good and strong case for independence for Scotland and for Wales—although it is one with which I personally disagree—there is no argument whatever for devolution, which will lead to horrendous mistakes and will increase confusion and the pressure for separation.
  I believe that the great majority of Members of Parliament do not believe in devolution. If a Scottish Parliament has no tax-raising powers, people in Scotland will blame London or the English for everything that goes wrong. Hon. Members will be well aware that the same occurs in relation to county councils—when things do not get done, people blame the Government. If anything goes wrong, those involved in a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly will say that it is because they are not getting their share of the cash.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: People do that now.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is the basis on which nationalism has received more
  856
  support than it otherwise merits. On the other hand, if a Scottish Parliament has tax-raising powers, it will lead inevitably to higher taxes in Scotland. As someone who has spent most of my life in Scotland, I am well aware that—for perfectly good and logical reasons—Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK. I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has figures to say that that is not so, but the plain fact is that Scotland does get subsidised. If a Scottish Parliament has separate tax-raising powers, it will mean higher taxation in Scotland and that will do no good.
  Members of Parliament must think also about the democratic implications. For example, if I were a citizen of Wales or Scotland and I wished to complain about cuts in the schools programme, who would I contact? Who would I blame? Would I contact my county council? The council would say, "Not at all. The Assembly is to blame for not providing enough money." Would I contact my assemblyman in Wales or my Scottish parliamentarian? They would say, "It is not us—it is those London boys." A lot of people will be blaming each other, and it could be infinitely worse. There will be Members of this Parliament and members of the Scottish Parliament representing similar areas.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: That happens in Europe.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: How right the hon. Gentleman is to mention Europe. I am not blaming Europe, but I shall refer to my recent surgeries in Southend. I am sorry to have been distracted, because I promised to make a short speech. At my surgeries, people have asked me to campaign and vote against the export of live animals. I have had to say, "I am terribly sorry, but even if every Member of Parliament voted to ban such exports, nothing could be done. The power is gone."
  In a neighbouring constituency, a pile of candidates representing all parties went to see fishermen at Leigh and all gave them great assurances. The fishermen then came to me and said, "Will you stop these nasty Spaniards coming here?" I had to say, "I am terribly sorry, but there is nothing that we can do. Even if every Member of Parliament wanted to do something, the power has gone."
  I was visited by ladies from an Asda superstore, who complained about something that I did not understand—VAT on items of feminine hygiene. I do not know what they are, but I was asked if we could take VAT off them. I had to explain that Parliament does not have that power. So much power has been taken away from our democracy already, and we are now proposing to share it out among even more Parliaments. It will make a terrible mess.
  If I am right—and I think I am—the Government now regret proposing devolution, but what can we do to help them and the United Kingdom? Of course, I may be wrong and the Government may be wildly enthusiastic about devolution. Frankly, on the basis of private discussions—which I will not repeat—I think that the great majority of hon. Members are now sorry they ever thought about devolution.
  Mr. MacShane indicated dissent
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The first thing we can do is simple—so simple that even the hon. Member for

  857
  Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who claims to be a democrat but supports the European Union, will understand it. Will he accept a simple proposition, which I hope the Government will accept? If people are dead keen on this business, what could be lost by having a 40 per cent. rule? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] What is wrong with that? Unless 40 per cent. of the people of Wales or Scotland—50 per cent. would be even better—want devolution, we should not proceed with it.
  Devolution will create terrible problems, lots of extra expense and a great deal of administration. Why not say to the people of Scotland, "If you are as keen on it as the minority in the Labour party argues, why not have a rule whereby, if 40 per cent. of you vote for it, it can go ahead, but not otherwise"?
  I hope that hon. Members—particularly our delightful new Secretary of State for Scotland, who used to discuss the matter with me many years ago on Scottish television—will think about the real problems that the United Kingdom will have if we create a monstrosity whereby Members of Parliament such as the Secretary of State can vote on education or health Bills in England when English Members of Parliament will not have the equivalent power in Scotland. The issue has been raised time and again by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who takes his job in the House of Commons more seriously than many. Is not there something democratically dangerous about it? Why should Scottish Members have that entitlement when Scotland will have more representation than the rest of the United Kingdom? Unless we face up to that question we shall create a democratic nightmare.
  We shall not always have a party with a huge majority on one side of the House and a party with a small number on the other. I do not know which parties will survive in future, but the numbers will be closer. Other parties may take over. Indeed, we may even find that the Referendum party will suddenly lift off—anything could happen. If, in future, the position in the House of Commons were tight, Labour Members would not be happy to be outvoted by colleagues from other countries, when they will have no power over legislation in those countries.
  Ms Rachel Squire: What are the hon. Gentleman's views on what happened in the House over the past 18 years? The previous Government could ensure that hon. Members who represented neither Scottish nor Welsh constituencies forced through legislation, particularly Scottish legislation, which the majority of the people of Scotland neither wanted nor voted for.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Lady's point would be valid if she were a nationalist. I would agree absolutely with what she said if I believed that Scotland should be an independent sovereign state. I would then say, "What the blazes are these guys in London doing deciding for us?" However, we are part of the United Kingdom, so all United Kingdom Members of Parliament should determine those issues. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire)—she must be one of the new arrivals—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, she is not."] I apologise, I am half-blind. The hon. Lady should ask herself the simple question: what is the logic of legislation applying to England being voted on by people in other countries? It is wholly wrong and undemocratic. If there
  858
  were a political divide in this country whereby English Members could not control their administration whereas a separate Scottish Parliament could, it would be an appalling democratic outrage. Something must be done about that.
  Some hon. Members, particularly those who favour more subsidies for everything, will say, "What does this matter? Isn't this silly? Why should we bother about it?" We must bother about it if we believe in democracy. Some of my hon. Friends and I have therefore tabled an amendment, which I hope the Government will accept. It simply says that we should face up to what we now call the West Lothian question and have a minimum percentage voting for the scheme.
  I was a Scottish Member of Parliament for several years, then I ceased to be one, as have many other Conservatives in Scotland. I gained the impression that if an opinion poll was conducted and the average Scot was asked, "Do you want a Scottish Parliament?", most of them would say yes. There is no doubt about that. If, however, Scots were asked, "Would you like a Scottish Assembly that would have partial control of part of Scotland's affairs, that would add to public expenditure," and so on—if one explained the whole thing to them—the vast majority would say, "No, we don't want that at all."
  I get the impression that if a proper referendum discussion was held, we would find—despite the smiles and smirks on the faces of some hon. Members—the great majority of people, who are not daft, would wake up and realise that they had been offered not a package for better constitutional government, but a package that would create frustration and add to the pressures for Scottish independence.
  Let us discuss seriously and carefully among the people of Scotland and Wales whether independence is a good idea. There is a good argument for it, and it can be discussed logically and fairly, but devolution is a load of constitutional rubbish. It will create resentment, add to costs and create problems between the different democracies and administrations. It will create no good for Scotland or for Wales.
  I may be wrong, as I am sure that some of my colleagues would agree that I may be wrong on other things. I hope, however, just in case I am right, that the Government will accept the simple propositions that I have advanced in the amendment. Why should there not be a minimum percentage? Will the Government say what on earth we can do about the West Loth: an question? If they do not face up to it, we shall create a serious problem in the future for other Parliaments and other Members of Parliament.
  The Government should remember that the issue is what is best for the people. What we are doing today is not good for the people of Scotland, not good for the people of Wales and certainly not good for the people of the United Kingdom.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I begin by welcoming my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Front Bench. In particular, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box. It was a sincere speech, and commendably brief. I hope that he will help

  859
  to maintain such brevity on the part of others on the Front Bench and please the Back Benchers for many years to come.
  I should make it clear at the start, lest there is any doubt en route, that I welcome the referendum. I have long felt that there is a wider role for the referendum in the constitutional process as a means of involving the general public. In the 1970s, I was one of those who urged on the Prime Minister the need for referendums on the Scotland and Wales Bills.
  In January 1995, in a letter to the present Prime Minister, I argued that there could be no intellectual validity in the proposition that one could overturn an overwhelming, precise vote of 4:1 against a referendum on the tenuous argument that the majority of Welsh Members of Parliament happened to represent parties which had included devolution in their manifestos.
  My hon. Friends' experience may be very different from mine, but in my constituency the election was not fought on the question of devolution. It was hardly an issue—the election was fought on the topics of health, education, jobs and homelessness.
  I know that the reasoning about the inadequacy of the argument did not carry much weight with my hon. Friends, whom I bored with it in the Welsh group for several years. One can therefore imagine my delight, surprise and admiration for the clarity with which the Prime Minister must have advocated the case and made a convert of the present Secretary of State, almost at a stroke.
  The proposed referendum is intended to be the first in a series of referendums. I want to raise questions that are—this may sound arrogant—of great importance to the House and the electorate. If government by referendum is to be part of the process, we must consider establishing some ground rules. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland referred yesterday to the process of seeking popular consent. We must maintain popular support for the process, and not frivolously turn support into cynicism and scepticism.
  I listened with admiration to the remarks yesterday of my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who also spoke on Friday—on a pre-legislative referendum. They argued that the people would not know what they would get when they voted in a referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred to it as a pig in a poke; I contend that the animal is not that well defined: it might be a pig, a mouse or a tiger. We have no legislation to put before the electorate to allow the people to see what they would be voting for.
  We will have a White Paper, but hon. Members who have been in this place for a reasonable time will know that the wording of a White Paper is not as precise as that of a Bill. That is why White Papers may be produced more rapidly. I am not being critical, but practical. The people will be voting on a measure with a looser presentation than the final legislation.
  We must also recognise that there might be changes. Time and again, hon. Members have seen White Papers change when they are translated into legislation. We must also ask: if we maintain the principle of the sovereignty
  860
  of Parliament, can we rule out in advance the possibility of any changes to the Bill in Committee? In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that the Government will put principles in front of the public. We are asking for a vote on principle, but we know that the details can alter the principle. That is why I argue that we must know the precise terms of the measure when we ask people to vote. We do not want to create cynicism when we are giving people a chance to be involved in Government decision making.
  I warn hon. Members of another potential danger—it is a legitimate difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Minister and me, and it must be addressed. Perhaps he can reassure me about the matter. My hon. Friend has argued in the past in favour of an enabling Bill. Such legislation is easier to draft, but it means essentially that the critical decisions appear in subsequent statutory instruments. At the time of Royal Assent, not even the House will know what final shape the animal will take. I also remind hon. Members that most statutory instruments are passed without debate—when debate occurs, it lasts for no more than an hour and a half—that most are passed without a vote and that none can be amended.
  I do not pretend that my view is more valid than that of anyone else, but I have another question regarding this and any future referendums. Do the Government have a duty to ensure that there is a level democratic playing field in a referendum? That may sound strange, but our manifesto commitment is not to devolve, but to let the people choose whether we should devolve. We willed the referendum and we willed that the people should have the right to decide. If we believe in the democratic process, we must believe also in the right to hear from both sides.
  If the electorate is to make a decision, it must be an informed decision. I shall abide by the people's decision, whatever it may be. At present, there is a danger that each referendum could be a David and Goliath contest: with the full panoply of governmental powers, resources and the information machine on one side ranged against the relatively unsupported representations on the other. In laying the ground rules, we must consider whether we should—and, if so, how—ensure that there is a balanced presentation of each case.
  That question is particularly important in relation to the media. I ask not for financial resources for the campaign, but about the rules for broadcasters. We take it for granted that certain rules of equality must apply during a general election campaign. That is quite correct, as we are asking the people to make a very important decision. The referendums will deal with major constitutional issues, so is not the argument regarding equality of time, opportunity to present a case and right of reply equally valid?
  I turn now to perhaps the most sensitive issue: freedom of speech for Back Benchers. I make it clear that we all understand the limitations on freedom of voting that apply in every political party. We know also that, while there is a conscience clause that allows us to abstain, one could argue that Back Benchers cannot vote against their party. Should a tighter rule apply in referendums? In the 1970s, in the great European Community debate—the most important constitutional decision to be taken in the post-war period—every Back Bencher was allowed to

  861
  speak as he or she saw fit. Labour Back Benchers were also allowed freedom of speech during the two devolution campaigns.
  At the parliamentary Labour party meeting before the general election, we endorsed a standing order that guarantees hon. Members the right to freedom of speech. I put my point in this context. I am sure that the press reports that I read last weekend were maligning, ill-intentioned and a misrepresentation, but I was somewhat concerned by suggestions that the Secretary of State for Wales had said that it would be a disciplinary matter if Labour Members dared to speak against devolution.
  I took great comfort in two other reports of speeches made by the Under-Secretary, in which he told the other political parties that Labour will not govern by diktat. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that statement applies to the Labour party? I genuinely believe that the Secretary of State has been misrepresented, and I will gladly give way now so that he can clarify his position—or he may wish to do so when he replies to the debate. I would like to be sure that there was neither threat nor intention behind his remarks.
  I would like to think that, for several reasons. One is that it is the way in which we normally conduct our affairs on this side of the House. Secondly, I do not want my party to appear rather to follow the leader of the Scottish nationalists, who said as a condition of his support for the Bill that he would require Labour Back-Bench Members to be gagged. I do not want my Secretary of State and my party to look, as the nationalists appear to present themselves, afraid of the power of argument.
  I am genuinely puzzled by the timing of the referendum votes. Why, I wonder, is the Welsh referendum to take place after the Scottish referendum? After all, the Scots, poor devils, have two questions to answer. They have two things on which to make up their minds. We in Wales have a much simpler decision. We have only one choice, yet we need another two weeks to make up our minds. I know that the Welsh are great talkers, but we can be decisive if encouraged. There are those who are cynical—of course, I am not one of them—who might feel that the plans are designed to enable my right hon. and hon. Friends to turn to the people of Wales and say, "Scotland has its Assembly because Scotland voted for an Assembly. That being so, you must vote for an Assembly in Wales." What a way in which to launch the great Welsh experiment in a healthy democracy—in effect, Glasgow has voted for Cardiff.
  If a case for devolution stands, let it stand without stage management. Give it a chance to stand or fall on its merits. Like everyone else in this place, I shall abide by the decision of the House.
  4.51 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to make my maiden speech in a debate that so affects the country from which I come, and especially my constituency. West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is a new constituency and, as one can tell from the length of the name, a creation of the boundary commission. It is not a constituency of one entity; rather it is a bringing together of several different areas.
  I wish to pay tribute to the two hon. Members who previously represented parts of what is now the West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency. I urge hon.
  862
  Members to try to remember the full name from time to time, and not to abbreviate it. Kincardine is an ancient area of Scotland and does not wish to be forgotten.
  One of the two hon. Members who preceded me in the constituency is Mr. George Kynoch, who is no longer in this place. I pay tribute to his loyalty to the Conservative party, particularly to his loyalty as a Minister—a role which he took extremely seriously. The other hon. Member who represented part of my constituency is my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of his standing in this place and of his capabilities. I can say that, on the doorstep, my hon. Friend is extremely popular in the part of my constituency that he used to represent.
  There has been a sea change in the attitude of the Conservative party to the debate about the direction of the future of Scotland. It is the settled will of the people of Scotland that we should have a Scottish Parliament. Indeed, it is the logical and obvious way forward.
  One of the problems, however, is the lumping together of legislation. There seems to be a different debate in Wales about what should happen there and the need for a referendum to test what is happening. There is a suspicion among Liberal Democrats that we are taking part in a debate about a referendum in Scotland, not on a matter of principle, but on worries that were expressed during the build up to the general election on the effect of such considerations in England—in other words, going ahead with the policies to which the Labour party was then committed.
  My colleagues and I believe that the Bill, and the delay in bringing forward the referendum, is prolonging the much-needed requirement for a Scottish Parliament, which will be able to deal with the issues that affect my constituency and the rest of Scotland.
  We have seen already today the way in which the House can operate. Questions were asked about education in England and Wales, and it seems that the Labour party in government are planning to abolish nursery vouchers, yet we hear that the Government are planning to continue with the voucher scheme in Scotland. It is surprising that, when matters of principle and technicality can surely be dealt with across Departments, those involved cannot see a way of abolishing vouchers in Scotland when a way has been found of abolishing them in England. I hope that a Scottish Parliament will enable us in Scotland to deal with the issues that will have an effect on us.
  In my constituency, one of the main concerns at the forefront of the electorate's mind during the general election campaign was under-investment in education. It is sad that, again today, that has not been fully taken on board by the new Government. The crisis that is affecting our schools has not been fully recognised. I hope that the Government will recognise the urgency of the problem.
  Another issue that is important in my constituency is the role of the private finance initiative in the future of the health service. It is the clear will of my constituents that management and control of clinical care should not be handed over to private companies. I am sure that the Government will be able to provide some reassurance on that front.
  I think of those who previously represented parts of my constituency; I have in mind Sir Russell Fairgrieve and the late Alick Buchanan-Smith. There was a time when the Conservative party could grasp the need for a Scottish

  863
  Parliament and an accountable Scottish legislature. I commend to the House an excellent book written by Dr. James Mitchell, formerly of Edinburgh university and now of Strathclyde university; entitled, "Conservatives and the Union: A Study of the Conservative party". Unfortunately, the hon. Member who borrowed it from the Library is no longer an hon. Member, and has not yet managed to return it. That being so, I do not have a copy available to me.
  I would only say from past reading of the book that the Conservative party was instrumental in the creation of the Scottish Office—a tier of government that needs to be held accountable to the people it is meant to serve. If we have such a tier of government in Scotland, the process of creating democratic accountability is an obvious next step.
  The Liberal Democrats are extremely important in the context of this debate. The last thing my constituents want is a Parliament dominated by one part of Scotland and one party in Scotland, which is why a fair voting system is crucial to the acceptance of a Scottish Parliament—and, presumably, a Welsh Senate—and why the Liberal Democrats have played such a crucial role in the negotiations that have led to what has been agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I hope very much that we shall have a fair voting system to the Parliament and that fair voting will be embraced. Without it, there will be no parliamentary legitimacy.
  Some people in the north-east of Scotland are concerned—it is a legitimate concern—about the domination of one party in the central belt. If we do not have a Scottish Parliament, I am pretty sure that, for the next five years, decisions that bear on the north-east of Scotland and are relevant to the Scottish Office will be dominated by one party and by one part of Scotland, because the Secretary of State is very much from one party, and it has many hon. Members who will make sure that he represents their part of Scotland. That being so, I urge all parts of Scotland to embrace the need for the Parliament.
  I am disappointed about the delay and hope that, in Committee, the need to amend the Bill so that we do not need a referendum for Scotland will be recognised. That would enable us to get on with the real legislation. I hope also that the need for a referendum in Wales will be accepted, where the issue has not been so developed.
  I urge the House not to delay any more that which is needed in Scotland. The House has a great deal of legislation with which to cope, and many Bills that bear on Scotland, which should be scrutinised, do not, unfortunately, receive scrutiny. There are many needs for reform in Scotland that are not even considered by the House because of delays. A means of dealing with the Scottish Office and the consequences for our constituents purely and only in Scotland within a Scottish Parliament is long overdue. I urge the House, in Committee, while accepting the need for a referendum in Wales, to delete the need for a referendum in Scotland.
  4.59 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hope that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) will accept my compliments for a fine speech.
  864
  I offer my compliments to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who also made a fine speech. It is sometimes said that doctoral candidates are awarded their doctorates for persistence. The hon. Gentleman certainly deserves to be here for his remarkable persistence and consistency in fighting Edinburgh, West.
  I offer extremely belated congratulations to my right hon. and old Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), and all of those other fine honourable fellows who adorn the Government Front Bench. I also offer my compliments to my hon. Friends who made their initial—we are supposed to call them maiden—speeches.
  I promise to be brief, but I shall refer to two Scottish morning papers, which, with other papers in Scotland, are full of comments made by the governor of the Bank of Scotland in relation to constitutional changes. The Scotsman begins a front page article by stating:
  "Scotland's senior banker yesterday warned that he saw severe risks attaching to constitutional change both in Scotland and in Europe."
  No doubt that will throw the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), whose spirited speech amused me no end, especially his slip of the tongue, because for many years he has been in opposition to the Government on numerous subjects, so why the Freudian slip? He was a very fine constituency Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, but, unfortunately, the good people of Castlemilk and elsewhere sent him elsewhere—to the deep south.
  In its editorial this morning, the Daily Record had this to say about the senior banker:
  "Bank of Scotland governor Bruce Patullo—
  not Portillo—
  "(an Englishman) yesterday took over from where Michael Forsyth left off-raising the spectre of Tartan VAT to pay for a Scottish Parliament.
  He also claimed any new tax would discourage vital investment in Scotland by UK and overseas companies.
  His comments, like Michael Forsyth's before him, fail to take account of the settled will of the Scottish people"—
  and, no doubt, many thousands of his bank's clients. I regret to say that I am one of them. Perhaps the time has come for me to transfer my account.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To the Co-op.
  Dr. Godman: To the Co-operative bank, as suggested by my Welsh friend.
  Mr. Patullo should remember that many clients of the Bank of Scotland voted for constitutional change. I have no doubt that there will be unintended—as well as anticipated—consequences to constitutional reform, but that should not deter us from taking this remarkable reform forward.
  On referendums, my position is one of reserve, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I believe that there are occasions when a referendum is appropriate. Let us look at the experience of the Irish Republic, where referendums are part of the constitution. I hope that the new Government there, when the Dail resumes on 7 June, will give serious thought to holding a referendum on certain articles in the constitution, but that is another matter.

  865
  Although I had initial doubts about the proposed referendum, I now fervently hope that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland will vote yes to both questions. I readily concede that it was not the first issue that was raised on the doorsteps of my new constituency. The issues raised were homelessness, crime on the streets, but there was an acknowledgment everywhere—I held six public meetings during the election campaign—that a Labour Government would usher in a Scottish Parliament. It was widely acknowledged that a Labour Government would honour that promise.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that, in addition to Scotsmen and Welshmen, European citizens who are not United Kingdom citizens should be able to vote in a referendum that will affect the whole of the United Kingdom?
  Dr. Godman: I begin by apologising to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I called him a new boy yesterday, and that was utterly unwarranted. He has in fact been here before, and he and I were in Bosnia together last year.
  Of course people resident in Scotland should have the right to vote in the referendum. They have chosen to live in Scotland. They are people of Scotland.
  Over the past 18 years, Scotland has been governed appallingly—in an insensitive, intolerant way. I have said to Conservative Members of Parliament that, had Mrs. Thatcher when Prime Minister offered some concessions to the desire for a degree of autonomy, the Conservatives might not be in the parlous state that they are now in. I said that over the years to Scottish and English Conservative Members of Parliament, who chose to ignore that advice. I do not speak from hindsight.
  I also believe that had a Tory Government been returned at the election we would now be witnessing the beginnings of the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, because many people who voted Labour would seriously be thinking of an independent Scotland as a future for themselves, their children and grandchildren. The biggest threat to Scotland came from the Conservative party, which was so decisively defeated on 1 May.
  I offer three examples of that unsupportable form of government. First, the poll tax, which was introduced into Scotland in such a heavy-handed and insensitive manner. One of the finest speeches made during the passage of the legislation that introduced the poll tax was made in the other place by the late Willie Ross. It was a superb analysis and critique of that disgraceful measure.
  The second example is the reorganisation of local government. The majority of Scots did not want the abolition of the regional and district councils. I must tell Conservative Members that many people in my constituency are suffering because of the disappearance of Strathclyde regional council and its remarkable management of social work and education services in my constituency. I should declare an interest, as my wife is a member of that council. It achieved quite remarkable improvements for the lives of many people, but the Conservative Government decided to be rid of it. Mrs. Thatcher always wanted to see the end of Strathclyde regional council. The way in which the Conservative Government managed local government in Scotland is to their eternal shame.
  The third example of the rotten way in which the Conservative Government sought to govern Scotland was their attempt to privatise the supply of water in Scotland.
  866
  For those of my hon. Friends who are cautious about referendums, let me remind them of the quite remarkable referendum conducted by Strathclyde regional council on that very issue. It was an astonishing return. A million people posted off their answers to that referendum and 94 per cent. said that water in Scotland should remain under local authority control. I say to my hon. Friends, not least my old hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, that without that astonishing referendum result, we would now have water companies in Scotland. Instead, we have a Government who are talking about bringing the management of water supplies under local authority control again.
  Those are three examples of the rotten way in which the Conservative party governed Scotland. It is because of such insensitive, unsupportable government that many people want to see a Scottish Parliament.
  A number of Scottish Conservative candidates will doubtless put themselves forward in the election. As I said yesterday to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I fully expect to see his son as one of the candidates. He was a fine candidate in this election. He did not stand a cat in hell's chance of defeating my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham). Given my hon. Friend's shape, it was as well that it was not a physical clash.
  But a Conservative candidate of the stature of Charlie Cormack could well be a member of the Scottish Parliament. With proportional representation, he and other Conservatives will have a good chance of securing some seats. As someone who has campaigned all his adult life for electoral reform, that is one of the features of our legislation that really thrills me. We in Scotland are to adopt a system similar to that in Germany, so the minority parties will have reasonable representation in that Parliament.
  I would love to be the Minister with responsibility for fisheries in that Parliament, but that is for others to decide. Presumably, that job will be given to someone who does not know the difference between a cod and a haddock, but it is right and proper that there are Conservatives and others in that Parliament. We must not forget that 500,000 people in Scotland voted Conservative, and they do not have a single representative in the House. But if a similar proportion vote Conservative in the election to the Scottish Parliament, there will be a substantial number, albeit a minority, of Tory Members.
  Therefore, I belatedly welcome the referendum. I know that we will have overwhelming support in my constituency and I look forward to the day when we have a Scottish Parliament. I am not too happy with the Royal high school. I should like to see an international architectural competition for the design of a new Parliament, but I can live with the Royal high school for five or six years at least.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). I am always slightly nervous of hon. Members who address the House without a note. It is a remarkable achievement and I am sure that he will make many similar contributions to the House. There was a tinge of controversy in his contribution in that he made the case for a referendum in Wales but not in Scotland, but I think that we can leave it at that.

  867
  I congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales on his appointment and I wish him well in his duties. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on assuming his new responsibilities. It was a refreshing change to hear them say on their appointments and subsequently that they want to move away from the kind of tribal politics that has dominated the House for 18 years and towards a progressive, inclusive and more co-operative style of politics.
  I want to make my remarks in that spirit and to reciprocate. I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will accept that listening to other points of view is one thing but, on occasion, I hope and expect that they will see the merit of arguments coming from different directions. Listening is one thing, but I am sure that occasionally they will see that not only is there merit in what other people say but that it might well be acted upon.
  The Government have been elected on a decisive and clear mandate, part of which is to secure constitutional change not only in Wales and Scotland but in the other place. Not only is their majority decisive, but their mandate on constitutional change is decisive. The Leader of the Opposition is as responsible for that decisive mandate as anyone else, because he made it clear during the election campaign that the constitution was at the heart of the Conservative party's manifesto. He stood on a no change manifesto, a status quo manifesto, and he was so successful that his party was wiped out in Wales and Scotland.
  There is no representative of the Conservative party from Wales or Scotland in the Chamber. We shall hear from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), but the people of Wales will recognise that his constituency today will be not the people of Wales, but the Benches behind him. We will understand the context of his remarks.
  The mood for change in Wales and elsewhere is obvious. it is all around us. We have had 18 years of a Conservative Government who have centralised power on a scale that we have not seen before. The Government constantly told us about the nanny state; the interfering state. But we now have the Thatcher state. Baroness Thatcher was as responsible as anybody for the centralisation of power in this place. This is now a powerful and dominating personality.
  Currently, many people feel alienated from the democratic institutions which serve them. That was illustrated at its worst during the general election when the proportion of young voters between the ages of 18 and 24 was lower than at any other time in recent history. There is a message there. If people feel that they do not have a voice; if they feel alienated; if they feel that they have no influence over events, there is a real danger that they will channel their resources and energies in a different way. We allow that to happen at our peril.
  Modern, mature and forward-looking democracies have recognised the dangers of over-centralisation and have acted decisively to check it. Different modern states in Europe have chosen different routes to achieve that. No one model is appropriate everywhere, but we in Wales are now mature enough to take this important step forward.
  868
  The Labour party believes that the setting up of the Assembly is the way forward. Others of us will argue that that body should be enhanced and its powers improved. Let me outline not only some of the reasons why we are ready to move forward but why the choice in the referendum should reflect the fact that there are different views in Wales about how we should move forward.
  The first reason, often given in the Chamber and outside, is the growth of the quango state. The people of Wales find it distasteful and a negation of democracy that for 18 years a Government appointed their own to run Wales although they were decisively rejected time after time by the electorate. On no occasion did the Secretary of State, who appointed people to run our health service, our education funding councils and our training agencies, appoint people who were in tune with the aspirations of the people of Wales. He appointed people whom he knew would toe the Government line.
  Secondly, we need to develop our relationship with Europe. Most people know that my party has a positive vision of that relationship. We respect the cultural and national diversity of Europe. The key to protecting cultural and national diversity within a system that is becoming more global by the minute is to ensure that decisions that affect people's lives are taken at the lowest possible level. There is a Welsh dimension and a national dimension, and we should grasp the opportunity to ensure accountable government at that Welsh level.
  By strengthening our democracy at home, we strengthen our links with Europe. We need to strengthen those links at a time when regional policy is being considered in Europe and important decisions that affect our farmers are being made. An elected body in Wales should have strong links with important European institutions.
  Any elected body should be robust enough to protect us from significant policy changes made in Westminster with which we profoundly disagree. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made an eloquent speech about what had been foisted on the people of Scotland during 18 years of Conservative rule. The problem that some of us have with the current plans for the Assembly is that if it does not have at least limited legislative powers, and if the framework for legislation remains in Westminster, it will not be robust enough to protect Wales from what happens here.
  It is also important to show to the people of Wales that the Government's proposal is different from that offered in 1979. It is crucial that we understand the lessons of 1979. That was a fateful year for Wales. We have a rerun of 1979 at our peril. The Government must show that what they have on offer now is different from what was on offer in 1979.
  Given that there is common ground between those of us in progressive politics who believe that the way forward is constitutional change, we should make it clear that the no vote in the referendum is for those people who want the status quo. The danger in allowing only one question in the referendum in Wales is that some of us who want the Assembly to have greater powers may be tempted to register our preference by voting no, and that would be

  869
  disastrous. If that happened, the vote would be meaningless, because the no vote would hide the votes of those who want to go that little bit further.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, because my contribution will be short.
  There is merit, in the spirit of inclusive politics, in giving the people in Wales who want to go that step further the opportunity to do so. Our preference—we fought the election on it—is for a multi-option referendum. We may not be able to argue that point in the Chamber: we shall have to wait and see.
  I ask the Government to consider giving the people of Wales the opportunity to vote on, at the very least, the legislative and tax-varying powers that are on offer in Scotland. Why not include that in the debate on the Welsh Assembly? I accept that the Government are perfectly entitled to have a referendum on the question as it is framed in the Bill, but they could include all shades of opinion on the right side—if I may put it like that—of the debate.
  The Government have introduced the Bill in a spirit of co-operation and on the principle of a move towards inclusive politics. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath was right to say that it may be a long time before we have another opportunity to legislate on an elected body for Wales. Some people in Wales may find it strange that, faced with the ballot paper, all they are offered is a straight choice between the Labour party's position and that of the Conservative party. There are no Conservative Members in Wales, yet its position is preserved in the Bill. The Government should accept that, by going that little stage further and including all shades of opinion in Wales, they will be able to gauge the opinion of all the people in Wales.
  All of us involved in this debate who fall on the side of positive change carry a great responsibility. We know from the history books or from being Members of the House that constitutional change is a momentous task. It has often ended in failure. Our children and future generations will rightly criticise us and may find it hard to forgive us if we get it wrong now. Wales is now ready for leadership, ready to consider co-operative politics, and ready to act on the desire for change.
  I accept that there are no absolute truths in this debate: we must all recognise that. We have shown that there is a way forward to accommodate all shades of opinion. I hope that the Labour party will grasp that opportunity, so that the people of Wales can vote for meaningful change. If the Government are prepared to do that, we will be content to leave it up to the people of Wales to decide what sort of body they want. I am confident that if they are given that opportunity, not only will they vote for change, but will embrace change, as a modern, mature democracy that is part of the European community of nations. I hope that the Government will respond positively.
  5.27 pm
  Ms Julie Morgan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate, which is so important to the future of Wales.
  870
  I am proud to be the first woman to be elected Member of Parliament for Cardiff, North. I am the first woman Member of Parliament in the city of Cardiff, and one of four women elected in Wales on 1 May. That is still only four women out of 40 Welsh Members, but it is four times as many as in 1992. This is the beginning of women taking their rightful place in the politics of Wales, and particularly in the Welsh Assembly; provided that we achieve a yes vote in the referendum.
  Amazing as it may seem, until this election, Wales had only ever had four women Members of Parliament: Eirene White, Dorothy Rees, Megan Lloyd George and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). Dorothy Rees represented the Barry constituency for about 18 months. At that time, it included Whitchurch, Rhiwbina and Lisvane, which are now part of Cardiff, North.
  Labour now holds all the Cardiff seats, for the first time for 27 years. In 1966–70, the old Cardiff, North constituency was represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke in the debate last night. It is fitting that the capital of Wales—which will be the seat of the assembly—will be wholly Labour when it is set up, subject to the Bill being passed by the House and a yes vote in the referendum.
  Cardiff, North—the constituency that I now represent—is very diverse. Its northern tip is the village community of Tongwynlais, which lies in the shadow of the Taff gorge linking Cardiff to the valleys to the north. Cardiff's wealth was built on coal brought down from the valleys. It would squeeze through the Taff gorge, which contains the River Taff, the Glamorgan canal, the Taff Vale railway and the now much-widened A470.
  The coal has now mainly gone, but the road to Cardiff, the A470—choked by commuter traffic—goes through the heart of my constituency. It goes through the huge motorway at Coryton, where the main east-west and north-south routes through Wales meet, and on down to the other giant interchange at Gabalfa, where the Western avenue cuts through the estates of Mynachdy and Gabalfa that lead to north Llandaff—famous for the Cow and Snuffers pub, which was much frequented by Benjamin Disraeli during his visits to Wales. Nowhere is the need for an integrated transport system more obvious than on the A470 through Cardiff, North.
  Next to the Gabalfa interchange lies the Heath hospital complex. Along with the dental hospital, it has 1,000 beds and is the largest hospital complex in Europe. It is not always popular with residents, because of the parking problems. One of the best-known residents of the area near the hospital is the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Tonypandy.
  Cardiff, North has a high percentage of white-collar professional workers, and 83 per cent. of its residents own their homes. Many are civil servants working in Government buildings, and many have suffered from the job insecurity that has been caused by the privatisation, contractorisation and short-term contracts that have become commonplace in public service. They are all looking for a Government who are proud of their public services and recognise the worth of their staff.
  Many jobs have been lost altogether to privatisation. The Atomic Weapons Establishment in Llanishen no longer makes parts for nuclear warheads. The skills of the

  871
  workers have sadly been dispersed to the four winds because of the failure of earlier Governments to prepare for the winding down of the defence industry by diversifying. Five hundred highly skilled precision engineers have been lost to Cardiff. Their skills could have been used positively for civilian purposes. Companies House in Gabalfa, the Inland Revenue in Llanishen, the employment services department of the Welsh Office—all those have been subjected to that policy of forced insecurity. Her Majesty's Stationery Office has been privatised and closed down.
  I have already mentioned that, for a brief time, Dorothy Rees represented the villages that were incorporated into Cardiff in 1967. Whitchurch is a distinct community with a bustling high street, which was really the battleground of the recent general election campaign. On Saturday mornings, I would contest the space on the high street with my opponent, Gwilym Jones. Gwilym Jones was the Member of Parliament for Cardiff, North for 14 years, living in the ward of Lizvane and St Mellons—which, incidentally, has the only Conservative member of Cardiff city council. Gwilym Jones rose to the rank of junior minister in the Welsh Office in the last Parliament after many years of public service, both as a city councillor and as a Member of Parliament.
  As I said earlier, I am pleased to speak in the debate on the referendum for devolution. I campaigned strongly for devolution in my election campaign, and held a packed public meeting in Rhiwbina—which is the garden suburb in northern Cardiff—wholly devoted to the subject.
  I believe that it is important for the practical benefits of a Welsh Assembly to be spelled out in the course of our campaign for a yes vote. We no longer want the people of Wales to have to put up with a standard of living that is 17 per cent. lower than the British average. We no longer want the incidence of heart disease and breast cancer to be greater in Wales than in the rest of Britain. We no longer want the poverty of aspiration that affects so many people in Wales, where a recent survey of women on benefits showed that seven out of 10 considered that they would be worse off, or no better off, if they took a job, and where the increase in child care facilities that can unlock the door to opportunity have passed the lower income groups by.
  By bringing government closer to the people, a Welsh Assembly will be able to take the lead in tackling the practical issues that face people every day in Wales. In a country of 3 million people, we can get to grips with those issues. We can have a child care strategy that targets those most in need, and can come up with solutions that are unique to Wales and will tackle specifically Welsh issues.
  Devolution is about people-friendly, women-friendly policies. It is not for constitutional lawyers or for politicians; its purpose is to make a real difference to the lives of all the people in Wales. With a yes vote in the referendum, we will be able to achieve that.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) on her maiden speech. It was a model of its kind, in which she not only described her constituency, paying tribute to her predecessor Gwilym Jones—whom all Conservative
  872
  Members remember fondly—but put down a marker in expressing the hope that the policies that she supports will truly benefit the people whom she has been sent here to represent. That is a good start for any new Member.
  There are a huge number of fundamental questions for the Government to answer, concerning the very nature of the devolution proposals, before we get near to the detail of the actual legislation. There are questions about the stability of the Barnett formula, about the tartan tax—how Scots could raise extra income tax, or even cut income tax, without creating new tensions between the Scots and the English, on whom Scottish public spending is so dependent—and about the inequality of representation and powers among Scottish, Welsh and English Members of Parliament.
  Those and other issues need to be dealt with. They were largely responsible for undermining the credibility of the 1978 proposals. Dealing with them is vital to the stability of the arrangements, and, ultimately, to the stability of the United Kingdom, but they have yet to be answered by the Government. No wonder they call devolution in Scotland unfinished business.
  With such Labour dominance in both Scotland and Wales, there is a great temptation for Government supporters to regard the questions raised about the Bill and its two offspring as somehow irrelevant. That will be a constant danger for the Government: they will rely on the size of their majority, rather than on the force of their arguments. No doubt we Conservatives used to do the same, but that simply reinforces the point that great majorities are a threat to the quality of legislation.
  For example, it has been asked regularly throughout the debate on what basis the discredited and reduced number of Conservative Members representing entirely English constituencies can raise such questions at all. Leaving aside the half a million voters in Scotland who did vote Conservative, let us start from first principles. The ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish and Welsh peoples is a fact. Whatever the niceties of international law, Scotland and Wales can claim the right of self-determination if that is what they want; but, in speech after speech, supporters of devolution tell the House that they are fervent supporters of the Union. Indeed, yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland specifically rejected the suggestion that there should be a third question in the Scottish referendum to give voters the option to reaffirm their support for the Union. He said that that would imply that those who are going to vote yes in a referendum are the enemies of the United Kingdom.
  It is for exactly the same reason that the plea of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) that some other options should be put in the referendum will be rejected by Ministers. It opens up the whole argument about where the process is actually leading. If I may say so to the Secretary of State for Scotland: if the cap fits, wear it.
  The argument often promulgated by proponents of devolution—we have heard it today—is that a Scottish Parliament would have blocked the poll tax. The pros and cons of the poll tax are not the issue here; the question is whether a Scottish Parliament will behave as though it had a mandate superior to that of the Parliament here at Westminster. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister set the record straight. With his customary lack of tact in regard to Scottish affairs, he said, "Sovereignty will rest with me, as an English Member of Parliament."

  873
  The Prime Minister's underlying statement is, of course, right. All parts of the United Kingdom are subject to the absolute sovereignty of Parliament. That is what it is to be part of the United Kingdom. To enact a policy that questions that truth is to question the very basis of the whole constitution of the Union. The very idea of something called a Scottish Parliament is anathema to the concept of the union of the Parliaments. This, here, is Scotland's Parliament. If Scotland wants its own Parliament again, the union of the Parliaments is effectively ended.
  A Scottish Parliament which, as some people expect, will challenge the mandate of Westminster in Scotland, and which will be based upon the Claim of Right of the Scottish people to self-government, will be based principally on nationalistic principles. Therein lies our claim that this schizophrenic arrangement is set to destabilise the Union between Scotland and England and that between Wales and England.
  How will that happen in practice? Conflict between Westminster and Edinburgh is inevitable, not least over the mechanism for calculating how much the English taxpayer should continue to support Scottish public expenditure. Tensions and disputes are currently resolved behind the closed doors of Cabinet unity. They are set to burst into the open. If the arrangement works well, the demand will be for more powers to be transferred. If it seems not to work, the excuse will be that it needs more powers. Success or failure—either way the demand will be, "Give us more powers."
  The extent and legitimacy of Scottish representation at Westminster will be increasingly questioned. The scene will be set for the breakdown of the settlement between Scotland and England that has provided such benefits to both countries for hundreds of years. That is why the process sets a sickly smile on the faces of the nationalists. They know that a Scottish Parliament will be the mother of the separatism that they seek.
  It is extraordinary that the Bill should be the first one that the new Government should present, and it betrays the reality of the Government. The new Labour Government are brimming with optimism and self-confidence. They are ready for any challenge to their considerable mandate and are prepared to brush aside the time-consuming irritations presented by Her Majesty's Opposition. Their programme is long on aspiration, but they are depressingly short on policy specifics in the areas where specifics are so sorely needed.
  A windfall tax, a training scheme and the abolition of the assisted places scheme hardly inspire or will transform the country. Bravado and press releases are no substitute for substantive policies. Just getting the Tories out will not solve the problems of crime, insecurity at work or deficient public services. The twin icebergs of public expenditure control and our European partners' federalist intentions are two great obstacles blocking the way of the new ship of state. The officers on the bridge carry on their task with dash and with the certainty that they are unsinkable, but the thinness of their real policies will be torn like the plates of the Titanic. Their riveting sound bites, hammered so lovingly, will snap and the cold water of reality will rush in.
  Let us hope for better, but there is little sign of a real five-year Government programme. Instead, this whole Parliament is set to be dominated by changes to the
  874
  constitution, but this drive does not come from the ordinary voter. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, even in Scotland and Wales few voters place devolution at the top of their list of priority issues. No number of extra politicians in Edinburgh and Cardiff will shorten health service waiting lists, or create jobs, except for the politicians themselves, who will increase their expense accounts and the number of their hangers-on.
  The real drive of the Government's proposals comes from the party interest and not the national interest. The programme is designed to gerrymander the constitution in the interests of the Labour party and its acolytes. It is born not out of high principle, but out of the sheer frustration of being out of office for 18 years.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall finish the point and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Rather than blame themselves for nearly two decades of exile, Labour Members blamed the system and have found themselves elected and determined to change it. Islington-based Ministers now grappling with the real questions of government who heard the hon. Member for Linlithgow on Friday and yesterday should now wish that some of the baggage from opposition had been left behind on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman spoke about gerrymandering. Not long ago, Scotland was subjected, by a Tory Government, to one of the biggest gerrymandering exercises that was ever forced on it. That was the gerrymandering of local government. The Tory Government gerrymandered boundary changes and pushed out of the road one of our most successful local authorities, Strathclyde. We should not have to listen to a Tory who probably did not take part in any of the Scottish debates talking about us being gerrymandered out of the door. The people of Scotland will not have gerrymandering. Our referendum will be debated publicly and the people will have the right to put their cross on a ballot paper.
  Mr. Jenkin: I fail to understand why I am of the least concern to the hon. Gentleman. I am one of a thin number of Conservative Members. All we have are arguments, and if I can excite the hon. Gentleman to such an extent, I can only conclude that my arguments cause him some anxiety.
  In Scotland, as in Wales, the real reason for the devolution policy is that Labour despaired of being elected with a majority in Westminster. Now that there is a Labour Government, the need for a Labour-dominated Parliament in Edinburgh has passed. Only the nightmare of the commitment to proceed remains. What exactly are the decisions that will be delegated to the proposed Scottish Parliament that cannot be delegated to the Scottish Grand Committee, except the power to raise the tartan tax? It is that and the greater permanence of Labour domination that has hooked the Administration on the commitment, and all this came as a dawning realisation on the new Labour leadership.
  The questions are unanswerable, the scheme is illogical, the resulting mess will be unstable, and the tartan tax is the only feature that distinguishes this mess from the mess

  875
  that helped to scupper the last Labour Government. That is why we are here now. New Labour's answer to all that was to present the Bill for two-question referendums in Scotland and in Wales to try to draw the sting out of the illogicality of it all. There can be little doubt that new Labour, Islington Labour, would like to drop devolution—it is a hangover from the old Labour party, and the tartan tax runs counter to all the messages on tax that new Labour transmits—but they could not, because new Labour and Scottish Labour are deeply divided.
  Scottish Labour hates nothing more than the smiling face of the Minister without Portfolio, and it seethes against the spending caps imposed by London new Labour. Scottish Labour is old Labour and chafes against its new master in Downing street. That is what drives the devolution policy—Scottish Labour versus new Labour. Ironically, the sticking plaster of the referendum policy that was conceived by new Labour in London to heal the breach was the final insult to Scottish Labour. One minute the Secretary of State for Defence was arguing passionately for Scottish self-government and against a referendum, and the next he was submissively accepting the diktat from London that his policy had been changed. That was followed shortly afterwards by the resignation of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) from his shadow post.
  A Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly are but two of Labour's seven major proposed constitutional changes. It also wants regional English assemblies, including a new Greater London council and a Bill to incorporate the rulings of the European Commission of Human Rights directly into United Kingdom law, giving power to another set of European judges to tell us what to do. Those are political questions that should be decided democratically in this Parliament. Labour proposes a Bill to reform the House of Lords, a commission on proportional representation for Westminster and, of course, a new European Communities (Amendment) Bill to transfer yet more decisions from Westminster to Brussels.
  Those are the seven pillars of unwisdom, the seven veils to cover the true nakedness of Labour's programme for government. They are the seven deadly sins that the Government intend wilfully to commit against our present political stability and prosperity. Most of the damage that a majority party can do to the economy, to public services, to business and commerce and even to foreign policy is reversible, or at least repairable. However, the guardianship of our constitution is an inalienable trust which a Government should never betray. It is like the quality of our environment and the preservation of our natural heritage. Any damage done there is irreversible. Once destroyed, institutions and relationships are irretnevable. That is why the decisions on these issues are so absolutely crucial.
  Therefore, I plead that we take the two great measures that will follow this one on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the whole House so that we can consider them fully and absolutely, as all constitutional measures should be considered. The House should take note of how the Secretary of State prevaricated on that question. Why will he not give the same assurance for the Scotland and Wales Bills as he has given for this Bill? Does he think
  876
  that they are somehow less important or less constitutional, or does he have some tortuous new logic that he feels will entitle the Government to manoeuvre its huge majority like tanks on Salisbury plain? Is he suggesting that a referendum—held in only parts of the United Kingdom and, moreover, held in the heady honeymoon of a new Government and before the final, amended terms of the proposals are known—is a substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny?
  The Secretary of State speaks of the need for
  "a broadly based consensus for change."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 720.]
  The Bill invites the Scots and Welsh to lunge at an unconsidered, ill-thought-out false panacea that will lead to the disillusion and dissolution which I know that he sincerely wishes to avoid. So why the rush? The Secretary of State opines:
  "The measure is a deceptively simple one."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 715.]

  Its simplicity is indeed the method of its deception. The Government's business managers have seen the dangers. Genuine extended debate on these great issues would be the Government's Maastricht. The facade of party unity would quickly fracture. The Government are like fugitives scuttling across the strand at low water in the twilight, anxious to reach the far shore before the tide of reality comes in.
  In 1945, the Select Committee on Procedure gave the House clear protection. The Committee contained such luminaries as Sidney Silverman, Dick Crossman, Hugh Gaitskell and Maurice Webb. At least we can say that old Labour recognised the constitutional and parliamentary proprieties. The Committee recorded the then Government's commitment never to prevent any Bill of first-class constitutional importance from being taken in Committee on the Floor of the House. It even gave examples:
  "for instance of the Bill for the Parliament Act 1911, or the Statute of Westminster 1931."
  The new Labour Government appear ready to set about our constitution with all the subtlety of a General Pinochet, who achieved a great deal by referendum. For a Conservative, at least our constitution is the basic foundation of our nation, of our prosperity and of our society—
  Ms Rosemary McKenna: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am just winding up. I am obviously winding the hon. Lady up.
  All constitutions reflect history, whether written or unwritten. They are established over time or by revolution. The constitution defines the nature and character of its country, of the people that it governs. Our constitution is unique. It is the living archive of every historic event that has occurred in these islands for at least 1,000 years. That is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was referring to when he mentioned the thousand years of British history. To assert that Britain did not exist until the Act of Union sounds a little Scotocentric, if I may say so.
  Our modern constitution has served us all remarkably well. It has supported the stability and strength of the nation through the days of empire, the reform and

  877
  extension of the franchise, the years of relative decline and two world wars to today's prosperous and outward-looking nation. It has protected the freedom of the people through periods when, elsewhere in the world, freedom and democracy not long ago seemed to have become a passing fancy.
  Our historic constitution, from the monarch to the parish council, is fundamentally our country and our nation. It is the essence of what it is to be English, Scottish or Welsh and British. It truly is the United Kingdom. It was our birthright when we inherited it and it should be for our children to inherit.
  Whether one venerates the blood shed by cavalier or by roundhead, Jacobite or Hanoverian, spitfire pilot or the miner down the pit, their separate sacrifices are our single precious inheritance. We squander it at our peril, and the contempt of the Government for that history underlies the great betrayal that they are about to commit on this country.
  5.54 pm
  Mrs. Anne McGuire: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my first speech in the House in this historic debate on the referendums for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Having listened to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), it is somewhat ironic that I stand here representing the constituency of Stirling. I offer my congratulations to other hon. Members who have made their first speech this afternoon. Before I embark on some comments on the Bill, I should like to make a few preliminary and traditional remarks.
  First, I place on record my thanks to hon. Members and officers of the House who have greatly assisted me in the bewildering transition from the outside world. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna), I have been exposed to the undoubted wit of the London cabby, one of whom told me that he did not know how a married woman could make a maiden speech. As we say in Scotland, "He'll ken noo."
  I have also been overwhelmed by some of the accolades that have been thrown my way since I was elected some three weeks ago, not least that of being made an honorary vice-president of the Glasgow university shinty club. I understand that my one perk, which I shall of course declare in the Register of Members' Interests, is that I am allowed to play for the team.
  I should like to record my own tribute to my predecessor, Michael Forsyth. I have a confession to make. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I suspect, I have struggled to find words adequate to describe the previous Member of Parliament for Stirling. He was a man of many talents, a self-confessed political Houdini, who excited great emotion in Scotland and beyond. He was undoubtedly a consummate politician who rarely shied away from controversy and he pursued issues as he saw them. He also acknowledged the tension in his relationship with many Scots.
  Although I do not share Michael Forsyth's political beliefs and regret many of the policies that his party implemented, I recognise that in the House he was an assiduous, diligent and effective Member of Parliament for Stirling. He also had a sense of humour, which, it must be said, sometimes was self-deprecating. Some 18 months
  878
  before the election he told me that we would both have fun on the campaign trail. I am not sure whether his idea of fun was for me to stand here and for him not to. As an opponent, I found him unfailingly courteous and I am pleased to acknowledge his generous words to me on the morning of 2 May when the result was announced. I wish him and his family well in whatever the future holds for them.
  I am also pleased to recognise the debt that I owe to Harry, now Lord, Ewing, who represented Stirling town until the boundaries were redrawn in 1983. Lord Ewing is still remembered by the good folk of the town as a man of courtesy and integrity.
  I am privileged to have a number of my constituents here in the House of Commons, including my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), and for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson). I have to advise them now, however, that if they have constituency problems on which they wish to consult me, they can queue up like everyone else on a Friday evening.
  I know that I will vie with other hon. Members if I claim that my constituency is one of the most beautiful in Britain, but, in all honesty, Stirling is. It is also an area of deep historical significance. The town that gives its name to the constituency is dominated by the impressive Stirling castle, a fortified rock that goes back into the mists of time. The castle is surrounded by buildings of note such as the Church of Holy Rude and the Argyll Lodges. It is no wonder that the town, which is the traditional gateway to the highlands, is at the centre of an expanding tourist industry. Full credit must be given to the partnership between the Labour local authority and the tourist board for developments in the area.
  The constituency stretches over 800 square miles, from Tyndrum and Crianlarich in the north to the villages of Strathblane, Balfron, Drymen and Killearn in the west and onwards to the famous bonny banks of Loch Lomond. It also includes the Trossachs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, within the Trossachs is Loch Katrine, which is a monument to Victorian values—the Victorian values that recognised that there was public good in providing a free and efficient water supply to the industrial town of Glasgow. Those are the Victorian values that we should applaud.
  As well as being an area of outstanding historical and cultural distinction, the constituency is home to rural communities that are struggling to alleviate disadvantage and communities that are trying to restore hope and optimism for the future. Communities such as Raploch will undoubtedly benefit from the Government's welfare to work programme. The Stirling area also has one of the highest percentages in Scotland of those earning below £2.50 an hour. On behalf of the low-paid in my constituency, I welcome the commitment to introduce a national minimum wage.
  I must also note that the constituency contains the small city of Dunblane. That community was visited by such tragedy on 13 March 1995 that it is still difficult fully to comprehend its emotional impact. On behalf of the parents, families and the wider community of Dunblane, I welcome the Government's intention to extend the ban on handguns.

  879
  The area in and around Stirling is steeped in Scottish history. Rob Roy McGregor is buried in the village of Brig o' Turk. At Bannockburn, Robert the Bruce defeated the English horsemen of King Edward as they got bogged down in the marsh made even more soggy by Scotland's excellent June weather. Later this year in Stirling, we will celebrate the 600th anniversary of the battle of Stirling bridge, where Sir William Wallace, the one who did not have an Australian accent or blue woad on his face, inflicted yet another defeat on our English neighbours.
  We have moved on since then. The area saw so much bloodshed in earlier and more turbulent times as we tried to come to terms with the fact that we all shared this small island. As its democratic representative, I am privileged and pleased to be here to offer my support for the Bill, which will pave the way for the development of a Scottish Parliament. That will be a monumental development in the country's constitution.
  I do not expect the current Secretary of State to don a tartan plaid and to put blue woad on his face to lead the yes-yes campaign. In its own way, however, the establishment of a Scottish Parliament is about being brave hearted. It is about recognising the sentiments and aspirations of the people in Scotland to move towards a more modern and decentralised government for this country.
  The Scottish people have consistently shown that they do not want separation. The results on 1 May only underlined the fact that the nationalists have lost the 15 general elections since the second world war. The people in Scotland want something different from and better than what the status quo offers them.
  My predecessor in Stirling mounted a political campaign and built a reputation as the so-called guardian of the Union. He saw himself as a knight in shining armour who was trying to save the Scottish people from themselves. He challenged the assertion that the Scottish people wanted a Parliament and, with Conservative colleagues, he threatened political mayhem in the new Parliament if subsequent legislation for that Parliament was made on the basis of a general election mandate. They claimed that the aspiration for a Scottish Parliament was more to do with the fevered imagination of Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians than the
  "settled will of the Scottish people"
  Well, the Scottish Parliament will be anchored by a distinct positive decision of the people of Scotland. It will be secured by their consent as well as its ability to vary tax. The referendum will give the House the clear unequivocal answer to those who challenge the aspirations of people in Scotland to have greater autonomy over their domestic political agenda. It will further ensure that the new Parliament will not become a political hostage to those who think that they know better. Those people were so woefully out of touch with the Scottish and Welsh people that they suffered complete electoral humiliation on I May.
  The Bill will be a springboard to a Scottish Parliament, a devolved Parliament within the partnership of the United Kingdom. It will lift this country's constitution into the 21st century. It will be the realisation of a dream for so many, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary
  880
  of State for Scotland. It will strengthen the partnership of the United Kingdom, because it will be solidly anchored by the positive consent of the Scottish people.
  A Parliament that has confidence in itself should have the confidence to give away some of its power because it should recognise that its legitimacy and strength come from meeting the aspirations of its people and not by crushing them. I am pleased to offer my support to the Bill.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew George: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech. I congratulate hon. Members on the quality of their maiden speeches, which I shall try to match.
  I should like to take this opportunity to make a bit of history by saying:
  "Me am beth hanow
  Heb dewath ha bry
  Bisgwethack rag nevra"
  Those words are Cornish. They were spoken by a blacksmith from St. Keverne, in my constituency, where I come from.
  That blacksmith was known locally as "An Got', which is Cornish for the smith, and was called Michael Joseph. He led an uprising from the constituency just one month short of 500 years ago. This weekend, that uprising will be re-enacted when a large band of Cornish people will march 330 miles to London to celebrate and commemorate the Cornishmen's storming of London. Sadly, that attack was not as successful as we would have liked.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: There will be a better result this time.
  Mr. George: Yes, that is what I intend.
  Michael Joseph,"An Gof', marched to London with a band of 15,000 Cornishmen. Sadly, he was summarily hanged, drawn and quartered and dragged through the streets of this city.
  In defiance of the then King, he said, roughly translated:
  "I shall have a name perpetual and a fame permanent and immortal."
  To prove that, the celebration of that uprising will start from my constituency at the weekend. It will be an important commemoration for us. I believe that I am supposed to mention my predecessors on this occasion—the then local Member, William Antron, supported the rebellion. In 1508, the Charter of Pardon, resulting from the rebellion, gave the Cornish Parliament the right to allow or disallow
  "any Statute, Act, ordinance, provision, restraint or proclamation…made by the King, his heirs, successors, or the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall, or their council."
  That charter represented an accommodation of the distinctiveness of Cornwall.
  I have chosen to make my maiden speech in this debate because I want to support those who recognise the distinctiveness of those parts of these lands that take pride in their heritage and culture. That sentiment binds the people together across the whole of our land.

  881
  When the Liberal Democrats won the St. Ives seat earlier this month, it was one of the last results to be announced. I pointed out that, with our result, it became clear that, for the first time, the traditional Celtic nations of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall were not represented by a single Conservative Member.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: A Tory-free zone.
  Mr. George: Yes, indeed.
  Perhaps the Conservatives are now reconsidering their traditional opposition to electoral reform in those nations. A number of speakers have already ably argued that.
  The general election marked the retirement of the former Member for St. Ives, David Harris. I was delighted to pay him a warm tribute when the result was announced and I am pleased to have the opportunity to repeat it today. Many people know that he retired in tragic circumstances. He was regarded with warmth and deep respect by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Since my election to the House, I have had conversations with older, long-standing Members and their respect and warm regard for him has come across strongly. He was a hard-working constituency Member of Parliament, and he will be remembered in the constituency as a gracious and honourable man. I offer him my best wishes for his future.
  There are many parallels between the St. Ives constituency and the other Celtic nations mentioned today. The constituency stretches from the most southerly point of Great Britain at the Lizard to the Land's End peninsula and across to the Isles of Scilly. It includes St. Michael's Mount. Even with the important towns of Helston, Penzance, Hayle, St. Ives, St. Just, Porthleven and Marazion, it is a largely rural constituency. It is, of course, renowned for its scenery, its beaches and its occasional sunshine. Its traditional industries of farming and fishing are still very important to the area. Unfortunately, the last two mines at Geevor closed 10 years ago.
  The constituency is well known as a holiday destination. I would wager—and this is not an offer of cash for questions—that the whole House would agree that west Cornwall and Scilly are among the most attractive places in these lands.
  Alongside—or, perhaps, despite—the beauty of the area, however, Cornwall is becoming renowned for its poverty and deprivation. It has had the lowest wages in the country and among the highest levels of unemployment anywhere. Even while unemployment was allegedly falling in other parts of the country, it was and still is rising in Cornwall. It is an area that has suffered a great deal of deprivation and faced enormous problems. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), came to speak to some of the workers at St. Ivel because the closure of the factory will have an enormous impact on unemployment in the area. It is an issue on which I shall be working hard in the coming weeks and months.
  The area also has a deep-seated housing problem for local people, with high levels of second-home ownership hand in hand with high levels of homelessness and a lack of affordable housing.
  Like Scotland and Wales, Cornwall is known for its strong sense of belonging, of community and of place. If the total contribution of our existence on this planet were
  882
  to measured purely in the profit and loss accounts, Bills and debates such as this would be pointless and there would be little point in defending the interests of places such as Cornwall. If a national audit were all about measuring the value of pride, despite the depths of adversity Cornwall and Scilly would be one of the most wealthy places in these islands.
  Even now, there are pressures on all places—especially Cornwall—to lose their identity and pride. To paraphrase, Matthew Arnold once said that it is inevitable that a centralised kingdom will work to render its dominion homogeneous. That is what I think the debate today is all about; it is to keep the differences and to celebrate and encourage the diversity in this land.
  In the case of Cornwall—and no doubt Wales and Scotland—a place that was once so distinctive is under threat of becoming indistinguishable from everywhere else. But whether or not one was born in Cornwall—and this no doubt applies to Scotland, England and Wales as well—many people come to the area and recognise its importance and strength. They get involved in the local community, which we welcome. It is a broad and welcoming community, which celebrates diversity within it as well as diversity in the nation as a whole.
  Of course, the Cornish character is deeply egalitarian. If someone gets a little bit uppity, the Cornish are always swift to put him in his place and delight in doing so. Therefore, as a Cornishman born and brought up in the constituency—I have worked there and my wife is from there—I am immensely proud to have been elected as the constituency's representative. It is a great honour to be its Member of Parliament. There is nowhere else on earth that I would rather represent.
  During my travels around the constituency, both before and during the election, I met a large number of people. Early in the campaign, a cousin of mine came up to me and said, "Well, I don't suppose you could do worse than that shower." I guess that by "that shower" he was referring to the Conservative Members sitting to my right. By Cornish standards, it was praise indeed; by my cousin's standards, it was the highest accolade known to man. Such is the level of accolade in Cornwall.
  When touring the constituency during the election, I would try to stop and chat to as many people as possible. I would often be greeted with, "Yeau Pard, woz on eh?"—which translated means, "Good day my very good friend and most esteemed colleague. How on earth are you? Please tell me what has been going on in your life lately, if you don't mind me being so bold as to ask." It loses a lot in the translation. One conversation that I remember well at St. Just not so long ago went, "Where have you been lately?" The answer was, "I've been off on a world tour." "Well," he was asked, "where exactly have you been?" The reply was, "Well, I have taken in Trewellard, Pendeen, and Botallack."
  With Cornish people—no doubt it is the same countrywide, especially in Scotland and Wales—there is always a self-mocking irony and a dry sense of humour. But there is also an intense stoicism, which is often needed to survive the problems of living in an austere environment and poor economy.
  My first impression on coming to the House was that it seemed so far removed from the real world of west Cornwall. I have come here to represent that area, not to

  883
  be drafted in to represent the chosen party in Cornwall. That is an important point that needs to be taken on board. It is what I am determined to do.
  Cornwall, like Scotland and Wales, has accepted second best for far too long. The passion and fire of Michael Joseph in the past needs to be rekindled today for the future. There is a fire for a new beginning; there will be new hope. We need a new start and we are making new demands.
  During the campaign and the march to London, demands will be made: for recognition of Cornwall's special cultural, historic, linguistic and constitutional status; the case for a Cornish Assembly; the overwhelming case for a powerful Cornish development agency; the desperate need to establish a university college in Cornwall; and the case for a fair deal for Cornish residents on water bills, housing, economic development aid, policing and education.
  While Scotland has the West Lothian question, which is constantly answered in various ways, Cornwall has the Trelawny question:
  "And shall Trelawny live or shall Trelawny die,
  There's 20,000 Cornish folk who'll know the reason why."
  I believe that we will ensure that Trelawny will not die. That is what our party believes. I shall be working to persuade hon. Members that Trelawny must not die in the months and years ahead. Cheers.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I stand amazed and delighted at the eloquence of those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I recall how frozen I was when I made mine. Today there has been a promise of even greater to come.
  I also stand amazed at the reactionary speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who seemed to be ready to fight against any reform until it becomes a tradition. I remind him that his paean of praise for the constitution is ill placed because the genius of our constitution is that it is not static, but evolves in accordance with the wishes of the people at the time. There has been a bar on constitutional advance for 18 years. That is why there is a need to get on speedily with constitutional change.
  I was delighted by the speech of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones). He warned me in advance that there would be a change of rhetoric. I am pleased that Plaid Cymru has recognised that this is a chance in a generation. The giant step is to have an Assembly. Once it is there, it will move as far and as fast as the people of Wales want. That is the key step. It is why the forces of progress will be on one side in the referendum, working together, while the Conservative forces—who have been chased from Wales—will be on the other side. That will be the real decision.
  I believe that I am the only remaining member of the gang of six Welsh Labour Members who argued against the Labour Government's devolution proposals in the 1970s. I shall support the present Government's proposals; I shall support them in the referendum and do what I can to persuade people to accept them. I shall not go into the reasons for my change—[Interruption.] I shall
  884
  give the headlines. Part of the reason is Thatcherite centralisation; part of the reason involves Europe; part of the reason involves my wish to have the identities of Wales and Scotland recognised. I can expand on those reasons, but not tonight.
  I am in favour of devolution. I am wary of referendums in principle, because they have a rather dubious history. Mitterrand said that the French always answer the wrong question, which is certainly true. The relevance of that is that, in 1979, the referendum in Wales was lost, partly because the Government who proposed it were unpopular at the time; we are now in a different context. The outcome of a referendum depends, in part, on who poses the question and the nature of the question. I concede that we are now in a honeymoon period and the situation is set fairer than before.
  Another of my objections to referendums is that they are, by their very nature, inflexible. One cannot negotiate with the people—as the Danes found out when they had to put the question on Maastricht twice when they did not like the answer to the first question. Having said that, I believe that we must have a referendum on the Government's proposals now, for two reasons.
  First, the precedent was set in 1979 and it would be absurd for us to overturn that decisive position. Secondly, in my judgment, although the people cannot pronounce on every detail of a Bill, they can express a mood. I believe that the current mood in Wales and, I am informed, in Scotland, is decisively in favour of change. A referendum will assist in the legislative process because, if hon. Members try to wreck the Bill, they can be reminded that it has been broadly endorsed by the people, which should clear any doubt.
  I end, partly because I promised that I would end soon, with just two caveats—this Labour Member, like a Labour Government, keeps promises. First, from my own knowledge of Wales, I know that the outcome of the referendum in Wales is by no means a foregone conclusion. I shall certainly do what I can on the platform to ensure that there is a positive vote. Secondly, I concede that there are enormous problems of principle in having decentralisation—devolution—in a unitary state. We are travelling uncharted waters and many areas of principle should be rigorously tested.
  Let no one imagine that this is a final station; it is no more than an interim solution. It may be that, rationally, we shall be persuaded to go further along a federal path—that is a debate for another day. For this day. this argument is enough. If people want to adopt the proposal, let us debate it rigorously and properly. I shall stand with the Government on the platform for the referendum and for devolution.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. William Hague: We have had an interesting debate over the past day and a half. What a good job that there were a few minutes for the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to make his speech, and to say that it would be good if the principles were properly tested in debate and that, if people had an opportunity to think about these matters rationally, they might do something different. His words revealed something important about the Bill—something on which I intend to concentrate in the minutes available to me.
  The debate has been graced by a number of maiden speeches, including those from the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith),

  885
  for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for St. Ives (Mr. George), who had an endearing way of saying cheers at the end of his speech. I am not sure whether that will become a tradition in the House.
  The hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) also made her maiden speech. Many Conservative Members will appreciate the tribute that she paid to the courtesy, humour and dignity of Michael Forsyth, her predecessor. Her speech and that of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) yesterday explain why we meet so many traumatised cabbies in London at the moment: confrontations between Scottish Members of Parliament and the taxi drivers of London are turning into something to be believed.
  The Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), said during business questions today that not too much time need be spent on the Bill, because it was simple and straightforward. It is a simple Bill in terms of the amount of paper that it occupies, but it is not simple or straightforward in its implications.
  In a memorable speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that awkward, difficult questions had to be faced. The difficulty for the House is that awkward and difficult questions have been asked in the debate, but they have not been answered by the Government. The Secretary of State for Wales will have an opportunity in a moment to answer those questions.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked important questions. He asked what he now calls the Bury, North question, about how Scottish Members can continue to be elected by 55,000 voters, but English Members by 68,000 voters. He recognises that the Bill has implications for England—something that the Government seem to want to deny. It is not possible, and it is not wise, to ignore completely the implications for England and the United Kingdom of the measures that the Government are now proposing.
  The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the new Under-Secretary of State for Wales, opened our proceedings today—
  Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hague: No, I shall not give way, as I wish to go a little further—I am still on my opening remarks, and congratulating the hon. Member for Neath on his maiden speech from the Front Bench.
  The hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech, in which he seemed to say that, whatever people's views on the sort of Assembly or Parliament that should be set up, they could vote yes in the referendums planned by the Government. He seemed to say to the electorate, "Here are the proposals that we want you to approve," while at the same time giving a nod and a wink to everyone that the whole thing could be changed afterwards if they wanted to do so.
  People will want to ask why the Government do not have the courage to say, "Here are our proposals, which have been tested by detailed scrutiny and debate—now you can accept or reject them as you wish." I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech, but he will understand why I thought it a bit rich for him to say in one breath that the referendum would be a loyalty vote for members of the Labour party, and in the next breath to say, "We've had enough of one-party diktat in Wales."
  886
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked whether it would be a loyalty test for Labour Members, or whether they would be allowed to speak out against the damaging and far-reaching proposals. There has not yet been a clear answer from the Government Front Bench to that question. I hope that we will get a clear answer from the Secretary of State in a few moments.
  Conservatives agree that there should be referendums on the proposals in Scotland and Wales, but we do not share the extraordinary position of the Liberal party: that there should be a referendum in Wales, but not in Scotland. As the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday, the Liberals' reasoned amendment is something of a collectors' item, in that it implies that referendums are not necessary when the result can be predicted by members of the Liberal party and other people.
  It would save a great deal of time in the democratic process in this country if we did not have to bother to have a vote whenever we thought that we could predict the outcome with a fair degree of certainty. We cannot proceed on that basis, and the Liberals may regret thinking that they can predict the outcome.
  Mr. Salmond: Last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) called for a 50 per cent. rule. Last Friday, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) called for a threshold in the referendums. Last night, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), told us to wait and see the amendments on Report. What is the policy tonight, and will that same policy apply to any European referendum?
  Mr. Hague: The policy is as explained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We think that there should be a debate in the House about thresholds. We shall provide an opportunity for such a debate, and no doubt the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will wish to participate.
  The central contention of the Opposition tonight is that referendums should be held, but that they should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to judge. They should be held when people can view all the pros and cons. They should be held when the arguments in favour and against have indeed been rigorously tested, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East would like. Referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. They should be held after legislation has been debated—and debated by all Members of Parliament, on the Floor of the House of Commons.
  Referendums are justifiable. They are a legitimate part of democratic decisions; but for them to be fair and compatible with the parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible, to know exactly what they are voting for, and for a referendum to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. I should have thought that those principles would command wide agreement across the House—that the electors should be as well informed as possible, that they should know exactly what they are voting for, and that the referendum should be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process.

  887
  How does the Bill measure up against those principles? Is the Bill saying that referendums should be held when the electors are as well informed as possible? Would the electors be best informed before or after the publication of the legislation? Would they be best informed before or after debate has taken place in this House? Would they be best informed before or after the Government had to demonstrate that they had a workable scheme? As the hon. Member for Linlithgow said yesterday,
  "the devil is…in the details."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 806.]
  The Government are not able to answer questions about the detail. They are not able to say what the role of the civil service would be, and for whom it would work. They are not able to say to whom the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales would be accountable. They are not able to say what is the chain of accountability for the expenditure of public money, and where the Public Accounts Committee stands. They are not able to say what the future arrangements for the block grant would be.
  The Government are not able to say what the consequences of establishing a Welsh Assembly would be for our constitutional settlement, or what the costs of establishing a Welsh Assembly would be—except, that is, for the preliminary costs, which run into millions of pounds and which the Secretary of State for Scotland has described as small change.
  The Government are not able to say what the costs would be of running a Welsh Assembly; what the remuneration of members of the Assembly would be; what the resources at the disposal of members of the Assembly would be; what the number of staff required to run the Assembly would be; by what mechanism it would be funded; what the effect would be on the Welsh block grant; what the effect should be on the representation of Wales in the House of Commons; how the Welsh Assembly would relate to the European Union; how it would relate to the European Committee of the Regions; whether it would have the power to call for persons and papers; how it would relate to local government in Wales; how it would relate to non-departmental public bodies; what its consequences would be for the Welsh Grand Committee; what its consequences would be for the Secretary of State for Wales; what its consequences would be for attracting inward investment; or what its consequences would be for the Welsh economy. The Government are not able to say how the electoral arrangements for the Welsh Assembly would be changed—whether the Assembly would be able to change them itself, or whether this House would change them.
  How can referendums be properly conducted without the Government being able to answer these questions? The Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday that the referendum should be held on some general principle and the voters would be able to give their verdict before Parliament plunges into the complexity. What a reassuring message—to say to the voters that they should come to a view and then we will plunge into the complexity, in which anything can be changed and in which the Government cannot be certain that they would not want to change their plans.
  Mr. Morgan: When, in a previous intervention, the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he was in favour
  888
  of a particular threshold, he nailed his colours firmly to the fence. After all the questions he has asked, will he answer the question whether he, in his present set of two portfolios with no hon. Members behind him and as a prospective leader of the Conservative party, is saying that he is against the principle of democratic devolution for Wales and Scotland?
  Mr. Hague: Of course we are against devolution for Wales and Scotland—that is what we fought the general election on, that is what we will say in the referendums—[Interruption.] The Government do not have a mandate for devolution; they have a mandate to hold referendums on devolution, and the hon. Gentleman must remember that.
  The hon. Member must also remember that he sits on the Government Benches now; we on the Opposition Benches ask the questions, and we need the answers from the Government. The Government do not even know the answers to some of the questions I have asked, let alone whether they have found the right answers, whether the House would leave them unaltered, or whether they themselves would change their minds. These are the difficulties into which the Government are going to plunge the nation.
  What plans do the Government have for the conduct of the referendums? The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked about that matter. What plans are there for equal broadcasting time? Even if the Government do have such plans—and they have given precious few signs that they have—on what basis can a referendum be held when the Government and Parliament have yet to take a view on so many of these subjects? What hope have we of receiving answers to some of these questions? The Labour party has had years to think about the answers—what hope have we that they will materialise in the next few weeks?
  The Government do not have answers to many of these questions. They pretend that the questions are trivia and tell us not to worry, because the detail will all be dealt with afterwards—but it is when one goes into the detail that one realises what unworkable nonsense it is. That is what happened in 1979.
  If the Government are agreed that the voters should be as well informed as possible, why is the referendum not to be delayed until after the subject has been debated by Parliament? What are the Government afraid of? Why do they not want to hear the arguments, and why do they not want the country to hear the arguments, about how precisely the scheme would work?
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, winding up the debate last night, said that he wanted the maximum debate in Scotland, but it will not be the maximum debate. Maximum debate would take place once the Bill had been properly considered in the House of Commons.
  Can the Government not see the danger in proceeding with referendums without being able to answer not only the detailed questions, but the fundamental questions, about their plans? Sooner or later, they would be forced to confront the inevitable consequences of their policy, to try to resolve the unsustainable position whereby Scottish Members of Parliament would be able to vote on English matters, but neither Scottish nor English Members of

  889
  Parliament would be able to vote on Scottish matters. Sooner or later, the Government would have to confront those questions.
  Several months ago, before he changed his policy, the Secretary of State for Wales said that the trouble with a pre-legislation referendum is that there are so many questions that one cannot answer. He never made a more prescient or perceptive remark—perhaps he has never made any other prescient or perceptive remark—and the trouble with his current proposal for a pre-legislation referendum is that there are so many questions that he cannot answer.
  One of the other criteria that I set out is that a referendum should be an addition to the parliamentary process, not a substitute for it. With their plan, the Government are trying to have the best of both worlds from their point of view: a referendum in which detailed scrutiny will be impossible, because a referendum is not a vehicle for detailed scrutiny, and the information will not be available to the voters.
  If, as they hope, they secure a yes vote, they will say that no one can object later to what was in the White Paper at the time of the referendum. They take the attitude of the Prime Minister, who said two weeks ago that the voters would then expect Labour to legislate and not play games in this House—a chilling phrase to those who believe in parliamentary democracy in this country.
  The Government will thereby justify taking a Bill of the most fundamental constitutional importance upstairs in Committee, which would be the best of both worlds as the Government see it, but the worst of both worlds for the operation of parliamentary democracy. There would be a referendum without adequate detail or certainty and a parliamentary debate in which, the Government hope, objections would be overridden. It would be a dangerous precedent. It shows dangerous arrogance, and it will lead to bad law.
  It is one thing to use a referendum to give added legitimacy and final approval to a major change fully debated by Parliament, and quite another to use it to distort the parliamentary process and to bully those who object to it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said yesterday, it is more like the continental-style use of referendums, which we in this country have often deplored. We know that the Prime Minister likes to think that he is Lady Thatcher; now he seems to think that he is Napoleon as well.
  The referendum should be held when people have had the chance to see the detail, and to find out whether the detail works. Debates that precede that referendum should take place on the Floor of the House of Commons—a convention of this place since Lord Attlee was our Prime Minister.
  Yesterday, Ministers said that the Bill would certainly be considered in a Committee of the whole House. Why is it that the Bill will certainly be considered in a Committee of the whole House, but the even more far-reaching and fundamental legislation that Ministers hope will follow it will not be considered in a Committee of the whole House?
  We say that it is right that referendums should be held on these fundamental, far-reaching and deeply damaging proposals. We say that it is wrong that they should be held at this time and that it is wrong that they should be held in this way. The purpose of holding them at this
  890
  time and in this way is not to allow people to decide after the fullest debate. It is not to gain assent to specific proposals—otherwise, the questions involved would not be so general.
  The purpose is to win approval for the Government's plans before the intractable and unanswerable deficiencies of the scheme are fully apparent, and then to quote that approval to force through Parliament, in Committees upstairs, a mass of constitutional legislation. That is an abuse of the concept of a referendum. It is the use of a referendum as an anti-parliamentary device. It is the unmistakable sign, seen throughout history, of an over-mighty and arrogant Executive.
  Our amendment calls for referendums to be held after the legislation has been debated, amended and agreed, after full scrutiny on the Floor of the House. That is the right way to conduct a referendum, and that is what we shall vote for tonight.
  6.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): We are placing before the House what seems to me a wholly unexceptionable proposition: that we should ask the people to decide. Why on earth does the Secretary of State—
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Shadow Secretary of State.
  Mr. Davies: Why does the shadow Secretary of State take great exception to that proposition?
  I shall be brief; time is limited. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not reply individually to all hon. Members who have spoken, but I shall refer specifically to the questions that have been asked. I want to mention the maiden speeches that were made, but I do not propose to encourage interventions because of shortage of time.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made his maiden speech. He shows obvious commitment to his constituency, and has already made his mark there. He paid special tribute to his predecessor, Alex Carlile, who was a liked and respected Member. He was a genuine Liberal, even when the causes that he advocated were unpopular, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be a suitable replacement for him.
  I welcome the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). He made a confident speech and paid a fitting tribute to George Kynoch, his predecessor. He obviously is a fitting replacement for a Minister who was forthright, if not combative, in the House. He spoke of his traditional Liberal concerns. His support for devolution in Scotland and Wales is much appreciated.
  I extend a special welcome to my friend, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan). She spoke strongly of the need for fair representation for women in the House and in the Assembly. She will be a fine representative of our capital city of Cardiff. She paid a generous tribute to Gwilym Jones, a former Welsh Office Minister. She will be a strong and principled Member of Parliament, who will fight hard for her constituency, for Wales and for the cause of women.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) paid a generous tribute to her predecessor, Michael Forsyth. He was obviously a very effective politician, but her entertaining and sincere speech shows that she is a more than fitting successor.

  891
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) made the final maiden speech in the debate. He comes from a strong radical tradition, and took great pride in declaring that Cornwall is now joining Scotland and Wales as a Tory-free zone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' He spoke warmly of David Harris, a Member who was well known and very well respected on both sides of the House. I know that all Members who knew David Harris will want to express their sympathy for the very difficult personal circumstances in which he has found himself. I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives, and look forward to his regular contributions to our debates.
  The Bill before us is in one sense a limited measure, simply providing for referendums to be held, in Wales and Scotland, on the Government's proposals for devolution. However, it represents the first step in a major programme of constitutional reform to which the Government are committed and which was clearly set out in our manifesto. Let there be no doubt: that programme, and so the Bill, are central to our project of renewing and modernising Britain.
  Several specific points were raised in the debate yesterday and today; I shall discuss those later. First, I shall say a few words about the policy that lies behind the Bill. The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the former Secretary of State, made the startling admission that he was opposed to devolution. Well, we already have devolved government in the United Kingdom. Substantial powers are devolved to the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. What we do not have is direct democratic control, or even effective oversight, of those devolved powers.
  The purpose of devolution of power is surely to allow diversity to flourish; to allow policies to be implemented that reflect local circumstances, traditions and needs. Among the many faults of the Conservative party is its steadfast refusal to recognise the diversity of life in the United Kingdom.
  The Conservative party has deluded itself that there are single, simple answers to the problems that confront us. There has been a delusion that Government in Westminster has all the answers. That belief has at times been almost an obsession. It is an obsession to impose uniformity from the centre, regardless of local circumstances or interests. In too many cases, policy has been a "one size fits all" policy. The Conservative party still has not realised how much resentment there is in Wales at the imposition of divisive and disruptive policies such as grant-maintained schools and nursery vouchers.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No; I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for
  892
  Wales asked the Secretary of State 15 questions. Would it be in order for the Secretary of State to answer one of them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a point of order. The Secretary of State is in order. He must be in order, because I am allowing him to speak.
  Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we have less useless time wasting, I shall have more time to answer those questions.
  The policies of grant-maintained schools and nursery vouchers were designed to meet ideological party needs in London, not practical educational needs in Wales. On a range of domestic policy—but especially on education, health, the environment and economic development—Conservative ideology and party interests have prevailed over Welsh interests and Welsh values. I know that my Scottish colleagues feel strongly about the subordination of Scottish interests and values to Conservative dogma.
  Last night, the shadow Secretary of State for Wales admitted that the Conservative party had
  "lost the faith, the confidence and the good will of the electorate."
  I suppose that that is a small step in the right direction but, given the events of 1 May, it is not a startling proposition. He went on to say that his party was
  "tainted with sleaze, greed, self-indulgence and division."
  The former Secretary of State for Wales should know. If ever there was sleaze, greed and self-indulgence—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have these interruptions.
  Mr. Davies: If ever there was sleaze, greed and self-indulgence, it was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman created and used the quango state in Wales to suit his own party interest. I welcome his repentance, but I would urge him to move quickly, because the road to this particular Damascus is getting very crowded.
  Many in his own party now embrace the case for devolution. The Tory grandees are leading the charge—Sir Wyn Roberts, Viscount St. Davids, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, Tristan Garel-Jones and the former leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
  Mr. Hague: In the hope that the Secretary of State will in the time available answer at least one of the questions asked, I wish to ask him whether members of the Labour party, such as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), will be free to campaign against devolution in the referendum if they wish to do so.
  Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend does not need the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman to ask questions. He is capable of putting his own questions, and I am capable of answering them—but I will do so in my own time.
  The list goes on—Glyn Davies, the defeated candidate in Montgomery; David Evans, the defeated candidate in Newport, East; Gareth Jenkins, a former candidate in Newport, East. They recognise that democracies must be flexible, dynamic and evolutionary.

  893
  We are not going to find simple uniform answers to the many challenges we face, and the Opposition will be foolish if they do not learn the lessons of 18 years of failure in government. Increasingly, government needs to establish a framework which will encourage and facilitate local initiative to empower local people to work out the solutions that suit them best. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will enable the people of those countries to make their own decisions on their own priorities and on the matters that directly affect them in their own day-to-day lives.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Davies: No. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for the debate, and I want to reply to some of the questions that have been asked.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked whether the long title of the Bill would allow for amendment. No decision has been taken on that, but I can assure him that there will be full opportunity to debate the White Paper when it is published. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations on that White Paper, we will listen to them carefully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked certain questions. It is right that people are concerned about jobs, education and the health service, and our proposals for a better democracy will help us to bring better government to deliver better public services. He asked about the pre-legislative referendum, and expressed his own reservations. But the principles on which we will invite the people of Wales to vote will be made clear in the White Paper.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East asked about the David and Goliath scenario, whereby advantages will be given to those campaigning on either side of the argument. Let me make it clear that the Government will set out our proposals, and we will inform the public. It will then be for the political parties to decide how to campaign, and we are not proposing to provide any state aid to any party to campaign either for or against our proposals.
  I wish to refer to the timing of the referendum. In Scotland, some 90 per cent. of daily newspapers are generated within Scotland. In Wales, the figure is less than 10 per cent. In Scotland, more than 90 per cent. of public broadcasting is generated in Scotland. In Wales, the figure is less than 60 per cent. Our proposals for Scotland differ from those for Wales, and it seems to me wholly unexceptional for us to argue that there should be separate debates to allow the separate forms of devolution to be debated separately in Scotland and Wales, or that the people of Wales should be invited to vote at the appropriate time on the proposals we have for Wales.
  Freedom of speech is a matter that is exciting the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks—although what it has to do with him, I do not know. No one would attempt to deny my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West—who has been a Member of this House for a long time—or any other hon. Member freedom of speech. The Government have a policy and the Labour party has a policy, and, obviously, we expect people to support that policy. If my right hon. Friend has difficulties with that, he will have to discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, and reflect and discuss with his colleagues.
  894
  The Labour party wishes to create an inclusive and tolerant Assembly. We will campaign as a party vigorously and wholeheartedly, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will lead that campaign. I and my Front-Bench colleagues will campaign as vigorously as we can with all the resources available to us. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West will reflect on the wisdom of setting out on a course of action that would bring him into conflict with his party and the Government.
  While the case for change is essentially a democratic one, our proposals are not only about democracy. By allowing people to have a greater say in fashioning their own lives, asserting their own values and determining their own priorities, we will be able to achieve greater economic prosperity and, by improving our public services, improve our quality of life.
  Let me turn briefly to some of the other points made in the debate. First, it was suggested that we should not hold these referendums at all. I reject that. We are asking the people of Wales and the people of Scotland whether we should proceed with the process of democratisation which we clearly signalled in our manifesto, on which 34 out of 40 Members of Parliament were elected in Wales and 56 out of 72 in Scotland. Forty out of 40 Members representing Wales in this House were elected on the basis that the status quo is not an option.
  I welcome the Liberal Democrats' support for our constitutional reform policies set out in the report of the joint committee between our two parties. I know that Plaid Cymru would prefer a different option—what it has come to call a "preferendum", with a number of options put before the people. The hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) made a strong case for his party this evening, but the Government do not agree.
  The use of referendums is relatively novel, and is part of the new, more inclusive politics which began on 1 May. But there is no precedent in the UK, and little logic, for having complex multiple-choice options. The most likely outcome of such a procedure in Wales would be no overall majority view—and no endorsement, therefore, of the Government's policy.
  That is why the Government propose to put a clear choice before the people. The people should, and will, be given that clear choice. We seek endorsement of our new vision of an inclusive democracy, and we shall spell out the full details of our proposals in our White Paper.
  The question of thresholds was raised in the debate and it was suggested that the threshold should be 40 or 50 per cent., as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has suggested. We know what that means—the creation of artificial rules, which count non-voters, absent voters or even dead voters as all voting against the proposals. Let me be clear: we shall conduct the referendums on the basis of normal democratic principles, without the construction of fancy franchises, and we shall seek majority support among those who cast their votes.
  The shadow Secretary of State for Wales represents now, and represented when he was Secretary of State, all that was wrong with Conservative government. He was unaccountable to the people. Time after time, he appointed failed Tories to run the quango state in Wales. Month after month, he twisted and conspired to pack Welsh questions with his Tory cronies. His priorities

  895
  reflected his party needs, not the values and aspirations of Wales. He gave us unaccountable government, and the unaccountable Government gave us bad government.
  Our proposals offer a better way: the prospect of open, democratic and accountable government. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 406.

  Division No. 5]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Gray, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Baldry, Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bercow, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hayes, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward (Old Bexley & Sidcup)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cash, William

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Key, Robert

  Clappison, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Letwin, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Loughton, Tim

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Luff, Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacKay, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, lain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Maples, John

  Flight, Howard

  Mates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fraser, Christopher

  Merchant, Piers

  Gale, Roger

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garnier, Edward

  Norman, Archie

  Gibb, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paterson, Owen

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Pickles, Eric

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Prior, David

  896

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Townend, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trend, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wardle, Charles

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Streeter, Gary

  Woodward, Shaun

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Richard Ottaway and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allan, Richard (Shefld Hallam)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Casale, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caton, Martin

  Atkins, Ms Charlotte

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Austin, John

  Chaytor, David

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Chidgey, David

  Banks, Tony

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barnes, Harry

  Church, Ms Judith

  Barton, Kevin

  Clapham, Michael

  Battle, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Best, Harold

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Mrs Liz

  Colman, Anthony (Putney)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Connarty, Michael

  Blizzard, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, Paul

  Cooper, Ms Yvette

  Borrow, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cox, Tom

  Cranston, Ross

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Crausby, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Cummings, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Burstow, Paul

  Butler, Christine

  Dafis, Cynog

  Byers, Stephen

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Caborn, Richard

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  897

  Darvill, Keith

  Hill, Keith

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hoey, Kate

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Home Robertson, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hope, Philip

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Dean, Ms Janet

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Denham, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dismore, Andrew

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford& Unvston)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dowd, Jim

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Drew, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Hutton, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Iddon, Brian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Illsley, Eric

  Eagle, Ms Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Ingram, Adam

  Edwards, Huw

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Efford, Clive

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough,

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Jamieson, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Fitzsimons, Ms Loma (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Flint, Ms Caroline

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Flynn, Paul

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Follett, Ms Barbara

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Galbraith, Sam

  Kemp, Fraser

  Galloway, George

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Gapes, Mike

  Gardiner, Barry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Khabra, Piara S

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Kidney, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Kingham, Tessa

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Godsitf, Roger

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Goggins, Paul

  Laxton, Bob

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lepper, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Leslie, Christopher

  Graham, Thomas

  Levitt, Tom

  Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Linton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Uwyd, Elfyn

  Hain, Peter

  Lock, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Love, Andy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McAllion, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hanson, David

  McCabe, Stephen

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Harvey, Nick

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

  Healey, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Heath, David (Somerton)

  McDonnell, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McFall, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McIsaac, Ms Shona

  Heppell, John

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  McLeish, Henry

  898

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  McNulty, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruane, Chris

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McWalter, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McWilliam, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Salmond, Alex

  Mallaber, Ms Judy

  Salter, Martin

  Mandelson, Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marek, Dr John

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Short, Rt Hon clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Merron, Ms Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael Alun

  Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Moore, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mountford, Ms Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Stott, Roger

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Norris, Dan

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stunell, Andrew

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Swinney, John

  Opik, Lembit

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thomas Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Todd, Mark

  Pound, Stephen

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tyler, Paul

  Radice, Giles

  Vaz, Keith

  Rammell, Bill

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rapson, Syd

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Watts, David

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Welsh, Andrew

  White, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Whitehead, Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  899

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wood, Mike

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Woolas, Phil

  (Swansea W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carnarthen)

  Wray, James

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

  Willis, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wills, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Janet Anderson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Ron Davies].
  Question agreed to.
  Committee upon Monday 2 June.

  REFERENDUMS (SCOTLAND AND WALES) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenditure which is to be charged on and paid out of that Fund by virtue of any enactment applied by an Order in Council under the Act; and
  (2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State—
  (a) in connection with a referendum held by virtue of the Act, or
  (b) in preparation for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Question agreed to.

  Procedure (Modernisation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Clelland.]
  7.19 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me to open this debate during which we shall discuss some of the ideas that have been advanced for modernising the procedures of the House of Commons. I am pleased that the Government have been able to provide time for the debate during only the second full week of this Parliament. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must leave the Chamber quickly and quietly. There is a debate going on and the Leader of the House is at the Dispatch Box.
  Mrs. Taylor: I hope that, by holding this debate so early in the Parliament, we have proved our serious intent in terms of facilitating improvements in the workings of Parliament.
  After only two or three weeks in this place, many new Members are bewildered by some of the practices of the House and are keen to see some changes. I am glad to see so many hon. Members present for this debate, not least because there has been little interest when we have debated the workings of the House previously.
  We have encountered some practical problems since Parliament resumed—including hon Members' complaints about the difficulty of fitting so many of them into one Division Lobby. I know that hon. Members are considering some imaginative solutions to that problem.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have two specific ideas that my right hon. Friend and others might consider. First, the construction of a third desk in the Lobbies would allow the traffic to flow more quickly. Secondly, we could examine the two-minute break between the announcement of the Division and the tellers going to the Doors. Those two proposals could conceivably save three or four minutes.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion. I hope that there will be many more such suggestions not just this evening, but during the sittings of the proposed Select Committee on modernisation. I note that my hon. Friend did not suggest introducing electronic voting or anything like that; that may be because he has been in this place long enough to know the value of Divisions, when hon. Members have a chance to meet their colleagues and—whether they are the newest or the most experienced Back Benchers—to lobby Ministers. I hope that many ideas will be forthcoming in that area.
  This evening I shall discuss some of the issues that I believe the new Committee should address. As shadow Leader of the House, I made it clear that, although I think that Parliament can deal excellently with some issues and situations, it does not organise itself to do the best possible job in other areas.
  The roles of Back Benchers and new Members of Parliament have changed over the years. When I first came to the House in the mid-1970s—I must admit that
  902
  it is a long time ago—Back Benchers could adopt two distinct roles. The first was to climb the ministerial ladder, starting as a parliamentary private secretary; the second, very legitimate and respected, role was to become a senior Back Bencher. That group dominated many debates and Question Times. It may be that, with many Back Benchers on one side of the House, more hon. Members will be interested in developing the role of the Back Bencher. I think that it is in the interests of the House to recreate and re-evaluate that role. We should have regard to that point when considering possible changes.
  The second big change that has occurred since the 1970s is a consequence of one party being in government for 18 years. I do not seek to make a partisan point, because it might have happened to any party that stayed in power for a long time. After a time, the Conservative Government believed that they could get away with anything, do anything and push any legislation through the House; while too many Opposition Members believed that they could not achieve anything.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If that is the case, would it not be a good idea to introduce a freedom of information Act immediately? That would ensure that that situation does not arise again.
  Mrs. Taylor: I ask my hon. Friend to be patient, as I shall return to that point later. As a very experienced senior Back Bencher, she will agree that there is a danger of Governments and Oppositions adopting rigid roles. For a time in the 1980s, the Labour party suffered from Oppositionitis and the Government suffered from—
  Mr. Skinner: Arrogance.
  Mrs. Taylor: —Governmentitis—or arrogance, as my hon. Friend neatly puts it. It may be time to reassess the role of both sides. When the Prime Minister told a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party that we are the servants now, he was reinforcing the need for Governments to re-examine their role and not act with the arrogance that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, was the hallmark of the recent past.
  Mr. Eric Forth: While the right hon. Lady is on the theme of arrogance—and lest anyone misunderstand her comments—will she pursue that line in the context of her colleagues' recent actions when they displayed what many inside and outside the House regard as arrogance by making very important policy statements outside Parliament without consulting this place? That does not seem to be a very good background against which to develop the hon. Lady's argument.
  Mrs. Taylor: I was hoping to have a constructive debate this evening. As a Minister in the previous Government—recalling his time as Education Minister, I believe that he was guilty occasionally—the hon. Gentleman should be cautious about his remarks. I think that all Ministers should treat the House with the respect that it deserves, as I said during business questions earlier today. Any change in Government policy should be reported to the House, but I do not think that statements should be made on the Floor of the House about every policy item-that certainly never happened when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government.

  903
  Whenever parliamentary change is discussed, everyone mentions the Jopling reforms and the changes that were introduced some time ago. I remind the House of two things. First, as I said at the time, Jopling dealt with only a narrow range of issues: the hours of Parliament and how they were arranged; and, to a certain and minor extent, the balance between Committee work and work on the Floor of the House.
  Secondly, hon. Members should remember that, although Jopling reported relatively quickly, the House sat on the report for almost three years before implementing its recommendations. I hope that, when a new Committee is established and begins to report to the House—hopefully, there will be a succession of reports; I do not want it to deliberate for two years before offering some ideas—there will be change relatively quickly, and much agreement about moving on some of its recommendations.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about moving quickly. As she will know, many of the new Labour Back Benchers are women. They and other new Members of Parliament must have an opportunity to contribute to parliamentary Committees while they are relatively new. We should listen to their experiences and take advantage now of their expertise and skills.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share her concern that we should move quickly in setting up departmental Select Committees so that hon. Members have a chance to work in the way that they wish.
  Sir Peter Emery: For accuracy, and only for that, it should be made clear that implementation of the report of the Jopling Committee, on which the right hon. Lady and I served, was held up for many moons by an hon. Member with a small majority who used to sit on the Opposition Front Bench as the deputy Chief Whip. He was against anything all the while on the Jopling report. It must be made clear that that was the delaying factor.
  Mrs. Taylor: I think that there were several hon. Members on both sides of the House who were not happy with the proposed changes. In the end, however, those changes were implemented. I like to think that I played some small part in that process.
  The fact that we on the Government Benches want to encourage the House to change should come as no surprise to anyone. It is made clear in the Labour party's manifesto that we, the Labour party, believe that the House is in need of modernisation and that we will ask the House to establish a Select Committee to review its procedures. I have said over a long time that I think that the House needs change.
  The desire to improve the workings of Parliament is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Yes, there have been some—on both sides of the Chamber—who have resisted change, but the majority, certainly on the Labour Benches, and a good many who represent the minority parties and those who represent the official Opposition, want constructive change. There is a wish to take the opportunity that is now available to us.
  904
  I wish to signal priorities and the way in which the Committee might consider the issues that I think need attention. There are four themes to the changes that could perhaps be brought about. First, and, I think, the most important, is the production of better legislation. In that, we all have a responsibility. Ministers have a responsibility, and so does Parliament generally. After all, we are the legislature. I hope that the new Committee will give that area particular priority.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Would it not be better if much more legislation were routed through the Select Committees, so that Select Committees could take evidence from those interested in particular subjects? Should we not try to ensure that the result is legislation that is much better than that which we have seen in the past?
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive suggestion. I am coming precisely to his point. We all know that, far too often, legislation has to be amended because of practical difficulties and mistakes that could have been spotted and dealt with at the time of consideration. That is not, I think, the result of poor draftsmanship. Difficulties and mistakes often occur because of the political imperatives that stem from Governmentitis. It seems that Governments feel that they should never accept an amendment moved by an Opposition Member. All too often, there has been no scope for constructive criticism.
  Mr. Forth: The House should not imagine that a previous Government were necessarily completely at fault for a failure properly to scrutinise legislation in Committee. Will the right hon. Lady accept that what happened in Standing Committees was largely under the control of the then Opposition, and that all too often time was wasted at the beginning of a Bill's consideration in Committee, with endless filibustering on the sittings motion, for example, with the result that the end of the time available for consideration came too soon in one sense, and some parts of the Bill received no consideration at all? We should consider that as well as the behaviour of the Government.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's remarks might carry some weight were it not for the fact that I have served on Standing Committees with him. I was a member of a Committee on which he was the Minister. The Government, late in the day, came up with nearly 1,000 amendments on that Bill. I do not think that we, the Government, can take lectures on the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Has my right hon. Friend studied the Committee proceedings on the personal pensions legislation in 1986 and the Child Support Agency legislation—enactments that did no credit to the House? The problems that ensued—they were enormous because 2 million people were cheated on personal pensions, and we all know of the tragedies and injustices that resulted from the Child Support Agency—arose from the fact that the two major parties were confrontational. They did not listen to each other and there was no rational scrutiny of the enabling Bills. That is the type of scrutiny that we must introduce into a new system of pre-legislative inquiries.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is anticipating the very points that I am about to make.

  905
  It is rather obvious that a Government have the right to initiate legislation for which they have a mandate or when problems arise. Much of that legislation will be controversial and it will be promoted or forced through robustly; however, there are areas of legislation where there might be differences of approach or of priorities across the party divide, but where at the same time there is agreement on an objective, or where there is agreement that a certain problem needs to be tackled. My hon. Friend's example about pensions was extremely useful in highlighting that point.
  There is scope for considering to what extent we would gain by having more Bills published in draft and, possibly, by having pre-legislative Committees to examine draft Bills or White Papers or—it is not the method that I would prefer—using departmental Select Committees. The use of such Committees is still worthy of consideration. These are the very issues that the proposed Committee might consider.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I remind my right hon. Friend that a Special Standing Committee was set up three years ago, I think, to examine the Children (Scotland) Bill. The establishment of the Committee enabled us to cross-examine expert witnesses. It may be useful to reflect on the Standing Order—I think that it is Standing Order No. 91—that allows such a Committee to be created. That might be a useful way forward.
  Mrs. Taylor: I agree. There were times during the previous Parliament when we, the then Opposition, suggested that very procedure. We were told, however, that it would not be acceptable. I think that we need to change our approach and to consider the approach that my hon. Friend has suggested in appropriate circumstances.
  I am not saying that every Bill should receive consideration by pre-legislative Committees or a Special Standing Committee; that could cause unnecessary duplication and delay. We should, however, consider what is appropriate for each Bill, and Government and Parliament should be more willing to use the available options more freely. There should be more discussion about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) mentioned the Child Support Agency. There was agreement on both sides of the House that something should be done and that fathers had a responsibility towards their children. The Bill was subject to the usual procedures, and I understand why the then Government wanted to act quickly. At the end of the day, however, the Bill was flawed. It satisfied no one and angered many. We all received the case load that proved that.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I speak as a Chairman of Committees. I am always disturbed that Government Back-Bench Members, whichever party is in government, say virtually nothing. They have a contribution to make and Bills should be timetabled in such a way that Government as well as Opposition Back-Bench Members can make constructive contributions to debate.
  Mrs. Taylor: There has to be a role for constructive contributions, and Back Benchers—and we have many of them—will be very dissatisfied if they are not allowed to make a constructive contribution.
  906
  Had we scrutinised the Child Support Agency Bill differently, some of that scrutiny might have led to delay. In those circumstances, there are already provisions for the use of a rollover mechanism, but at the moment that is considered to be dreadful and something that should never happen. If we take a more mature approach and allow extra time for better scrutiny, we must consider whether we should move in that direction.
  The Government are willing to acknowledge that more could be done by way of publishing draft Bills. In fact, it is our intention to publish during this Session a record number of draft Bills—we will move on this as quickly as possible—on a range of subjects: a food standards agency, freedom of information and tobacco advertising. Although there might be disagreement about how we should tackle the problems of smoking, especially among young people, there is cross-party agreement that something should be done. Other subjects include financial services, limited liability partnerships and the control of communicable diseases. There are areas where we could, to good effect, publish draft Bills and then consider the role of Parliament in ensuring proper scrutiny.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to draft Bills, which can perform a useful function, the fact that the Government are looking at other consensus-building mechanisms on the big political issues of the day should be welcomed? I add my welcome—I hope that she will, too—to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary just a couple of days ago that he wishes to make early progress on the establishment of a commission to examine the methods that are used to elect Members to this place. That is a consensus-building mechanism that can work and needs to be welcomed.
  Mr. Skinner: Steady with that one.
  Mrs. Taylor: I always take advice from my hon. Friend, and if he says steady, I shall be very careful about what I say.
  We have all experienced problems—some of which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised in an Adjournment debate yesterday morning—in elections. There are problems that we should look at on an all-party basis, and if we can arrive at solutions, so much the better.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is much truth in the aphorism that he who governs least governs best, and that one problem that we in this place have is that we all rush to the judgment that we know what is better for other people and then end up making very bad legislation and very complicated lives for the people whom we seek to govern? Will she bear that in mind in her haste to introduce all these new Bills?
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Lady said. She spoke about the complexities of Bills. Let me add a personal note. Legislation should be as understandable as possible. Anyone who can find a way to present our legislation in plain English will certainly get a great deal of credit from me.
  On the amount of legislation that is necessary, I am afraid that, on a partisan note, much needs to be done to redress some of the balance of the past few years.

  907
  I was asked about the proper programming of legislation. I hope that the new Committee will examine that. 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.
  Another area that the Committee should consider is the balance of work on the Floor of the House and upstairs in Committee. That was touched on by Jopling, but only at the margins. I feel strongly that the work of Standing Committees never gets the attention or credit that it deserves. Select Committees get some recognition, but it is rare for Standing Committees or some of the Scrutiny Committees to get any attention whatever. Perhaps if the media feel that they have extra slots available because of the changes to Prime Minister's Questions they will turn their attention to Committee work, because those of us who have been here for any time know that much valuable work goes on in Committees. Many hon. Members work in Committees, but that work goes without recognition.
  I also hope that the Committee will look at the other main role of Parliament—holding Ministers to account. The changes to Prime Minister's Questions will be beneficial, but I do not want to go into them this evening, not least because there is an Adjournment debate on that subject next week. However, yesterday, more questions were asked. There were more opportunities to follow up. There were more serious questions, from both sides of the House, and, indeed, more serious answers.
  There is still scope for discussion on further changes: for example, considering the role of open or closed questions, or the period of notice for the tabling of questions. The Committee may wish to look at that. On departmental questions, there are other areas that could be considered: for example, whether there should be a facility to request the Speaker to allow a longer period for supplementaries on a question on a particularly important or topical issue.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the delicate matter of not wanting to tell the Speaker how to do her job, should we not air the question about the acceptability of private notice questions? There is most rigorous examination of any attempt to table a private notice question, yet it affords a serious, continuous follow-up on an important topical matter.
  Mrs. Taylor: I agree that we need to consider all these matters, but private notice questions have to be used for serious matters only. We have to remember that, whenever we allow time for one issue, we are taking it away from something else. The balance has to be considered extremely carefully.
  I hope that all hon. Members will agree that the Committee should consider improved ways of scrutinising delegated legislation, be it statutory instruments or European legislation, or other improvements. There is scope. I know that work has been done by other Committees. I hope that it can be looked at quickly.
  Mr. Michael Jack: The right hon. Lady mentioned European legislation. Her party has shown a
  908
  zeal to agree to potentially controversial matters already. The current methods of scrutiny, with European Standing Committees A and B, leave much to be desired, because they scrutinise regulations or directives very late in their legislative passage in the House and in Europe. Will the Committee seriously consider involving the House in European legislation, particularly at the draft stage, at an earlier point?
  Mr. Skinner: What a difference a defeat makes.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member for Fylde was part of a Government who did not change this area. I remind him that Committees in the previous Parliament came up with some recommendations, and some of us gave evidence to the effect that certain approaches should change in the future.
  The Committee could look at the set-piece debates that we have: the Queen's Speech, the number of days that we spend on the Budget, the number on the armed forces and on the estimates. These may be right. We have seen some flexibility, but surely it is right for the Committee to consider whether we are making the best use of parliamentary time. I hope this will be an opportunity to take stock.
  Ms Julia Drown: One of the things that struck me immediately as a new Member, is the number of empty Benches during many of our debates. I have continually to decide between dealing with the many pieces of correspondence from my constituents and wanting to be here on their behalf, listening to and taking part in the debate. I have been told that it is frowned upon to work quietly during the debate. I should be grateful if the Committee would look at that and clarify it for all hon. Members.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for opening up the next theme that the Committee should consider, which is how hon. Members can organise their working lives, on which there has been much comment, especially from new Members.
  If our constituents see us speaking in or listening to a debate in the Chamber, they believe that we are working, but if we are not in the Chamber they tend to believe that we are not working. I have already said that we should re-evaluate, or have others re-evaluate, Committee work. I feel strongly about that.
  There must also be some recognition of constituency work. Many of our constituents want us to be in two places at once. We cannot be, and we should not be, defensive about that, but we should design our parliamentary timetable with those dual roles in mind. We could do more in that regard. That is particularly important for non-London Members. Constituency Fridays have been a great success and we should see whether we can improve on them in the future.
  I am glad that we can have a recess next week. Many new Members are concerned about the impact of the sittings of the House on their families. The Whitsun recess is the only one that ever coincides with the schools half-term, so I am particularly glad that we have been able to preserve that next week. That is another point that we can consider when it comes to the programme.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: I can anticipate what my hon. Friend is about to say.
  Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, particularly given her origins north of the border. The Whitsun recess does not coincide with the Scottish schools holiday, and nor does a large part of the summer recess. Most of the school summer holiday in Scotland is over before Scottish Members can return to their children.
  Mrs. Taylor: The October half-term in Scotland sometimes coincides with the recess, but they never coincide in England and Wales, so we shall have to do some balancing acts there.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No, I am sorry, but I must move on.
  The fourth area that could be considered is not a priority, but it has been raised, particularly by new Members: it is the style and the symbolism that is associated with Parliament, which we have seen in the past few weeks. There is a feeling that, while it is good to reinforce our parliamentary traditions, we might be able to modify some aspects of them without any loss of ceremony or dignity.
  Many practical problems arise with new Members not knowing colleagues or Members from other parties or the names of their constituencies, and ideas have been put forward on that. It would be unfortunate for the Committee to get bogged down in that matter at the expense of examining the basic role of Parliament, but it would be right at least to consider it in due course. [Interruption.] People will disagree, but that is why we will have a Committee to make recommendations.
  Many of the changes that the Committee will consider will interact, and working on that Committee will be a serious commitment both in terms of time and responsibility. The House responded well to the Nolan recommendations. The special Select Committee operated to a tight schedule and worked extremely hard to bring about change. I hope that that will happen again with this modernisation Committee.
  I am delighted to see so much interest in the House this evening. That is the best sign that we have had in many years that there is a serious intention to modernise this place, and I hope that we do not miss this window of opportunity.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Conservative Members welcome the opportunity of an early debate on parliamentary procedure. Like the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), we are eager to listen to the views of colleagues.
  Parliament has for centuries performed a role in debating and improving legislation, in holding the Executive to account and as the forum for debates of national importance. Conservative Members are
  910
  determined that Parliament, and particularly the House of Commons, should retain its central role in our political and national life. To do so, our procedures sometimes need reform. If it is clear that change is necessary or desirable, we shall support it. But if our institutions and procedures are working well, we shall defend them. The Conservative party is a pragmatic party, and we shall offer constructive opposition.
  Those considerations have animated and will continue to guide our approach to reforming the House of Commons and our response to any recommendations which may be made by the proposed Select Committee on modernisation.
  As the right hon. Lady said, some of the most significant reforms of Parliament have taken place during the past 18 years. The previous Government animated the establishment of the departmental Select Committees in 1979—perhaps the most important transfer of power from Government to Parliament this century.
  Mr. Skinner: I cannot stand the excitement.
  Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman persists in treating serious matters with levity, just as he treats trivial matters with his own brand of long-winded portentousness.
  Mr. Skinner: Come on, Duracell.
  Mr. Goodlad: The House has no escape from the hon. Gentleman, who continues to test the tolerance for which it is famous.
  Mr. Skinner: I have got the right hon. Gentleman wound up.
  Mr. Goodlad: I will now wind down, unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to delay the House even further.
  Those Committees examine in great detail the way in which each Government Department spends its money, implements Government decisions and the policy that is followed. The reports are debated regularly on the Floor of the House. Professor Hennessy, the constitutional expert, said:
  "I rate the establishment of the so-called departmentally related Commons Select Committees in 1979 as not just the most significant parliamentary development of the post-war period, but the single most important clawback in terms of the relevant influence of the legislature and the executive since the Balfour reforms of 1902."
  We shall obviously consider any proposals that come forward in connection with the Select Committees with the greatest care.
  The television broadcasts which were introduced more than seven years ago were intended to give people a clearer idea of how Parliament works. Whether the way in which they have been used by the broadcaster has had that effect is a matter on which opinions may vary, but we are where we are and, if we wish to move we can move.
  Many of the recommendations of the Jopling Committee set up in 1991 to examine the sittings of the House are now firmly in place. We work more civilised hours and we have set aside constituency days. More time has been set aside for private Members' business and the House now spends longer debating Select Committee reports.

  911
  Last year, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed reforms which would help Parliament to scrutinise legislation still further. Most significantly, he suggested that detailed proposals for legislation be prepared not just for the next Session but in draft for the Session after that. That would allow Select Committees time to take evidence and report on Bills, and would give Parliament a more positive and forward-looking role.
  Those are just a few of the reforms that were taken through the House in the previous Session to improve the work of Parliament. The Nolan committee was established in 1994 to assist in the maintenance of the highest standards in public life. It has produced two reports, and has resulted in improvements, such as bringing Ministers within the scope of the advisory committee on business appointments, an extension of the ombudsman's powers, a code of practice for the staff of quangos and more consultation between local quangos and councils. The third report, which will review local government, is due to be published this summer.
  The right hon. Lady has raised a number of fresh matters, and that is extremely welcome. I hope that all hon. Members agree that we want to improve the quality of legislation, to hold the Government to account, and to make the best use of our parliamentary time. If the reforms put before the Committee and the House achieve those aims, we will support them and suggest how they might be improved.
  Ministerial accountability was reviewed by the previous Government and Parliament. The review was endorsed by the Public Service Select Committee, and a resolution on ministerial accountability was drafted with the full co-operation and support of other parties and was passed by the House.
  It is suggested that certain Bills should roll over into the following Session. We shall work with the Government to develop that proposal. It is also suggested that there should be more consultation on draft Bills before they pass through the House. Significant moves have already been made in that direction in the past 18 years, and we shall work with the Government on those proposals to see whether the approach can be further developed.
  Progress has been made to remove out-dated Acts from the statute book. Under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the Government can place an order before Parliament to amend or repeal legislation that has become burdensome. We shall examine the Government's proposals to audit out-dated legislation and consider whether they would be beneficial.
  Suggestions have been made that we should change the structure of the parliamentary year. We want to see what issues emerge from that—the timing of recesses, working hours and so on—before we offer any comment, but we shall give careful consideration to the details of the Government's proposals when we have seen them. We welcome the promise by the Leader of the House of a Government memorandum for the Committee once it has been established.
  There are also suggestions that departmental Select Committees should have new powers to confirm public appointments, such as the heads of the next step
  912
  agencies. We shall await further details, but it is our belief that constitutional accountability must remain with Ministers. Likewise, we await further details of the suggestion that the operation of the Opposition would be made more effective if civil servants were attached to senior figures.
  We have reservations, however, on three particular points. First, the Government may seek to introduce a business committee to timetable legislation, which has traditionally been dealt with through the usual channels. The system has proved itself over the years: it has worked reasonably well. We accept that the Government have to steer their business through the House, but I am inclined to think that, if the usual channels cannot reach an agreement about the legislative programme, the final decision should be taken by the whole House. I would take some persuading that it should be taken by a small committee.
  The second point relates to the Committee stage of constitutional Bills. We have reservations about the Government's intention to deal with some clauses of constitutional Bills away from the Floor of the House. I envisage problems with that approach, because what for some hon. Members may be a technical detail may for others be an important constitutional principle and not a mere technicality.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen for constitutional matters to be taken on the Floor of the House, what about using Tuesday and Thursday mornings to do so?
  Mr. Goodlad: I certainly hope that the Committee will consider that. We have pointed out some of the difficulties of the broad-brush approach. Those who are versed in these matters, as the right hon. Lady has been for some time, know that the devil is very much in the detail.
  The third point relates to the announcement from Downing street of the changes to Prime Minister's Question Time. Many hon. Members from all parties have made clear their distaste for the arbitrary way in which the change was introduced. It is clear that the manner of the announcement was inappropriate and sits uneasily with the Prime Minister's comments in his speech to the Charter 88 seminar on parliamentary reform in May 1996. He said:
  "the lesson of previous parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity…The rights of backbenchers have to be protected."
  Mr. Skinner: In the past 18 years and before that, changes were made to departmental questions and questions generally. We should put this business in context. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that the Tory Government made a dramatic change. We used to have 20 minutes for Common Market Questions at 3.10 pm after Foreign Office Questions. That allowed me and hon. Members on both sides of the House to ask questions directly about the Common Market. When the Common Market became an embarrassment for the Tory Government, they did not move Common Market Questions to another day: they got rid of it altogether without any consultation or agreement. It is a bit rich for

  913
  Tory ex-Ministers to talk about consultation, when they got rid of a potentially embarrassing 20 minutes completely.
  Mr. Goodlad: The more latitude that the Government allow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to deploy his case in questions elsewhere, the more welcome it will be to us.
  I shall return to the Prime Minister's views. He said:
  "the lesson of previous parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity…The rights of backbenchers have to be protected. They will understandably be wary of changes which appear to be advocated simply to make the job of government easier."
  The decision to change Prime Minister's Questions was made without reference to the forthcoming Select Committee on modernisation. Moreover, such a proposal was rejected by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1995. I believe that the proposal should have gone to the new Select Committee on modernisation, should still do so, and probably will.
  The Labour party's manifesto asserted that better scrutiny of Bills and better accountability of Ministers are desirable: nobody would quarrel with that. But it is up to hon. Members, rather than mere institutional arrangements, to hold Ministers to account and to scrutinise legislation. I am sure that the failings of the Opposition in the previous Parliament in scrutinising Bills—there certainly were failings—will not be repeated by the Opposition in the present Parliament.
  We agree with the proposition that no one political party should dictate changes to parliamentary procedure, and that Parliament itself must own that process. There is clearly a danger that, when a political party has a substantial majority in the House, as at present, the interests of Parliament as a whole could be put at risk. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will restrain any tendency towards the arrogance of office that may from time to time be exhibited by her ministerial colleagues. Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide how we should conduct our affairs.
  I trust that the Government will take seriously the deliberations and decisions of the Select Committee on modernisation that we are about to set up. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider its conclusions on their merits rather than on party political lines, and I hope that the Government will make no further announcements that rightly belong with the House. I am confident that the right hon. Lady, who has great experience in these matters—as did her predecessor, Tony Newton, to whom I pay tribute as she did the other day—will be the protector of the rights, privileges and duties of the House.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given a number of pointers indicating the way in which our procedures can be changed. I want to add to them.
  I think that the most important development for the current Parliament is the number of Government Back Benchers. We now have 418, a number unprecedented in modern times, and we must make some use of them. They are willing, able and extremely well qualified to add to the quality of our debates and our legislation, but some of
  914
  our procedures do not allow for that. My right hon. Friend spoke of better legislation, and mentioned the record number of draft Bills. That is an important point, because we now have a large number of people to examine those Bills.
  Normally, in Standing Committees, Government Back Benchers are asked to be quiet so that the legislation can go through quickly. That may be all right when the Government have a narrow majority and do not know whether they will be able to put the legislation through, but these Back Benchers can be used to improve the quality of that legislation. There is no reason why such a large number should remain silent—and, in any event, it will not be possible to keep them silent. There are too many of them, and not enough of the jobs to which Back Benchers used to aspire in the past. We must provide jobs that will be useful and meaningful, and will benefit the legislation.
  Mr. Gill: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 5, in which members of his party recommend that no one should serve on a Select Committee who has any declarable financial interest in the subject of the Committee's responsibility?
  The right hon. Gentleman talks of employing the talents and experience of new Members, and I agree that that is desirable, but is it not slightly contradictory to say to those people—who have brought new talents and experience to the House—that they should not serve on Committees, where they will possibly have the greatest contribution to make? Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the situation that seems to be developing? It appears that our Committees will be composed of people who have no expertise in the subjects involved, and will therefore be at the mercy of civil servants.
  Mr. Sheldon: It will clearly depend on the nature of the interest involved; but, as I have not seen the early-day motion, I do not want to comment on it.
  The way in which we have produced legislation recently is shameful. If hon. Members visit Somerset house, they will see that, in the last century, one book of financial legislation was produced per year, or perhaps in two or three years—until the past few years, for which there is a whole shelf of legislation for each year. Even more recently, the legislation has filled several shelves. Financial legislation has been pouring out at an immense rate, and the House has not been looking at it; but we now have people who can make some contribution.
  Anyone who has been involved in a Standing Committee will know that, when it comes to draft legislation, there are always matters that Members of Parliament can raise which the drafters had not thought of. There is a different way of thinking about such matters. Given the quality of our new Members, I am sure that they will be able to make improvements, and to do work that has been waiting to be done. I look forward to the establishment of many more special Standing Committees. We have people who are able and anxious to operate them, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should proceed in that way.
  I am all in favour of tradition, as long as it does not interfere with our work. Our traditions go back 700 years, and I consider that a plus; but, when they do interfere, we have got rid of them. If there are some traditions of which

  915
  I am not aware, or on which I have not concentrated enough, by all means let us change them, but we have benefited from the way in which the country has progressed, and we should continue to do so.
  We have made a real mess of our financial year, and it is probably in that area that we can make the biggest change of all. We used to have the Budget in the spring; it would become an Act of Parliament by August, and the expenditure statement would be made in the autumn. It was felt, however, that expenditure and revenue should be brought together, so that we could say, "If you want this expenditure, you must incur this increase in taxation." It was a brilliant idea—no one can disagree with that—but, for obvious reasons, it did not happen.
  The Government decide expenditure levels. It has never been possible for the House, and Back Benchers in particular, to say, "Yes, let us put a penny on income tax if we want to give something to education"—which is what the Liberals want—or, "Let us reduce income tax by so much, and reduce expenditure by so much." We could never operate a trade-off of that kind, but, without such a trade-off, the idea of bringing together revenue and expenditure was nonsense. All we did was have the Queen's Speech in November, followed two weeks later by the Budget, followed by seven months during which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make a speech in the House.
  That is absurd. For as long as we see that we shall not be able to debate revenue and expenditure together, because Back Benchers will never have the right to increase expenditure or taxation, we can say that the autumn Budget has not been a success, and that we must adopt a more sensible arrangement—which means having the Budget statement in the spring, and debating clauses of general significance on the Floor of the House and the technical stuff in a Standing Committee. That arrangement was devised by the then Government in 1967. I remember that, under kin Macleod, we spent a day and a half in the Standing Committee discussing the temperature of Committee Room 10. It was brilliantly done, but it demonstrated that the whole House needed to be involved.
  The present system is sensible. Matters of critical, general and observable importance that involve everyone—matters such as income tax and value added tax—are debated on the Floor of the House, while the technical aspects are debated in Standing Committee. I think that more issues should be debated on the Floor of the House, but I have a particular interest in that regard.
  Attendance in the Chamber is a serious matter. Dick Crossman is responsible for the present position, because he devised a system to get rid of the count. Before 1967, if there were not 40 Members in the Chamber, the House had to adjourn within four minutes. The enormous advantage of that system was that there was always a body of Members in the Chamber. I know that everyone has much more constituency correspondence to deal with now, and we are unlikely to return to the old arrangement; but that is the difference between the House as it was then, and the House as it is now.
  For debates on important matters, it is important to have hon. Members cheering others on or being prepared to show that something is wrong. However, we have to
  916
  deal with constituency matters, and we now have a free post, free telephones, secretaries and television in offices. More people than ever are probably watching our debates on television, but they are not participating. It is voices in the present that electrify the House and such electrification is what makes it the place that it is. That happens only at Prime Minister's Question Time and on one or two other special occasions. It used to be much more common, and I hope that we can find some way to improve matters.
  Mr. John Maxton: It is pointless sitting here when there is so much constituency work and Select Committee and Standing Committee work as well as other work to be done. Nine hon. Members in 10 or 99 out of a hundred are unable to take part in debates because so many wish to participate. Sitting here does not seem to be the most useful way for an hon. Member to use his time.
  Mr. Sheldon: I agree. There is much work to do. We must see to correspondence and telephone calls and we look after our constituents in a way that our predecessors did not. However, something is being lost in that process, and anything that can be done to enable us to return to some aspect of what we had would be valuable.
  Standing Order 20 debates are at the discretion of the Speaker. Madam Speaker rightly decides whether a specific and important matter should have urgent consideration. If she decides that they deserve priority, they are debated. In the past few years, there has been an increase in such debates, and we are grateful to Madam Speaker for making that improvement. The procedure had almost fallen into disuse until the past few years, and it has brought alive some of the important issues. Such rights are important, and whatever can be done to allow them to continue deserves our encouragement.
  Select Committees are enormously important. Their great value is that they bring together people from all parts of the House to look at the facts. It is astonishing how well people can work together in areas of common interest. I shall give an extreme example: it is not typical by any means. The Public Accounts Committee operates like that. We looked at all the privatisations. There were enormous differences in Committee, but our remit was to see whether privatisation was carried out efficiently and gave proper value for money. The Government decision is not questioned. Such operations are evident in other Select Committees. Their members look at the facts and try to find how a process can be made more efficient. They may say, "The Government have got this wrong and should be doing more." A Select Committee's enormous advantage is being able to look at the facts and bring them to the attention of Ministers.
  I have mentioned the areas in which I hope there will be some improvements. Obviously, we must continue to change to the advantage of hon. Members and that of our constituents.
  8.23 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: In following the speech by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I should like to mention one of the old traditions of the House, that in debates each speaker picked up points that the previous speaker had made. I should like to add to what the right hon. Gentleman said

  917
  about the problems and the development of taxation and tax legislation. He will recall that, just before Parliament dissolved for the election, we approved procedures to allow tax simplification Bills to be introduced to try to reduce the many orders on tax law. I hope that the Leader of the House will allow those procedures to operate as soon as possible.
  I congratulate the Leader of the House on her appointment. I shall attempt to be non-partisan, with the exception of one matter, which I shall mention later. Many hon. Members want to play a political game, but many of us are honestly interested in trying to improve the way that Parliament operates and legislation is scrutinised. The right hon. Lady has heard me say many times that I have spent 14 years trying to drag our procedures screaming into the 20th century. If she can continue with that tradition into the 21st century, I shall be delighted.
  We must proceed only with the agreement of the whole House. When that is not achieved, attempts at modernisation will frequently fail—the introduction of morning sittings in the 1960s is an illustration of that.
  I shall now turn to the partisan matter, but I shall not dwell on it, because it is to be debated. The Leader of the House was ill advised to introduce the new format for Prime Minister's Question Time without consultation or consideration and against the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. On that Committee, four of her hon. Friends, one of whom is now a Minister, agreed with the recommendation that a new format was not to the advantage of the House. We shall return to that matter.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman speaks about procedure and consultation. Does he not think that the new format is a vast improvement on the turmoil over the past five years during Prime Minister's questions?
  Sir Peter Emery: The Procedure Committee made suggestions for improving Prime Minister's Question Time. However, they were not debated, because it was not the wish of the then Leader of the Opposition to move in the way that he has now moved. I have read to the House the letter that he wrote to the Committee.
  The value of Prime Minister's Question Time derives from open-ended questions. In a debate with me on television, the new leader of the parliamentary Labour party spoke about questions in depth. When that happens, it will do away with the open-ended question and it will be an entirely different way to proceed. Judging by press comments on Prime Minister's questions, the new format is no better than the old one.
  On two occasions, the Procedure Committee made recommendations about the timetabling of Bills. First, it recommended a legislation business committee. When that was debated, it faced the strongest opposition from all parts of the House that I have ever known. All the Front-Bench Labour spokesmen opposed it, and there was a one-line whip. The Government payroll vote turned out in full to defeat it. I remember that because it was debated on my birthday, and it was a birthday present of no great value after a great deal of work by the Procedure Committee.
  The Committee took another sheet of paper and made further suggestions about the way that every part of legislation should be considered by Committees. There is
  918
  something wrong when only a third or even less of a Bill has been considered upstairs before returning to the House. We must find a way to overcome that. Perhaps the Leader of the House will ask the Committee that she proposes to set up to look at the final suggestion by the Procedure Committee. It set out a method by which such a problem could be dealt with in Committee by ensuring that every part of a Bill would be considered before it was reported. That is of considerable importance in improving the manner in which the House deals with legislation.
  I ask the Leader of the House to look again at the work of the European Standing Committees. The Procedure Committee originally recommended that there should be five Committees, but only two were appointed. They have not functioned well, because the amount of work that two Committees have had to do on a range of subjects has been much too much for the people who have had to serve on them. We suggested five Committees on different subjects so that we could build up expertise on tax and trade in one Committee, agriculture in another, transport and other factors in another, and so on. We could have encouraged specialists on those subjects to serve on those European Standing Committees. At present, we almost have to drag people into serving on European Standing Committees because it is such a drudge. They should be a way of using the talents of the House better than they have used before.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As someone who served in the last Parliament for five years on European Standing Committee B, I endorse what my right hon. Friend says. Does he agree that there is something rather daft about a legislative process in which we discuss draft documents before Ministers go off to debate matters in the Council of Ministers and we never receive a report so that we can give a view on whether the deal that Ministers have concluded is right or wrong for this country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we had more Committees, we could have time for a proper report from Ministers and time to cross-examine them so that they were properly brought to account on how they delivered what they told the Committee they would?
  Sir Peter Emery: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is no way of doing that if we have only two Committees, because they are permanently full of work and cannot check on what has been achieved. It would be to the benefit of the House and the country to know how the regulations were dealt with by Ministers in Europe.
  I recommend to the Leader of the House other suggestions by the Procedure Committee on the way in which European business is dealt with. We went to the extent of recommending stronger links with the European Parliament. The one way in which the House of Commons can have influence on the way in which European legislation is passed is for it to influence the European Committees which deal with it. There could be a link between our Select Committees and European Committees so that European Committees know the views of the House. That does not happen at present.
  I have suggested the appointment of—to use a European term—a rapporteur to each of the departmental Select Committees, whose job would be to be in touch with rapporteurs of similar Committees in the European Parliament so that we know what is going on. We should have a link so that we can influence their decisions at the

  919
  stage of drawing up reports, not after the rapporteur has made his report. That would give us some input into regulations that come out of Brussels such as we have never been able to achieve.
  Other recommendations of the Procedure Committee, which again have not been debated, relate to the way in which we should scrutinise statutory instruments. It is—I was going to say criminal—lax beyond belief that, in the last Session of Parliament, we saw more than 2,200 pieces of secondary legislation. We spent all our time on the 22 Bills, but 26,000 pieces of secondary legislation slipped through with hardly any consideration. We have recommended a sifting Committee which could examine secondary legislation much more closely than we have ever done before. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider that in full.
  I am a traditionalist and I do not mind admitting it, but I agree with what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said. Where the traditions of the House are useless and nonsense, let us not carry them forward. For example, do we really have to troop down to the House of Lords the first moment that a new Parliament meets for permission to elect a Speaker? Surely, as the primary Parliament of this nation, we should have the right to elect a Speaker. Then let us report to the monarch in the traditional way, and seek her approval. It is unnecessary for us to seek permission.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his argument and ask why a Government elected by the people of this country should traipse down the Corridor to listen to the Queen tell us what we are going to do?
  Sir Peter Emery: I happen to believe that some of the traditions of this country, which are admired throughout the world, attract tourism and are part of the strength and standing of Britain in the world, should be maintained. That is one, and I would not wish to see it abolished. I hope that there is some support for that position even on the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Winnick: As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament made a recommendation which the Conservative Government would not accept—that we should not ask permission to elect a Speaker. I trust that the Labour Government—more radical than the last—will implement that recommendation. The right hon. Gentleman was honest enough to say that he was a traditionalist. Should not the House be a workplace? Why the wigs, why the gowns? What purpose do they serve? Parliament is not a tourist attraction. With the greatest respect to you, Madam Speaker, when the Deputy Speakers are in the Chair they wear modern dress, and they command the same respect as the Speaker. It is not necessary to dress up just because something happened 400 or 500 years ago. There is no need for the Clerks to wear gowns.
  Sir Peter Emery: If I may say so, Madam Speaker, I do not consider the way you look in the Chair as dressing up. You bring dignity to this place, and do it with great charm.
  We must help Scottish Members in a way in which my Government did not. It is right and proper that we should arrange the summer sittings to allow Scottish Members of
  920
  Parliament to spend some time with their family before their children go back to school. If that means that the House has to come back for two weeks—say, the second and third weeks of September—to complete some business, it would not be a bad thing and would accommodate an area of the country which is pretty set upon by the timing of the sittings of the House at present.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike rose—
  Sir Peter Emery: I give way to my friend.
  Mr. Pike: Apart from Scotland, many parts of Lancashire and other parts of the country have traditional wakes weeks. Burnley's holidays, for example, are the first fortnight in July. Those parts of the country are equally affected by the problem of the timing of the summer recess.
  Sir Peter Emery: I knew that I would not have to say much about Lancashire because my hon. Friend, who has been a member of my Committee, has always stood up well and properly for the rights of Lancashire.
  Might I also suggest to the President of the Council that she should look at Command Paper 397 which sets out the work of the Procedure Committee of the previous Parliament in which a number of her hon. Friends participated? That report contains a number of extra thoughts and ideas that are worthy of consideration. I hope that the new Committee, it will not be known as the Jopling Committee, but perhaps the Taylor Committee or whatever, will give some further thought to that report.
  May I offer a revolutionary thought?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Be careful.
  Sir Peter Emery: I would like to advocate the setting up of a parliamentary television channel. I believe that there is much more interest among the public about what happens in this House than we know. I accept that it might not be possible to show the work of the Select Committees at the time that they are sitting, but reports at other times of their work would be of interest to many of our constituents. They would also be interested in this type of debate, which would attract no attention on the normal television channels.
  There is some considerable merit in us considering the establishment of a parliamentary television channel, even if it has to be managed or paid for by the House. It would be a great service to our constituents because it would enable them to see to a greater extent the work of Parliament. The broadcast of Prime Minister's Question Time gives a wrong impression of the work of the House and it would be useful if we could overcome it.
  I wish the right hon. Lady well for the Committee that she sets up. I hope that perhaps I can make some contribution to it. If it operates according to the concept of working not in a party political manner on either side but for the greater benefit of the House as a whole, it will be a success.
  8.42 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth P. Dunwoody: I had contemplated making a speech of four and a half hours on procedure, but somehow I suspect that I might

  921
  not be terribly popular. I will therefore be as brief as I can, but I believe that this happens to be one of the most important debates that we could have.
  The procedures of this place are not just a matter of arcane debate, but the methods by which we pass laws. I hope that, when we come to debate any changes, we shall seriously consider not only what has gone before but the hazards that we sometimes face in seeking to modernise without totally understanding what we are doing.
  For example, may I point out that the House actually sits fewer hours than it did before the Jopling report recommendations were accepted? It has abandoned the privilege, and an extremely hard-fought privilege, of Back-Bench Members having the right to introduce private Member's notions on a Friday and have votes on them in exchange for a number of hours of debate on a Wednesday morning. It is perfectly true that we were told, "Give up Fridays and you'll still have the same number of hours of debate," but it is also true that we do not have votes on Wednesday morning.
  Individual constituency matters may be raised on a Wednesday morning, but, because we do not have such votes on Friday, we shall no longer be able to influence legislation such as that passed previously on abortion law and homosexual reform. Many of the Bills that were introduced in the first Parliament that I enjoyed as a Member would have faced considerable difficulties if an exchange had then been made between Fridays with voting rights for Wednesday morning debates. It is important that we realise that.
  On the European Committees, it is not good enough simply to say that we should staff five more such Committees. Of course one could and one should, but Members must turn up and do the work. The House has to give those Committees the right, and not an alternative right, to bring a resolution to the Floor of the House and have it debated. At the moment, it does not matter how much work we do upstairs in those European Committees—no decision reached in Committee is brought back to the Floor of the House and voted on. No matter how strongly one may feel about any matter, that cannot influence the final result. It does not matter whether one has 10,000 connections with the European Parliament—no one will take any more notice than they do at the present time. It is important to realise that.
  Above all, I would say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should explain to people that one of the problems in the previous Parliament was its parliamentarians. We skip over that. If people sit in Committees and do not listen to what is said or take part in the amending resolutions, it does not matter how often we change where we sit or how many electronic toys we have. If that happens, it does not matter how many people we get rid of in exchange for a number of gadgets that somehow give the impression that we have been modernised. If we do not do the work, if we do not listen, participate or check what is happening at Government level as well as every other level, the House of Commons is the poorer for it.
  I must also ask my right hon. Friend to look first at the role of Government. Look at why parliamentary draftsmen are not given enough time to come up with effective and properly drafted legislation. Look at why so many Committees in the House have to deal not only with existing legislation but with a thousand amendments
  922
  tabled by Ministers who are panicked at the final moment when they discover suddenly that the legislation says something different from what they expected it to say.
  Those are important matters, and they will not be altered by saying to people they now have all sorts of new toys that they did not have before and that therefore they must have better control over the legislature. That is not what happens. Back Benchers have to look at everything that happens. They have to read it, and they must be very careful about understanding what it says. That must be done irrespective of the Government who are in power.
  The House is very well served by servants of all types at every level. The people who service the House day by day in all its Departments are of an astonishingly high standard. We must stop treating them as though they were pawns to be moved around a chessboard without consultation, without understanding their problems and without allowing them a response. We must not think that it does not matter if we decide to do different hours and introduce different arrangements. We must not think that that is of no importance to the people who work here and who, after all, enjoy a lower level of consultation than we would accept in the worst sweatshop factory anywhere in our own constituencies. I find that offensive and unacceptable. I will not sit quietly by and see that happen.
  I hope that it will be accepted by the House that even those of us who seem to be subject to the agist attack that we have been here a long time may have the odd word to say. We may not get in very often and we may take up rather more time than some of our colleagues would like, but we will have things to say about the procedures of the House of Commons because those very procedures, those Standing Orders—those very things that people do not read—are important. That failure to read means that some do not understand that sitting in a Committee does not mean just getting up and reading out a brief from a pressure group. It is not a matter of appearing whenever it suits someone, without considering in detail what is in front of him or her. It means doing a lot of work and considering the implications, and certainly the effects, of what we are doing.
  Let me tell my right hon. Friend that some of us crusty, ancient, unhelpful Members, anti-social as we may be, will be around to make sure that the House of Commons still preserves the rights of Back Benchers.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), because I agree with every word she said. I hope to be able to pick up on one or two of the points that she made.
  I agree with the hon. Lady about the role of private Members. I first came to the House in 1974. Perhaps I should explain to some hon. Members who might not be aware of it that I am the prize retread, because I was kicked out again and earned my living with a real job for 18 years before I came back in 1992. I agree with the hon. Lady that in that period there has been a diminution in the way in which the private Member can produce substantial and important legislation and take it through the House.
  The role of the private Member's Bill must be re-examined with considerable urgency. Although I very much welcome what the Leader of the House has said this

  923
  evening and the intentions that she has expressed, it is an area about which hon. Members on both sides of the House share some concern. We seem to have pushed all those Bills into Fridays, when Government Whips can dispose of them all too easily when the shutters fall.
  In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, my suggestion is that, instead of Wednesday mornings being taken up with constituency and other matters on which there are no votes—and which I know, from having participated, are good debates but with just a limited number of hon. Members involved—they should be used for private Member's Bills, when we are all here and can vote substantially on substantial issues.
  The matters now taken on Wednesday mornings could be moved to Monday mornings. Those of us who want to raise particular questions, particular constituency interests or participate in a wider-ranging debate involving a small number of Members could attend on a Monday morning. We could get through such business on a Monday morning effectively and without the need for votes. It is a simple, practical suggestion which I offer to the Leader of the House.
  The right hon. Lady has come to the House openly and honestly today. On behalf of the Government, she has said that it is a moment in time when this great institution should look at the way in which it operates to see whether we can measure up to our great history and our great potential. In that context, I looked up Edmund Burke, which is always useful:
  "Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole."
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich echoed that. We are a deliberative Assembly. Parliament has a glorious past; it is a glorious beast—but it is glorious because it has managed to move with the times, not because it has become stuck in a particular era. It is perfectly true that we have moved in technology, in economy and in culture, but we have not moved as fast or as far as the body politic. Surely that must be the question now hanging over the institution of Parliament.
  During recent weeks, we have heard a great deal about the sovereignty of Parliament. The sovereignty of Parliament is far more at risk from getting out of step with the general body politic of the United Kingdom than it would ever be from threats from Brussels or anywhere else. The pace of progress has been far faster outside this place than it has been inside it. I ask the Leader of the House to look carefully at the way in which the House will have to change to reflect the situation in the world outside.
  We are no longer a two-party state. To a considerable extent, we are still a two-party Parliament, but ever since the 1950s the majority of people in this country have not voted for the Government; they have not even necessarily voted for the two main parties in many parts of the country. During the past few days, I have been amused to see Conservative Members popping up like jacks-in-the-box complaining that the Government do not have a mandate because they got the support of only 43 per cent. of those who voted. I do not
  924
  remember hearing them complaining when the Thatcher Governments were elected on similar proportions but did not have a mandate.
  Just this morning, the newly elected chairman of the 1922 Committee made such a complaint. I welcome him to the ranks of those who support electoral reform, although I am not sure whether it will be of much help to the cause to have his support.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said in a notable, passionate maiden speech, the people of Cornwall managed to become the first Celtic country to be a Tory-free zone. We were followed later by Wales and Scotland. Now, members of the Conservative party in those areas are complaining that they have no influence over the election of the next Leader of the Opposition. I have news for them—whoever it is will not be Leader of the Opposition for long, because we shall take over the opposition role. In the meantime, it is an obvious absurdity that we have an electoral system in which a substantial number of votes in the Celtic countries are not reflected in the House. That is also true across the country. Until 1 May, large areas of the country were not represented in this place if people happened to vote for the Labour party. That cannot be right.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they will move forward and look at the whole question of the status of this elected Assembly, how it operates and how representative it is. The Home Secretary's statement in the debate on Monday—that there will be rapid progress on an electoral commission and that its remit and membership will be decided before the summer recess—is a great step forward.
  I am a beneficiary of the first-past-the-post system. When I first came to this House, I had a majority of nine, after six recounts. On the morning of 2 May, my majority had risen to almost 14,000. Therefore, I do not complain out of self-interest. The British people have a right to complain that they are not getting the elected Assembly to which they are entitled, and that we come here with a damaged mandate.
  Of course, the symbolism is attractive to tourists, but for goodness sake let us not worry about whether the Clerks wear wigs or whether we have to walk up and down a Corridor—that is peripheral; that is a triviality. The key issue is whether we are doing our job properly.
  The trenchant contributions, from both sides of the House, on the extent to which we are currently scrutinising European legislation are extremely important. I sat on the Procedure Committee and we did some work on that matter. I am staggered by the weight of work load suffered by some of our colleagues on Committees. It cannot go on, because our constituents are getting a bad bargain as a result.
  I very much welcomed the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I thought his expert contribution to our discussion about how we timetable the taxation and expenditure plans of the nation was absolutely right. We should consider that matter carefully.
  The very shape of this place must be considered carefully. On a previous occasion, I opened a debate, on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, and pointed out that, were it not for the historical accident that Edward VI had a redundant chapel available for the House of Commons of the day to sit in, we would not have the

  925
  absurd adversarial system we have in this place. Similarly, if the French had not had the redundant royal tennis court, they might have ended up like us and we might have ended up like them. The Americans would have followed suit.
  We have to think carefully about how this place operates. It is absurd that so many Labour Members are trying to get on to the Labour Benches—and not just absurd, but uncomfortable. We must find a way of utilising the Cross Benches: bring in the carpenters and make this not only a better representative Assembly, but one in which we can operate to more effect.
  What about the usual channels? As Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, I am a new, third major channel in this place. However, on behalf of Back Benchers and the minority parties, I have to say that the usual channels are a great mystery. I am sure that we could bring more out into the open and that more could be done in the new triangle between the three parties. We must ensure that Back Benchers and the minority parties have the opportunity to affect that situation. The tripartite arrangement is a step in the right direction, but it is not sufficient.
  I am sure that we shall have to find ways to relieve the Speaker and Deputy Speakers of the difficult job that they have to do in making the arithmetical assessments across the Floor of the House in every debate as they try to work out who should speak, how and when. It is an unfair burden to place on the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, and we should not expect them to perform those gymnastics. We must look again at the Standing Orders. Perhaps we can learn something from the other place, where a simple system seems to work well.
  All those issues are matters for the whole House. While it is important that the new Committee should have as wide a remit as possible, it would be wrong to ask its members to go into such detail, over such a length of time, that no progress was made in the House. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that the new Committee could make proposals, as the Procedure Committee has previously, but not attempt to make a wide range of recommendations on every issue. It is particularly important to address the concerns of current Back Benchers, a great many of whom would otherwise feel frozen out of the true business of Parliament.
  In a document entitled "A Parliament for the People", my party produced an extensive report on some detailed issues. The group was chaired by a distinguished former servant of the House, the former Clerk, Mr. Michael Ryle, and the proposals in the document have been well thought through. I hope that, by handing it over to the new Committee, we can ensure that all the minor, but important, matters are carefully considered.
  It would be easy to get bogged down in the trivialities of who knocks on which door and what they wear, but our constituents deserve better. It is significant that the Press Gallery is almost empty; it is a sad reflection of the media's interest in the way this place works. We have to look to ourselves to improve it and to ensure that the media—and through them, the public—recognise that this is a great institution with a great role to play.
  9 pm
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech when you, Madam Speaker, are in the Chair, given your other role as chancellor of the Open university, which is one of Milton Keynes's greatest exports.
  926
  I should like to start my parliamentary career in a relatively traditional way and speak of my predecessors who have represented the seat successively known as Buckingham, Milton Keynes and, since 1992, Milton Keynes, South-West. As well as being constituency Members of Parliament of merit, they have had unusual careers.
  Two of my predecessors changed political parties. Aidan Crawley was elected as the first Labour Member of Parliament for Buckingham in 1945. He lost the seat and was elected elsewhere as a Conservative Member of Parliament. Sir Frank Markham, having been a Labour Member of Parliament and a parliamentary private secretary to Ramsay MacDonald, was elected as Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham. He is well known in the locality: not only was a school named after him, but he wrote a seminal work, a history of Milton Keynes, which I commend to hon. Members.
  Two of my other predecessors gained notoriety owing to allegations of financial and/or electoral irregularity: Robert Maxwell and my immediate predecessor, Barry Legg. I pay tribute to Mr. Legg for his work on the Treasury Select Committee and for introducing a private Member's Bill on the control of drugs in nightclubs just before the last election.
  My other predecessor, Bill Benyon, was the Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham from 1970–83 and the first Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes, from 1983–92. He is a particularly apt role model to cite in today's debate. He was an excellent constituency Member of Parliament and, when announcing in 1992 that he would not stand again after 22 years of service, he said:
  "I am very disillusioned. One of my interests in Parliament was trying to reform its archaic procedures."
  I hope that, in my time as the Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes, South-West, we shall succeed in reforming the archaic procedures of Parliament and that I can therefore be a worthy successor to Bill Benyon.
  My constituency is one half of the city of Milton Keynes. It combines the older centres of Stony Stratford, Wolverton and Bletchley with the much newer communities of Loughton and Woughton. The importance of excellent transport links to Milton Keynes is emphasised by the fact that there are four railway stations in my constituency, not all of which I use all the time.
  As a scientist, I am proud of the importance of science, engineering and technology to industrial innovation in Milton Keynes. Wolverton is the home of the railway engineering works where the royal train used to be kept. Bletchley is famous for Bletchley Park where, during the second world war, the Enigma codes were broken using Colossus, the world's first computer, which fills a room about half the size of the Chamber. I am hopeful that under this Government Bletchley Park will succeed in its lottery bid to fund the museum and employment scheme at that important historic site.
  Milton Keynes is a unique place: it is the only new city in the United Kingdom and is built, as those hon. Members who have visited it will know, on an American grid system with extensive environmental landscaping. It has a young population and is an optimistic and forward-looking place. Most of the residents have positively chosen to live there, in the expectation that their lives would be made better. Milton Keynes was, to some extent, failed by the previous Government in that its

  927
  growth should have been complete by now. It should have a population of 250,000, but actually has fewer than 200,000, and 17 per cent. of the land is undeveloped.
  My constituents and those in the other half of Milton Keynes are looking to Labour's policies to provide the environment in which Milton Keynes can develop, in particular to give us the stability and the investment in education and training on which our business growth depends. Businesses in Milton Keynes have frequently told me that their growth is held back by skills shortages, yet, at the same time, 3,000 school leavers come on to the job market every year in Milton Keynes and there are 800 unemployed under-25s. I hope that Labour's policies will bring those two problems together and will give our young people the opportunity to participate in the city's growth while allowing businesses to fuel further growth.
  As befits a new city, the people of Milton Keynes take a fresh approach to problem solving—they are not hidebound by tradition—and I shall cite two examples. First, our businesses have joined the chamber of commerce with the training and enterprise council and the representatives of business on that chamber are elected by businesses in Milton Keynes. The unitary council in Milton Keynes and the chamber work closely together and are jointly committed both to economic development and to combating inequality. Businesses in Milton Keynes understand that only an inclusive society that uses the talents of everyone can provide an environment in which business can flourish.
  The second example is in education: all the secondary schools in Milton Keynes, whether grant maintained or not, work together co-operatively. That might have something to do with the fact that the city's grant-maintained schools went grant-maintained so as to remain comprehensive schools and to avoid being forced to become selective by the county council, which then controlled them.
  My electors voted for me because they wanted me to be part of a parliamentary Labour party that delivered on Labour's promises, as well as wanting me to represent their interests. They expect parliamentary procedures to facilitate the process of government and the implementation of the Government's programme, while including the proper safeguards for the Opposition to scrutinise that legislation. From speaking to my constituents on their doorsteps, I know that they are not always impressed by what they see on television or by some of the legislation that has emerged from Parliament. The obvious recent example of the latter was the legislation that gave us the Child Support Agency which, within a couple of days of my election, was furnishing the vast majority of the complaints that I received from constituents.
  Another reason I have for stating why I think the procedures of the House need amending has to do with the sort of people who seek election as Members of Parliament. A good feature of this Parliament is that it is somewhat more representative of the population at large than previous Parliaments—obviously, I am referring to the number of women Members—but it is still not very representative of the population at large in terms of gender, ethnicity, social class or life experience. Many people are put off even thinking about becoming Members of Parliament because of the procedures of this place, so that is another good reason for changing them.
  928
  At risk of being controversial, which I know I am not supposed to do in my maiden speech, I have to say that I do not find the adversarial atmosphere of the House to be particularly helpful or conducive to constructive debate. We need to consider changing the way in which the House operates. In addition to suggestions made by hon. Members who have already spoken, I suggest that some sort of time limit on speeches might be quite helpful. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we should consider the physical arrangements of the House. It is ridiculous that Labour Members cannot sit on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway without people starting to think that, emulating my two predecessors, they have changed party.
  I commend to the House the attitude of the people in Milton Keynes: that we should concentrate on how best to achieve the desired outcome and that we should be prepared to think anew without being bound by tradition. I hope that the House will do it in a shorter time than 22 years.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Procedure is an arcane topic. In a venerable institution such as the House of Commons, it is liable to be taken for granted, with only a small group of procedural experts refining the details of ancient custom and practice while the rest of us get on with what we want to do under the rules as we find them.
  The danger in that is that our House of Commons will fail to move with the times. Like the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), whom I congratulate on her elegant maiden speech, I am not a procedural expert, but I envisage three dangers in the discussions.
  One danger is that, in our self-satisfaction with our 700 years of history, broadening down from precedent to precedent, we shall fail to pay regard to the way in which bodies like ours function elsewhere—sometimes better than we do. Another is that we shall tend to regard small innovations as huge breakthroughs, which is how I would characterise the establishment view of the Select Committees. The third danger is that we shall tend to make the changes that we do make in a such a piecemeal fashion that the ramifications and interactions of those changes are never fully worked out in advance.
  For those reasons, I enthusiastically support the Government's proposal for a new Select Committee on Procedure. Such a Committee could and should help us to overcome the dangers that I have mentioned. It goes without saying that the Government must carry all parties in the House with them in the reform of its procedures; but the huge majority that the Government currently have gives them an historic opportunity and a major incentive to undertake extensive procedural developments.
  The opportunity lies in the fact that the Government have such a big majority that they can afford to create new procedures, offering a chance of genuine pluralism in our debates and decision making. The incentive is that, if they fail to do so, they will soon encounter serious demoralisation—and worse—on their Back Benches.
  I suppose that most new Labour Members, like Conservative Members, have entered Parliament, not only determined to give of their best in the public service, but wholly persuaded that theirs will be more than a full-time job. It remains to be seen how they will feel when they

  929
  discover the facts of life under our existing procedures. They will be lucky to catch Madam Speaker's eye more than once a month or so at Question Time, and perhaps once every six months for a debate in the Chamber, with an audience of about 10 colleagues.
  They will not be selected to serve on the Standing Committees of Bills in respect of which their expertise makes them too keen to serve, and when they are summoned to Standing Committee duty they will be told by their Whips that speeches are unwelcome—that has been mentioned several times tonight—so it will be a good opportunity for them to catch up with constituency correspondence.
  If they happen to be one of the minority summoned to serve on a Select Committee—probably one on a subject on which they are not too conveniently well-informed—they will find that it takes months for the Government to respond to their reports, and that when they do, they show scant regard for their labours.
  Perhaps I have been exaggerating for effect, but Members who have been in the House for some time know that there is a large measure of truth in the sombre picture that I have painted. What should we do about it?
  I shall make a concrete proposal in a moment, but to lead into it, let me return to what I said about piecemeal changes whose full ramifications are not thought through.
  The starting point of all our procedural debates should be the so-called Jopling reforms of the last Parliament, which have been mentioned. These welcome changes reflected the reality that hon. Members were no longer willing to sustain the pretence that open-ended debates and the archaic ritual of the all-night sitting offered effective parliamentary control over the Executive.
  The truth is that the Jopling reforms went only half the distance. They dismantled one admittedly obsolete system of parliamentary influence—that which was based on the struggle for parliamentary time—but failed to erect an alternative system. The net effect is that Parliament is now even weaker vis-a-vis the Executive than before. The challenge to us in this Parliament is surely to build that alternative system for which Jopling created the space.
  I urge the House to take to heart the other dangers that I have mentioned in our time-honoured approach to procedural reform: our complacency about the way in which other Parliaments—I have heard them referred to here as lesser Parliaments—work. I believe that we have much to learn from them. In a modern legislature, the main source of parliamentary influence over the Executive is to be found in the structures of institutionalised pluralism and a diversity of centres of influence which have to be negotiated with and operated by a well-informed and professionally disciplined cadre of Members. The best way to ensure that—as we can see by looking at Parliaments on the continent of Europe, in the United States and in the Commonwealth—is to rebuild our parliamentary life around an array of powerful subject-specialist committees.
  My proposal, accordingly, is that we do away with the existing Standing Committees and Select Committees. Our Standing Committees are constituted ad hoc for particular legislation so that there is no continuity of membership or accumulation of expertise in them. Their membership is determined in reality by agents of the Executive in the Whips Office. Their Chairmen are limited to a purely procedural role which denies them any influence over policy.
  930
  Our Select Committees, meanwhile, do not compensate for these deficiencies. Their membership is once again controlled by the Whips and, more fundamentally, their arduous investigations are wholly disconnected from the legislative process, so that they have no levers with which to give practical effect to such expertise as they may develop. To replace these arrangements, we need a new unified Committee structure—a system of specialist Committees, each with its own subject area. By the way, these should not be limited to particular Departments of the Government.
  The Committees should be constituted at the beginning of each Parliament, and every Member of Parliament who is not a member of the Government should be a member of at least one of those Committees. Their composition must reflect the balance of the House, but although the Whips will have a hand in deciding who goes where, their influence will be much diminished by the fact that all Members must be found a place. Each Committee should choose its own Chairman and Vice-Chairman to serve for at least two years under an overall agreement, giving a fair share of these positions to each party.
  The task of these specialist Committees should include the conduct of investigations into whatever area of policy they choose within their remit—that is the function of the existing Select Committees. They should include also the detailed scrutiny of all legislation—primary and secondary, national and European—falling within their remit. That is the function of the present Standing Committees.
  In both functions—the investigative and the legislative—they should be led not by Ministers, but by hon. Members of whatever party who are chosen by the Committee to serve as rapporteurs on a particular subject or a particular Bill. Rapporteurs should assist in another function that I see the new Committees performing—scrutinising expenditure on policies within their field of reference. That is a task that—with all respect to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—I believe the existing Public Accounts Committee does not have the subject-based expertise to perform.
  The arrangements that I am suggesting would give every Back Bencher a serious job to do and would ensure that Members were much better informed and up to date in their knowledge than they can hope to be under our present system. They would create in the institutional esprit de corps of each Committee and in the persons of its Chairman, Vice-Chairman and rapporteur the genuinely pluralistic network of diffused centres of influence which is the only viable basis for an effective modern legislature.
  In concluding, let me briefly address two words to Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House about the implications for them of the radical procedural change that I suggest. To my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, let me freely admit that my suggestion will make it much more difficult to pursue the traditional line that the Opposition's duty is to oppose. Is it not time to recognise not only that that approach has always been something of a myth, but that it is now a wholly discredited myth in the public mind? An increasingly well-informed public look to us for constructive debate and a focus on the detailed improvement of legislation and its implementation, not for the impotent posturing that our traditional structures encourage.

  931
  To right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench, let me say that my proposal may look like a great renunciation of Executive power—the Government's power always to get their way in the House of Commons without negotiation. That would indeed be so, but the prize for the Executive is worth it. The prize will be Government legislation that reflects a more genuine and solidly based consent than it enjoys at present—legislation that enjoys the reinforced legitimacy that can come only from a Parliament that is seen to work in ways that command the public's respect.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) in his interesting and radical suggestions, which I hope the Committee will study in detail, but shall follow up the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). I hope that she and all the other new Back Benchers find the same joy and fulfilment as I have found as a Back Bencher by choice over the past seven years. Sadly, they might be Back Benchers by the arithmetic of this place.
  My hon. Friend illustrated two main changes in this place. She speaks as a scientist, and the House has had a tradition of being scarcely scientifically literate. If we can get our decisions on to a basis of scientific reasoning, it would be a major leap forward.
  She made another profound point. When I was a junior Back-Bench spokesman, I served with a senior Front-Bench spokesman who was a man, and then with two senior Front-Bench spokesmen who were women. There was an enormous difference between those two roles. With the male senior spokesman, our role was confrontational and challenging. We debated for hours, sometimes all through the night, but achieved very little. With the women spokesmen, there was reasoning between the two sides. We identified crucial areas and discussed them at a time of day when we were not exhausted. The influx of more than 100 women Members of Parliament will change this place utterly.
  We take great pride in the mother of Parliaments but, as many hon. Members have said, Parliament's image outside is quite different. People regard the mother of Parliaments as becoming debauched by corruption, which is greatly exaggerated, and growing a little senile. We must look to those barriers and to our understanding of the work of this place.
  The reason for early-day motion No. 5, which suggested something entirely new, is that hon. Members with declarable financial interests should not serve on Committees that cover that area. There is a good reason for that. If we look critically at how Select Committees have worked, many, such as the one mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the distinguished Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, have served us extremely well.
  Others have not. They have divided regularly on party political lines in every report. Their reports do not have the respect of the House or the country. Others have divided on vested interests. I shall not mention those vested interests but, if half the Committee has financial interests in MegaGreed plc and the other half has vested
  932
  interests in the Coathangers Union, the two sides clash and objective reasoning has no chance of dominating and determining the outcome of the Committee. It just depends on the strength of the two vested interests.
  In this brief contribution, I shall point to some of the ways in which I think we should go forward. Some have been mentioned, and I will not repeat them.
  We must look critically at the work of all the Select Committees. Often, they under-achieve. Our cross-examination of witnesses is not as professional and as hard as it should be. For a great deal of time, we are not doing detailed work on the Committee. Select Committees are often dominated by advisers and others, rather than by Members. There is a huge area in which that valuable work can be enlarged.
  The Standing Committees are an ossified foolishness. I was delighted by what the hon. Member for Wantage said. We must look at them in a new way. I went through those two Committee reports in great detail with a person who wrote a book about the way in which we run our Committees.
  I do not think that anyone now admits to serving on the Committee that considered the Bill establishing the Child Support Agency, because of the results of it. The problem was not that members of the Committee did not foresee difficulties arising from that legislation, but that they focused on the wrong ones—on problems that did materialise, but the enormous problems that emerged were not considered by the Committee.
  We must re-examine that and various other Bills. We have all experienced the terrible frustration of serving on Committees, tabling amendments, arguing for hour after hour and finding nothing was accepted.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of the Child Support Agency, and he referred to it earlier in an intervention as an example of confrontation. I, too, looked at the proceedings because, like everyone else, I have been struck by the amazing number of complaints that have been generated. Actually, it was an extremely consensual process in the Standing Committee. That is a jolly good example of the way in which the consensual process can go wrong, but the real moral of that story is that the Bill should have been put through a process of examination by experts and discussion with witnesses. That would have produced the kind of evidence that would have enabled a serious discussion to take place in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Flynn: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the matter should have been approached in a different way.
  I shall make two final points, as I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. We must enlarge the great work carried out by the Public Accounts Committee. It does a marvellous job, but covers only a tiny part—perhaps one seventieth—of the work that should be covered. Rather than a sub-committee structure, I would prefer a subject-matter structure. There are enormous opportunities for Back Benchers to do serious, worthwhile work.
  We must rediscover the traditional role of Back Benchers—the Sydney Silvermans, the Leo Abses—who challenged conventional bigotry and ignorance. We have seen the tabloidisation of politics, where political parties

  933
  have been far too interested in pleasing the writers of editorials in the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail, instead of creating genuinely innovative policies. Those policies will come from the Back Benches. We must rediscover that role by allowing genuine chances for Back Benchers to get their own legislation through.
  I am sure that this will be a great Parliament—a Parliament different from any in our history, that will achieve great reforms. We must ensure that by reinforcing the role of the Back Benchers and by blazing new trails.
  9.27 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I should like to recommend some practical ideas to the Leader of the House from the perspective especially of newcomers to the House. We can all remember when we were newcomers. I should like her to pay particular attention to some kind of induction course or training course for newcomers. Many new Members wander round this place for months, if not years, not knowing what goes on and not understanding the jargon used in the Chamber.
  This evening, for example, SO 20s were mentioned by a distinguished Member, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has been here many years and has, no doubt, introduced many SO 20s, whatever they are—I do not know what they are, even now. It would be enormously helpful for new Members to understand such things.
  Many hon. Members do not even understand how to gets their name called in the Chamber. Some who may not have been paying a great deal of attention to the debate but perhaps watching the Chair may have seen me sidle up to the Speaker a little while ago. I was trying to discover whether it was worth my while staying in the Chamber till the end of this extremely interesting debate and whether I was likely to be called. Madam Speaker rightly pointed out to me that I had not submitted my name in advance.
  Madam Speaker: Then Madam Speaker said, "Go and sit down and wait your turn."
  Mrs. Gorman: Madam Speaker was quite correct—I was about to come to that point. New Members of Parliament may not know that: they may sit in their places for many hours without being called because they are not aware of that simple protocol.
  As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, newcomers have a great deal to contribute to Parliament, but preference is given to seniority in debates, so new Members may not be called to speak. I remember sitting through five days of Budget debate without being called. That was very frustrating. Although it is natural that seniority should command respect, I have pointed out to the Speaker that Privy Councillors and Chairmen of Committees are called to speak in the House more often, which means that Back Benchers have fewer opportunities to speak. Madam Speaker referred me to the Leader of the House—then Tony Newton—who assured me that he did not necessarily want senior Members of Parliament to have special privileges. There was some difference of opinion about the issue.
  New Members of Parliament do not know about those little dodges. In my house, I have a very helpful booklet on "household tips and wrinkles". I think that a House of Commons book of "tips and wrinkles" might help many newcomers.
  934
  I nipped out of the Chamber a little while ago. When I popped back in, I saw that Madam Speaker had noted my absence. I do not know why she thought I left the Chamber, but I went to get a list of Members. I knew that, if I were called to speak, I might want to refer to an hon. Member in the Chamber and it is the tradition to refer to hon. Members by their constituencies. The Leader of the House raised that issue briefly, and I have great sympathy for her point of view.
  Although I know the name of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I am not allowed to call him by name; I must refer to his constituency. I know that there are good reasons for that practice, but it causes confusion for hon. Members who wish to speak spontaneously while referring to other hon. Members and addressing their points of view. I urge the right hon. Lady not to be dissuaded from examining that matter. When there are many Members of Parliament, not just new Members but long-standing Members can take a long time to learn all the constituency names.
  The Prime Minister said that Members of Parliament are the servants, not the masters, of the people. There is a tendency for hon. Members to employ friends or family members in their offices. When considering disposing of their office allowances, hon. Members should bear in mind that their decision may cause comment. Remarks have been made in the past about nepotism in the system, which may be inappropriate and is sometimes picked up by our electors.
  Nepotism is a disease that goes hand in hand with privilege. There was a classic local council case recently—in Monklands—when 32 members of the same family were employed by that council. That example was raised many times in the House. I would prefer to see Parliament not choosing the individuals, but arranging for secretaries and other staff and allotting their salaries. That would alleviate any charges of nepotism, in which hon. Members have the opportunity to indulge in this place.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In a sense, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) gave the message away. It was apparent that she was keen to enter the Chamber to speak, but not to listen. That is one of the fundamental problems in this place. Too many hon. Members want to make their speeches but not to listen to others. If that is all that we want to do, why do we not all line up and make our speeches simultaneously? It is crucial that we listen to other hon. Members' speeches. It was a privilege to be in the Chamber to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). She made an excellent speech and I look forward to hearing her on many more occasions.
  I wish that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had started her speech by placing rather more emphasis on good scrutiny of legislation. There are some who suspect that the Government want to get their business through more quickly than has happened hitherto. If we are to have better scrutiny, it must be accepted that that will make life harder for Ministers, and especially hard for Government Whips. The long-term gain will be evident a considerable time later when we are seen to put better legislation on the statute book and conduct better government.
  I press it upon my right hon. Friend that, when we change our formal procedures, we must also consider the informal. No doubt most people will judge the changes to

  935
  Prime Minister's Question Time by what happens in the Chamber. I suggest that we should consider also what happens outside. Does the change to Prime Minister's questions means that fewer Ministers will come to the House on Tuesdays and Thursdays so that they might be lobbied by their colleagues and others? Let us balance the formal by considering also the informal.
  I shall present briefly a shopping list of the things that I would like at least to be considered. First, there are constitutional matters. It is a bit of a cheek for the Opposition to get hot and bothered about constitutional matters being taken on the Floor of the House after they, while in government, pushed through the poll tax, which in many ways denied many people their right to vote. That legislation was, of course, considered in Committee.
  If the Opposition want constitutional matters to be considered on the Floor of the House, it would be sensible to consider sitting on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. The Wednesday experiment has proved that that can be done. The argument against Wednesday sittings was that we might have votes, which would make life difficult for Ministers and for part-time Members. Probably even the Conservative party cannot afford now to have part-timers. I think that almost all my right hon. and hon. Friends gave a clear commitment during the election campaign that they would be full-time Members.
  We can make use of the mornings and I think that we can have Divisions during those sittings. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that one concession reached in establishing Wednesday morning sittings was that Back-Bench Members would not move motions. I think that that right should be restored at the earliest opportunity so that we can have the ensuing debates on a Wednesday morning or at some other time.
  It is important that there is interchange during debates on the Floor of the House. If there is to be an interchange, there must be interventions. I approve of the 10-minute rule, which is designed to reduce the length of speeches, but I plead with you, Madam Speaker, to consider whether we can have injury time for interventions. That allowance was recommended by the Procedure Committee. It would bring back the idea of debate and make it clear that we do not just sit in our places doing nothing but can be involved in interruptions that are of some use.
  It is important that we establish some ad hoc Select Committees. I plead for some regional Select Committees. We shall be giving new powers to regional Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, and surely the English regions have rights as well. The establishment of Select Committees to reflect the English regions would be extremely useful.
  I hope that there will be many more opportunities to scrutinise proposed legislation. It is important that a Select Committee should be able to examine a Bill before its parliamentary passage begins. Consideration on Report has become a farce. There is a mixture of major issues and detailed Government amendments. Those amendments should be considered on recommittal.
  A substantial agenda needs to be considered. I hope that the House will act quickly in setting up the proposed Committee. I hope also that the Committee will work quickly and that, by this time next year, we shall see the fruits of its labour.
  9.39 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Owing to your good offices, Madam Speaker, and that of the Leader of the House and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), it has been decided that there will not be winding-up speeches from Front Benchers—rather, that two Back Benchers will have the opportunity to say a few words. I hope that that is a happy precedent.
  I add my tributes to those already paid to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who made a most eloquent and interesting contribution. I could not pretend to agree with everything that she said, and I would just urge a little caution in wanting to change too much too quickly, but by the same token it is helpful for those of us who have been here a long time to hear the perceptive comments of a highly intelligent newcomer who has obviously taken a lot of trouble to try to size the place up. I am sure that we will hear much more from her. It would be admirable if she, or one or two newer Members, had the opportunity to participate in the Committee that the House will shortly set up.
  The Leader of the House is, perhaps, braver than she realises, because at the heart of the debate is the classic dichotomy: we do not have a separation of powers. Many of the Parliaments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) referred in his interesting speech have a separation of powers, where the Executive is not drawn from the legislature. I know that there are some that do not—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Briefly.
  Mr. Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but that simply is not the case. He is thinking of the United States, but the Federal Republic of Germany, a number of continental countries and Commonwealth countries have systems very similar to ours, and their Parliaments operate more effectively, I believe, because they are committee-based, in the way that I suggested
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, indeed. There are some Parliaments like ours, but equally there are a number that have a separation of powers. It is not just the United States where that exists.
  When I talk about the essential dichotomy, I mean that the right hon. Lady, in her capacity as a leading Member of the Government, is understandably anxious to get Government business through—she is anxious that there should be many Bills, to which Labour referred in its election manifesto and to which it feels morally committed—but to get business through and to have it properly scrutinised, which is the keynote in this debate, is a problem.
  The right hon. Lady has the luxury of an enormous majority. Many hon. Members who have come into the House for the first time will not have the opportunity in the lifetime of this Parliament to have Government office, or even properly to aspire to it. We should remember that being in the House is itself sufficient of a challenge and reward. It is a great pity to come into the House with a mental picture of a chauffeur-driven Montego, a Dispatch Box, or whatever.

  937
  For us to be here, to take part in the debates, to scrutinise and to subject the Government to detailed examination is in itself a great task. That is why our constituents have sent us here. We should seek so to change our procedures that it is easier properly to scrutinise the legislation that the Government produce. That is the object of Parliament. Parliament does not govern; it scrutinises legislation.
  I warmly welcome everything that the right hon. Lady said about Special Standing Committees and the opportunity to see draft legislation. In an earlier intervention, when she was gracious enough to give way, I referred to my experience as a Chairman of Committees. I have had the honour of chairing many Standing Committees. It is a fascinating task and one that I greatly enjoy, but I am bound to say that I frequently sit in the Chair and feel very frustrated indeed. As was rightly said, the Chairman can play no part in the deliberations. He just sits there and is all too conscious that, time after time, almost no Government Back Bencher gets up and says anything at all.
  That is not a criticism of my party, so recently in government. I was here in 1970. I sat on Committees when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—the Father of the House—Lord Wilson and Lord Callaghan were Prime Ministers, and it was always the same. The Government were so anxious to get their legislation through that the Whips told the Government Back Benchers on Committees that their job was to keep their heads down. Only occasionally is there a Committee where that is not the norm.
  I hope that the new procedural Committee which is to be set up will look with enormous care and diligence at how we can so timetable Bills as to change that system. Every Government Back Bencher in this Parliament who is appointed to a Committee should feel free to take part in debates. The luxury of the Labour party's large majority should allow the Leader of the House and her colleagues in the Whips Office to be rather more flexible and to allow a little dissent. There is nothing healthier than dissent. Infallibility is not automatically conferred on Governments.
  I have frequently, and to my cost, because I have never made a speech from either Dispatch Box, sought to take issue with my Government. The poll tax legislation has been referred to during the evening. I did not cast one vote in its favour. Indeed, I voted against it on every conceivable occasion.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I am sorry, I do not have much time.
  I hope that Government Back Benchers will take that as an example and feel free properly to scrutinise and criticise the legislation before them.
  Select Committees do extremely valuable work, but it would be enormously to the advantage of Parliament if every major Select Committee report had to be at least briefly debated on the Floor during a parliamentary year. Great work is put into those Committees. Sometimes their findings are of enormous importance, yet the rest of the House has little or no opportunity to deliberate on their findings. We should consider setting aside more days to debate Select Committee reports. If that restricts the amount of legislation, that in itself would be a good thing,
  938
  because too much legislation inevitably means that there is sloppily drafted legislation and more danger of bad legislation.
  I should like to think that, in our joint desire to see the Chamber more populated more often, we might consider so organising the Committee system that we have perhaps one day when Committees have priority and the Chamber meets just briefly in the afternoon. That might free hon. Members to be in the Chamber more on other occasions. This should be the of the nation, where hon. Members feel that they have a prime duty to be in attendance.
  I was much taken by the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, when he talked about the count. Perhaps that is something that we should consider bringing back. We should also consider stricter enforcement of the convention of a discipline whereby, if an hon. Member is to take part in a debate, he or she is present virtually throughout it. That would help enormously because it would encourage true debating. Hon. Members would be here, they would listen and they would be able to take part. I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point about injury time, because the cut and thrust of debate is of its very essence.
  I am conscious that I must give the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) at least as much time as I have had, so I conclude by saying that I hope that the Leader of the House will give careful thought to the structure not only of the parliamentary week but of the parliamentary year. I realise that it would probably be difficult to effect much of a change this year, but I hope that next year there will be change. I hope that, in the autumn, the right hon. Lady will, in effect, give us a parliamentary calendar for the year.
  Of course, it would have to be subject to change in an emergency. During the time I have been in the House, Parliament has been recalled several times. It is absolutely right that it should be recalled on occasions such as the Gulf war, the Falklands conflict and major crises in Northern Ireland. Every Government must have the right to do that, but I should like a more structured parliamentary year.
  We have heard some excellent contributions in this debate, especially from such experienced and eloquent Members as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). I hope that new Members who have been present will feel that this place is a worthwhile institution. We must all play our part in seeking to improve its procedures. Making haste slowly although determinedly—we should be determined to make the place better—should perhaps be our motto, rather than rushing into reforms that we later have cause to regret.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: This Parliament has a wonderful window of opportunity radically to reform the House of Commons—something for which many of us have fought for, year after year. We start from the position that the House of Commons, throughout the centuries, has been the model for Parliaments around the world, yet, sadly and tragically, in the past 80 years or so we have reformed it too little and

  939
  too late. Now we have another opportunity. What encourages me so much is not only the way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House addresses this issue, but the contributions that we have heard from both sides of the House. Radically important contributions have been made.
  Mr. Maxton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Soley: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall not give way, because I have only 10 minutes and I want to make some important points. I think that he will support me, but if he feels desperately about anything I say, I shall let him intervene. Please give me time to make my points.
  Mr. Maxton: I find it depressing.
  Mr. Soley: Well, let me just say this. We all agree that there should be more evidence taking in the Committee system. The Special Standing Committee procedure was established in 1980, but it was used only seven times up till 1996. That is tragic. It has been mentioned a number of times, because the poll tax and the Child Support Agency would not have seen the light of day if those Committees had taken evidence from outside.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) made a wonderful speech, befitting a scientist. It was full of light and reason, although I warn her that, from my experience, light and reason do not necessarily advance one's political career. Indeed, I sometimes think that a working definition of political activity is anything that defies reason and logic. What she said was very important. Like so many of us, she picked up the point that taking evidence first improves the legislation that comes out at the end.
  I want to mention two committees that were held in the House but were outside the parliamentary structure: the press committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) chaired for me, and the committee on the family, which was held during the United Nations Year of the Family. Both of those committees took evidence from people outside. Although they had no formal existence in the House of Commons, over and again they attracted coverage on the television and radio news and in the press. I had masses of letters from people saying, "Why can't Parliament do this more often?"
  We must find a way for Back Benchers to set up such committees. They have a limited, finite life and can consider particular areas of policy. They can examine contentious areas that Government and Opposition parties are afraid to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) knows exactly what I mean. We are reluctant to examine certain subjects, such as drugs and the royal family, because of our fear of the treatment that they are given in the tabloid press. We are even reluctant to deal with issues of the family. Would it not be nice if, at the same time as we considered the family, we took the advice that we give to people outside and introduced some family-friendly policies into House of Commons procedures?
  There are many issues in which we can involve Back Benchers directly by means of the Committee structure. We have done that in the past; it is not as though it is a
  940
  new idea. I make no excuse for using again an example that I have used many times before, which is in Hansard. In 1833, there were riots in Clerkenwell. On 11 July 1833, the House of Commons ordered
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Conduct of the Metropolitan Police on the 13th May last, in dispersing a Public Meeting in Cold Bath Fields".
  One police officer had been killed. If we carried out a study like that, there would be headlines in the tabloid press about Members of Parliament attacking the police. The Committee reported in August of that year, after taking evidence outside. One of its recommendations was that the police should never act as agents provocateurs. All the recommendations were implemented.
  When we had riots in 1981, Lord Scarman—for whom I have great admiration—spent some years on a procedure that involved taking evidence and reporting to the House. We still have not acted on many of those recommendations. It is nonsense that we were doing it better in 1833. We could be proud of our procedure then. Indeed, people around the world were copying it, saying, "What a good idea. Let us do the same." If that could be done in 1833, we could do it now.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that we had lost something, and that is what we have lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) hit the nail on the head: we need to give Back Benchers more power, more influence and more independence.
  There is, however, a problem for both Government and Opposition. The Government's job is to get their legislation through. What we must do, within the culture of the House, is recognise that, as Back Benchers, we must allow Governments to get their legislation through; but Governments must allow Back Benchers much more say on the variation of legislation. That is why evidence taking is so important, as is the ability to participate in the Committee structure. I was attracted by some of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who made an important contribution to the debate.
  We must approach the media differently. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) spoke about a dedicated parliamentary television channel. I have no problem with that, but we need to do something much more important: we need to allow television and radio to be involved in our activities far more easily.
  When I set up my two committees, one on the press and one on the family, there were only two or three Committee Rooms in which I could put television equipment. It is absurd that a Member of Parliament who wants to film a meeting cannot do so in the vast majority of Rooms in the House. Surely, if the hon. Members who are present want the meeting to be televised, it should be, but our funny rules and regulations make it very difficult for the media to report what we are doing effectively. Although we rightly complain at times about the way in which the media report us, we make it difficult for them. Let us open up the whole media debate, and be more realistic.
  I also think that we should look again at the Representation of the People Act 1989. There is a good deal of evidence to show that the way in which it works is not allowing good coverage of elections, as we saw very dramatically at the last general election. That, however, is a wider issue, which I will not deal with now.

  941
  The facilities in the House are inadequate. New Members know that better than others, but we all knew it when we were first elected. I could speak about that at some length if I had time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was also right about time in the House, but if we are to give people time here—if we are to get people back in here—one of the things that we must do, as Members of Parliament, is stop acting so much like rather big councillors. That means devolving power to regional government. It would mean that we could start being Members of Parliament and might even look at the heretical matter of reducing the number of Members of Parliament. We need to do that, and if the number were reduced, hon. Members would get more than about four chances a year of catching the Speaker's eye in a major debate.
  This splendid debate presents an enormous opportunity. I ask the House, I almost plead with it, to look at these proposed reforms, so that, 10, 20 or 50 years from now, we shall be able to look back and say, "Yes, I was part of the Parliament that reformed the British House of Commons and brought it back into the forefront of parliamentary democracy."
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BSE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have this opportunity of an early debate on the BSE crisis. I congratulate the Minister, who has already been in action responding to a debate, on his appointment. He represents an urban constituency, and may not recently have had to deal at first hand with agricultural issues on behalf of his constituents. However, he is fair-minded and intelligent, and the lack of farms in Perry Barr should in no way prevent him from being an effective Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  I am sure that the Minister does not need me to tell him that the dominating issue in his in-tray is the crisis in the beef industry arising from the continuing export ban. My constituency has almost certainly the biggest concentration of beef producer interests in the United Kingdom. Apart from specialist beef production on farms, there are three abattoirs, two cattle marts, a wide variety of meat processors, specialist transport companies and other ancillary trades. My newly elected hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) has similar concerns for the industry in his constituency, which directly adjoins mine.
  Some people have made money out of the crisis and from the substantial amounts of financial support that have been injected into managing the problem. The trouble is that others have suffered substantial losses, and many have received no compensation whatever. The Minister will appreciate that there is deep and widespread anxiety about the future. There is also anger in some quarters about the fact that people have been left to struggle on alone.
  Beef finishers are currently losing money. They face prices that are at 1982 levels, and many are selling cattle for less than the price at which they bought them in. That is clearly unsustainable. If the situation continues for much longer, it will bode ill for the autumn cattle sales and the future of hill farmers, who depend on them for their very existence.
  Against that background, it is hardly surprising that there is widespread anger at the scale of foreign imports from sources that do not have the UK's rigorous safety controls, which only last week were acknowledged by the European Commission as providing the highest standards anywhere.
  The latest figures that I have obtained show that, for January and February, imports totalled 19,770 tonnes, which is 47 per cent. more than for the same period last year. The largest proportion of those imports came from the Irish Republic, but a great deal also came from non-EU countries, and especially south America. None of those countries applies the rigorous standards that are now required in British abattoirs.
  Sir Robert Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for associating the concerns in his constituency with those in mine. Several farmers came to my last surgery and raised the worry of the lack of a level playing field in the context of imported and domestic beef. At Prime Minister's Question Time,

  943
  my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, raised that issue, but he did not get an answer. I hope that, at the end of this debate, we shall get a satisfactory reply.
  Mr. Bruce: It is a matter which, as I am sure the Minister is already aware, causes a great deal of emotional heat.
  I welcome the Government's announcement that they will close down abattoirs which do not meet the required standards. That is further evidence of their determination to eliminate any risk of contaminated meat entering the food chain.
  At the same time as we have introduced high standards, the incidence of BSE in farms in the United Kingdom has fallen rapidly. Last year's total was slightly more than 20 per cent. of the total in the peak year of 1992. This year, the total has fallen sharply, to less than 5 per cent. of the worst year on an annualised rate. Particularly welcome to me is the fall in Scotland, which seems likely to have well below 100 cases this year, compared with the peak of 2,208 in 1993.
  The fall in the incidence of BSE has taken place at a time of worrying signs that the number of cases occurring outside the United Kingdom may be on the increase. I note that the Minister told Farmers Weekly that, to insist that other EU member states applied British controls and banned imports that did not meet the same standards might be counter-productive. I understand that argument, but he must recognise that British producers cannot expect to be left in the maelstrom of collapsed prices and soaring imports without direct assistance or a timetable for the lifting of the export ban.
  It is not tenable for the EU to talk of a single European market and a common agricultural policy when one large member state is effectively excluded from both. I know that that is uncomfortable to many who work at the European Commission, and we must help to secure the framework for lifting the ban, and help our beef producers to stay in business in the mean time.
  In the 14 months since the ban was imposed, an enormous amount of time and momentum has been wasted or lost. I certainly do not blame the Minister for that. The selective cull, delayed six months, is still barely under way. We must complete it on terms compatible with the Florence agreement as quickly as possible. I know that the Minister agrees with that.
  If the certified herd scheme is to go ahead, it must be on terms that are not prejudicial to Great Britain producers. If we had set in motion a computerised database at the start of the crisis, we would be well on the way to achieving the full traceability scheme that the industry wants. The only way to recover that waste of time seems to be to set a cut-off birth date, after which cattle will be eligible for export. I am pleased to note that the Government are considering that.
  The measures that I have mentioned are essential to bring forward the earliest date on which the ban may be lifted, and make it possible to announce the dates soon. Nothing less than the lifting of the ban will restore full confidence by establishing a genuine open market; but meanwhile, a number of measures are necessary to
  944
  provide short-term support before too many producers are swept away, or forced to abandon beef, with consequences for other sectors. Falling grain prices show that farmers who have the option to switch from stock to arable may not necessarily improve their situation by so doing.
  Farmers in my area tell me that the priority for any additional money should be promotion of the quality and safety of British beef in general, and of Scottish beef in particular. That should be reinforced by a "Buy British" campaign, starting with the Government. I find it astonishing that the Ministry of Defence continues to import South American beef when we have a surplus of premium quality beef at home. All other major beef users, including McDonald's and Burger King, must be encouraged to buy British beef, which goes through more rigorous safety controls than the imported beef that they prefer.
  The Government should reinforce such a campaign by encouraging a labelling scheme to enable consumers to know the origin of the beef they are buying. Perhaps the Government should also consider a voucher scheme such as we have had before to promote beef consumption among lower income groups who currently cannot afford it.
  The tendency of British beef farmers to producer heavier and fatter cattle disadvantages us on intervention buying. The 360 kg cut-off is unfair to Britain and Ireland and the restriction to class 3 disadvantages Scottish producers, who have a higher proportion of class 4L beef—about 50 per cent. of the total. We obtained a dispensation on that last year, and I ask the Minister to press for a repeat as a matter of urgency, because the peak sales time is now, and farms face the double whammy of depressed prices and exclusion from intervention.
  It has also been suggested to me that the intervention policy should be more imaginative. Buying into intervention some of the cheaper cuts, not just the best, might help to reduce the retail price of the best cuts and so boost consumer demand. Let us not forget all those forequarters that we do not know what to do with.
  A number of other measures should be considered. The second payment for the beef special premium scheme is scheduled too late. Could it not be paid at slaughter, or brought forward to perhaps 18 months? The previous Government initiated the cut in compensation payments for over-30-month-scheme cattle from 1 ecu to 0.9 ecu, but they did so when the price for a cast cow was between £800 and £1,000, and not the prevailing price of £400. Will the Government press for its restoration?
  Farmers have suffered all those difficulties and the added problem of a rising pound. Ireland has sought compensation for the green pound effect with payments of £91 million and £26 million. Should not the British Government follow a similar route?
  Of course, those are all palliatives to make up for the impact of the ban. The only way in which confidence will be restored is when the ban is lifted. That must be the Government's overriding priority.
  I have talked almost entirely about farmers, but other sectors of the beef trade have been hard hit. Their plight should not continue to be overlooked by this Government as it was by the previous one.
  Specialist producers have been devastated. The company Donald Russell in my constituency supplies literally the best beef that one can buy anywhere in the

  945
  world. That is not just my view, but it was its customers' view until the ban was imposed. It was almost entirely export-oriented, and its market disappeared overnight. That superb producer of quality meat is only ticking over now, on much reduced turnover and margins. That company and others deserve compensation for stock losses, and they should be given the opportunity to get back into the market.
  Head deboners were closed down on Government orders, issued overnight by fax, after they had been required to make considerable investment in new equipment to meet Government safety standards. Surely they should be compensated at least for the investment that they had to make on Government instruction. That investment was mostly financed by borrowing that could never be serviced once those firms were closed down by the same Government.
  Specialist transport contractors are still hurting. They were deprived of their principal activity of taking beef to continental Europe, and many suffered immediate losses. They and others were forced to sell expensive rigs at a loss, and were unable to diversify in an increasingly competitive market. Many drivers have been laid off, and some companies have gone bust.
  The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has carried out a survey of hauliers in Scotland, which showed that there has been an average 42 per cent. drop in trade since the ban. The federation has pointed out that that drop ranges from 10 per cent. to 100 per cent. I do not need to tell the Minister that 100 per cent. means that someone ain't in business any more.
  I have talked to a number of hauliers, not only in my constituency but elsewhere. They are so angry that they are considering organising land blockades of major roads to draw attention to their plight. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that I have urged them to give the Government a chance to listen, and I hope to respond to their plight before they take any precipitate action. I urge the Government to consider some avenue of compensation at least for the loss of their expensive specialist equipment.
  I know that the Minister may say that I have offered a long list of the measures that could help. In my original draft speech, I mentioned that £1,000 million had already been spent on compensation. I see from the Minister's letter, which was circulated to Members today, that £1,500 million has already been spent on compensation and intervention. Billions more pounds have been committed. Given those figures, it is clear that some people have done extremely well. To me that proves that it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
  I urge the Minister to consider a review of how the money is spent in future, so that he might be able to provide compensation to people who have had none—without any extra cost to the taxpayer—by reassessing the way it is calculated, so that it is fairer and based on a assessment of real need and actual loss. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand how angry people feel when they see their businesses disappearing under them, while other people make a fortune at the taxpayers' expense and through no particular merit of their own.
  An early lifting of the ban is the overriding priority, and a firm date for that is essential. I understand the Government's determination to secure that end by engaging in constructive dialogue with our European
  946
  partners on the Commission. I assure the Minister that in that venture he will have full co-operation and support from these Benches. Indeed, we are well aware that many people on the Commission are as anxious as we are that the matter is resolved. What they have not had is any constructive initiative from the British Government over the past 14 months. A new Government and a new Minister have an opportunity to turn the matter around.
  In the meantime, I hope that the Minister understands that at least some of the measures that I have outlined must be put in place soon, or there will be no significant beef industry left. The quality product that my constituency produces—and I do not exaggerate—may never return to the best plates on the best tables in the world.
  10.16 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on securing this debate. Within a few hours of my appointment and my walking into the Department, I told my advisers that, when the House reassembled, BSE would be a top priority. Given the Adjournment debate prospects both on Wednesday mornings and at other times during the week, I would have been astonished if there had not been a brief debate on BSE.
  I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a measured speech. If I cannot respond now to all the points he made, I shall do my best to cover them in correspondence.
  I thank him sincerely for his kind remarks about me. It is true that I do not have an agricultural background, and that my constituents are not exactly versed in the ways of agriculture. However, everyone is a consumer. One does not need to be an expert in agricultural technology and procedures to understand that there has been a massive crisis of confidence in British food, not just beef.
  That has had catastrophic implications for job prospects for many people who would not usually be associated with enterprise, including lorry drivers and shopkeepers. Therefore, I make no apology—nor does my right hon. Friend the Minister—for Members of Parliament who represent urban constituencies taking a broader view. Their constituency interests are the same as those of everyone else—safer food for all our people, and a restoration of confidence in our food production system.
  As the hon. Gentleman mentioned—it shows how efficient the system is—my right hon. Friend the Minister has today written to all right hon. and hon. Members telling them about our plans for BSE. It was important to do that, as we are about to start a short recess. I am pleased to have this opportunity to emphasise some of the points made by my right hon. Friend. I shall come in a minute to aspects of the ban mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon.
  The BSE inheritance is not a happy one. We inherited concerns about public health, a loss of confidence in beef, lingering animal health problems, a battered British beef industry, stores stacked high with cattle remains, a colossal bill for the taxpayer—which is rising daily—and antagonised, deeply suspicious, European partners. There are also a great many angry farmers. If I were a farmer, I would be angry, too.
  We also inherited Administration failures. The previous Administration failed to enforce the rules properly, such as the offal controls in abattoirs to protect the public,

  947
  and the controls on animal feed to eradicate BSE. They had a failed policy of non-co-operation in Europe. That did not bring any benefits to this country. They failed to deliver on their promise to get the beef ban lifted by last November.
  The previous Government failed to get cracking with the selective cull. I was astonished at what I found when, within a day of coming to the Ministry, I asked about the figures on what had happened in the six weeks of the general election campaign, when there were still Ministers around who could have been asking questions and pressing ahead. The previous Government failed to reassure consumers. We have inherited a catalogue of failure, and much needs to be done.
  I can assure the House that we shall do everything in our power to turn things around. We must have a safer food policy. We must make the point that our policing of the beef production system is second to none in Europe. We produce the finest and safest quality beef anywhere in Europe. That point must be repeated to our partners.
  We also have to regain the trust of customers—a key way in which we shall do so is to set up a food standards agency. There has to be an independent element to help to restore confidence. We are consulting on that, and we hope to produce a draft Bill this Session for introduction in the next Session. Meanwhile, there is much that we can do to turn matters around.
  We shall rebuild bridges across Europe—that process has already been begun by my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We shall seek to restore hope to a battered industry. We shall work tirelessly to get the export ban lifted, although that will not be done overnight. Our action will consist not of one single measure, but of a range of measures. We shall continue to give more impetus to the selective cull. We shall move rapidly to create a computerised cattle tracking system.
  Those are the Government's challenges and priorities. They will be my personal priorities, as well as those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—and for which we shall account to the House.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I entirely endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, and I echo his congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. We have high hopes for tackling this difficult problem with a fresh brain and a fresh start. In underlining what my hon. Friend said, may I ask the Minister to address the following point about imports? It is not just unfair to British producers to have imports of lower standards into this country: it is unfair to the British consumer, who is being given many products that are not up to the standards on which the Government and the European Commission insist.
  Mr. Rooker: That is clearly the case, and there will be an appropriate moment to reinforce that point.
  The incidence of BSE is in strong decline in the United Kingdom today. That is largely attributable to the measures taken in 1988 to ban the feeding of cattle remains back to cattle. But since that time, there have been more than 30,000 cases of BSE in cattle born after
  948
  that ban, which proves that it was not properly enforced, and that there was a lack of action on the part of the previous Government.
  Controls have been progressively tightened since then. We now have a complete ban on the use of meat and bonemeal in any farm animal feed or fertiliser. We shall ensure that existing controls continue to be properly and rigorously enforced.
  Scientists predict that BSE will fall to a low level by the year 2001. We intend to ensure that action is taken to eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, we shall apply a high level of precaution in line with the scientific advice available—we shall operate a safety first policy. That is the only way to encourage the return of confidence.
  The Government's priority is to ensure the highest standards of food safety. Having received Professor James's report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 8 May—one week after coming to office—the Government's plans to set up a food standards agency. Until then, the handling of food safety matters will remain with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which will work in close contact with the Department of Health and the other agricultural Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  The handling of food safety matters will be on a new and much more open footing. Our watchwords will be openness and accountability to the House and people outside. There will be no secret reports and no secret meetings; we shall disclose everything that comes our way from the scientists and, within the bounds of commercial confidentiality, we shall be as open as we can when answering parliamentary questions.
  We shall base our actions on the best scientific advice. We shall continue to look to the independent scientific advisory committee, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—SEAC—for that advice. The committee meets regularly; it keeps the evidence on BSE and the new variant of CJD under constant review, as well as checking that controls are in place to protect public health. We will act promptly on SEAC recommendations, as and when they come to us—there will be no delay.
  I turn now to the export ban on beef and beef products. We intend to press, and are pressing, for the earliest possible lifting of the ban. My right hon. Friend the Minister has spent two days in Europe and Brussels this week meeting not only Commissioners but members of the European Parliament—something our predecessors in office flatly refused to do, thus creating enormous ill will against our country, and undermining the efforts of our industry and the people who work in it to rebuild confidence. We intend to press for the earliest possible lifting of the ban, but it will not be easy, given the position that we have inherited.
  The Government do not want to raise false hopes. Since taking office, we have discovered that it was never credible to pretend that the ban could be lifted by November 1996, as the former Prime Minister told the House. When serving as shadow deputy Leader of the House, I was present during nearly all the statements that were made on this subject, and having asked the questions and received answers and advice from inside the Department that we could not necessarily have got while in Opposition, that is what we have discovered.

  949
  We intend to respect the Florence agreement—we have no choice about that. We will work constructively with the Commission and other member states on how best to make progress under that agreement. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already initiated action with Commissioners Fischler and Bonino on that matter.
  The Florence agreement set out five preconditions for the UK to meet before the ban can be lifted. Action is in hand on all five, and it is being checked on and chased up daily—sometimes hourly. However, delays have occurred with the selective cull, so we are making it a priority to speed up its operation. We have invited the Commissioners to send further missions here if any other issues are causing them concern.
  We are also keen to pursue the steps set down in Florence for the progressive lifting of the ban. The Commission knows that we want to press ahead with the export-certified herd scheme, which our predecessors tabled. Mrs. Bonino has been very helpful in arranging for that proposal to be examined by the appropriate European Union scientific committees. Their scrutiny should be completed next month, and we look forward with interest to the outcome.
  The Florence agreement also provides a basis for us to table further proposals, and I can assure hon. Members that we are giving active thought to the best way of doing so. Our aim is to maximise the possibilities of an early resumption of exports, to the ultimate benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom. We are the Government of the United Kingdom, and are working to serve all parts of the United Kingdom. We shall therefore table further proposals when we judge it would be fruitful and in the interests of the United Kingdom to do so.
  In the meantime, we shall continue to pursue the challenge to the legality of the ban through the European Court of Justice. There is no sense in not pursuing that case, because we do not concede the legality of the ban. I understand that a hearing date has been set for 2 July. In addition, we shall adopt a much more positive and open approach to the European Parliament's temporary committee of inquiry. The committee was, of course, highly critical of the previous Government.
  950
  British beef will be exported only when consumers throughout Europe are convinced that it is not only of the highest quality, but as safe as beef from anywhere else in the European Union. We would submit that, because of all the checks and controls that we have implemented, it is safer than beef from anywhere else in the European Union; but, because of the scares based on false premises, we have to reassure our European partners, their consumers and their constituents that that is true.
  The Florence agreement, which was heralded with much acclaim last year, provides a framework, but no more. It will clearly require a good deal of hard work to win back the trade. We have made a start on the process, but much remains to be done if we are to repair the damage. We will need to carry the whole House with us on this issue. Real progress depends on restoring confidence in British beef, and that will come about only by allowing measured consideration by experts, not by trying to bludgeon our beef back on to European dinner tables.
  Starting a trade war will not help. I understand hon. Members' feelings, and I have received urgent representations about beef imports from producers, supermarkets, burger chains and so on. The position beggars belief, and our farmers and beef producers do not understand how it came into being. However, given the sensitivity of the problem—which, because of the imprecision of the Florence agreement and the position bequeathed by the former Prime Minister, has as much to do with politics as with science—we have no choice but to work within the framework. I hope that we will be able to bring good news to the House soon.
  Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister undertake to review the way in which compensation is paid, so as to ensure that those who have got nothing might at least be considered?
  Mr. Rooker: We are reviewing all policy and all actions related to the situation we have inherited. We are giving the House information on figures and our policy objectives within the inherited framework, so that we can carry the whole House with us.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Stephen Lawrence
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the murder of Stephen Lawrence; and if he will make a statement; [186]

  (2) what plans he has to establish a public inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the role played by the police, the CPS and the judicial system following his death. [187]

  Mr. Michael
  An early-day motion regarding the murder of Stephen Lawrence was tabled on 20 May. We have also received a recent letter about the case from the London borough of Greenwich and are aware of the widespread concern, particularly within the black community, resulting from this case. We are currently considering how those concerns can best be addressed, and will make an announcement soon.

  Drugs-related Offences
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving prisoners were convicted of drugs-related offences in each of the last three years. [869]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Information on the number of persons received under sentence into prisons in England and Wales for drug offences (excluding find defaulters) for the years 1994 to 1996 is given below.

  Number

  1994

  3,483

  1995

  4,729

  19961

  6,100

  1 Provisional information.

  Information for 1994 and 1995 is published in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales"—tables 3.9, 4.6 and 5.6 of the 1994 (Cm 3087) and 1995 (Cm 3355) editions. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to give the courts new powers to deal with those convicted of drugs-related offences. [872]

  Ms Quin
  Yes. We are committed to introducing a new drug testing and treatment order, and will bring forward legislative proposals accordingly.

  Drug Addiction (Crime)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those convicted of all crimes are known to be addicted to drugs. [870]
  108
  Mr. George Howarth
  It is difficult to quantify the proportion of offenders addicted to drugs or dependent on them. The Home Office has a research programme designed to shed further light on the links between drugs and crime. It includes a study of drug use by samples of people arrested by the police in various cities. Preliminary results from this study point to a higher level of drug taking by arrestees than expected. However, the study is still incomplete; the University of Cambridge will be delivering a report to the Home Office in October, which is likely to be published around the end of the year.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of recorded crime in each of the last three years was committed by persons between the ages of 15 and 21 years. [873]

  Mr. Michael
  The readily available information is for persons found guilty at all courts or cautioned for indictable offences and is contained in table 5.26 of Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1995.

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government policy in respect of ensuring the safety from the threat of terrorism of Mr. Salman Rushdie; and if he will make a statement. [993]

  Mr. Straw
  Decisions concerning the protection provided for Mr. Rushdie are for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Mr. Rushdie continues to receive protection at a level commensurate with the threat and which has successfully ensured his safety over a number of years.

  Hit-and-run Drivers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to extend police powers of arrest over hit-and-run drivers; and what other measures he plans to take in respect of hit-and-run drivers. [718]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government intend to make failure to stop after a road accident involving personal injury an arrestable offence. Primary legislation will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity. No other measures are planned.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of successful arrests of hit-and-run drivers have been recorded in each of the last 12 months. [719]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Information on arrests is not held centrally at the level of detail needed to isolate particular offences. Nor can hit-and-run drivers be identified in the statistics of motoring offence prosecutions, as they will form only part of those offences classified as failing to stop or report an accident (i.e. where personal injury is caused).

  Onibiyo Family
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow the two male members of the Onibiyo family to return from Nigeria and Guyana and be granted permanent United Kingdom residency. [716]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is open to Mr. Abdul Onibiyo to apply at any time for entry clearance to return to the United Kingdom. Mr. Onibiyo's son, Ademola, will not qualify for entry clearance while he remains the subject of a valid and extant deportation order but it is open to him to apply to have the order revoked. Entry clearance will be granted only to applicants who meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules. It would not be appropriate to treat the Onibiyos exceptionally.

  Primary Purpose Rule
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to abolish the primary purpose rule. [794]

  Mr. Straw
  In our manifesto, we said that we would reform the current system to remove the arbitrary, ineffective and unfair results that can follow from the primary purpose rule. We shall make an announcement about this soon.

  Refugees and Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on refugees and asylum seekers from the Congo and neighbouring states. [1053]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend explained in his reply to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on 16 May,Official Report, column 3, he has made a declaration under the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 that Zaire (now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo) has undergone an upheaval such that we would not seek to enforce the return of refused asylum seekers to that country for the time being.

  The declaration of upheaval relates to the fundamental changes which have occurred in Zaire and does not extend to neighbouring countries. We will of course continue to monitor the situation in the region generally.

  Road Tax Discs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the police powers to remove or clamp motor vehicles not displaying a valid road tax disc. [1022]

  Mr. Michael
  Powers contained in the Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997 enable the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to authorise agents of the Department of Transport to clamp and impound vehicles evading vehicle excise duty. I understand that a three-month pilot scheme was successfully conducted by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency last year and that consideration is currently being given on the way forward. There are no plans to give the police powers to remove or clamp untaxed vehicles.

  Border Controls
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on border controls, and to what extent the Government plans to concede administration, control and judicial authority to the European Union. [974]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  We have made clear our firm commitment to maintain Britain's frontier controls. We will not agree to anything which would jeopardise their continuation.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants at each grade within his Department were of Asian origin on 5 May. [243]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is given in the following tables, table 1 relating to the non-prisons Home Office and table 2 relating to the Prison Service. To avoid the possibility of identifying individuals because of low numbers in particular grades, the figures are given by grade level (i.e. main grades plus equivalent specialist grades) and grade levels are amalgamated where necessary.

  The computer systems used do not allow for the provision of data on a particular retrospective date and the figures, which have been supplied by the Department's Information Technology units, relate to the position on 12 May (table 1) and 15 May (table 2). The Prison Service information has been supplied from a database which is currently being updated.

  Table 1: Number of Civil Servants of Asian origin (excluding prison service) by grade level

  Grade level

  Number

  Administrative assistant

  147

  Administrative officer

  189

  Executive officer

  94

  Higher executive officer

  18

  Senior executive officer and above

  8

  Total

  456

  Data extracted on 12 May 1997 (monthly snapshot) for serving, permanent, non-industrial staff.

  Table 2: Number of civil servants of Asian origin by grade level: prison service

  Grade level

  Number

  Administrative assistant

  60

  Administrative officer

  212

  Executive officer

  47

  Higher executive officer and senior executive officer

  22

  Grade 7

  13

  Grade 6 and above

  37

  Total

  391

  Data extracted on 15 May 1997 for serving, permanent, non-industrial staff.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to increase the number of employees from ethnic minorities within his Department. [244]
  111
  Mr. Straw
  I am undertaking a review of the current position. Although measures used in the past have been relatively successful in attracting ethnic minority recruits, I remain concerned about the under-representation of employees from the ethnic minorities, particularly in higher grades.

  The measures used up to now include targeting job advertisements where they are most likely to reach prospective ethnic minority applicants, and raising the Department's profile with prospective ethnic minority applicants, for example, by participating in the Windsor Fellowship programme and the National Mentoring Consortium.

  As part of the Department's commitment to securing equality of opportunity for all staff, the procedures in the non-prisons Home Office for dealing with complaints of harassment and discrimination are being reviewed. The Prison Service will shortly begin a programme of racial harassment awareness training for all staff.

  British Citizenship Applications (Fees)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he intends to make in respect of fees for applications for British citizenship made under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997. [1297]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 are being laid before Parliament today. They amend the British Nationality (Fees) Regulations 1996 so as to prescribe a fee of £250 for an application for registration as a British citizen under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997, and apply to the 1997 Act the fee of £20 for supplying a certified copy of a certificate etc.

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for financial compensation are outstanding involving individuals who were found by the Court of Appeal to have been wrongfully convicted and on what date the individuals concerned had their convictions quashed. [182]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 21 May 1997]: There are currently 156 outstanding cases at various stages in the process of consideration.

  There are currently 59 applications for compensation outstanding where a decision has still to be taken on whether the applicants qualify for compensation. There are also 27 finalised claims yet to be submitted by successful applicants and 18 claims that are either with, or in the process of being prepared for, the independent assessor. In addition, there are 52 further claims being processed arising from a number of cases in Greater Manchester where drink-driving convictions were quashed following possible contamination of blood samples.

  No central record is maintained of the dates on which the convictions were quashed in those involving wrongful conviction.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in 112
  introducing a system of three-monthly reviews of the health of individual prisoners in special secure units; how many prisoners were examined in each month since the system was introduced; and how many individual prisoners have been detained in an SSU without examination for periods exceeding three months. [185]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  [holding answer 21 May 1997]: The health care received by prisoners in special secure units (SSUs) is comparable to that elsewhere in the Prison Service. In addition, the Operating Standards for SSUs state that the health of each SSU prisoner will be reviewed every three months. Details of the format and content of these reviews were agreed in April and a system for reviewing the health of SSU prisoners has now begun.

  Full Sutton Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many hours per day Danny McNamee, currently detained in the special secure unit at HMP Full Sutton, is confined to his cell; and what is the size of his cell. [149]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]: Danny McNamee is out of his cell for 4 hours 15 minutes a day between Monday to Friday, 8 hours 15 minutes on Saturday and 7 hours 45 minutes on Sunday. These hours relate to time allotted for general association, meals and exercise. Mr. McNamee refuses to take part in organised gymnasium activity or to work and he elects to take education in his cell. If he were to take part in these activities he would spend an additional 4 hours a day out of his cell between Monday to Friday.

  The average size of a cell within the special secure unit at Full Sutton prison is approximately 3.5 metres by 2 metres.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the decision of the Prison Service to refuse permission for Danny McNamee, currently detained in the special secure unit at HMP Full Sutton, to be examined by an outside consultant for a suspected hernia. [162]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]: The medical staff responsible for the clinical care of Danny McNamee at Full Sutton prison have examined him on a number of occasions. They are satisfied that he does not have a hernia or any other condition which warrants the intervention of an outside consultant. Mr. McNamee will continue to receive regular medical examinations in line with Prison Service policy.

  Prison Transfers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison transfers to(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Irish Republic have taken place in each month since October 1994; how many requests for transfer (i) have been rejected and (ii) remain outstanding; and if he will list the prisoners involved in each case. [150]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]: Arrangements for the exact date of transfer of prisoners are an operational matter for the prison concerned. However, the number of applications from prisoners

  113
  seeking transfer to Northern Ireland approved in each month since October 1994 are given in the following table.

  Approval of requests for transfer to Northern Ireland

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  January

  —

  —

  1

  February

  —

  —

  —

  March

  —

  4

  —

  April

  1

  3

  1

  May

  —

  4

  2

  June

  3

  3

  July

  6

  2

  August

  1

  2

  September

  —

  —

  October

  —

  2

  2

  November

  —

  —

  3

  December

  —

  3

  1

  Since October 1994, 31 requests for transfer to Northern Ireland have been refused.

  Twelve requests remain under consideration.

  Prisoners repatriated to the Republic of Ireland in each of the following months are given below:

  Repatriation to the Republic of Ireland

  Year

  Number

  May

  1996

  2

  November

  1996

  3

  December

  1996

  2

  February

  1997

  1

  March

  1997

  1

  May

  1997

  1

  Three repatriation applications have been refused.

  Eighty applications remain under consideration either in England and Wales or in the Republic of Ireland.

  It is not normal practice to disclose the personal details of individual prisoners.

DEFENCE

  Imphal Barracks
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Army plans to close its civilian manning and records office at Imphal barracks, York; how many square feet of office space this closure will release; and what are his plans for its future use. [600]

  Dr. Reid
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Burden to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 22 May 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the closure of the Manning and Records Offices and Regimental Pay Offices at Imphal Barracks, York in so far as it applies to the Army Personnel Centre as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of that Agency. Although the latter elements of your Question are outwith my area of responsibility, I have been asked to provide a consolidated response.
  114
  I should explain that the functions of the Royal Artillery Manning and Records Office, the Footguards and Infantry Manning and Records Office, and the associated Army Regimental Pay Offices, currently located within Imphal Barracks, York, will transfer to the Army Personnel Centre (APC) in Glasgow on 16 June 1997.
  These offices currently occupy approximately 44514 ft2 (4137m2) of Building 107, Imphal Barracks, York. As the Manning and Records, and Regimental Pay Offices are lodger units on the site, when this part of the building is vacated due to the transfer of the functions to the APC, HQ Land Command as the Top Level Budget Holder responsible for maintaining and managing the barracks, will be the prime executive authority who will endorse any decision on the future occupants of the office space made available. HQ Land Command act as the focal point for the submission of any departmental restructuring and relocation initiatives, entering into formal correspondence and consultation with interested parties through the normal chains of command.
  Although any plans for the future use of the accommodation are outwith my area of responsibility, I am informed that a site reshuffle of local branches is intended and that the office space will be reallocated to other MOD users, including Headquarters 15 (North East) Brigade, and elements of Headquarters 2 Division which, by January 1998, will together occupy the majority of the vacated accommodation. I understand that no firm decision has yet been taken regarding the remainder of the vacated office space.
  I hope this is helpful.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review bilateral defence agreements with the United Arab Emirates. [267]

  Dr. Reid
  The strategic defence and security review will consider all aspects of defence. The review will take full account of our commitment to international peace and security, and our interest in continued cooperation and consultation with our friends, including the United Arab Emirates.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Defence Review will include consideration of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, following the International Courts Advisory Opinion of July 1996; [253]

  (2) if the Defence Review will include a review of the future of Trident. [258]

  Dr. Reid
  As was made clear in the new Government's Election Manifesto, we are committed to retaining Trident to provide a minimum, but credible and effective, nuclear deterrent. We will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. When satisfied with progress towards our goal of the global elimination of these weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations.

  Our country's security needs and foreign policy objectives must be fully reflected in the roles, missions and tasks of our armed forces. The Government have decided therefore to hold a strategic defence and security review. All aspects of defence will be considered in this process.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current nature of Her Majesty's Government defence co-operation with Bahrain; and if he will make a statement. [740]

  Dr. Reid
  Bahrain hosts some of the RAF force involved in Operation JURAL, which monitors Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 688. There are occasional deployments by other RAF aircraft and RN ships make regular visits to Bahrain. UK and Bahraini Defence Forces periodically exercise together and the UK provides some military training to Bahraini students. The defence relationship with Bahrain is underpinned by regular meetings of the UK-Bahrain Defence Committee.

  Five Power Defence Arrangement
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the five power defence arrangement with Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia. [813]

  Dr. Reid
  The strategic defence and security review will consider all aspects of defence. The review will take full account of our commitment to international peace and security, and our interest in continued co-operation and consultation with our friends, including in the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made since 18 March in his Department's search for information concerning reports of dead animals being found during the Gulf war and analysed. [99]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 21 May 1997]: As well as searching for relevant information amongst our records, my Department has conducted a survey amongst serving Gulf war veterans on this subject. I will report on the results of this work as soon as it has been completed.

  Defence Review
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

  (1) if he will list the estimated savings he intends to make as a result of the Defence Review his Department is undertaking: [980]

  (2) if he will list his proposals for the Defence Review; and if he will make a statement: [981]

  (3) what plans he has to reduce the size of the armed forces. [979]

  Dr. Reid
  Our country's security needs and foreign policy objectives must be fully reflected in the roles, missions and tasks of our armed forces. The Government has, therefore, decided to hold a strategic defence and security review. All aspects of defence will be considered in this process, which will be policy led rather than driven by resources.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many civil servants of each grade in his Department were of Asian origin, on 5 May. [726]

  The Attorney-General
  The numbers of civil servants of each grade in the Law Officers' Departments who are of Asian origin is as follows:

  Treasury solicitor's department

  Number

  Senior civil service

  1

  Grade 6

  1

  Grade 7

  15

  Executive officer

  5

  Administrative grades

  4

  Secretarial grades

  2

  1 Includes two on loan to other departments.

  The Government Property Lawyers

  Number

  Senior civil service

  0

  Grade 6

  0

  Grade 7

  0

  Executive Officer

  2

  Administrative Grades

  0

  Secretarial Grades

  0

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Number

  Senior civil service

  0

  Grade 6

  1

  Grade 7

  0

  Crown prosecutor

  71

  Executive officer

  40

  Administrative grades

  91

  Secretarial grades

  6

  Serious fraud office

  Number

  Senior civil service

  0

  Grade 6

  0

  Grade 7

  0

  Executive officer

  4

  Administrative grades

  4

  Secretarial grades

  0

  The figures set out the position at 5 May 1997 except in the case of the Crown Prosecution Service where the figures are based on information provided by staff as at 30 April 1997.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in his Department. [727]

  The Attorney-General
  The Departments for which I am responsible, in line with other Government Departments, are equal opportunity employers. They welcome applications from ethnic minorities and recruit staff on the basis of fair and open competition in
  117
  accordance with the guidelines published in the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code "to find the best available person for the job considered on individual merit and regardless of race, gender or disability".

  A number of initiatives exist designed to increase awareness of race issues and to monitor the effectiveness of equal opportunity policies. In addition the Crown Prosecution Service participates in mentoring and fellowship schemes offering assistance to undergraduates drawn from ethnic minorities.

TREASURY

  Earnings (Pendle and East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimates he has made of the number of people in Pendle earning less than £3.50 per hour. [205]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of persons in employment in (a) Pendle and (b) East Lancashire currently earning less than (i) £4 per hour, (ii) £3.50 per hour and (iii) £3 per hour. [232]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 22 May 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions regarding earnings in Pendle and East Lancashire.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey April 1996, is contained in the following table. Results are presented for the Pendle parliamentary constituency and for Lancashire as a whole; East Lancashire is not a formally defined geographical area.

  Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence New Earnings Survey April 1996

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £3.00

  £3.50

  £4.00

  Pendle

  Full-time

  1.5

  8.1

  14.0

  Part-time

  11.1

  27.8

  30.6

  All

  3.5

  12.2

  17.4

  Lancashire

  Full-time

  1.6

  5.7

  11.0

  Part-time

  7.5

  23.2

  37.3

  All

  3.0

  9.8

  17.1

  I will arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a separate list of unemployment figures based on the number of people seeking work. [190]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics is responsible for deciding the form, coverage and timing of release of statistics issued by his Office, taking into account the views of customers. ONS is presently consulting customers on the future presentation of labour market statistics; the consultation exercise was 118
  launched through an article in the Labour Market Trends published on 8 May. Comments on the proposals should be sent to ONS by 14 June.

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

  Unemployment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom(a) numerically and (b) in percentage terms. [296]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, dated 22 May 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to your recent question on the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom (a) numerically and (b) in percentage terms.
  ONS produce two measures of unemployment. The first, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.
  The other measure of unemployment; the monthly claimant count, is based on the administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support or National Insurance credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
  The latest ILO figures relate to winter 1996/97 (December to February). These show that in Great Britain, the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed people was 2,111,000 or 7.5 per cent of the workforce. In April 1997, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,651,400 or 5.9 per cent of the workforce.
  Although the methods of calculation and the levels of those two series differ, they indicate broadly consistent rates of underlying change in unemployment.

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of extending payment of the widows bereavement allowance to widowers. [592]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates are not available.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in the Treasury. [729]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All recruitment to the Treasury is done on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The Treasury participates in the Windsor Fellowship in an
  119
  attempt to attract applications from suitably qualified ethnic minority candidates, and advertise itself as an equal opportunities employer.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants, of each grade, in the Treasury, were of Asian origin, on 5 May. [728]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Following the introduction on 1 April 1996 of a new departmental pay and grading structure all Treasury staff transferred from the old civil service grades, into new broad pay ranges. As at 5 May 1997, the number of staff in post in the Treasury who declared themselves to be of Asian origin was 50, distributed within the Pay Ranges as follows:

  Pay range

  Staff of Asian origin within pay range

  A

  9

  B

  33

  C

  4

  D

  1

  E

  2

  F

  1

  G

  0

  H

  0

  Children
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of children aged(a) five, (b) six and (c) seven in each year between 1997 and 2001. [644]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is shown for the United Kingdom in the following table:

  Mid-year

  thousands

  Age last birthday

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Children aged 5

  790

  761

  761

  736

  727

  Children aged 6

  797

  790

  761

  762

  736

  Children aged 7

  780

  797

  791

  761

  762

  Source:

  1994-based National Population Projections.

  ONS Series PP2 No.20 (The Stationery Office).

  Landfill Tax
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total revenue raised by the landfill tax to date. [615]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 May 1997]: As at Friday, 16 May, total revenue raised by the landfill tax is £174 million.

  Unemployment Figures
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to alter the methodology currently used to calculate unemployment figures to reflect more accurately the numbers of people seeking work; and if he will made a statement. [751]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 May 1997]: The Director of the Office for National Statistics is responsible for statistical methodology. He is currently reviewing the
  120
  presentation and dissemination of labour market data. A consultative article has been published in the May 1997 edition of Labour Market Trends.

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

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of domestic heating oil currently subject to a VAT rate of 8 per cent. is accounted for by(a) purchases by VAT-registered businesses and (b) uses other than space heating. [180]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 May 1997](a) Neither the suppliers of heating oil nor Customs and Excise keep records which would enable them to specify the proportion of domestic heating oil purchased by VAT-registered businesses and which is taxed at 8 percent.

  (b) All domestic heating oil is subject to VAT at eight per cent. It is estimated that about one per cent. of domestic heating oil is used other than for space heating, ie for lighting or cooking.

  Inheritances
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average value of inheritances for the most recent year for which figures are available. [696]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The average value of inheritances other than of surviving spouses and excluding all inheritances of under £1,000 in England in the years 1993 to 1995 is estimated at £18,600. Figures for individual years are subject to too largeamarginofuncertaintytobemeaningful.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Recipients
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she plans to introduce to ensure that the poorest members of society in recipient countries benefit from British aid programmes. [812]

  Clare Short
  We are reviewing all our existing spending programmes to ensure resources are directed towards tackling poverty. The White Paper will set out our strategy whereby through coherent policies in areas such as trade, environment, debt, as well as in our bilateral programmes, we can make a real impact on poverty eradication.

  Congo
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what provision is being made for the emergency provision of humanitarian relief in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [1036]
  121
  Clare Short
  The needs are unclear. An international assessment will be needed but UN agencies and NGOs report that aid supplies in the region are adequate to cover immediate needs. The airlift of Rwandan refugees from the Kisangani area is ongoing. Thirty-three thousand five hundred refugees have been repatriated so far. The UK has provided finance and personnel to help. I am ready to consider further assistance as needs are identified.

PRIME MINISTER

  Downing Street
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider having the barriers and gates to Downing street removed. [994]

  The Prime Minister
  Security measures at Downing Street are kept under constant review and our advice is at present they should remain.

  Voluntary Organisations and Charities
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he gave to the experience and views of voluntary organisations and charities before he transferred ministerial interest from National Heritage to the Home Office. [959]

  The Prime Minister
  The move of responsibility from the Department of National Heritage to the Home Office has been widely welcomed within the sector and will be seen as the first step to taking forward the positive change in relationships between government and the voluntary sector which we have promised.

  The Labour Party consulted widely with the voluntary sector. The policy document, published in March. "Building a Future Together" was circulated to several thousand voluntary organisations inviting views on the location of departmental responsibilities in government.

  Motor Racing
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister which department has ministerial responsibility for motor racing. [957]

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of National Heritage.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Literacy
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children left primary school in 1996 able to read and write to their chronological age. [209]

  Mr. Byers
  Fifty eight per cent. of pupils reached level 4 and above—the level expected for 11 year olds—in English in the 1996 National Curriculum tests.

  Teachers
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of extra teachers which will be required by his proposals on reducing class sizes. [211]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of extra teachers will depend on how individual LEAs and schools implement reductions in class sizes.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his target for reducing class sizes in schools and his estimate of the cost. [212]

  Mr. Byers
  Our pledge is to phase out classes of over 30 for all five, six and seven year olds during the lifetime of this Parliament. Detailed costs will depend on how LEAs and schools implement reductions in class sizes.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of reducing class sizes to 30 or below for five, six and seven-year-olds. [985]

  Mr. Byers
  The detailed costs of achieving that objective will depend on how LEAs and schools implement those reductions.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary schools in(a) Hull and (b) Kingston upon Hull, North have class sizes of 30 and over for five, six and seven-year-olds; and how many have over (i) 35 pupils and (ii) 40 pupils. [163]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mrs Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list by each primary school in each local education authority the current numbers in each class at ages(a) five, (b) six and (c) seven years respectively; [571]

  (2) if he will list by local education authority the average class size for five, six and seven-year-olds. [505]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 May 1997]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Nursery Places
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he plans to take to guarantee a nursery place for every four-year-old; and how long this will take. [214]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government is committed to providing good quality nursery education for all four-year-olds by April 1999 at the latest. Local authorities will be required to establish Early Years Forums, which will draw up Early Years Development Plans outlining how places will be secured.

  Mrs. Marion Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra nursery places have been created since the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme. [220]
  123
  Ms Morris
  Assessment of Phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme shows too few places have been created. The Government's proposals for early years development plans to replace vouchers will be more effective.

  Education Policy (Hackney)
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to visit Hackney town hall to discuss education policy in respect of under achieving young males. [215]

  Dr. Howells
  Ministers from this Department intend to meet with representatives of Hackney Town Hall in the foreseeable future in order to discus a range of educational issues, in particular concerning Hackney schools under special measures. Under achievement of young males will be one such issue.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of job clubs. [216]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We are already committed to an ambitious and radical welfare to work programme for unemployed people. We will review all existing provisions to assess the extent of their contribution to this policy.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the number of additional places in the state sector that will be required as a result of the ending of the assisted places scheme. [217]

  Mr. Byers
  There are over 800,000 empty places within existing LEA provision so there is ample scope available to accommodate the 10,000 or so pupils who would otherwise have entered the assisted places scheme each year. Phasing out the scheme will lead to savings of about £100 million in total by the year 2000 which will be used to reduce class sizes for 5, 6 and 7 year olds.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much it will cost to return all assisted places scheme pupils back into the state sector; and how much money will be released to spend on the state sector. [221]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend).

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Education and Employment how many pupils are currently in receipt of support from the assisted places scheme. [224]

  Mr. Byers
  Participating schools' estimates show that there are some 33,140 children holding assisted places in England in the current academic year 1996–97. Final figures will be available by the end of the current school term. The number of such children in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  124
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in Worcestershire are currently receiving assisted places. [227]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on the local education authority area from which assisted pupils are drawn is not collected centrally. At the 9 schools currently participating in the assisted places scheme in the Hereford and Worcester area, 1,039 children hold assisted places.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what expenditure is planned to support the assisted places scheme in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [770]

  Mr. Byers
  Current plans, already announced, for expenditure on the assisted places scheme in financial year 1997–98 amount to £140 million. Provision for 1998–99 will be reviewed in the light of our commitment to phase out the scheme from September 1998 while allowing existing assisted place holders to continue their education at participating schools.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average cost per assisted place in the year 1996–97. [766]

  Mr. Byers
  The average cost of an assisted place in the current academic year 1996–97 is estimated to be £3,916.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many assisted places are due to be made available in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [767]

  Mr. Byers
  Some 10,700 new entry places will be made available in academic year 1997–98. We intend to introduce legislation this Summer which will stop new pupil intakes in 1998–99.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the expected annual saving which will accrue from the abolition of the assisted places scheme. [984]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Ms Griffiths).

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy in respect of children midway through their GCSEs and A levels who are currently receiving assistance from the assisted places scheme. [986]

  Mr. Byers
  We shall honour commitments to existing holders of assisted places at age 11 or above to complete their education.

  Mr. Grogan
  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 North Yorkshire in 1995–96 and 1996–97. [969]
  125
  Mr. Byers
  The number of assisted places taken-up and the cost of those places for each participating school in North Yorkshire, including the City of York, in academic years 1995–96 and 1996–97 are given in the following table:

  Assisted places scheme: North Yorkshire

  Academic year 1995–96

  1996–96

  Ampleforth College1

  Number of assisted pupils

  —

  23

  Cost of places £000s

  —

  121

  Ashville College

  Number of assisted pupils

  20

  36

  Cost of places £000s

  93

  157

  Bootham School, York

  Number of assisted pupils

  33

  41

  Cost of places £000s

  153

  197

  Giggleswick School

  Number of assisted pupils

  26

  34

  Cost of places £000s

  121

  153

  Harrogate Ladies' College

  Number of assisted pupils

  25

  35

  Cost of places £000s

  119

  168

  Mount School, York

  Number of assisted pupils

  35

  46

  Cost of places £000s

  180

  225

  Scarborough College

  Number of assisted pupils

  42

  75

  Cost of places £000s

  181

  340

  St. Peter's School, York

  Number of assisted pupils

  108

  128

  Cost of places £000s

  480

  586

  1 Participating in the scheme for first time from 1996–97.

  Dearing Report
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to receive the Dearing report on matters relating to higher education. [218]

  Dr. Howells
  The Dearing Inquiry is expected to report this summer.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the impact of the jobseeker's allowance on rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [219]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A full evaluation of JSA policy has been commissioned from the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University. The Employment Service itself will be carrying out local monitoring of delivery.

  School Standards
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role he proposes local education authorities will have in supporting schools to raise standards. [222]
  126
  Mr. Byers
  The Government sees a fundamental role for local education authorities in a partnership to raise standards. The forthcoming White Paper will set out the Government's proposals for LEA Development Plans which will specify how each LEA will provide local leadership focused on raising standards in all its schools. The role will include: providing the data schools need to set challenging but realistic improvement targets; monitoring performance; working with schools before they develop serious weaknesses; taking decisive action where necessary; and promoting good practice by providing effective advisory and other professional support services.

  General Teaching Council
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what timetable he plans for the setting up of a general teaching council. [223]

  Mr. Byers
  Our forthcoming White Paper will mark the start of wide ranging consultations on our plans for establishing a general teaching council. We will bring forward enabling legislation later this year.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Andrew Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the rules governing student entitlement to social security benefit. [225]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We shall keep this issue under review as we develop our package of Welfare to Work reforms.

  Ashford High School
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the application for grant-maintained status by Ashford high school in Middlesex. [226]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department has received a complaint from the Local Education Authority about the conduct of the parental ballot on grant-maintained status for Ashford high school. That complaint is currently being investigated in accordance with established procedures.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will require colleges of further education to consult the Further Education Funding Council in advance of restructuring leading to redundancies. [284]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend does not consider that such a requirement should be introduced, since the Further Education Funding Council does not have a specific role in advising colleges on their management processes. Colleges are statutorily bound to notify my right hon. Friend where they intend to make redundant 20 or more employees and to consult with representatives of the employees.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the Government's plans for the nursery voucher scheme. [591]

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce details of, and a timetable for, his abolition of the nursery voucher scheme in England. [868]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member of Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ).

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for nursery provision for the under fives and the nursery voucher scheme. [1294]

  Ms Morris
  The Government will replace the previous Government's voucher scheme from the autumn term. The voucher scheme will not meet the need for high quality, accessible early years education.

  The Government will consult during the summer on proposals for the preparation of full Early Years Development Plans to take effect in all areas from April 1998. In addition, we will be inviting proposals for the development of pilot early excellence centres to demonstrate our commitment to bringing nursery education and childcare closer together.

  For the autumn and spring terms, local education authorities will be invited to submit an interim Early Years Development Plan. This will set out the way in which they will provide places for four year olds in their area. They 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 paid through LEAs or direct in the case of GM schools. 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.

  Information about arrangements for the remainder of 1997–98 will be sent to LEAs and other interests shortly, and to parents of four year olds and providers as soon as practicable.

  Education Funding (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will increase the education element of the standard spending assessment for Staffordshire relative to that of other shire counties. [762]

  Mr. Byers
  Education SSAs reflect cost variations such as different wage levels across the country and different levels of deprivation. We are currently reviewing the SSA methodology for 1998–99 in consultation with local authority representatives.

  Primary School Class Sizes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate he has made of the number of additional teachers required to reduce class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-old pupils to below 30 pupils; [768]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the capital expenditure required to enable class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-old pupils to be reduced to below 30 pupils in three years. [769]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our policy is to phase out classes of over 30 for all five, six and seven-year-old pupils during the lifetime of this Parliament. The detailed costs of achieving that objective, including the cost of any additional teachers and any capital expenditure required, will depend on how LEAs and schools implement those reductions.

  Training
  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what are(a) the latest figures and (b) the figures for a year earlier from the TfW Leavers Survey for the number and proportion of leavers who (i) had been entered for vocational qualification, (ii) had obtained a vocational qualification, had failed to obtain a vocational qualification, and were awaiting their results in (1) the North London TEC area, (2) London and (3) Great Britain as a whole; how many of the TfW leavers in the relevant period had completed their training; what was the average time they had spent on TfW training; and if he will make a statement; [836]

  (2) what are (a) the latest figures and (b) the figures for a year earlier from the TfW Leavers Survey for the number and proportion of leavers who in (i) the North London TEC area, (ii) London and (iii) Great Britain, were (1) in full-time job with their work experience employers, (2) in a full-time job with another employer, (3) employed in their own business, (4) in a part-time job, (5) in voluntary work, (6) on another Government training programme, (7) on a full-time education or training course, (8) unemployed and claiming benefit, (9) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (10) in a Jobclub and (11) doing something else; [837]

  (3) What are (a) the latest figures and (b) the figures for a year earlier from the YTS/YT Leavers Survey for (i) make and female trainees, (ii) each separate ethnic group and (iii) those with a disability in (1) the North London TEC area, (2) London and (3) Great Britain as a whole for those (a) in full-time work with the same employer, (b) in full-time work with a different employer, (c) in part-time work, (d) on a full-time course at a college or training centre, (e) on another youth training scheme, (f) doing something else, (g) unemployed and (h) who had obtained a vocational qualification; and what were (1) the number of questionnaires issued, (2) the usable percentage response rate and (3) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers. [838]

  Dr. Howells
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Teachers' Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the changes to the teachers' superannuation scheme made by the previous Government with special reference to teachers and lecturers retiring after 31 August 1997 having to wait until the age of 60 years to receive their pension. [987]

  Mr. Byers
  The changes made by the previous Government were necessary because of the escalating cost of teachers' premature retirement, to which the Public Accounts Committee drew attention. Employers will still be able to grant premature retirement to teachers under 60.

  Consultation is proceeding on further changes designed to enhance the flexibility of teachers' pension arrangements. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement about this in due course.

  Secondary Places, Hillingdon
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the number of secondary places available in Hillingdon. [1296]

  Mr. Byers
  The Funding Agency for Schools will be consulting on the establishment of a new GM school in Hillingdon.

  Further Education
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Government will continue to fund further education through the FEFC with the proposed reduction in funding next year. [988]

  Dr. Howells
  Following the Further Education Funding Council's notification of provisional funding allocations on 4 April, the Council will shortly be notifying colleges of their final funding allocations for the 1997–98 academic year.

  Agency Labour
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the Government's policy in respect of the present system of colleges employing casual agency labour through(a) ELS and (b) other agencies. [989]

  Dr. Howells
  As from incorporation on 1 April 1993, further education colleges assumed responsibility for their own finance and organisation, including the appointment, dismissal, redundancy and conditions of service generally of their staff. As a result, any decisions on whether to employ staff through an employment agency, and if so which agency to use, are for the college concerned to make.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the six-bed rule for bed and breakfast accommodation. [1070]
  130
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  While I am aware that the level at which non-domestic rates apply is a matter of concern to some tourism businesses, the policy responsibility for the six-bed rule lies with the Department of the Environment. Should there be any review of that policy, the impact on tourism would be taken into account.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the consistency of the application of the six-bed rule for bed and breakfast accommodation by valuation officers; and if he will make a statement. [1069]

  Mr. Clarke
  None. It is the responsibility of Inland Revenue local Valuation Officers (VOs) to maintain local non-domestic rating lists. Guidance has been issued to all VOs concerning the rating of bed and breakfast accommodation to ensure a consistent nation-wide approach. I am aware that the level at which non-domestic rates apply is a matter of some importance to small businesses in tourism.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many civil servants at each grade within his Department were of Asian origin on 5 May. [239]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The number of staff in my Department (excluding its Agencies) who have declared the ethnic group to which they belong as being Asian, as at 5 May, is as follows:

  Grade

  Number

  Asian

  A(L)

  1

  B

  1

  C

  3

  D(U)

  4

  D(L)

  2

  Total

  11

  The 1996 Department of National Heritage Pay and Grading review made the following changes to "traditional" Civil Service grades. Grades 6 and 7 were merged to form A(U) and A(L) respectively. Grades SEO and HEO were merged to form grade B. Grade EO became C, and AO and AA were merged to form D(U) and D(L) respectively.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will introduce regulations making it easier for concessionary television licences to be obtained for pensioner tenants, other than those in warder-controlled accommodation, who are visited by officials. [82]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]: The Government have no current plans to extend the scope of the concessionary scheme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Late Payments
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small business organisations have made
  131
  representations (a) supporting and (b) opposing the Government's proposals for a statutory right to interest on late payment; and if she will make a statement. [848]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have had representations from two small business organisations, one of whom was in favour of legislation for a Statutory Right to Interest and the other one of whom was opposed.

  It is clear that late payment continues to cause concern to small businesses. Business surveys consistently show that over 60 per cent. of small firms support the introduction of legislation for a Statutory Right to Interest. It is in direct response to these concerns that the Government will introduce the Fair Payment of Commercial Debts Bill.

  Representations from small business organisations will be sought in response to the Green Paper on a statutory right to interest that we plan to publish in the summer.

  Post Office (Franchise Transfers)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to stop proposed Post Office Counters Ltd. franchise transfers, with special reference to Southport general post office. [835]

  Ian McCartney
  In announcing on 16 May a comprehensive review of options for implementing the Government's election manifesto pledge to grant the Post Office greater commercial freedom, I also announced that, at my request, the Post Office had agreed to suspend its programme of converting Crown post offices to agency status—except where irreversible commitments already exist—until we are in a position to make informed decisions. The proposal to convert the Crown post office in Southport has been suspended.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards small businesses. [703]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government firmly believes that small businesses form the bedrock of a successful economy and is determined to work with them to address their needs and priorities.

  We are developing a range of imaginative proposals which will address the needs of the 90s and beyond. Our plans include improving the quality and effectiveness of business support; introducing the Enterprise Zone; cutting unnecessary red tape and introducing a new legal right to interest on commercial debt.

  EU Research Council
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Research Council on 14 and 15 May. [1426]

  John Battle
  I represented the UK at the meeting of the EU Research Council on 14–15 May 1997 at which the European Commission's proposals for the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP5) were the chief item for discussion. I underlined the need for FP5 to be strongly focused on Europe's economic and social challenges and deliver real 132
  results. The whole programme must be focused on well defined objectives, be tightly managed and involve the users of research.

  Following an exchange of views, a worthwhile measure of agreement was reached on a number of key issues relating to the shape and structure of FP5. All Member States subscribed to these except Spain, which withheld agreement because it was unable to secure acceptance that financial commitments on FP5 should be delayed. Conclusions adopted by the Presidency reflect the areas of agreement on FP5, which include the need to improve the coherence of the proposed thematic programme structure while still limiting programme numbers to a range of broadly 4–6; the need for additional 'key actions' (targeted R&D directed at specific social and economic goals) within a limit of broadly 25; commitment to keeping to the timetable for the introduction of FP5; and agreement to procedures for taking forward work on the scientific and technological content of FP5, and tackling the management questions. I consider this a very useful outcome that will give an impetus to further preparatory work before the next Council in November.

  I also addressed research ministers from the EU's Central and East European Associates in the context of the "Structured Dialogue" preparing for the enlargement of the European Union. I emphasised the UK's strong support for enlargement and the valuable contribution that strengthened scientific and technological co-operation could make to prospects for accession.

  The Council also approved conclusions on the European Commission's Action Plan for Innovation and received a report on the progress of negotiations on the EC/US Science and Technology Co-operation Agreement.

  Champagne Imports
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bottles of champagne were imported from France in each year since 1992. [1104]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of bottles of champagne the UK imports from France is not available. The volumes, in millions of litres, are given in the following table.

  Year

  Millions litres

  1992

  11.1

  1993

  14.3

  1994

  17.8

  1995

  14.0

  1996

  15.5

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what measures would be necessary to extend the scope of the non-fossil fuel obligation to include other forms of energy; [1009]

  (2) what plans she has to review the non-fossil fuel obligation; [1003]

  (3) what plans she has to extend the scope of the non-fossil fuel obligation. [1010]
  133
  John Battle
  I anticipate initiating shortly a consultation exercise with the relevant trade bodies of the renewable energy industry, OFFER, and the Regional Electricity Companies on a fifth non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) Order for renewable energy in England and Wales, leading to an announcement later in the year. I am currently considering the options for the longer term future of the NFFO, and I will make a further announcement in due course. Extending the scope of NFFO to include other forms of energy will need primary legislation and clearance from the European Commission.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to introduce measures to ensure that goods imported to Britain have not been produced by child labour. [814]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government will use every endeavour to protect and promote human rights in the work place and support the eradication of all forms of exploitative and abusive labour (including child labour) as part of our wider effort to reduce global poverty and promote sustainable human development. We will be meeting the CBI, TUC and the British Retail Consortium on 23 May to discuss practical ways forward and the purpose to meet relevant non-government organisations in the near future to progress these discussions further.

  Trade and Investment (South Asia)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the increased economic co-operation and free trade in the south Asian region and their impact on the United Kingdom's trade and investment with and in the countries concerned. [743]

  Mrs. Roche
  I believe that the commitment of the countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation to introduce a free trade area by 2001 will give a considerable boost to trade within the region. This should create significant opportunities for UK companies. I will ensure that my Department does all that it can to help UK companies to take advantage of these opportunities.

  Trade (Chinese Community)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she plans to take to promote further the contribution made by Britain's Chinese community to the balance of payments through enhanced trade with the countries of east and south and east Asia. [710]

  Mrs. Roche
  Britain's Chinese community already makes an important contribution to the nation's commercial success at home and overseas. I would be happy to consider ways in which the community might be more actively involved in our trade promotion activities.

  Trade (China)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to lead a trade mission to the People's Republic of China. [279]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My forward travel programme is currently under consideration and no plans have yet been made for a visit to China.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has carried out into the effects of the minimum wage on jobs. [210]

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the effect of a national minimum wage on employment levels. [189]

  Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Banbury on 21 May 1997, Official Report, column 65.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on manufacturing exports. [700]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1996 the UK exported manufactured goods worth £139.1 billion and imported manufactured goods worth £146.9 billion.

  We are committed to improving the focus of our efforts to back British business selling abroad. We are establishing an export forum that will consider all aspects of our current programmes and activities.

  Indo-British Partnership Initiative
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has in respect of the Indo-British Partnership Initiative. [715]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Indo-British Partnership has made a significant contribution to the strengthening of bilateral commercial links between the UK and India since its formation in 1993. A number of high-profile events are planned over the coming months to mark the 50th anniversary of India's independence including a major "Indo-British Partnership: Towards 2000" exhibition which will take place in Delhi in the Autumn at the time of the State Visit by HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. This will have a commercial focus but will also highlight scientific, technological, cultural, sporting and other links. A programme of promotional events is also planned in the UK later in the year involving Business Links, trade associations and Chambers of Commerce. I will be providing every possible support for the Indo-British Partnership's future activities and hope personally to be associated with a number of its events.

  International Labour Organisation Conditions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans her Department has to place proposals before the World Trade Organisation concerning the enforcement of ILO conditions in member states. [501]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 20 May 1997]: The Government will use every endeavour to protect and promote human rights in the work place and are considering how best to use international fora. We will be looking closely at the position in the International Labour Organisation and the World Trade Organisation, taking into account the declaration agreed at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore last December

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what changes he plans to make to the criteria governing the granting of export licences to British companies selling defence equipment overseas; and which countries would be precluded from receiving United Kingdom defence equipment by these criteria; [276]

  (2) when he expects to publish his revised criteria for the granting of export licences for sales of defence equipment; and if he will publish precise definitions of each; [275]

  (3) which countries his Department assesses currently use United Kingdom manufactured defence equipment for the purposes of internal repression. [250]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We have made a firm commitment not to permit the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression. To give effect to that commitment, we have initiated an urgent review of the detailed criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. We support a strong UK defence industry but must ensure that exports are properly regulated. We are aware of concerns that some defence equipment exported from the UK in the past has been used for internal repression. The review will ensure that the risk of such misuse is fully taken into account, alongside all other relevant factors, in the assessment of all licence applications for the export of conventional arms. The new criteria will be made available to the House when the Review is complete. In the meantime, I have instructed my officials to consult Ministers whenever there are export licence applications which may raise concerns about human rights or international stability.

  Mission Statement
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to public funds of producing and distributing the film to be produced by Sir David Puttnam setting out the Foreign Secretary's mission statement. [120]

  Mr. Fatchett
  £2,500.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he accepts the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 on the legality of nuclear weapons as a basis of British nuclear policy. [255]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We strongly support the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. We welcome the Court's recognition of the importance of obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the nuclear weapon states' obligation on nuclear disarmament. The Court's Advisory Opinion does not require a change in the United Kingdom's entirely defensive nuclear deterrence policy.
  136
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government intend to ratify the 1997 additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva convention. [256]

  Mr. Lloyd
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the 1977 additional protocols. The Government is addressing the issue as a matter of priority.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the distinction between individual and collective defence in respect of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, following the opinion of the International Court on nuclear weapons. [254]

  Mr. Lloyd
  The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion does not require a change in the United Kingdom's policy of considering the use of nuclear weapons only in self defence, which includes the defence of our NATO allies, and only in extreme circumstances.

  British Prisoners (Venezuela)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to secure the repatriation of James Miles and Paul Loseby, currently detained in Venezuela. [824]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have encouraged the Venezuelan government to accede to the Council of Europe Convention on the transfer of Sentenced Persons. If the Venezuelan government accede to the Convention and Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby are found guilty and sent to prison, they would be able to apply to transfer to a prison in the UK.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the present living conditions and (b) the medical care available to James Miles and Paul Loseby while detained in Venezuela. [825]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Messrs Miles and Loseby are visited regularly by consular staff. They make sure that living conditions are acceptable and no worse than those of other prisoners. Neither Miles nor Loseby have complained to consular staff about the medical care they have received to date.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that the medical care and living conditions of James Miles and Paul Loseby are satisfactory while they are detained in Venezuela. [826]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Consular staff in Caracas regularly visit Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby. They check on their medical care and living conditions, and if necessary make representations to the Venezuelan authorities.

  British Prisoners (Repatriation)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the repatriation of British prisoners. [823]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Government policy is that on humanitarian grounds prisoners should be able to serve their sentences in their own country. The United Kingdom
  137
  is party to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and the Commonwealth Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders. We also have bilateral agreements with Thailand and Egypt.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to secure the repatriation of British citizens currently detained in Venezuela. [827]

  Mr. Fatchett
  On 17 April we approached the Venezuelan government about accession to the Council of Europe Convention on the transfer of Sentenced Persons. We await their reply. If the Venezuelan government acceded to the Convention British prisoners sentenced and imprisoned in Venezuela would be able to apply to transfer to a prison in the UK.

  Locarno Room
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost, including video production, of the presentation made to the media and others in the Locarno room of the FCO on 12 May. [618]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 20 May at columns 39–40 to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Spelthorne.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the proposed draft treaty of Amsterdam. [789]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We placed in the Libraries of the House on 16 May an unofficial paper tabled in the IGC that day by the Dutch Presidency. It is not a draft Treaty, but it includes proposed Treaty changes in most of the areas being discussed in the IGC. We will continue to send papers tabled in the IGC to Parliament.

  Panchen Lama
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he is taking to secure the release of the Panchen Lama Choekyi Nyima; and if he will make a statement. [992]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are concerned at the continued detention by the Chinese authorities of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the child accepted by the Dalai Lama as the eleventh reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. Along with EU partners, the previous government raised its deep concern at this detention with the Chinese. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has also raised the question of human rights with them, most recently in his meeting with the Chinese Ambassador on 12 May. We will continue to work with our EU partners to urge the Chinese authorities to respect human rights and the distinct religious identity of the Tibetans.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what demands the 138
  United Kingdom is making within the EU to assist United Kingdom fishermen; and if the Government have sought a larger United Kingdom quota. [285]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government will negotiate to achieve changes to the Common Fisheries Policy which will assist United Kingdom fishermen, including strengthening the economic benefits that countries derive from their national quotas. The Government will seek increased quotas when they are justified by the state of the fish stocks.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the population was eligible for legal aid for each year from 1970 to 1996; and what estimate he has made of the percentage of the population which would be eligible for legal aid in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [1077]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have no reliable means of estimating the percentage of the population that is eligible for civil legal aid. Estimates of the percentage of households eligible for civil legal aid are available for each of the following financial years.

  Financial year

  Percentage

  1979–80

  77

  1989–90

  68

  1990–91

  61

  1992–93

  53

  1993–94

  48

  1994–95

  50

  1995–96

  50

  1996–97

  48

  1997–98

  48

  Comparable estimates are not available for the other years covered by the question.

  There are no formal estimates for future years.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the underspend of the legal aid budget in each of the last three years; and what were the factors which were responsible for the underspend. [1079]

  Mr Hoon
  The shortfall in legal aid expenditure as against provision, in each of the last three years for which information is available, was as follows:
  1993–93: £73 million

  1994–95: £107 million

  1995–96: £66 million

  The underspends resulted from a lower than expected number of bills and higher than expected recovery of costs by the Legal Aid Fund in civil cases.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to change the membership of the Legal Aid Board. [1055]
  139
  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently two vacancies on the Legal Aid Board which the Lord Chancellor intends to fill in due course.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the current levels of remuneration for legal aid for(a) barrister and (b) solicitors. [1056]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am satisfied that remuneration rates for legal aid work for both solicitors and barristers are currently set at a level which attracts a sufficient number of competent practitioners to undertake the work, whilst at the same time ensuring that the cost to public funds is not unreasonable. The present levels were considered earlier this year as part of the annual discussions with the profession on remuneration rates. No changes were made.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money from the legal aid budget has been provided to new age travellers to

  £

  Civil

  Magistrates' Court

  Crown court

  Advice and assistance

  Assistance by way of representation

  Duty solicitor

  1979–80

  936

  318

  n/a

  72

  —

  —

  1980–81

  911

  332

  n/a

  74

  234

  —

  1981–82

  1,018

  322

  n/a

  77

  251

  —

  1982–83

  1,124

  321

  n/a

  79

  260

  —

  1983–84

  1,199

  332

  n/a

  79

  272

  —

  1984–85

  1,260

  343

  497

  82

  294

  131

  1985–86

  1,315

  349

  514

  83

  298

  132

  1986–87

  1,408

  379

  556

  83

  309

  128

  1987–88

  1,457

  412

  599

  82

  330

  126

  1988–89

  1,587

  425

  623

  80

  334

  124

  1989–90

  1,656

  449

  675

  82

  348

  118

  1990–91

  1,717

  473

  713

  87

  360

  114

  1991–92

  1,788

  497

  788

  92

  387

  112

  1992–93

  1,867

  491

  902

  93

  472

  113

  1993–94

  1,957

  470

  965

  94

  539

  111

  1994–95

  2,171

  434

  1,005

  92

  565

  113

  1995–96

  2,369

  462

  944

  96

  590

  133

  Information on Crown court legal aid is not readily available for the period 1979–80 to 1983–84. The Advice By Way of Representation scheme was introduced in 1980–81. The Duty Solicitor Magistrates' Courts Scheme was introduced in 1984–85 and Police Station Scheme in 1985–86.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what target he plans to set in respect of the percentage of the population eligible for legal aid. [1078]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is not our intention to set a target of this kind for legal aid. Our aim is to ensure that, within the resources available, legal aid is used to best effect.

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what proportion of Immigration Appeal Tribunal members are(a) women and (b) of Asian origin. [1052]

  Mr. Hoon
  On the 1 May 1997 there were a total of 26 members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in post. The President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is
  140
  challenge, through (a) the county courts, (b) the High Court, (c) the divisional court and (d) the magistrates courts, decisions to remove them from unlawful occupation of public and private land in each of the last three years. [960]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is not possible to distinguish new age travellers from other legally aided applicants. Nor is it possible to identify separately cases involving unlawful occupation of public and private land.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the average cost per case to public funds for cases qualifying for legal aid for each year from 1970 to 1996, in 1996 prices. [1075]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information on the cost to legal aid is available from 1979–80. Average payments from the legal aid fund, by category of legal aid in 1995–96 prices was as follows:

  male. Of the four full-time members one is a woman. Of the 21 part-time legal members two are women. Of the 20 lay members six are women. Questions asking the ethnic origins of candidates for legal appointments to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal have been included on application forms only since 1991. Candidates are under no obligation to answer such questions. However, from information currently held I can say that two are Asian; 15 are White; one is listed as "other"; and the ethnic origins of the remaining eight are unknown. No information on the ethnic origins of lay members is collected.

  Evesham Magistrates Court
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to intervene to prevent the closure of Evesham magistrates court before the Lord Chancellor has considered the objections to the closure plan, lodged by Hereford and Worcester county council. [1061]

  Mr. Hoon
  Hereford and Worcester magistrates courts committee have stated that Evesham magistrates court will remain open, during this financial year, pending the determination of the appeal.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in his Department. [723]

  Mr. Hoon
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, the Department's Programme of action to achieve equality of opportunity for people of ethnic minority origin sets out specific commitments in respect of recruitment, retention and development of ethnic minority employees, including monitoring the impact of the commitments. Equal Opportunities statements are included in all recruitment literature and advertisements. Training on equal opportunities is obligatory for all staff in management grades, to assist in retention of ethnic minority employees. Sponsorship of ethnic minority students under the Windsor Fellowship scheme and

  Mandate Equivalent Grade

  Grade

  Indian

  Pakistani

  Bangladeshi

  East African

  Chinese

  Other

  Totals

  SCS1

  —

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  SRA (Lawyer)

  Grade 7

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  RE I

  SEO

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  RE2

  HEO

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  6

  RE3

  EO

  16

  2

  0

  8

  3

  5

  34

  ROI

  AO

  15

  1

  0

  1

  2

  9

  28

  RO2

  AO

  76

  6

  0

  24

  4

  16

  126

  RA 1

  AA

  34

  2

  0

  14

  1

  7

  58

  RA2

  AA

  18

  2

  2

  10

  2

  11

  45

  Totals

  164

  13

  3

  61

  12

  51

  304

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 19 May 1997:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question. The Office is an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor.
  The numbers by grade of civil servants of Asian origin in the Public Record Office on 5 May were:

  Public record office band

  Civil Servant of Asian origin

  3

  1

  4

  4

  5

  23

  6

  15

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many civil servants, of each grade, in his Department, were of Asian origin, on 5 May. [722]

  Mr. Hoon
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, the information is set ut in the table below. I have asked the Chief Executives of the Land Registry and the Public Record Office to reply separately. There is no legislative requirement to monitor the ethnic origin of Northern Ireland Court Service employees and no figures are available.
  142
  provision of mentors for the National Mentoring scheme help to promote the Lord Chancellor's Department as an attractive employer to minority ethnic groups.

  The Northern Ireland Court Service has no proposals/targets specific to ethnic minority employees, but it is the policy of the Service to ensure equality of opportunity for all current and potential employees on the basis of merit alone. I have asked the Chief Executives of the Land Registry and of the Public Record Office to reply separately.

  Letter from Stuart Hill to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 22 May 1997:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the number of civil servants of Asian origin in his Department and Agencies.
  The table below sets out the number of employees of HM Land Registry who are of Asian origin together with their grade. The information is derived form declarations by Land Registry staff and the position is shown as on 5 May 1997.

  Grade Level

  Number of civil servants of Asian origin (including casual staff)

  HEO and above

  16

  EO

  82

  Bailiff

  6

  AO

  271

  AA

  38

  SGB 1 and 2

  33

  Typist

  28

  Total

  474

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 19 May 1997:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question. The Office is an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor.
  The Public Record Office has no specific proposals to increase the number of its ethnic minority employees. It is however an equal opportunities employer and its recruitment practice follows the guidelines on fair and open competition from the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code (2nd edition 1996). Currently 17% of its employees are from ethnic minorities.

  Letter from Stuart Hill to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 22 May 1997:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning proposals to increase the number of ethnic minority employees.

  143
  HM Land Registry's Programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity for people of ethnic minority origin sets out specific commitments in respect of recruitment, retention, training and development of ethnic minority employees, including monitoring the impact of commitments.
  Training on equal opportunities is mandatory for all staff on entry to a management grade and additional training is provided before staff are involved in recruitment procedures. "Equal Opportunities" statements are included in all our recruitment literature and advertisements.

  High Court Judges
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges at High Court level and below are(a) women and (b) of Asian origin. [1051]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is set out in the table below. The figures are as at 1 May 1997. The figures for Asian judges are believed to be correct, but as the ethnic origin of candidates for judicial office was not recorded prior to October 1991, the information may be incomplete.

  Total number

  women

  Asian

  High Court Judges

  96

  7 (7.3 per cent.)

  0

  Circuit Judges

  562

  29 (5.2 per cent.)

  4 (0.7 per cent.)

  Recorders (part-time)

  903

  67 (7.4 per cent.)

  3 (0.3 per cent.)

  Assistant Recorders (part-time)

  356

  60 (16.8 per cent.)

  3 (0.8 per cent.)

  District Judges

  332

  37 (11.1 per cent.)

  1 (0.3 per cent.)

  Deputy District Judges (part-time)

  690

  88 (12.7 per cent.)

  7 (1 per cent.)

  Stipendiary Magistrates Acting Stipendiary

  90

  15 (16.6 per cent.)

  2 (2.2 per cent.)

  Magistrates (part-time)

  90

  16 (17.7 per cent.)

  0

  Chairmen of Industrial Tribunals (full-time)

  80

  12 (15 per cent.)

  2 (2.5 per cent.)

  Chairmen of Industrial Tribunals (part-time)

  200

  26 (13 per cent)

  2 (1 per cent.)

  Unsuccessful Applicants for Silk
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many unsuccessful applicants for Silk in each year since 1992 sought an interview with officials in his Department to ascertain the factors considered by the Lord Chancellor when arriving at his decision. [704]

  Mr. Hoon
  The factors considered by the Lord Chancellor when arriving at his decisions on Silk are detailed in the notes provided to all applicants. The number of unsuccessful applicants who sought an interview with officials to discuss their personal position in 1995 and 1996 were 36 and 41 respectively. For earlier years the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average time between arrest and disposal for juvenile offenders in(a) juvenile courts and (b) Crown courts. [871]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not recorded for juveniles in the Crown court. Similar information to that required is, however, available for juveniles in the 144
  Youth court. In 1996, the average time from offence to completion (which may be sentence, committal, dismissal or discontinuance) for defendants in indictable cases in the Youth court was 131 days.

  General Election (Ballot Papers)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what administrative guidance is issued in respect of the opening of sealed containers in which the counterfoils of ballot papers are placed at a general election in the absence of a court order. [1014]

  Mr. Hoon
  Rule 55(1) of the Parliamentary Election Rules, embodies in the Representation of the People Act 1983, requires Returning Officers to send the sealed packets of counterfoils to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Rule 56 provides that the sealed packets may be opened only on an order of this Honourable House or a Court, and that the order may prescribe the conditions under which the order is to be carried out.

WALES

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the number of employees from ethnic minorities within his Department. [231]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department has recently agreed to participate in the Windsor Fellowship Programme. In addition we have established an outreach programme to promote career opportunities and encourage applications from people from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants at each grade within his Department were of Asian origin on 5 May. [230]

  Mr. Davies
  The information requested is not available in the format requested.

  NHS Trusts (Contracts)
  Mr. Opik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS trusts failed to meet the 14 March 1997 deadline to agree contracts with their purchasers; and how many are now expected to go to arbitration. [779]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The objective for 1997–98 was for trusts and health authorities to agree contracts by 16 May 1997. Information about which organisations met the objective is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member in due course and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Duchy Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each local authority area in Lancashire the number of applications received for assistance from the Duchy's benevolent fund and the number successful, listing the sums and receipts in each case for the most recent year for which figures are available. [642]
  145
  Dr. David Clark
  Figures for the year ending 31 March 1997 are as follows:

  Local authority area

  Applications received

  Successful applications

  Total donater £

  Blackburn

  6

  3

  1,087

  Blackpool

  8

  4

  1,900

  Burnley

  17

  9

  3,650

  Chorley

  5

  2

  500

  Fylde

  3

  3

  150

  Hyndburn

  4

  4

  950

  Lancaster

  12

  6

  575

  Pendle

  18

  6

  3,870

  Preston

  13

  11

  2,708

  Ribble Valley

  7

  5

  2,200

  Rossendale

  7

  5

  1,600

  South Ribble

  6

  4

  911

  West Lancashire

  3

  2

  100

  Wyre

  3

  2

  803

  County-wide

  5

  2

  1,836

  Total

  22,840

  In addition major projects supported were:

  Local authority area

  Total donated

  Recipient

  Preston

  5,000

  Parish Prospect

  Preston

  5,000

  St. Walburge's

  Blackburn

  5,000

  Cathedral Tower

  Blackburn

  5,000

  New Direction Training

  Fylde

  5,000

  Youth Information and Advice Centre

  Total

  25,000

  The Duchy Benevolent Fund also makes grants to charities such as Invalids-At-Home who then make smaller grants to many individuals some of whom will live in Lancashire.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor or the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants of each grade in the Office of Public Service were of Asian origin, on 5 May. [724]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The total number of civil servants, by grade, in the Cabinet Office, the Office of Public Service and its executive agencies on that date were as follows:

  Grade

  Total number of staff in grade

  Number with Asian background

  Non-industrial staff

  Grade 6

  52

  1

  Senior Executive Officers

  131

  2

  Higher Executive Officers

  201

  4

  AT/HEO(D)

  21

  1

  Executive Officers

  296

  10

  Administrative Officers

  360

  14

  Administrative Assistants

  63

  7

  Professional and Technology Officer

  36

  1

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  Assistant Information Officer

  1

  1

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  Personal Secretaries

  90

  5

  146

  Grade

  Total number of staff in grade

  Number with Asian background

  Typists

  32

  2

  Support Grade Band 1

  70

  1

  Industrial staff

  Drivers

  204

  2

  Custody Guards

  332

  10

  Inspector

  4

  1

  Under the department's equal opportunities policy, all staff joining the department are invited to provide details of their ethnic background to enable effective monitoring of the policy. The information is provided by individuals on a voluntary basis.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in the Office of Public Service. [725]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office (OPS) and its agencies is an equal opportunities employer. Applications from ethnic minorities are welcomed and monitored. Appointments are made on merit and in accordance with the principle of fair and open competition.

  Quangos
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the name of the chairman of each quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation where Ministers are responsible for the appointment; [996]

  (2) if he will list the name of each member of each quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation in Cumbria, identifying the chairman separately; [998]

  (3) if he will list the name of each quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation to which Ministers or their representatives make appointments; [995]

  (4) if he will list each quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation in Cumbria. [997]

  Dr. David Clark
  Unfortunately, not all this information is held centrally. However, I refer my hon. Friend to the information now available on the Internet (www.open.gov.uk/pau/paupoint.htm) which sets out appointments made by Ministers to boards of executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and NHS bodies—approximately 8,500 appointments in total. Information on appointments to advisory NDPBs and other bodies is available from sponsoring departments and is often set out in departmental publications, such as departmental annual reports, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies 1996, also available in the House Libraries, lists all NDPBs and nationalised industries, together with certain public corporations and NHS bodies, and identifies those appointments made by The Queen and Her Ministers. This information however is not set out by region.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Prime Minister's Questions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Council how many Back-Bench hon. Members she consulted about changes to Prime Minister's Questions before the change was announced. [652]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  There was no formal consultation, although Members on all sides of the House have placed their dissatisfaction with the old arrangements on record over several years.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Climate Change
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to meet his Cabinet colleagues from the other European Union countries to discuss climate change and the fixing of targets for 2005. [637]

    Mr. Prescott
    Together with the Minister for the Environment, I plan to attend the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 June at which climate change, including appropriate reduction targets for developed countries for 2005, will be discussed.

    Conference on Sustainable Development
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he plans to attend the conference on sustainable development in New York; [639]

    (2) what issues he plans to include in his speech to the conference on sustainable development in New York; [640]

    (3) if he plans to accompany the Prime Minister to the special session of the UN in New York. [641]

    Mr. Prescott
    The Prime Minister and I will both be attending the UN General Assembly Special Session in June. The Prime Minister will address the General Assembly on 23 June. He will no doubt refer to the importance the Government attaches to the goal of sustainable development and to our priorities for pursuing that goal.

    Housing (Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the percentage of(a) the local authority, (b) housing association, (c) the private sector and (d) the total housing stock in (i) Burnley, (ii) Pendle and (iii) Rossendale assessed as requiring major expenditure to bring it up to standard in each year since 1992. [698]

    Mr. Raynsford
    As part of the annual Housing Investment Programme, local authorities in England are asked to provide estimates of the numbers of their own dwellings and dwelling in other tenures in their area which are unfit. The estimated proportions of unfit stock 148
    on 1 April provided by Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale on their 1992 to 1996 HIP1 returns are set out below. The figures are not necessarily reported on a consistent basis because of differences in interpretation of the statutory definition of unfitness. Not all of these dwellings will require major expenditure to make them fit.

    Local authority

    Housing association

    Private sector

    Total stock

    Burnley

    1992

    3

    1—

    20

    17

    1993

    5

    4

    18

    16

    1994

    1—

    2

    22

    18

    1995

    1—

    0

    22

    18

    1996

    1—

    0

    24

    19

    Pendle

    1992

    0

    3

    7

    6

    1993

    0

    2

    7

    6

    1994

    0

    7

    6

    1995

    0

    0

    18

    15

    1996

    0

    0

    17

    15

    Rossendale

    1992

    1—

    0

    7

    6

    1993

    1—

    0

    7

    6

    1994

    6

    not reported

    6

    not reported

    1995

    4

    0

    33

    27

    1996

    3

    0

    30

    24

    1 Less than 0.5 per cent. but not zero.

    Petrol
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy will be towards the proposals relating to maximum permissible levels of(a) sulphur in petrol and diesel and (b) benzene in petrol by 2000, at the Council of European Environment Ministers meeting in June. [1015]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government is committed to taking tough action to improve air quality in the UK. We will make clear our position on the levels of sulphur in petrol and diesel and benzene in petrol at the Council of European Environment Ministers meeting in June, as part of the negotiation of a common position on the proposed vehicles and fuels directives.

    EU Committee of the Regions
    Mr. Whitehead
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the method whereby United Kingdom members of the EU Committee of the Regions are appointed; and if he will make a statement. [841]

    Ms Armstrong
    The first term of the Committee of the Regions ends on 25 January 1998. Before making nominations for new appointments to the Committee we intend to consider the arrangements for making these nominations and to consult local government.

    Southend (Grant)
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in determining the grant to be
    149
    given to the Southend unitary authority for the year 1998–99; and what factors he is entitled to take into account in making such a determination. [976]

    Ms Armstrong
    I expect to announce the Revenue Support Grant for Southend for 1998/99 at the same time as I announce my proposals for other authorities. Such announcements have customarily been made about the end of November. I expect to apply the same grant formula to Southend as to other authorities with similar responsibilities. I have a broad discretion as to the factors which may be taken into account.

    To assist Southend, and other authorities reorganising in April 1998, I intend to publish indicative estimates of the level of Standard Spending Assessment which each authority would have had for 1997–98, had reorganisation taken place a year earlier.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the impact a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. would have on carbon dioxide emissions the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [1004]

    Mr. Meacher
    We have estimated that the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. will result in an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of about 0.9 million tonnes per year (equivalent to about a quarter of a million tonnes of carbon) by 2010. This represents about 0.15 per cent. of current carbon dioxide emissions.

    Mr. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned into the increases in carbon dioxide emissions which would result from a programme of building clean coal plants. [1013]

    Mr. Meacher
    Extensive research on the effects of clean coal plants is available from ETSU (formerly the Energy Technology Support Unit) and the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Programme. The impacts that clean coal technology would have on carbon dioxide emissions would depend on the number of plants built and which other options for electricity generation they displace.

    Mr. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what modifications he proposes to make to the United Kingdom climate change action programme to achieve the Government's target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [1005]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government will lead the fight against global warming at the Kyoto Conference on climate change this December, through our target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. We will review the United Kingdom's Climate Change Programme in that light looking for improvements in areas such as domestic and industrial energy efficiency, an integrated transport strategy to tackle the projected growth in emissions from road transport, and a large increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources and combined heat and power schemes.

    Council Properties
    Mr. Streeter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated potential rental income from vacant council owned properties in Devon and Plymouth. [983]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Local authorities report information on the rent loss on their vacant dwellings in their Housing Subsidy Claim returns. The provisional total rent loss on vacant dwellings in 1996–97 reported by local authorities in Devon, including Plymouth, is some £1.3 million (1.3 per cent of potential rent income); the corresponding figure for Plymouth is £0.5 million (1.5 per cent.). The corresponding figure for rent loss as a percentage of potential rent income for all local authorities in England is 2.6 per cent.

    Rented Housing
    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects local authorities to be able to use their capital receipts to start building rented housing. [991]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Legislation to facilitate the Government's Capital Receipts initiative will be brought forward as quickly as possible. Resources released under the initiative will be made available to local authorities to use in support of priority schemes which meet key objectives. We will be considering and consulting on these over the coming weeks.

    Shopping Centres
    Mr. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to reply to the Environment Committee's report on shopping centres, Fourth report, Session 1996–97, HC 210. [35]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We expect to respond in mid-June.

    English Partnerships
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans next to meet the chairman of English Partnerships. [808]

    Angela Eagle
    The Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues look forward to meeting the Chairman of English Partnerships in common with the Chairmen of the other major bodies sponsored by this department.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the development of English Partnerships. [798]

    Angela Eagle
    We intend to build on the achievements of English Partnerships in the context of our policies for regional development and after extensive consultation.

    Planning Inspectors
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many planning inspectors are currently in place; and on what grades they are; [820]

    (2) what is the current waiting time for appeal cases to be heard from receipt of appeals; [819]
    151
    (3) what was the backlog of appeals being dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate on 5 May. [818]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Responsibility for the provision of information on performance on the processing of planning appeals and other operational matters has been delegated to the Planning Inspectorate Agency under its Chief Executive Mr. Chris Shepley. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 21 May 1997:
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Questions about:
    the current waiting time for appeal cases to be heard;
    the number and grades of planning inspectors;
    the current backlog of appeals being dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate on 5 May.

    During April the average waiting time for dates offered to the parties for planning appeals to be heard at both a public inquiry and a hearing was 26 weeks from the start of the appeal.

    On 1 May 1997 the Planning Inspectorate had 379 Planning Inspectors. Of the 224 salaried Inspectors there were 42 Principal Housing and Planning Inspectors, 149 Senior Housing and Planning Inspectors and 33 Housing and Planning Inspectors. The remaining inspectors were fee paid.

    The planning appeal system is governed by procedure rules. These rules prescribe the time allowed for the parties to the appeal to compete the various stages of the process. As a consequence there will always be appeals in the process awaiting determination. On 5 May there were 6,879 planning appeals being dealt with by the Inspectorate in England.

    City Challenge
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the future of City Challenge. [811]

    Mr. Caborn
    We will honour all existing funding commitments under City Challenge, thus allowing the remaining partnerships, subject to satisfactory performance, to complete their programmes within the agreed funding period.

    Planning Policy Guidance
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review PPG6. [817]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We have no current plans to review PPG6, although we are concerned to apply it firmly and consistently, and to monitor its effectiveness. The Government is currently considering its response to the more detailed and specific matters raised by the Environment Committee's report on shopping centres.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review PPG1. [821]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We have no immediate plans to revise the current version of Planning Policy Guidance Note 1: General Policy and Principles which was published in February. As we introduce policies which will strengthen the planning system, such as our commitment to regional development, we will be considering how these should be promoted through national planning policy guidance.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the proposed budget for the regional development agencies for 1998–99. [797]

    Angela Eagle
    This question does not arise, since we intend that regional development agencies in England will begin operation in the year 1999–2000.

    Out-of-town Shopping Centres
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of out-of-town shopping centres. [809]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Government supports the objective of maintaining and enhancing existing centres and focusing retail development in existing centres to assist their regeneration. The Government is currently considering the recent report of the Environment Committee on shopping centres and will be publishing a response shortly.

    Green Belt
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about Green Belt policy. [822]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Government's Green Belt policy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 2. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The key feature of Green Belt policy is therefore its presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

    Single Regeneration Budget
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for Round 3 of the Single Regeneration Budget. [800]

    Mr. Caborn
    The Government is strongly committed to the regeneration of cities and other areas. It will honour commitments on Round 3 and earlier rounds of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund, subject to satisfactory performance by the schemes supported and the availability of resources.

    Guidance for the fourth round as issued in March by the previous administration and potential bidders are already working up proposals. The Government does not wish to stop this work. It wishes to ensure, however, that those preparing proposals are given the clearest possible guidance on the Government's policies and priorities. It will therefore issue shortly supplementary guidance, the key elements of which will be:

    (a) a requirement that proposals contribute to the Government's Manifesto commitment to carry out a concerted attack against the multiple causes of social and economic decline, and fit with its new policies, including those relating to employment, crime and housing;

    (b) a greater emphasis on tackling the needs of communities in the most deprived areas;

    153

    (c) a requirement that proposals should take account of existing strategies for promoting economic development and tackling deprivation, such as economic development strategies prepared by local authorities, and fit with the Government's policy on regional governance.

    In addition, the Government considers that there should be a more collaborative approach between those preparing proposals, their partners and Government Offices for the Regions in order to arrive at a shared understanding of regeneration needs and priorities, and to stimulate fresh thinking. To facilitate this sort of exchange, the Government has decided that the deadline for submission of initial proposals be shifted from 27 June 1997 to 26 September 1997. It nonetheless expects those working up proposals to be in touch with the appropriate Government Office for the Region well before this revised deadline.

    Garth Refurbishment Programme, Hull
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions what directions his Department gave for the delaying and rephasing of the Garth Refurbishment Programme in Hull. [771]

    Angela Eagle
    During the 1997 Public Expenditure Survey, provision for the Estate Action programme nationally was reduced by £10 million in 1997–98, and £20 million in each of the next two years. As a result, planned expenditure on a number of Estate Action schemes, including the Garth Refurbishment Programme in Hull, was reprofiled in consultation with the local authorities concerned. However, the total amount of Estate Action grant to be given to this and other committed Estate Action schemes remains unchanged.

    Green Globe Task Force
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the dates for proposed meetings of the Government's green globe task force in the current year and (b) the members, and their affiliations, of the task force. [864]

    Mr. Meacher
    The green globe task force was established in opposition to advise the shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Secretary of State for Environmental Protection. The exact status of the task force in the future is still under discussion.

    Out-of-town Development
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for ensuring that the sequential test is universally applied to out-of-town development proposals. [851]

    Mr. Prescott
    I am committed to revitalising town centres. I will therefore expect local planning authorities to apply a sequential approach to selecting locations and to identifying sites for key town centre uses and expect developers to apply this approach when selecting sites for development.
    154

    East Midlands Regional Development Agency
    Ms Hewitt
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish the headquarters of the new east midlands regional development agency in Leicester. [1031]

    Angela Eagle
    We will shortly be consulting interested parties in all the English regions about our proposals for Regional Development Agencies, and will make our detailed decisions in the light of those consultations.

    Somerset County Council
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will determine whether Somerset county council can exceed its expenditure cap for 1997–98. [1144]

    Mr. Prescott
    I am announcing the capping principles for all authorities, including Somerset, today.

    The vast majority of authorities have set budgets and council taxes within the limits set by my predecessor; in only three cases (out of 436 authorities) am I proposing cap limits which would require authorities to reduce their budget requirements.

    These authorities are Oxfordshire County Council, Somerset County Council and Warwickshire County Council. I have proposed caps for them which I consider, on the basis of all the information available so far, to be reasonable and achievable in all the circumstances of the authorities concerned. If the authorities accept my proposed caps they will be able to issue new lower bills without delay.

    The capping principles for 1997–98 are set out in the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts 1997–98 (4 February 1997) subject to a general proviso that no authority is to be designated if its budget requirement is £50,000 or less above the limit implied by these principles. I have placed copies of this document in the Library of the House. The main points are:

    (i) Inner London boroughs, Metropolitan Districts and Unitary authorities and the Isles of Scilly were able to increase their budget requirements by 1 per cent. or the increase in their education, PSS and fire SSAs whichever is the greater;

    (ii) County Councils, outer London Boroughs and the City of London were able to increase their budget requirements by 2 per cent. or the increase in their education, PSS and fire SSAs, whichever is the greater;

    (iii) Shire districts were able to increase their budgets by 0. 5 per cent.;

    (iv) Fire and Civil Defence Authorities were able to increase their budget requirements by 3.0 per cent.;

    (v) Police Authorities were able to increase their budgets by 3.2 per cent.

    Authorities budgeting more than 12. 5 per cent. above SSA were subject to a cash freeze.
    In accordance with sections 54 and 56 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, I have decided to designate the authorities listed below. The amount given after each authority is the amount which I am proposing should be the maximum amount calculated by each authority as its budget requirement for 1997–98:
    Oxfordshire County Council: £339.530 million
    Somerset County Council: £284.746 million
    Warwickshire County Council: £292.335 million

    155
    This decision demonstrates that we are taking our commitments on spending very seriously. The authorities now have 28 days, starting today, in which to inform us whether or not they accept their proposed cap. If they accept, the caps will be confirmed by notice and the authorities can set revised lower budgets. The budgets we are proposing imply reductions of £6 million for Oxfordshire, £3.339 million for Somerset and £2 million for Warwickshire. Band D council tax bills well be reduced by around £28 (Oxfordshire) £20 (Somerset) and £11 (Warwickshire.) If an authority challenges, it must propose an alternative amount together with its reasons for doing so and will have the opportunity to meet us to explain its case. Once we have considered all the available information we shall propose final caps which will be included in an Order, a draft of which is debated by the House of Commons. If the draft Order is approved, final caps are set by notice and revised budgets and council tax levels must then be set by the authorities concerned.

    Capital Receipts (Lancashire)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority in Lancashire the capital receipts held resulting from the sale of land, property and other assets. [697]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The amounts of accumulated and unspent usable capital receipts at 31 March 1996 for each local authority in Lancashire are listed below:

    £000

    Lancashire CC

    154

    Blackburn

    0

    Blackpool

    4,916

    Burnley

    1,154

    Chorley

    500

    Fylde

    353

    Hyndburn

    0

    Accidents and casualties by severity: vehicles involved by vehicle type: road length: all by selected individual motorways1: 1995 Number

    Number

    Accidents

    Casualties

    Vehicles involved

    Fatal

    Serious

    All Severities

    Fatal

    Serious

    All Severities

    Two wheel motor vehicles

    Cars and LGV

    HGV

    All Vechicles2

    Kilometeres open at December 19951

    England

    M1/M10

    20

    144

    980

    23

    194

    1,658

    43

    1,965

    334

    2,372

    319

    M45

    0

    1

    3

    0

    1

    7

    1

    2

    1

    4

    13

    M2

    0

    12

    59

    0

    12

    87

    5

    94

    19

    120

    43

    M3

    1

    37

    229

    1

    43

    353

    23

    410

    32

    468

    90

    M4

    11

    73

    603

    23

    110

    936

    46

    1,086

    108

    1,269

    187

    M5

    11

    56

    373

    11

    78

    591

    17

    701

    107

    133

    262

    M6

    24

    129

    940

    26

    191

    1,659

    31

    1,681

    395

    2,150

    383

    M11

    3

    18

    143

    3

    23

    209

    11

    225

    38

    278

    85

    M11

    2

    7

    50

    3

    10

    85

    2

    84

    19

    108

    46

    M20

    4

    23

    98

    4

    34

    156

    1

    154

    30

    185

    86

    M23

    1

    11

    85

    1

    14

    146

    6

    161

    12

    182

    27

    M25

    16

    109

    1,028

    17

    139

    1,623

    52

    2,036

    302

    2,420

    185

    M26

    0

    4

    12

    0

    4

    24

    1

    17

    3

    21

    16

    M27/M271/M275

    6

    27

    206

    6

    38

    299

    17

    443

    25

    490

    60

    M40

    6

    45

    273

    7

    60

    454

    9

    487

    64

    566

    147

    M42

    1

    27

    112

    1

    34

    174

    5

    203

    28

    239

    72

    M50

    0

    4

    11

    0

    4

    14

    0

    9

    7

    16

    35

    M53

    0

    8

    76

    0

    8

    120

    2

    137

    8

    149

    33

    M54

    2

    2

    29

    2

    2

    39

    2

    47

    10

    61

    36

    M55

    0

    4

    19

    0

    7

    40

    0

    29

    5

    34

    19

    M56

    1

    12

    108

    1

    12

    171

    2

    182

    31

    220

    58

    M57

    2

    1

    26

    2

    2

    50

    0

    50

    2

    52

    17

    M58

    0

    1

    24

    0

    1

    30

    2

    32

    6

    40

    19

    M61

    2

    11

    72

    2

    17

    116

    3

    128

    19

    151

    40

    156

    £000

    Lancaster

    0

    Pendle

    302

    Preston

    1966

    Ribble Valley

    261

    Rossendale

    186

    South Ribble

    4,540

    West Lancashire

    1,276

    Wyre

    3,810

    Source:

    1995–96 capital outturn returns.

    Comparable figures for the amounts of set-aside capital receipts held by local authorities are not available. Individual authorities may not have retained all their set-aside receipts in the form of cash and investments, but instead used the cash to repay debt or in lieu of further borrowing.

    We will be consulting the Local Government Association and local authorities on the Government's Capital Receipts initiative. No decision about the basis on which resources are to be distributed to individual authorities will be made until that consultation process is complete.

TRANSPORT

  Road Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which road has the highest number of accidents; and if he will publish a league table of those roads in the UK with the highest number of road accidents. [2]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I attach information on injury accidents and consequent casualties in 1995 for specified motorways in Great Britain. Unfortunately, the specific information requested is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  157

  Accidents and casualties by severity: vehicles involved by vehicle type: road length: all by selected individual motorways1: 1995

  Number

  Accidents

  Casualties

  Vehicles involved

  Fatal

  Serious

  All Severities

  Fatal

  Serious

  All Severities

  Two wheel motor vehicles

  Cars and LGV

  HGV

  All Vehicles2

  Kilometres open at December 19951

  M62

  11

  48

  483

  15

  61

  753

  19

  870

  186

  1081

  174

  M63

  1

  7

  132

  1

  8

  192

  1

  259

  30

  294

  26

  M65

  0

  7

  30

  0

  8

  45

  0

  55

  4

  61

  22

  M66

  0

  7

  39

  0

  7

  53

  2

  84

  5

  93

  19

  M69

  0

  4

  27

  0

  5

  36

  2

  37

  5

  44

  28

  M180/M181

  1

  4

  19

  1

  4

  20

  0

  16

  9

  26

  45

  Other motorways

  3

  6

  112

  3

  6

  148

  10

  201

  14

  228

  36

  Motorways

  129

  849

  6,401

  153

  1,137

  10,318

  315

  11,885

  1,858

  14,255

  2,625

  A(M) roads

  12

  51

  450

  13

  63

  673

  29

  821

  78

  937

  201

  Total (including A(M) roads)

  141

  900

  6,851

  166

  1,200

  10,991

  344

  12,706

  1,936

  15,192

  2,826

  Wales

  Motorways

  4

  24

  209

  4

  34

  323

  6

  404

  57

  475

  —

  A(M) roads

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Total (including A(M) roads)

  4

  24

  209

  4

  34

  323

  6

  404

  57

  475

  126

  Scotland

  Motorways

  9

  75

  330

  10

  99

  535

  12

  554

  73

  648

  —

  A(M) roads

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  3

  —

  Total (including A(M) roads)

  9

  75

  332

  10

  99

  537

  12

  556

  73

  651

  316

  Great Britain

  Motorways

  142

  948

  6,940

  167

  1,270

  11,176

  333

  12,843

  1,988

  15,378

  —

  A(M) roads

  12

  51

  452

  13

  63

  675

  29

  823

  78

  940

  —

  Total (including A(M) roads)

  154

  999

  7,392

  180

  1,333

  11,851

  362

  13,666

  2,066

  16,318

  3,268

  1 Casualty and accident data by road class are not available for Northern Ireland.

  2 Includes pedal cycles, buses and coaches and other vehicles.

  3 Excluding slip roads. Data for England from 1994 onwards supplied by DOT Statistics Directorate. Data for Wales from Welsh Office and Scotland from Scottish Office.

  BAA
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next intends to meet the chairman of BAA. [815]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Deputy Prime Minister had a constructive discussion with Sir John Egan, the Chief Executive of BAA plc, at a meeting on Wednesday 21 May.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to use EU regulations to ring-fence Heathrow slots for flights from Plymouth and the south west. [978]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government has no powers to ring-fence slots for services which are no longer operating.

  Road Maintenance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost to the Highways Agency of preventing deterioration of the trunk road network. [4]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be discussing appropriate levels of the future 158
  expenditure on the trunk road and motorway network with the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency over the next few months.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take to ensure that Railtrack fulfils its contractual obligations to maintain(a) the infrastructure and (b) track and signalling. [64]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under its contracts with train operators Railtrack is penalised for delays to services caused by faults in the infrastructure and signalling and thereby encouraged to invest in necessary maintenance. This is one of the areas we are considering as part of our review of regulation of the rail industry.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the amount which Railtrack is contractually obliged to spend on track and signalling upkeep and maintenance; [66]

  (2) what powers he has to force Railtrack to commit funds towards maintenance and upkeep of track and signalling if it falls below the contractual obligations set by the regulator. [67]
  159
  Ms Jackson
  The Secretary of State has no powers to force Railtrack to commit funds. The Rail Regulator, in setting the level of charges payable by train operators, has assumed that Railtrack will spend £3.5 billion at 1995/96 prices on network renewal in the six years to 2001. Railtrack does not have a contractual obligation to spend this amount on maintenance but a failure to spend at the levels assumed by the Regulator would be taken into account when he reviews access charges in 2001.

  The Rail Regulator has today called for greater public accountability from Railtrack and announced that he will be seeking agreement to an amendment to Railtrack's licence to ensure delivery of its investment plans. This exposes the weakness in the present system. We will be conducting a thorough review of rail regulation.

  West Coast Main Line (Redundancies)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total cost to public funds of redundancy payments to staff employed on the west coast main line since it was sold. [33]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Redundancy payments made by West Coast Trains Limited since it was franchised are a matter for the operator. Costs of redundancies to the Exchequer are not identified separately, but may have been a factor in the bids by tenderers for the franchise.

  Rail Track Maintenance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take action to ensure that track maintenance undertaken by Railtrack correlates to those areas of track most in need of attention. [65]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State has no powers to force Railtrack to direct its spending to any particular area. Railtrack's annual Network Management Statement gives a guide to the company's own priorities. Responsibility for enforcement of safety duties rests with the Health and Safety Executive who can issue improvement notices requiring works to be carried out by a certain date.

  Ticket Refunds
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to make it possible to claim a refund on a fare incorrectly levied at a station other than that at which the ticket was purchased. [747]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Normally, unused tickets will be eligible for refund and the claim can be submitted at any station. All franchised train operating companies (TOCs) are obliged to participate in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (TSA) which deals with the retailing of fares and other products by passenger operators. The TSA obliges all operators to accept claims whether or not they issued the ticket, and arrangements are then made if necessary to forward applications to the relevant train operator who will settle the claim. I understand that train operators are proposing to streamline this process so that TOCs have the option to settle a claim at any station, regardless of where the original purchase was made.

  A421 (Great Sanford)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further procedures are necessary before the Great Banford bypass (A421) can be commenced; and if he will make a statement. [755]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are committed to a strategic review of the Roads Programme and I anticipate that this scheme will be included in that review.

  A1 (Tempsford)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to commence the construction of the A1 Tempsford flyover; and if he will make a statement. [754]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are committed to a strategic review of the trunk road programme. I anticipate that this scheme will be included in that review.

  A6 (Bedford)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance he is giving to facilitate the construction of the Bedford Western bypass from the A6 to the A421; and if he will make a statement. [756]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The A6 to A428 link was removed from the roads programme in 1996. The Highways Agency is liaising with the County Council, acting on behalf of a consortium of developers, on the A428 to A421 link.

  Roads (Funding)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the annual expenditure on(a) construction and (b) maintenance of the roads network in each of the last five years; and what proportion of this expenditure was funded by taxes raised by (i) car tax and (ii) heavy goods vehicles tax. [708]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  National roads

  Construction

  1,399

  1,460

  1,460

  1,289

  1,180

  Maintenance

  644

  699

  706

  572

  527

  Local roads

  Construction

  687

  677

  607

  685

  641

  Maintenance

  1,923

  1,950

  1,973

  2,037

  1,923

  Tax

  Private light goods vehicle tax

  2,655

  3,065

  3,240

  3,445

  3,560

  Heavy goods vehicle tax

  500

  510

  540

  555

  555

  Total

  3,155

  3,575

  3,780

  4,000

  4,115

  Tax revenues stated to the nearest £5 million. 1996–97 expenditure is estimated outturn.

  South West Trains
  Mr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the regulation of the performance of South West Trains; if the regulatory regime is operating according to the undertakings given upon the privatisation of South West Trains; and if he will make a statement. [842]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Although South West Trains' performance has now been restored to an acceptable standard, it is the Government's view that their passengers received unacceptable service for some months earlier this year, and such problems must not recur. We believe that the tools presently available to regulators are inadequate and have already begun to seek ways of strengthening them in the interests of passengers. We have asked the Franchising Director to review his existing enforcement powers, and we will consider how these should be strengthened or how we might otherwise tighten the regulation of franchise agreements.

  Petrol
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the effect that reducing the benzene content of petrol would have on benzene emissions. [1000]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The evidence which has emerged as a result of the Auto Oil programme suggests that, very broadly the amount of benzene and the amount of aromatics in petrol contribute about equally to the benzene in vehicle exhaust gases, although the results can vary between vehicle types and operation. A third small source is from the partial combustion of other hydrocarbons. As a guide, therefore, a halving of the benzene content in petrol (typical UK average 2–3 per cent.) would result in approximately a one quarter reduction in exhaust gas benzene. The effect of fitting catalytic convertors to cars is much greater, however, benzene emissions being reduced by 85 per cent. compared with non-catalyst cars.

  Recreational Flying
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation to curtail or restrict the hours in which recreational aircraft flying can take place; and if he will make a statement; [971]

  (2) what plans he has to require recreational aircraft users to install and pay for silencers on their aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [972]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We recognise that recreational flying can cause disturbance. The UK is leading work in the International Civil Aviation Organisation on possible improvements in technology and operational practice. We expect results later this year.

  Winterbourne Stoke Bypass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the design and construction of the Winterbourne Stoke bypass on the A303(T). [90]
  162
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 20 May 1997]: We are undertaking a strategic review of the Trunk Road programme and I anticipate that this scheme will be included in that review.

SCOTLAND

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary (Maternity Unit)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects work to commence on the construction of the new maternity unit in the Glasgow Royal Infirmary complex as a replacement for the Royal Maternity Hospital in Rottenrow; and if he will make a statement. [557]

  Sam Galbraith
  The construction of the new maternity unit in the Glasgow Royal Infirmary complex is part of a package of PFI projects put forward by the Trust. I am presently reviewing all PFI projects and intend to make an announcement shortly.

  Scottish Trades Union Congress
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet the STUC to discuss the economy of Scotland and if he will make a statement. [581]

  Brian Wilson
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting a number of representative bodies, including the STUC, in the near future. It is likely that the economy of Scotland will be one of a number of issues that will be discussed at these meetings.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to appoint a new chairman of Scottish Enterprise; and if he will make a statement. [576]

  Brian Wilson
  Following the resignation of Sir Donald Mackay, a new Chairman will be announced in due course. This appointment will be made in accordance with the guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from what date Scottish Homes tenants will be allowed to include local authorities as potential landlords in any ballot to transfer from Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement. [578]

  Malcolm 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.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date plans for the route of the Skye bridge which envisaged the use of Eileian Ban were first considered by the Scottish Office. [1203]
  163
  Malcolm Chisholm
  The Scottish Office received a copy of a feasibility report entitled "A Bridge to Skye" from the former Highland Regional Council for consideration in December 1986. A number of routes were assessed for the Skye Bridge, with a western route crossing the island of Eilean Ban being the route recommended by JMP Consultants Limited, who had undertaken the feasibility study on behalf of Highland Regional Council.

  Historic Scotland
  Miss Anne Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the key performance targets he has set for Historic Scotland for 1997–98. [1228]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have set Historic Scotland the following key performance targets for 1997–98:

  Target

  Protecting Scotland's built heritage

  Number of monuments scheduled

  380

  Number of listed building resurvey units

  178

  Number of weeks in which 80 per cent. Of scheduled monument consent cases resolved

  12

  Percentage of listed building consent cases resolved within 28 days

  97 per cent.

  Percentage of listed building consent cases newly assisted by grant

  145

  Total value of grant-assisted repairs in progress

  £34 million

  Programme of conservation of monuments in care1

  meet programme

  Promoting and presenting the built heritage

  HS market share compared to major paid heritage attractions in Scotland[*]

  47 per cent.

  Percentage of satisfied visitors (based on surveys)

  95 per cent.

  Average spend per visitor

  £1.12

  Agency management

  Percentage efficiency gains/savings on all non-grant expenditure

  1.5 per cent.

  Net Exchequer funding of running costs1

  £12.0 million

  1 For details see Historic Scotland Corporate Plan to be published in July.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Safety
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to provide for the fullest access to information on food safety issues by the general public; and if he will make a statement. [43]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has made clear that it is our intention to introduce changes to the working practices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to increase openness and access to information on food safety matters by the general public. We shall be developing this policy in close consultation with interested parties, including consumer representatives.
  164
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will hold discussions with representatives of bodies and individuals responsible for food safety on the introduction of revised guidelines on the publication of information on food safety matters drawn to the attention of government departments. [44]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made clear that it is our intention to introduce changes to the working practices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to increase openness and access to information on food safety matters by the general public. We shall be developing this policy in close consultation with interested parties, including consumer representatives.

  Beef
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of a general ban on the importation of beef with minor exemptions. [48]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission issued a draft report in March on risk factors and surveillance procedures on BSE in the Community. This report identified serious deficiencies in BSE control and detection in some other Member States. The draft report has been passed to SEAC for their consideration and advice.

  BSE
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the development of(a) a live test and (b) a post-mortem test for the indentification of BSE in cattle. [11]

  Mr. Rooker
  (a) MAFF has put considerable resources into the development of a test to detect BSE in live cattle, but so far no test suitable for use in the field has been developed. At present BSE can be suspected in the live animal only on the basis of observations of the clinical signs exhibited: confirmation of the clinical opinion is dependent on laboratory examination of brain tissue after death. Additional resources are being invested into the development of a BSE diagnostic test. To stimulate research in this area MAFF recently launched an Open Competition for independent scientists to develop alternative novel approaches. MAFF is also working in collaboration with French, Dutch and American researchers in the development of tests. Although lines of investigation using urine, blood and cerebrospinal fluid show some promise on clinically affected animals, they are unlikely to be of value in the immediate future in diagnosing sub-clinically infected cattle.

  (b) Currently the identification of BSE in cattle is undertaken by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) by histopathological examination of post-mortem samples of brain tissue. Research is under way to find a test which could be applied commercially. Any post-mortem test has to take into account the pathogenesis of the disease, which determines where infectivity will be present at any point in time after infection. There also needs to be a plentiful supply of disease specific monoclonal antibody that has

  165
  been validated for the particular purpose to which the test is to be applied. All claims that such tests are currently available are overstated.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in his Department. [731]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has in place a comprehensive Programme of Action for Equality of Opportunity which covers monitoring of personnel procedures including recruitment. This enables any necessary action to be taken to ensure that procedures are fair to all staff and applicants. Employment levels of ethnic minority individuals in the main recruitment grades in London and the South East compare well with the benchmarks for the economically active population in the area. Outreach activities are encouraged if monitoring indicates that applications from ethnic minority individuals are below the relevant local benchmark.

  The Department also participates in the Windsor Fellowship sponsorship programme for the development of ethnic minority undergraduates which includes work experience placements with the sponsoring employer. Two Fellows are currently being sponsored and the Department has previously sponsored two other individuals.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants of each grade in his Department were of Asian origin, on 5 May. [730]

  Mr. Morley
  This answer covers core MAFF and the following of its agencies: Veterinary Medicines Directorate, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Pesticides Safety Directorate, and the Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Central Science Laboratory and the Meat Hygiene Service. The most recent figures available are for 1 April 1997 and are as follows.

  Asian staff in post as at 1 April 1997

  Grade level1

  Staff of Asian origin2

  SCS

  0

  6

  2

  7

  8

  SEO

  5

  HEO

  316

  EO

  29

  AO

  62

  AA

  60

  Total

  182

  1 Grade level means grade and grade equivalent.

  2 Figures are collected via a voluntary questionnaire of which 96.6 per cent. of staff responded.

  3 Includes five individuals at the Central Science Laboratory Level 2.

  Foxes
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions the Minister for Fisheries and the Countryside has had with the Forestry Commission with regard to banning foxhunting on Forestry Commission land; [595]
  166
  (2) what discussions the Minister for Fisheries and the Countryside has had with the Forestry Commission with regard to the control of foxes on Forestry Commission land. [598]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  We have asked the Forestry Commission for advice on fox hunting on Commission land and its effect on the control of foxes.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Michael John Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 20 May; and if he will make a statement. [1098]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers held in Brussels on 20 May. I was accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, Lord Sewel.

  I informed the Council of Ministers of the priority which the United Kingdom Government attaches in the field of food and agriculture to protecting the health and well being of the consumer and the environment. I also made clear my intention to work constructively with my European colleagues to bring about a lifting of the ban on UK beef exports in accordance with the Florence Agreement, and to achieve further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

  The Council unanimously adopted an important animal welfare measure concerning the protection of animals during transport, specifically the introduction of Community-wide criteria for staging points. I welcomed this proposal, but drew attention to the concerns of the United Kingdom, shared by Ireland and Denmark, not to jeopardise the high health status of breeding pigs when in transport and thus damage a valuable trade. The Council at my insistence agreed a declaration requesting the Commission to examine the possibility of special measures to deal with this issue, and to report to the Council as soon as possible.

  The Council also discussed the serious situation facing the EU beef market, and in particular the adequacy of the early marketing and calf processing schemes in reducing excess production. I stressed the urgency of bringing forward far-reaching proposals for reform of this sector, including reductions in support prices, and emphasised the distorting effects which these schemes were having on the UK market in particular. I pressed the Commission to review them as quickly as possible. In response, the Commission presented a detailed analysis of the current situation and prospects for the EU beef and veal market, and undertook to report further on the early marketing and calf schemes as a matter of urgency.

  The Commission reported on its negotiations with third countries, in particular the United States, for the conclusion of veterinary and plant health equivalence agreements. I urged the Commission to resolve outstanding matters with the United States as rapidly as possible.

  In the margins of the Council of Ministers, I held bilateral discussions with Commissioner Bonino and with several EU Ministerial colleagues. As the first member of the new Government to visit the European Parliament,

  167
  I also took the opportunity to hold talks with a number of MEPs, including Pauline Green, leader of the Parliamentary Group of the Party of European Socialists, and with the Chairmen of the Agriculture Committee and of the Temporary Committee inquiring into BSE. We discussed the UK Government's priorities for agricultural policy, and the particular issue of BSE.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have been received from animal welfare organisations over the last three years on the transmission of TB by badgers. [1059]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has received representations from the following organisations:

  Castle Combe Badger Research Centre

  The Coalition for Badgers

  Dartmoor Badgers Protection League

  Dorset Badger Group

  Gloucestershire Badger Group

  The Mammal Society

  National Federation of Badger Groups

  New Forest Badger Group

  North East Essex Badger Group

  North Northants Badgers

  Nottinghamshire Badger Group

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation (the Wildlife Trusts)

  Somerset Trust Badger Group

  Shropshire Badger Group

  Surrey Badger Protection Society

  Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

  Wiltshire Badger Group

  Worcestershire Badger Society

  Yeovil and District Badger Group

  A joint proposal for action by MAFF was made in December 1995 by the RSPCA, The Mammal Society, The Wildlife Trusts and the National Federation of Badger Groups. This stated that:

  1. The "interim strategy" was no resulting in a decrease in the incidence of TB—his should be recognised.

  2. There should be a halt to the culling of badgers—the effect should be monitored.

  3. There should be improved compensation for farmers and a focusing of resources on alternative approaches to controlling the disease.

  4. Research into the transmission of the disease should be undertaken and recommendations on farming practice should be promoted.

  5. Research into a vaccine should be continued to provide a long-term solution.

  Groups (listed above) affiliated to these organisations have written supporting this proposal.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has evaluated of TB being transmitted from badgers to cattle. [1058]
  168
  Mr. Rooker
  References for the evidence that has been evaluated are as follows.Evidence considered
  Benham, P. (1985). The inter-relationships between cattle and badger behaviour and farm husbandry practices and their relevance to the transmission of Mycobacterium bovis MAFF.
  Cheeseman C. L. & Mallinson, P.J. (1979). Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio-tracking. Edited by C. J. Amlaner and D. W. Macdonald. Pergammon Press, Oxford.
  Cheeseman, C. L., Wilesmith, J. W. & Stuart, F. A. (1989). Tuberculosis, the disease and its epidemiology in the badger, a review. Epidemiology and Infection 103, p.113–125.
  Clifton-Hadley, R. S., Wilesmith, J. W & Stuart, F. A. (1993). Mycobacterium bovis in the European badger (Meles meles): Epidemiological findings in tuberculour badgers from a naturally infected population. Epidemiology and Infection 111, p. 9–19.
  Clifton-Hadley, R. S., Wilesmith, J. W., Richards, M.S., Upton, P. & Johnston. S. (1995). The occurrence of Mycobacterium bovis infection in and around an area subject to extensive badger (Meles meles) control, Epidemiology and Infection 114, p. 179–193.
  Dunnet, G.M., Jones, D.M. & McInerney, J.P. (1986). Badgers and Bovine tuberculosis—Review of Policy. HMSO, London.
  Francis, J. (1947). "Bovine tuberculosis",. Staples Press, London 220 pp.
  Gallagher, J. & Nelson, J. (1979). Causes of ill health and natural death in badgers in Gloucestershire Veterinary Record 105, p.546–551.
  Griffin, J.M. (1993). The role of bought-in cattle in herd breakdowns due to tuberculosis in part of county Cavan during 1989. Irish Veterinary Journal 46, p.143–148.
  Griffin, J.M. & Dolan, L.A. (1995). The role of cattle-to-cattle transmission of Mycobacterium bovis in the epidemiology of tuberculosis in cattle in the Republic of Ireland—A Review. Irish Veterinary Journal 48(6), p.228–234.
  Hancox, M. (1995). The great badgers and bovine TB debate. Biologist 42, p.159–161.
  Jubb, K.V.F., Kennedy, P.0 & Palmer, N. (1985). Pathology of Domestic Animals. 3rd ed. New York and London: Academic Press. 2: p. 493–504.
  Little, T.W.A., Naylor, P.F. & Wilesmith, J.W. (1982a). Laboratory studies of Mycobacterium bovis infection in badgers and calves. Veterinary Record III, p. 550–557.
  Little, T.W.A., Swan, C., Thompson, H.V. & Wilesmith, J.W. (1982b). Bovine Tuberculosis in domestic and wild mammals in an area of Dorset. Parts I, II & III.
  Maddock, E.C.G. (1933). Studies on the survival time of the bovine tubercle bacilli in soil, soil and dung, in dung and on grass. Journal of Hygiene Cambridge 33: p. 103–117.
  Maddock, E.C.G. (1936) Experiments on the infectivity for healthy calves of bovine tubercle bacilli discharged in dung upon pasture. Journal of Hygiene 36: p. 594–601.
  McFadyean, J. & Knowles, R. (1915). The diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle by inoculation of guinea pigs with antiformined faeces. Journal of Comparative Pathology 28: P. 107–146.
  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (September 1984). A Review of Bovine Tuberculosis in Great Britain.
  Monaghan, M.L., Doherty, M.L., Collins, J.D., Kazda, J.F. & Quinn, P.J. (1994). The tuberculin test. Veterinary Microbiology 40, p. 111–124.
  Muirhead, R.H., Gallagher, J. & Burn, K.J. (1974). Tuberculosis in wild badgers in Gloucestershire: Epidemiology. Veterinary Record 95, p.552–555
  Neal, E. & Cheeseman, C.L. (1996) "Badgers" published by T. & A.D. Poyser Ltd. (ISBN 0–85661–082–8).

  169
  Neil, S.D., Hanna, J., O'brien, J.J. et al. (1988). Excretion of Mycobacterium bovis by experimentally infected cattle. Veterinary Record 123(13): p. 340–343
  Neill, S.D., Hanna, J., Mackie, D.P. et al (1992) Isolation of Mycobacterium bovis form the respiratory tracts of skin test—negative cattle. Veterinary Record 131, p.45–47.
  Neill, S.D., Cassidy, J., Hanna, J. et al. (1994). Detection of Mycobacterium bovis infection in skin test-negative cattle with an assay for bovine interferon-gamma. Veterinary Record 135, p. 134–135.
  Stamp, J.T. (1944). A reviw of the pathogenesis and pathology of bovine tuberculosis with special reference to practical problems. Veterinary Record, 56, p.443–446.
  Stamp, J.T & Wilson, A. (1946). Veterinary Record. 58, p.11–15.
  Stenhouse-Williamson, R & Hoy, W.A. (1930). The viability of B. tuberculosis (Bovinus) on pasture land, in stored faeces and in liquid manure. Journal of Hygiene (Cambridge) 30: p.413–419.
  Wilesmith, J. W. & Williams, D.R. (1986) Tuberculosis lesions in reactor cows Veterinary Record 119 (2), p.51.

  Zuckerman, Lord. (1980) Badgers, Cattle and Tuberculosis. HMSO, London.

  My officials have also visited the Republic of Ireland to consider a study conducted in East Offaly.

  A further independent scientific review is currently under way, under the chairmanship of Professor John Krebs.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have been received from veterinary organisations over the last three years on the transmission of TB by badgers. [1060]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has received representations from the following veterinary organisations:

  British Veterinary Association

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  Both organisations have expressed support for the policy of restricted culling introduced following the Dunnet Report, but they see the need for more vigorous control of those badgers which have been implicated in cattle TB breakdowns.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make regulations formally to transpose into UK legislation the EC directives concerning the quality required of shellfish waters and the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life. [1295]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regulations concerned with the quality of waters for fresh water fish and for shellfish in England and Wales were laid in Parliament today. Together with Directions issued to the Environment Agency, they will replace the non-legislative mechanisms by which the requirements of the Freshwater Fish Directive and the Shellfish Waters Directive have been implemented since the early 1980s. The Directives prescribe certain mandatory minimum water quality requirements.
  170
  The new instruments follow consultations with interested parties in October 1995 and January 1997. The existing arrangements for protection of waters will continue in place. However, the Regulations are the first step in a process to initiate a review of implementation policy. The Department will consult further on aspects of implementation, including the designation of relevant waters.

HEALTH

  Patient Episodes
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of ordinary and day care episodes for each specialty for each UK health authority in each year since 1990. [22]

  Paul Boateng
  The information that is readily available is for National Health Service trusts (rather than health authorities) and is published annually in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information about health services in other parts of the United Kingdom are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Psychiatric and Geriatric Care
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available for psychiatric and geriatric care in North Cumbria in each year since 1993. [24]

  Alan Milburn
  Provision for the care of psychiatric and geriatric patients in North Cumbria is a matter for the North Cumbria Health Authority. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr Ian Can, Chairman of the authority, for details.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons with relapsing or remitting MS have been prescribed Beta Interferon in each health authority in England at the latest date for which figures are available. [264]

  Alan Milburn
  The information requested is not available, but following the issue of guidance to the National Health Service in November 1995, I am asking for a general report from each health authority on local policies for prescribing beta-interferon, and will write to my hon. Friend when these are available.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of beds in the(a) acute and (b) supra-area specialties in each UK health authority in each year since 1990. [21]

  Alan Milburn
  Bed numbers for particular specialties are planned locally. The information held centrally is collected by broad ward type rather than clinical specialty and is contained in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. Data on the total
  171
  number of beds in other health authorities in the United Kingdom are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the advantages of the publication of bed occupancy rates in the NHS. [23]

  Alan Milburn
  It is intended to publish this information in future. Figures for 1996–97 should be available later in the year.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to increase the number of employees from ethnic minorities within his Department. [234]

  Ms Jowell
  Of the Department's total workforce of 3,909, 13.3 per cent. come from the ethnic minorities. Little external recruitment is taking place at the present time. When posts are advertised they are subject to the Civil Service Commission procedures which ensure fair and open competition. The Department's commitment to equal opportunities is stated in all job advertisements. The Department is a strong participant in the Windsor Fellowship scheme which provides work experience for undergraduates from the ethnic minorities.

  E. Coli and Listeria
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the national incidence of(a) E. coli and (b) listeria has been in each of the last three years. [46]

  Ms Jowell
  The incidence of food poisoning is indicated by the number of isolations of pathogens made from samples from patients submitted to the Public Health Laboratory Service. The figures for the last three years are given in the table:

  Listeria and E. coli 0157 isolates

  England and Wales annual totals

  1994

  1995

  1996

  E. coli 01571

  411

  2792

  3660

  Listeria

  112

  91

  3116

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory service.

  Notes:

  1 Before 1995 laboratories examined only bloody diarrhoeal stools for E. coli 0157, since 1995 they have examined all diarrhoeal stools.

  2 PHLS do not routinely examine diarrhoeal stools for other E. coli.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of NHS treatment per patient in England. [648]

  Alan Milburn
  The average cost of National Health Service treatment per patient for primary healthcare in England is not available centrally. For secondary healthcare the provisional 1995/96 average cost per episode, for cases using a bed, is £1,103 in England.

  Health Visitor Service (Cambridge and Huntingdon)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on the health visitor service as a percentage of(a) the total health budget and (b) the public health budget in the Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority in the last year for which figures are available. [601]

  Alan Milburn
  In 1996–97, Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority spent 1.4 per cent. of their hospital and community health services budget on health visitor services. Information relating to the public health budget is not available centrally and my hon. Friend may wish to contact Mrs. Margaret Scott, chairman of Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations(a) by district health authority, (b) by regional health authority and (c) overall, were cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital for the fourth quarter of 1996–97; and how many of those patients were not readmitted within a month. [778]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations in the Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire area were cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital for the fourth quarter of 1996–97; and how many of those patients were not re-admitted within a month. [1215]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Mobile Telephone Transmitter Towers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the possible effect on health of living or working in close proximity to mobile telephone transmitter towers. [1021]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health is currently supporting the following initiatives:

  (1) the review of possible health effects of electromagnetic fields, including mobile phone (microwave) frequencies, being undertaken by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiations to the National Radiological Protection Board;

  (2) the World Health Organisation study of electromagnetic fields and;

  (3) the Department's own radiation protection research programme.

  In addition, a European Commission Expert Group, has recommended a programme of scientific research to address the subject of mobile telephony and human health.

  Field strengths of electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phone transmitters, at locations to which the public would normally have access, are below the limits of exposure recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board published in "Documents of the NRPB, vol. 4, No. 5, 1993", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Cancer
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by his Department on(a) publicity, (b) research and (c) treatment relating to cancer in the last year for which figures are available. [963]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1995–96 (latest available figures), the Department allocated(a) approximately £200 thousand to publicity, and (b) £9 million to research relating to cancer.

  Information about expenditure on treatment relating to cancer is not available centrally.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the statistics held by his Department on the extent of(a) mixed-sex wards, (b) mixed-sex bays and (c) mixed-sex bathing and toilet facilities in hospitals, by region. [777]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects mixed-sex wards to be abolished in the Queen Alexandra and St. Mary's hospitals in Portsmouth; what action he proposes to assist this process; and if he will make a statement. [1216]

  Alan Milburn
  Information about health authorities target dates to meet the previous Government's three objectives for reducing the incidence of mixed-sex hospital accommodation will be available shortly. I shall arrange for copies to be sent to the hon. Members.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on GP fundholding; and if he will make a statement. [850]

  Alan Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) on 20 May at columns 495–96.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implications of the removal of tax relief on private health insurance plans. [862]

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the extra cost to the NHS from having to care for elderly patients unable to continue subscribing to private patients insurance schemes, because of the loss of tax relief on their premiums. [1109]

  Alan Milburn
  Tax relief has not been removed from private health insurance premiums.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of(a) the safety of the MMR vaccines and (b) the links the vaccines have with the development of autism in children; what representations he has received from abroad about the potential link with autism; what assessment he has made of the regulatory action which has been taken by other countries; and if he will make a statement. [1026]
  174
  Ms Jowell
  Before measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination was introduced into the United Kingdom's immunisation programme in 1988, there was extensive long-term experience of its use in many other industrialised countries. The United States had been using MMR vaccine routinely since the early 1970s and around 100 million doses have been administered. Prior to the introduction of MMR in the UK a study involving 10,000 children was conducted to look at the safety of the vaccine. By the time of the UK introduction of a two-dose programme in 1996, there was extensive experience of two-dose programmes in many other countries. A two-dose programme of MMR in place in Finland since 1982 has led to the elimination of these diseases from that country. The vaccine was reported to have an excellent safety record. All the relevant data were considered by the independent expert advisory group, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which advises the UK Secretaries of State for health on vaccination matters, before it made its recommendations for the introduction of MMR and subsequently the introduction of the second dose of MMR.

  The Department of Health and other international authorities are not aware of any scientific evidence supporting a link between MMR vaccine and autism. We have received no representations from abroad on this matter, although we are aware that the Danish authorities have looked at the possibility of a link in the past, but found no evidence to support it. Similarly, the Institute of Medicine in the US reviewed more than 7,000 abstracts and read over 2,000 books and articles on adverse reactions to vaccines and found no work which suggested a link between MMR vaccine and autism. We are not aware of any regulatory action taken by other countries on this issue.

  A study conducted in Gothenburg, Sweden, looked at the incidence of autism over a ten-year period during which MMR vaccine was introduced into the childhood immunisation programme. The incidence of autism was unaffected by the introduction of MMR vaccine.

  All reported adverse reactions to vaccines are carefully monitored both by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation which advise the UK health departments. No vaccine is issued in the United Kingdom unless it passes the highest standards for quality, and parents should have confidence that the vaccines that are provided are both safe and efficacious. MMR immunisation remains the safest way for parents to protect their children against these diseases.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a review of(a) the effectiveness of and (b) side effects arising from the most recent national MMR vaccination campaign. [865]

  Ms Jowell
  The effectiveness of, and side effects arising from, the 1994 measles/rubella (MR) school-based immunisation campaign have been carefully reviewed. Copies of "One Year On", a review of the MR campaign published in November 1995, are available in the Library.

  The campaign was very successful. Around 7 million children between the ages of 5 and sixteen were targeted and 92 per cent. were immunised. The predicted epidemic was averted. Since the campaign measles has become

  175
  rare. The number of notified cases of measles fell from between 10,000 and 20,000 per year between 1990 and 1994 to 7,768 in 1995 and 5,878 in 1996. Notified cases have been tested to confirm whether they are true cases of measles using a salivary testing technique developed by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). In 1996, 3,274 of the 5,878 notified cases were tested and measles was confirmed in 63 (1.9 per cent.) of those tested. The number of confirmed notifications of measles in 1996 was the lowest recorded. (PHLS "Communicable Disease Report" (Vol. 7, No. 6, 7 February 1997)). There are good grounds to believe that a sizeable proportion of the few confirmed cases arise from importations. As a consequence of the MR campaign, indigenous measles is now close to elimination.

  Suspected adverse reactions to the MR vaccine were reported by doctors to the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) under the voluntary 'yellow card' reporting system. Doctors were reminded on three separate occasions by the Chief Medical Officer to report all suspected adverse reactions to MR vaccine. The Committee on the Safety of Medicines carefully reviewed all the reports received and reports of serious adverse reactions following the MR campaign were very rare (0.007 per cent. of all those immunised). Full information on suspected adverse reactions reported as a consequence of the campaign were published in the MCA's "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" (Vol. 21, November 1995), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study to evaluate the possible links between the administration of MMR vaccines and the incidence of Crohn's disease in children. [964]

  Ms Jowell
  The United Kingdom health departments are advised on all matters concerning immunisation by the independent expert advisory committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). The JCVI has already studied the putative association between Crohn's disease and measles on three recent occasions and members of the Committee have met the researchers who have suggested such an association. The Committee was of the view that work suggesting such an association was not convincing and increasing evidence was becoming available that there was not an association between exposure to measles virus or MMR vaccine and Crohn's disease. The World Health Organisation also has seen the published research and rejects the theory that there is a link.

  This issue will be kept under review by the JCVI.

  A list of references showing work done around the world not supporting the theory of a link between measles and Crohn's disease has been placed in the Library.

  Long-term Care for the Elderly
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the local government associations to discuss the provision of long-term care for the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [849]

  Paul Boateng
  I met the Local Government Association on 12 May to discuss a range of issues including the priority we will give to improving provision of long-term care for the elderly.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what means those merchant banks which offered their services to his Department in connection with the private finance initiative between 2 May and 20 May made themselves known:[1132]

  (2) pursuant to his oral answer of 20 May, Official Report, columns 503–04, how many merchant banks contacted his Department to offer their services in connection with the private finance initiative between 2 May and 20 May; [1131]

  (3) which merchant banks approached his Department to offer their services in connection with the private finance initiative between 2 May and 20 May. [1133]

  Alan Milburn
  Since the 2 May the Minister of State and officials at the Department of Health have met all the principal financiers involved in the two most advanced whole-hospital private finance initiative schemes (those at the Dartford and Gravesham National Health Service Trust and the Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust). All these financiers have reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of the private finance initiative and the projects at these two trusts. They also fully support the NHS (Private Finance) Bill, which aims to ensure that NHS trusts have the statutory power to enter into PFI contracts, and the urgent review of the PFI process in the health sector we have announced. This review will seek to identify how the current gridlock can be eliminated and to ensure that much needed schemes are completed quickly. During the review Ministers will listen to the views of all those closely involved with the PFI—from both the public and the private sectors.

  Breast Screening
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the result of the pilot study on extending the breast screening programme to older women to be completed. [1201]

  Paul Boateng
  The results of the pilot studies on the feasibility of extending the routine call/recall element of the breast screening programme to women aged 65 to 69 years are expected to be available by the year 2001.

  Dentistry (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure the establishment of NHS dentistry provision in the Shrewsbury area; and over what time scale. [1063]

  Alan Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 20 May at columns 501–02.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health over what time scale he plans to introduce changes of policy in respect of GP fundholding. [1066]

  Alan Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) on 20 May at column 495.

  Lactose (Babies)
  Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Helath what estimate he has made of the number of babies born in any given year who are allergic to lactose; and what percentage of the total number of babies born this figure represents. [1108]

  Ms Jowell
  We have made no estimate of the number of babies or children who are intolerant to lactose, nor are we aware of any such estimate having been made by any outside organisation.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the compliance of the tobacco industry with the voluntary code on advertising and the effectiveness of the code. [1143]

  Ms Jowell
  The operation of the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and promotion is monitored by the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship, which is composed of equal numbers of representatives of the Government Departments and the tobacco industry under an independent Chairman.

  In 1995–96 the Committee commissioned independent consultants to investigate how three aspects of the agreement were being adhered to, namely an analysis of progress towards the industry's undertaking to remove all permanent shopfront advertising material by 31 December 1996, an audit of compliance with the undertaking to place no poster advertising within a 200 metre radius of schools and other places of education for people under 18, and a survey of compliance with the provisions of the Cigarette Sampling Code. In all cases, a high level of compliance was found.

  The Committee also arranges for the investigation of complaints submitted by the public. In 1995–96, the Committee received 69 letters of complaint giving details of 119 items thought to be in breach of the voluntary agreement on advertising and promotion. The Committee concluded that 15 items were in breach of the voluntary agreement.

  Dental Services (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in the general dental service practised in Lancashire in each year since 1992. [1103]

  Alan Milburn
  The table shows the number of dentists on the Lancashire Family Health Services Authority/Health Authority list on 30 September for the years 1992 to 1995. Equivalent information is not available for 30 September 1996 because of the reorganisation of health authorities. The table gives the number of dentists in the three health authorities covering Lancashire for 30 September 1996.
  178

  General dental service: Number of principals, assistants and vocational trainees in Lancashire family health service authority at 30 September 1992 to 30 September 1995

  Family health services authority

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Lancashire

  421

  428

  438

  442

  General dental service: Number of principals, assistants and vocational trainees in Lancashire health authorities at 30 September 1996

  Health authority

  1996

  East Lancashire

  157

  North West Lancashire

  159

  South Lancashire

  83

  1. The figures represent the number of dentists (principals) on the Family Health Services Authority/Health Authority list and their assistants and vocational trainees.

  2. Some dentists have a contract with more than one FHSAMA. these dentists are counted only once.

  3. The figures exclude salaried, hospital and community dentists.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mrs Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an announcement about the future of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. [1427]

  Ms Jowell
  It has become clear for a number of reasons that this would be an advantageous time to review the role of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. Views are being invited from any interested parties by means of an advertisement in Government Opportunities and by a direct approach to key organisations and individuals. The views of the management and staff of the Centre are also being sought.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts failed to meet the 14 March 1997 deadline to agree contracts with their purchasers; and how many are now expected to go to arbitration. [790]

  Alan Milburn
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list by(a) health authority, (b) region and (c) nationally the number of patient waiting to be admitted at NHS hospitals at the end of March 1997, as reported by (i) NHS providers (ii) English health authorities; and how many had waited for (i) 0–11 months, (ii) 12–17 months, and (iii) more than 18 months; [791]

  (2) if he will list (a) by health authority, (b) by region and (c) nationally the total number of patients waiting to be admitted at NHS hospitals at the end of March; and how many had waited for (i) 0 to 11 months, (ii) 12 to 17 months and (iii) more than 18 months. [1025]

  Alan Milburn
  Provisional waiting times figures at regional level for the quarter ended 31 March 1997 will be published on a provider and resident basis at 9.30 am on Thursday 22 May. Final figures at National Health Service trust and health authority levels will be published some six to eight weeks later.

  NHS Repair and Maintenance
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outstanding repair and maintenance backlog at NHS facilities by regional health authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [792]

  Alan Milburn
  The outstanding repair and maintenance backlog by regional health authority is shown in the attached table. The information is available only from 1989–90.

  The figures include estimated costs for maintenance on all properties in the National Health Service due to be replaced, not used for patient care, awaiting planned preventive maintenance and awaiting disposal. They also include an element for meeting statutory and safety standards.

  Backlog maintenance estimates (£000s) by region 1989–90 to 1992–93

  Region

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  98,766

  97,109

  1,38,672

  1,42,129

  Yorkshire

  1,22,422

  98,988

  1—

  1,25,987

  Trent

  119841

  1,02,170

  1,20,375

  1,19,383

  East Anglia

  67,772

  66,156

  1—

  83,462

  Oxford

  1,22,566

  81,961

  1—

  89,925

  North-west Thames

  75,234

  70,934

  1—

  84,049

  North-east Thames

  2,57,386

  3,00,500

  3,29,303

  3,31,467

  South-east Thames

  1,41,324

  1,08,939

  2,40,789

  2,64,256

  South-west Thames

  1,96,121

  1,50,222

  1,78,099

  1,76,176

  Wessex

  '62,060

  1,07,539

  86,088

  1,11,461

  South Western

  1,21,008

  1,12,878

  1,53,415

  1,23,605

  West Midlands

  2,42,276

  2,80,554

  3,20,737

  3,07,229

  Mersey

  80768

  50,148

  46,553

  64,310

  North Western

  95,048

  1,04,911

  1,26,373

  1,44,011

  1 Data incomplete

  180

  Backlog maintenance estimates (£'000's) by region 1993–94 to 1995–96

  Region

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northern and Yorkshire

  321103

  393068

  369388

  Trent

  132983

  129252

  200193

  Anglia and Oxford

  243135

  186912

  222923

  North Thames

  503381

  483518

  514398

  South Thames

  378527

  334987

  327671

  South and West

  230419

  263322

  243891

  West Midlands

  382500

  310541

  290490

  North—west

  198950

  222978

  243472

  HIV and AIDS
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in the last year for which figures are available on(a) publicity, (b) research and (c) treatment of HIV and AIDS. [990]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1996–97, health authorities in England were allocated a total of £185.7 million for treatment and care services for people with HIV and AIDS. These funds are not ring-fenced and it is up to health authorities, taking account of local needs assessment and priorities, to determine their total expenditure. Health authorities were also given ring-fenced funds of £51.3 million for local HIV prevention work including testing services, infection control and health education. In addition, the Department spent £4.2 million in 1996–97 on public health initiatives, education campaigns and helpline services for HIV and AIDS. An estimated further £13.7 million was spent in 1996–97 in the UK on HIV and AIDS research. This figure includes expenditure by the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and other Government Departments. Relatively little HIV and AIDS research is funded from sources such as charities.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
Lord Parry—Took the Oath.

Merseyside Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will intervene to prevent the introduction of an admission charge to galleries run by National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, planned to take effect from 1st July 1997.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside already charge for admission at some of their collections. It is for the board of trustees to decide whether or not to introduce admission charges at other NMGM museums and galleries. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be meeting the chairman of the trustees shortly to discuss this issue.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will the Government consider taking steps to stop all further introductions of admission charges by public museums and galleries within the UK? Will they consider abolishing charges currently operated by public museums; for example, at the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery where attendances have fallen drastically since charges were introduced in 1992?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the formal position is that the Government have no power to decide whether or not museum trustees impose admission charges. However, as noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State, Chris Smith, has declared that he is against admission charges, and will seek to find ways of maximising access to our museums and galleries. At the same time, it must be said that that statement should not be taken as an indication to museums and galleries to come to government with a begging bowl to make up the deficit in their budgets. Ways must be found of maximising access to our museums and galleries and of course it is desirable for that to be done without admission charges.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to explain the alternative for museums and galleries other than to go to the Government with a begging howl if they take away the discretion to make charges?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the Government were going to take away the discretion to make charges. As the noble Lord will well know, the power to make charges was introduced by the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Act 1972 under the Heath government. When we had the Wilson government in 1974 it was possible, by persuasion, to get the museums and galleries to remove their charge. It is only by persuasion that we can get our museums and galleries to maximise access, unless we were to change the law which we have no present intention of doing.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the proposal by Merseyside may have an adverse effect on bequests, including the important bequest by Sir Denis Mahon which will be cancelled if the charges are introduced?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Sir Denis Mahon is of course a generous contributor to our museums and galleries. He has three pictures on loan in the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool. If my noble friend is right when he says that the effect of charges would be that he would withdraw all his pictures on loan in our museums and galleries that would be sad, and we should have to consider it.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest in that my wife is a trustee. Is the noble Lord aware that the charge of £3 for a season ticket, admitting to all six museums, will not yield a huge amount of income? What will yield income is the ability to reclaim VAT, once their charitable status is altered. Will the noble Lord tell me the Labour policy on VAT, and whether there is any chance of the Government abolishing VAT on charities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can confirm, as the noble Viscount said, that one of the advantages to museums of making charges is that they can reclaim the VAT. I can also confirm that the proposed annual charge of £3 and £1.50 for concessions for all of the Merseyside museums is not, as he says, onerous. The issue of VAT on charities is rather wide of the Question, and I do not think that I can answer it at present.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in his first supplementary, the noble Earl made a comment—if I heard him correctly—about the drastic fall in the number of attendees. Does the noble Lord have any statistics as to what extent attendances have fallen since the introduction of charges?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that in general introducing admission charges causes a severe reduction in attendances, although the evidence is that attendances tend to rise after a certain time. The problem with obtaining the statistics has been that before the introduction of charges there was not necessarily a good count of the number of people entering museums and galleries. However the

495
Government have commissioned the Glasgow Caledonian University to carry out research into the whole question of the economics of admission charges. We are expecting its report in November. We are looking to see whether that deadline can be advanced.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Mahon bequest will be cancelled only if the actual museum introduces charges, unlike my noble friend's implication that it will be withdrawn from all galleries? For example, the bulk of the collection will go to the National Gallery which, happily, does not charge and does not intend to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that correction. It seems to me highly desirable that the Secretary of State should meet Sir Denis Mahon and talk about it, although I have no control over my right honourable friend's diary.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while it is a good idea to have free days for schoolchildren and old age pensioners who are finding payment difficult, many of us really want to pay to go into museums so that they can invest that money in making their exhibitions more exciting?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confirm that from my personal experience. I certainly have found no difficulty—indeed, I have found pleasure—in making a voluntary contribution when I go to the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art in New York. I am sad that last November the Victoria and Albert Museum found it necessary to move from voluntary charges to a compulsory charge.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is the Government's view that the decision about whether charges shall be made for admission to national museums and galleries should be for the trustees and not for central government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confirmed that in my first supplementary answer. It is a matter legally for the trustees and not for the Government.

The French Embassy
11.15 a.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any discussions with the Government of France about the external condition of the French Embassy in Knightsbridge, SW1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, officials have been in contact with the French Embassy since October 1996 and have relayed the concern of Westminster City Council and the Knightsbridge Association. I hope that
496
the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will be pleased to learn that the French Ambassador recently informed the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that restoration work, estimated to cost £530,000, will commence in June and take several months to complete.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am delighted with that Answer and I thank the noble Baroness very much for it. I hope that all her replies from the Dispatch Box will be as encouraging as that. Will the Minister agree that in its present condition, with the paint peeling off the walls and filthy dirty, it is a disgrace both to France, which is of course their business, and to London, which is ours?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am pleased with the noble Lord's delight. I cannot promise always to delight him quite that much. The condition of the French Embassy has obviously caused widespread concern, as he remarked, and we are all very pleased to learn that the French Embassy will be taking steps to ameliorate it as quickly as possible.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will the Minister accept that her announcement will be warmly welcomed by many people, including the Royal Fine Art Commission which has been concerned with this problem for even longer than the Government? As the site is a premier part of London, can the noble Baroness obtain assurances from the French Ambassador, who is a good friend to this country and understands the situation well, that this work is carried out regularly in future so that the listed building will be as fine in appearance as its twin, the Kuwaiti Embassy, which is just opposite?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the French Government, like our own, have had to face some pretty tough public expenditure cuts and the project has had to take its place in their list of priorities. However, diplomatic missions are expected to comply with the terms of their leases, with local planning regulations and the like, and with what we would expect.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this unhappy state of affairs stands in marked contrast to the state of the British Embassy in Paris, which is one of the greatest ornaments of that fair city?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the external conditions of the buildings speak for themselves and I am happy that the noble Lord is so pleased about our embassy in Paris.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister agree that even though the French Embassy is starting repairs in June, it has already faced very heavy costs with the total refurbishment of the residence and the French Institute, which have only recently been carried out?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed, I would agree and also reiterate what I said a few moments ago. While we have been pressing the French Embassy on this point, it has had difficulties over its public expenditure. That is not a difficulty unrecognised by the Government and we are pleased to learn that it is commencing the work and we hope that it will be finished quickly.

The Baltic States: Policy
11.18 a.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the Baltic states.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, British policy is: to support the sovereignty and independence of the Baltic states; to encourage them to continue political and economic reform; to reinforce Baltic links with western countries and institutions; to encourage regional stability, including improved relations with Russia; and to promote bilateral trade and investment.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer and I congratulate her on her position in Her Majesty's Government, which I hope will be long, successful and rewarding.
The present Government have been in power for only three weeks and have not had time to fashion a more progressive policy. Will they use their increasing influence at the heart of Europe to press at the Intergovernmental Conference for the early inclusion of the three Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—in the European Union? Will the Government consult urgently with their NATO colleagues to try to find ways in which the security of the three Baltic states can be enhanced?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked two supplementary questions: one about EU membership and one about NATO membership. The Government are a strong supporter of enlargement of the European Union. We believe that that will entrench stability and prosperity across Europe; end historic divisions and bring about practical benefits such as increasing the single market to nearly 500 million consumers. Member states will take a decision towards the end of this year on the readiness of the Baltic states and other countries for EU membership, taking into account the opinions of the European Commission which are expected in July.
As regards NATO membership, the Government will not take final decisions on candidates until nearer the date of the Madrid Summit, which is on 8th and 9th July. As the NATO enlargement study makes clear, we shall need to consider both the credentials of individual countries and the wider security background.
498
But I stress to the noble Earl that in any event NATO is determined that security of those countries not invited to join should not be diminished by the Madrid decisions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate what are the express views of the Commission so far with regard to its agreement or otherwise to the policies which she outlined in answer to the original Question?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to my noble friend on that point.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that if and when the three Baltic states apply to become members of the European Union, their applications will be treated separately rather than en bloc? Secondly, can she tell the House anything about the current situation in Narua in Estonia where, as I am sure she knows, there is a very substantial Russian population, which is a potential flashpoint between the two countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the applications of the three countries will be considered separately. As regards the second matter which the noble Viscount raised, the Government welcome the progress made in Estonia in addressing the anxieties of the Russian minorities, but further progress on that very difficult question is required.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may go back to the second supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Carlisle which the noble Baroness may have slightly misunderstood. I did not understand my noble friend to suggest that the Baltic states should become part of NATO but he is concerned about enhancing the security of the Baltic states and about consultation with NATO partners as to how that is to be achieved. It might be achieved if there were consultation with Russia about it as that would be an essential part of a security agreement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did understand the terms of the question but I apologise to the House if I did not make myself clear. We are determined that the security of those countries which are not invited to join NATO should not be diminished by the Madrid decisions. We wish to enhance co-operation with non-members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Partnership for Peace.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as regards bringing the Baltic states into the European institutions, what is the relationship at present between the three Baltic states referred to and the Council of Europe on the one hand and the Western European Union on the other hand? Is there any relationship between those three Baltic states and those two European institutions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to give the answer of a new Minister in a new Government and say that I shall write to my noble friend on those matters.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I visited Estonia between the wars when it was independent. Estonia is the smallest and most vulnerable of the Baltic states. Will the Government bear in mind the need not only to ensure the defence of Estonia but also to persuade the Russian Government that infiltration must be brought to an end?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will wish to do as the noble Lord suggests. Indeed, referring back to the historic links with Estonia, the Government are very much looking forward to the UK playing a full part in celebrating the 80th anniversary of Estonian and Latvian independence next year in the light of the Royal Navy's role in that independence in 1918.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are many in this House who welcome the new emphasis on enlargement? Will the Minister agree further that, as regards public debate, it is now surely time to shift our attention from the common currency question to that much more fundamental question?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government see the two questions as being mutually exclusive. The question of enlargement is important as, indeed, is the question of a common currency.

Northern Iraq: Turkish Incursion
11.26 a.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq and reported killing of civilians in Erbil.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have expressed concern about the Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq against the PKK, a terrorist organisation. We have urged Turkey not to exceed measures to protect her own territorial integrity and legitimate security concerns. We have also stressed to it the importance of respecting human rights and not endangering civilians. We are watching the situation closely.
We have raised the reports of the killing of civilians in Erbil with the KDP. It has said publicly that although it took action to close PKK offices in Erbil, it denies the allegations of rape and murder of civilians.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that repeated Turkish incursions into Northern Iraq are a violation of the United Nations charter and at the very least, the Turkish authorities have an obligation,
500
which rests on every state that crosses an international frontier, to report its action to the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Has that been done? Will the Secretary-General lay a report before the Security Council to see whether Turkey's legitimate security interests are involved or whether it is part of a wider Turkish plan to secure total domination of Northern Iraq with the KDP?
As regards the killings, has the noble Baroness seen the well authenticated reports from Kurdish sources which indicate that five women were raped and then executed in public in the streets of Erbil; that seven patients were dragged from their beds in the local hospital and murdered; and that 16 others were taken from offices and executed personally by the KDP military commander in Erbil, Jamal Mortaqa; and that the local correspondent of Med-TV has disappeared? Will the Government make it clear to the KDP and its Turkish masters that those crimes will become punishable by the International Criminal Court when it comes into operation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not quite sure how many supplementary questions the noble Lord has asked. However, perhaps I may deal first with the very serious allegations of infringements of human rights which the noble Lord has drawn to our attention. We have raised this matter with the Turkish Government and we have no hard evidence of the incidents which the noble Lord related to the House. We have spoken to both the Turks and the KDP about avoiding civilian casualties. The KDP has denied categorically any wrongdoing in Erbil such as that described by the noble Lord.
Further, we understand that Turkey has no wish to challenge Iraq's territorial integrity in the way that the noble Lord suggested and, of course, we too respect Iraq's territorial integrity. I stress to the noble Lord that we have urged Turkey not to exceed measures necessary to protect its own interests. We wish to stress to Turkey, as the EU presidency has done, that the solution to those problems is political and not military. Indeed, on 16th May the presidency called on Turkey to exercise the utmost restraint, to respect human rights, not to endanger the lives of innocent civilians and to withdraw its military forces from Iraqi territory as quickly as possible.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that the protection of human rights was one of the central planks of the Mission Statement outlined by the Foreign Secretary—a statement which cost £54,000 to stage. Can the Minister say whether threatening Turkey with talks is a new and dynamic way of dealing with this obviously serious abuse of human rights? Further, is it not high time to talk turkey to Turkey?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we appreciate the noble Viscount's pun. However, I am sure that we all take very seriously the allegations that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put before the House. As the noble Viscount rightly pointed

501
out, this Government have placed human rights at the heart of our foreign policy. We are reminding Turkey—indeed, we did so even this last week—of the importance of respecting human rights and of avoiding endangering civilians in the region. The Turks have told Her Majesty's Government that the Turkish forces will be scrupulous in their protection of civilians and that there will be full respect for human rights.
The noble Viscount asked whether we would be taking the matter further. I can tell him that we intend to take a fresh look at how agreed principles in international fora can best be used to encourage a productive and constructive response from Turkey. We agree that much more needs to be done and that quicker progress needs to be made to bring Turkish performance closer to what we would regard as European norms. We know this and the Turkish Government recognise our position on the matter.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the Government take the incidents of human rights violations by Turkey, and the incursions across international frontiers by that country, as a signal for initiating European discussions to prevent arm sales to Turkey? Surely that would be compatible with the Foreign Secretary's position.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the question of arm sales to governments whose record on human rights is not all that it might be is, of course, a matter of great concern to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. As my noble friend knows, the Government have an eight-point guidance memo about such sales of arms, which I am sure will form the basis of decisions as regards arms sales to all countries.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness if I may congratulate her upon her clarity of expression?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord may certainly do so. I thank him.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the only safe rule is that international frontiers should only be crossed with the approval of the Security Council? Will the noble Baroness take up the matter with the Secretary-General so that proper discussions can be held at the assembly? We should remember the dangerous precedent of the 1930s when previous experience showed that tolerating the crossing of international frontiers was a dangerous and slippery slope which led to vast international conflagration.
As regards the murders in Erbil, is it correct that the United Nations still has personnel in the region? If so, will they be asked to report on the allegations? If there are no UN personnel there, will the international community ask Masood Barzani, the leader of the KDP, whether he will admit the UN rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, Monsieur Bacre Waly Ndiawe, so that he can conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of the murders?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord asks very specific questions about the role
502
of the United Nations. I shall be happy to write to him on the specific points that he has raised in the last part of his contribution. On the question of incursions into other territories, I have expressed our concern. However, at the same time, the Government understand Turkey's aim to maintain her own territorial integrity and protect her own legitimate security interests.

Business of the House
11.35 a.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Under Standing Order 70(1)(a), no Motion to approve an affirmative instrument may be moved in your Lordships' House unless a report on the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been laid before the House. The joint committee has not yet been appointed so it has been agreed through the usual channels that the standing order should be dispensed with today to allow your Lordships to consider this important Northern Ireland instrument.
Moved, That Standing Order 70 be dispensed with to enable the Motion to approve the draft Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Revival of Section 3) Order 1997 to be taken this day notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the draft order has been laid before the House.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had publicly to congratulate the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip on his appointment. From this side of the House, we would like to wish him the very best of success. The noble Lord will find that this House is a surprising one, especially when it chooses to disagree with what I am sure the noble Lord would regard as the finest of government policy. As I so recently filled the post of Government Chief Whip, I know to my own cost that that happens from time to time.
As regards the Motion, as it is so early in this parliamentary Session and we are still at that stage of good will and co-operation, I should like to say that we are happy to agree with the Motion. We do not wish that to be seen as a precedent; but it should be seen in the spirit of good will. If in the future it turns out that we are obliged to disagree more often than we agree, I hope that the noble Lord and the Government will look back at this period with some joy in their hearts.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, both noble Lords who have just spoken are absolutely right; this is most certainly an unusual Motion. However, I find it unusual for a different reason than that which has so far been stated. It is the last two lines of the Motion to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention. Reference to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is normally made during the

503
Minister's opening speech on the order and not in a Motion. Being an oddball myself, I am very pleased to see it where it is today. The joint committee of seven of your Lordships and seven MPs on which I was honoured to serve during the last Parliament, but which is so popular that I would not be surprised to be elbowed off in this Parliament, is a technical but very important part of our legislative process, dealing as it does with the nuts and bolts of Acts of Parliament—some 3,000 of them a year, only a minuscule number of which get to be debated on the Floor of either House.
As the noble Lord the Chief Whip said, the new committee has yet to be appointed so obviously it could not investigate this order for vires or for any other reason as regards its remit. However, I understand that Sir James Nursaw, the committee's legal adviser on affirmative instruments, has reviewed it and found nothing on which he would have liked to advise the committee had it been sitting.
I hope that the very reference to the committee in the Motion of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal means that the Government will take the committee's work seriously and not regard it as a thundering nuisance as governments have occasionally, and most certainly some Ministers have done, in the past. Indeed, I further hope that the last two lines of the Motion presage good relations between the Government and the committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has explained the circumstances which have required the Government to table the Motion. I believe that the case he made is overwhelming. We certainly support it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for the way that they have received the Motion. I should like to thank the Opposition Chief Whip for his kind words. I am not sure why the good will and co-operation has to be concerned only with the early days of this Session. I certainly intend to see that that continues right through the Session. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who congratulated me and wished me well. I am a little concerned about the number of noble Lords opposite who have said they are delighted that I am the Chief Whip. However, I am extremely grateful for all the good wishes that I have received and for the way in which this Motion has been agreed to. As regards the question of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on the appointment of the JCSI, discussions are proceeding through the usual channels as a matter of priority.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Public Service
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
504
Moved, That it is desirable 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.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Revival of Section 3) Order 1997
11.40 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I go into the details of this draft order I hope I may say what a privilege it was for me to have been asked by the Prime Minister to serve as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. She is held in high esteem in Northern Ireland. It is difficult for me to follow the high standards that she has set.
I turn to the draft order we are considering today. It would bring back into existence the forum for the discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding that was established by the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act last year. The forum, as your Lordships know, is not a part of the talks themselves, and the Act makes clear it has no authority over them: but it was envisaged it could play a useful role complementary to the talks in the pursuit of political advance. It was open to all the delegates returned in the elections that were held in connection with the establishment of the talks.
The forum was suspended by order in March, following debates in this House and another place, because the then Secretary of State concluded that the Northern Ireland multi-party talks, which agreed on 5th March to break until 3rd June, were in the terms of the Act, suspended: and he was therefore under a legal duty under the 1996 Act to suspend the forum as well.
The talks will return on 3rd June, and it is right that we respect the original plan, and revive the forum. We hope to be able to achieve that by 3rd June although the Whitsun recess and the pressure of other business in the other place may make that difficult. In fact the forum will not be able to meet on 3rd or 4th June, because the talks will be in session then. But it will be free to meet after that. The forum's remit, relating to the promotion of dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland, is self-evidently central to political advance in Northern Ireland. If the forum were to concentrate its attention on that role, it could have a real chance to be a positive force in the pursuit of a settlement in Northern Ireland.
The promotion of dialogue and understanding, with which the forum is concerned, will be of the greatest importance in coming months. We are determined to do

505
all we can to inject a new dynamic into the pursuit of a political settlement in Northern Ireland. That applies to the whole Government, from the Prime Minister down: our commitment is evident from the fact that he has in his first two weeks in office visited Northern Ireland, made a major speech there, and met the leaders of the main political parties, as well as the Taoiseach and Tanaiste.
The central focus of the effort to move matters forward must be the talks. That means doing all we can to get the talks over the hurdle of decommissioning and into the discussion of the substantive issues that need to he resolved if there is to be a hope of a more stable and prosperous future for the people of Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland had high hopes of the talks process: and it was clear that the stagnation that ensued caused dismay there. But hopes are still cherished that, with the elections out of the way, the process could become fruitful. I believe people in Northern Ireland will expect their representatives, as well as the Government, to bend every effort to secure all possible advance.
I should say one word about Sinn Fein in the talks process. We want them in the talks, because that would open the way towards the widest possible agreement to a settlement. We have also made it crystal clear what must be done to secure their invitation: there must be an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, which is clearly reflected in deeds as well as words. But if that does not happen, we are fully determined to proceed without them. The Prime Minister made that clear last week: as he put it, the settlement train is leaving, we want Sinn Fein on board but it will leave anyway. So that our position is clear to Sinn Fein, and so that we can better assess their readiness to commit themselves to peaceful politics alone, officials yesterday met representatives of Sinn Fein.
We believed it was very important to the success of the political process of which the talks, and indeed the forum, are a part to make absolutely clear the position of the Government on key areas of policy in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister set out many of these in his speech on 16th May. In particular he made clear our complete commitment to the principle of consent. Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom so long as that is the wish of a majority of its people. There can be no change in its status without the clear and formal consent of a majority. Within that context we are looking for a political settlement that is widely acceptable in the community in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland must be a place where all traditions can feel equally at home. The confidence of both traditions—I stress both—must be reinforced. We have outlined a number of areas in which we think that can be done.
It is for the people of Northern Ireland to work out arrangements for their own future within those guiding principles. Nothing will be imposed. The Government's agenda is entirely on the table; nothing is hidden. We aim at the greatest transparency to avoid the suspicions that have bedevilled political advance in the past. I am glad to put forward this order to revive the forum because I believe it has potentially an important role
506
in the pursuit of political progress. It is an institution particularly valued by Unionist participants in the talks, and it is important that we ensure its revival at an early date. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th May be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
11.47 a.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin,
after welcoming the Minister most warmly to his new post, by commending to all who care about Northern Ireland the full text of the Prime Minister's speech on 16th May. It includes a generous tribute to John Major and sets out with heartening clarity and firmness his Government's commitment to the principle of consent, saying clearly that his agenda is not a united Ireland and that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for so long as a majority there so wishes. It gives full support to the police and promises that both police and Armed Forces will continue to bring their full weight to bear on the men of violence. He puts the blame fair and square on Sinn Fein/IRA for excluding themselves from the talks by renewing the campaign for violence. All this is most reassuring, as is the fact that his decision to allow talks between Sinn Fein/IRA and officials is both to explain our position and to assess whether they are genuinely ready to give up violence. He has said that it is not about negotiating the terms of the ceasefire. It is to be hoped that Sinn Fein/IRA will not be let off the hook but will be required to come clean about their true position.
All that is admirable. I hope, however, that the Prime Minister will, with the new Secretary of State, look very carefully at the record of the talks with officials and ensure that Sinn Fein/IRA are asked some tough questions. Everyone has leaned over backwards to accommodate them. What will they do, representing only 17–18 per cent. of the total vote in Northern Ireland, to meet the proper concerns of the 82 per cent. already represented at the multi-party talks, and the concerns of the two Governments?
The IRA ceasefire is only the beginning. Sinn Fein/IRA then expect to be allowed into the talks without preconditions. They expect a time frame to be set for negotiations—why?—and they expect confidence-building measures on such issues as prisoners, and the "reform" of the RUC. They also expect decommissioning to be dealt with, not before but in parallel with, the talks—I believe that arrangements for this are already in hand as a result of the talks.
Martin McGuinness told the BBC last week that,
"If it were established that Sinn Fein/IRA could join multi-party peace talks, then we might have a case to put persuasively to the IRA for a new ceasefire".
This statement, coupled with his initial churlish and hostile response to the Prime Minister's speech, with its references to the militaristic agenda of the British Government, and the statement that he was "not at all impressed", is typical of the arrogance of the Sinn Fein position.

507
I hope very much that since these talks evidently carry in Sinn Fein/IRA eyes no obligation to offer anything themselves, they might be asked in some detail what confidence-building measures they will offer: for instance, the end of punishment beatings, and exclusions of their own people; the end of protection rackets; the end of violence and the planning of violence; and, not least, the details of where the bodies of their past victims are buried—something grieving families have long wanted and been refused. Their agenda is, as they have repeatedly said, Brits out and a United Ireland. It is difficult to see how this could be negotiable in talks, although we must undoubtedly offer them the opportunity. Indeed, one fears that their purpose in entering the talks might be to destabilise them rather than to reach any agreed conclusions.
Furthermore, Gerry Adams has added in the past that Sinn Fein seeks the transformation of all Irish society, not only in the occupied areas, but throughout the whole of Ireland. Sinn Fein/IRA command only 2 per cent. of the vote in the Republic of Ireland, and some 18 per cent. in the North, yet they expect to push this through while at the same time rejecting the right of the 82 per cent. in the North to have a voice on the specious grounds that,
"negotiations need to take place in a climate where no section of our people holds an undemocratic power of veto".
That is what, in Sinn Fein-speak, a majority vote is. Sinn Fein's inclusion of decommissioning on the topics for discussion is aimed, incidentally, at requiring the Armed Forces to leave Northern Ireland or give up their weapons. Gerry Adams has declared roundly in the past that the IRA will never give up a single weapon, and we have all been told that this is a cult issue which has to be accepted. Reform of the RUC means, in Sinn Fein-speak (according to a Sinn Fein document of 1995) the abolition of the RUC and Special Branch and the creation instead of a People's Police for the nationalist areas—jobs for the IRA.
I raise these questions because I hope they will be specifically raised in the talks with officials and the answers fully reported to Ministers. Sinn Fein must not be allowed to destabilise the current talks if it has no serious negotiable agenda to offer once it is included. I do not for a moment suggest that it should not be included if it meets the condition set of a full and verifiable ceasefire. The talks are getting somewhere, very slowly, and the next step could be for the 82 per cent. there represented to go on to discuss socio-economic policies and a strategy for inward investment, as the Unionists have suggested. The Forum, whose renewal we are considering today, is a promising place for people of differing views to come together. People have had a taste of peace and they like it. I firmly believe that, whatever happens about Sinn Fein/IRA and the talks, if the new Secretary of State follows her present line and, as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough recently urged, gives more power back to the district councils, the grassroots revolution which has been bringing people together to work for peaceful,
508
practical, pragmatic aims could gather momentum. That is wholly in accord with the Government's plan for Northern Ireland as formulated in the gracious Speech.
Let the main talks reconvene. Let the parties there represented go on working together. Do not let it all be blown off course and destabilised by Sinn Fein/IRA, which are much more interested in disinformation, media-speak, and their own agenda than in the rebuilding of real bridges.
I hope, too, that as confidence-building measures are being considered, the new Irish Government once elected can be reminded that a move to review Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution could also be a powerful reassurance for the Protestant community, and could go far to advance real confidence in, and support for, various initiatives in cross-border co-operation between two separate countries with real common interests. It seems to me that that is the nub of the matter.
Finally, I should like to welcome most warmly the clear statement in Washington of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the present talks will continue and no new or different initiative for talks will be contemplated. The problems of Northern Ireland are nothing if not complex. I believe that Senator Mitchell and his co-chairmen are a wise team. Let us stay with them and with the Mitchell Principles.
11.55 a.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on his appointment to the Northern Ireland office. In doing so, I should like him to make preparation for leaving that job as quickly as possible because it is my fervent hope—a hope that I trust will be realised—that by the end of this Parliament agreement will have been found in Northern Ireland so that it will be unnecessary to place orders such as this before the House.
Within five years we shall enter a new millennium. I have used the word "fervent" and I have used it advisedly because I realise that many difficulties and obstacles have to be overcome before we can find political agreement in Northern Ireland. Only this morning, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, I read a report of the debates in the Northern Ireland Forum as at present constituted. It makes very dispiriting reading.
When we first promulgated legislation to bring the forum into existence, I think that my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees and myself expressed reservations. We did not believe that it was necessary. We have been told this morning that it is a fact. But one must be guided by past experience in relation to forums, assemblies and congregations in Northern Ireland.
In 1982 in the wake of the hunger strike in Northern Ireland, the then Secretary of State, Lord Prior, brought into being an assembly in Northern Ireland. It was to bring about something called rolling devolution. If agreement could be found among the various political parties in that rolling devolution assembly, it would have been quite acceptable to any government on this side of the water. However, immediately after those elections took place in 1982, Sinn Fein won seats.

509
It won them in the emotional atmosphere which existed in the wake of the hunger strikes of 1981. Sinn Fein said, "We shall not attend this assembly". Much to my amazement, and indeed despair, the SDLP said exactly the same. It said, "We shall not attend either". I believe that the death knell for that rolling devolution assembly was the refusal by major political parties and interests in Northern Ireland to accept what, after all, was a democratically elected institution. The assembly and indeed this forum have been elected by the people of Northern Ireland. I never had much faith in the forum but the Government insisted that it should be brought into being.
I refer to this as the Lazarus debate because we are seeking to bring back into life something that is already dead. It was killed by the non-attendance and withdrawal of the SDLP and Sinn Fein. We have already had the experience of the 1982 assembly. It staggered on, month after month, reflecting only one point of view—the Unionist point of view, and the Democratic Unionist point of view. I do not believe that any reason could be expected to be found in such an assembly.
In the Prime Minister's speech of 16th May he gave an undertaking to the majority in Northern Ireland that there would he no change in the constitution of Northern Ireland. We are having all these new aphorisms. He said that there would be a settlement train. If one looks back in Irish history one finds anecdotes about the way in which Northern Ireland will be governed. One cannot have a settlement train unless the vast majority of the parties are on that train in order to reach a destination which, it is to be hoped, will be peace.
We are bringing the forum back into operation. I make an appeal. I do not suppose that it will be listened to, from my experience in Northern Ireland. I make an appeal that the SDLP and all the other elected representatives take up their seats in that forum. We must face the fact that there is a majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland, and there will be a majority of Unionists elected to that forum. There were 10 Unionists elected to Westminster in the recent election. So however we may try to evade the issue, we are faced with the fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are Unionist. The SDLP cannot say, as they seemed to be saying when the forum was first brought into being, "We're not going there because they're all Unionists"; and Sinn Fein said much the same. You will never reach any agreement if you do not sit down and have dialogue with people whose views are diametrically opposed to yours. It is only by doing that that you have any hope of bringing about agreement in Northern Ireland.
One of the favourite phrases of the leader of the SDLP when I read what he says and see him on television, and one on which he lays great emphasis, is, "agreement, agreement, agreement". Agreement cannot be reached if people will not sit down and talk to their political opponents. My plea is that all political representatives attend the reconstituted forum.
We are told that the forum can have no effect on the talks. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has more experience as he has been involved in the main talks
510
which have been taking place in Northern Ireland. The Government have made great concessions to Sinn Fein and seem intent on trying to get them involved in the talks. I am not too sure how successful they will be. However, if Sinn Fein is admitted to the talks there is a strong possibility that some sections of the more extreme Unionist Party will walk out—so Sinn Fein may be included but a certain section of the Unionists will not be there. I make the same appeal to them as I made to my former colleagues in the SDLP. Unionists and Democratic Unionists will have to sit down at some point with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The electors gave 127,000 votes to Sinn Fein candidates in the recent Westminster election. In Sinn Fein they took a seat from my former party, the SDLP.
I have been a bitter opponent of Sinn Fein since it first entered the Northern Ireland political arena. But whether we like it or not, it is a fact of life. During the recent election we heard the Prime Minister of the Republic, the Prime Minister of Britain and various other speakers in Northern Ireland, telling the Northern Ireland electorate that if they voted for Sinn Fein they were voting for murder and violence. The people to whom they were talking do not seem to have paid much attention to that plea. Are we now in the position of saying that 127,000 people voted for a continuation of violence? Did they vote for the campaign so tragically waged by the IRA over the past 25 years? I should like to think that is not the case. I should like to think that Sinn Fein received its support from many sources in Northern Ireland and not particularly in support of Ireland. I say very little in support of Sinn Fein, but it does have good public representatives. Its public representatives in the various councils throughout Northern Ireland work assiduously. I believe that is one of the reasons why Sinn Fein received a larger vote than was expected.
Yesterday afternoon, local government elections were held; the count is going on at the moment. I am quite certain that Sinn Fein will have gained other seats. If Sinn Fein can sit on local authorities in Northern Ireland with the DUP, the extreme Unionist party, the official Unionist Party, the Alliance party and all the other independents, then all the parties could reciprocate; they could return to the forum.
No one can guarantee the forum any success. I just read the reports of the debates that took place there, and they provide no reason to be optimistic. However, the forum presents an opportunity. Incidentally, it represents a large financial expense for the British taxpayer; we are not getting it for nothing. I hope that every effort will be made to bring all parties into the forum, so that the people who live, breathe, work and die in Northern Ireland will be able to reach some agreement which will make it unnecessary for this House to debate such orders as this in the future.
12.5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the forum has a much better chance of success than the talks process itself, simply because it is open to every elected member of it to come to the forum and engage in discussions; whereas there

511
are many more difficulties in the peace talks in achieving the objective that the noble Lord and I would dearly love to see achieved.
I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, most warmly on acquiring what I believe is by far the best job in government. Unlike a London-based Minister, he will find that his senior Ministers are far too busy with matters of politics, security and overall finance to interfere very much with the way he and his permanent secretaries run the sub-departments in which he serves. He will already have found that Northern Ireland is different, in both a constitutional and a political way, to any other part of the United Kingdom.
In his contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech on Monday, my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who, alas, cannot be here today, quoted from the recent Hayes Report on the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That showed very clearly the difference in the constitutional position. Even if the noble Lord the Minister has no time to read the report itself, I urge him to look at the second half of my noble friend's speech on Monday. He will find that the department and not the Minister is subject to judicial review or any other legal proceedings. He may find that comforting. People are always saying that Northern Ireland is run by civil servants, and there is more than an element of truth in that. As the report says,
"In common parlance they"—
that is, Ministers—
"are described as 'Minister for' but it is not always understood that this is a courtesy title".
I leave the matter there.
The important point that needs to be made is that it is an undesirable facet of what we call "direct rule" that everything that happens in the departments of Environment, Health and Social Services, Education and to an extent Economic Development is done by a mixture of civil servants and quangos. All the best people are not budding politicians wanting to go into local, and ultimately provincial or even national politics. They go into either quangos or the Civil Service. Where is the next generation of Members of Parliament of the quality and training that the Province's electorate deserve to come from?
I asked that question as a Minister. I received no reply. I have asked it as a Back-Bencher in debates answered by my successors. I received no reply then either. I ask it again today. I expect no reply. I genuinely believe that there is no satisfactory answer that could be given to this conundrum.
But as my noble friend Lady Park identified, the problem is soluble. It is soluble in a way that should appeal to this Government, because it involves devolution—not in the grand, broadbrush way that is planned for Scotland, but by slowly devolving individual facets of the Northern Ireland Office to the existing local authorities, which do practically nothing—the three R's as they are called across the water. I call them LCT—litter, cemeteries and tourism. I am probably being slightly unfair, but as the noble Lord will, I am sure, already have discovered, it is a
512
demonstrable fact that local government has the very minimum of powers in Northern Ireland. There is no earthly reason why education or planning, great chunks of environment, housing for example, social services and health, should not be the remit of local councils under a strong but possibly slimmed down Northern Ireland Office at Stormont—or indeed, Stormont itself.
In his much to be quoted and very well received speech last week—except, as my noble friend Lady Park said, by Mr. McGuiness—the Prime Minister said:
"There may be only one chance given to a new government to offer a way forward",
in what he called a fragile and fraught situation. He was of course speaking in the context of a resumption of the talks. He is spot on in his thinking, as I am sure everyone will acknowledge. He went on to say realistically that governments are not new for ever. You can say that again, my Lords! Governments are given honeymoon periods when they are new and again when they are in office, when there is a new Prime Minister. We saw the latter when my right honourable friend Mr. Major became Prime Minister. Honeymoons though do not last; some are long, some are short but nothing lasts for ever.
In Northern Ireland, in particular, the situation is constantly changing. It is not the same as it was in 1969: successive governments and chief constables of the RUC have seen to that. Nor today is it the same as in 1979 or even in 1989. One thing that I have identified that has changed in the fairly recent past is that people on the ground, while being grateful for what the Northern Ireland Office has achieved in the past 25 years or so, now want to manage more of their own affairs.
I am sure that that will become blindingly clear in the context of the revived forum which is the subject of today's debate. Even though the people elected their Members of Parliament on 1st May, there seems to me to be a growing disparity between the electorate and the MPs. I believe that the latter are hankering after a revived Stormont, perhaps with slightly different powers—what in other words I have just called devolution on a grand scale. As the Minister goes round the Province and talks to ordinary people, not the higher grades of the Civil Service or the members of quango boards, he will find that at a local level people do get on and do function as a local entity. In Derry and in Fermanagh, in Tyrone and in County Down, people of all backgrounds, however they vote, get together for the common good. And it works. It works in the charities, it works in all kinds of local associations up and down the Province. It works too with the volunteer and poorly paid helpers in the social services. It would be a risk to give them more power, of course it would.
Back to the Prime Minister. He said:
"There are times when to calculate the risks too greatly is to do nothing. There are times too when a political leader must follow his instinct about what is right and fair".
What I want him and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to do is to follow the instincts of my noble friends Lady Park and Lord Brookeborough as well as my instincts. If they do, they will find that it can

513
be done easily and quickly and that it need not be done all at once. Nor need it interfere with the resumption of talks which we would all welcome.
Naturally this order will sail through both Houses—and so it should. The long-term aim is a final solution, but I venture to suggest that it will be a long time coming, notwithstanding what Mr. McGuinness was reported as saying earlier this week, that one of his conditions is that the talks should finish within six or nine months of starting, should he attend, if only because the participants are great talkers and great arguers. A consensus, even if Sinn Fein eventually comes to the table, is a long way off. I should like to use this opportunity to deliver a message: "Please, Prime Minister, don't waste your honeymoon. The lives of everybody in Northern Ireland will continue to be the poorer if you do".
12.13 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, since I am speaking in the gap, I shall be brief. However, I could not let the opportunity pass without publicly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We are glad to see him in the Northern Ireland Office and I am sure that he will carry out his duties with the greatest efficiency.
I was glad that the Prime Minister stated that he is prepared to go ahead without agreement from Sinn Fein/IRA. For far too long, things have been held up by the previous government pandering to the IRA, to try to entice them to come and talk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, if they did get talks, their aim would be more likely to try to disrupt the talks rather than to reach agreement. I welcome the Prime Minister's statement.
We must also be careful not to have any tampering with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The objections raised by Sinn Fein have nothing to do with the individual religious or political beliefs of individual members. Why they are against the RUC is because it has been so effective in dealing with the IRA attempts at murder and destabilisation of all kinds. They would like the police to be people who would not be too hard on them and not frustrate their plans in the way that the RUC has managed to do.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate and pass on good wishes to the Minister on his appointment. I know that we can look forward to the same kind of courtesy, candour and commitment which so characterised the tenure of his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. We appreciated her work very greatly and know that we can look forward to similar good relations and sterling work with the new Minister and new Government.
One of the things I am sure the Minister will find in Northern Ireland is that our difficulties bring out both the best and the worst in all who participate. As we turn to this piece of legislation, I fear that in some aspects it has brought out the worst in people. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed out that I am a member of the forum and there could be little greater contrast between the
514
dignity and respect with which the affairs of this House are conducted and the affairs of the forum. It was only within a few days of its commencement that relationships began to run into great difficulties. It is important to point out that although we had been successful in persuading the SDLP to participate in the elected body—the first time that that had been possible in over 20 years—within just a few days of the commencement of that body, Unionist politicians found themselves getting in a great state about whether the Union flag was flying in the chamber, outside the chamber or not at all. Along with the whole run-up to the Drumcree business, repeated last summer, it led to the SDLP withdrawing. Whether it was for a good reason or a good excuse may be another matter, but there is no doubt that it was a tragedy that the SDLP chose to withdraw. Neither the Unionists nor the SDLP distinguished themselves.
If we reflect on some of the events in another part of this building, it is notable that representatives of the Republican movement of Sinn Fein were elected to that forum—a forum where they did not need in any fashion to sign an oath of allegiance or declare anything that they would find objectionable. However, Unionists had accepted that their attendance and participation would be entirely appropriate, given that they were already participating in local authorities. But the representatives chose not to come where they could come and to come here where they could not. One must therefore regard with some scepticism the bona fides of those who would claim to be nothing other than the due representatives of their people. In all those problems in Northern Ireland, one must be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.
When it comes to the other side of matters, I have been remarking on the unsavoury presentation that one finds with elected representatives in Northern Ireland but good has been brought out. One of the great goods brought out in this House and the other place was that the previous government had such overwhelming support from both Opposition parties in all they tried to do constructively in Northern Ireland. It must be said that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Major, put in an enormous effort and received enormous support from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. That shows that the best can also be brought out. I trust that that kind of bipartisan or tripartisan approach will be continued in the new dispensation.
It has started well. Mr. Blair delivered himself of a particularly fine speech in Belfast. When he did so, I note that he paid due tribute to his predecessor. It was not a matter of feeling that once in government one must always criticise those who are now in Opposition. If they did good things then, that should be supported. That was a good tenor on which to embark upon the next phase of the peace process in Northern Ireland and an instruction. It was an example of how it would be better that politics were conducted at home in my part of the world.
Having said that, I think it would not be unfair of me to point out that there are three or four elements in the conduct of the peace process during the period of the

515
forum and the talks where the previous Government perhaps may offer a lesson in what not to do. I trust that the new Government may learn from them.
The first concerns the matter of openness. When Mr. Blair came over, he advised the people of Northern Ireland that he intended to instruct officials to meet with Sinn Fein. One could not help but be reminded of the fact that the previous Government had maintained that there was no way that they would have talks with Sinn Fein officials and that such discussions had not been taking place, but that subsequently it emerged that there had been such discussions. Whatever one thinks about such meetings, it is always advisable to be open with the people about the fact that they are being held. Even if people disagree with you, it is infinitely preferable to having them distrust you. I praise the new Government for taking the line that, when they were doing something, whether or not it was very pleasing, they would at least be open about it. That improves trust, even if everyone does not agree.
Secondly, I welcome a sense of realism that is being brought in. I have found it difficult to understand over the years when it has repeatedly been said that everything is on the table, when I and the people of Northern Ireland know perfectly well that everything is not on the table. There is no prospect of an agreed move to a united Ireland and no prospect of an agreed move to integration with the rest of the United Kingdom. We all know that. When it was repeatedly said that everything was on the table, it only made people believe that there was no honesty and realism in the minds of those who made the comments. So I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is setting up a realistic framework and making clear that what we are indeed talking about is some form of agreed power-sharing devolution with protection for minorities and that Northern Ireland remains within the UK for so long as the majority of people want, but there also have to be constructive practical and probably, indeed, institutional relations with the rest of the island because we share so much together. It is a recognition too of the aspirations of the nationalist minority. So I believe that that realism is very important.
The third important matter is that we must see a timescale. One of the impressive facts about our colleagues in South Africa who made such remarkable progress is that they set themselves a timetable and worked to it. In the legislation that we are considering this morning, there is a timetable of 12 months. I appeal to the Government to see that as the outside limit within which there can be discussions. One might very well say that after so many hundreds of years of disagreement, surely a month here or there is not important. That is not the point. We all know what we have to deal upon; we all know what the outcome needs to be if there is truly any commitment of the parties to achieving anything. It can be done within that time. If not, it were better that we know that the parties are not going to agree with each other. Then it becomes the responsibility of the British Government in particular but in co-operation with the Irish Government to move ahead with whatever is appropriate.
516
In that regard I caution the Government a little against declaring that they are never prepared to put anything in place unless everybody agrees to it. That is simply a recipe for nothing ever being put in place. Previous governments found themselves putting things in place and congratulating themselves afterwards. I caution the Government against saying that they will never put anything in place without everyone's agreement.
Finally, I comment on the question of fairness. There has sometimes been a tendency from outside to say that fairness is basically a matter of doing the same for one side as is done for the other. It does not matter much what is done, so long as it is done for both sides. It may be a balance of imperfections but, so long as it is a balance, that is all that is needed. That may sometimes mean that so long as you are criticised as heavily by one side as the other, you can be satisfied with your performance. I do not believe that that is the way to go. I believe that one sets down fundamental principles, adheres to them and applies them to everyone.
One classic and perhaps the key and fundamental example of that is the mixing of democracy and violence. The strategy of the Armalite and the ballot paper is not one that we can subscribe to, connive at or accept. When it is clear that that is being done by the Republican Movement, it is absolutely right that we make clear that there is a price for being involved in democracy. There are rules. One of them is that violence and the threat of violence is not mixed with democracy and the ballot box. But we cannot make fish of one and flesh of another.
If that is the case—it is rightly so that it is the case with the Republican Movement—we must apply exactly the same rules to anyone else, and particularly the Loyalists. We must be honest with ourselves. They may claim that there has been a ceasefire and that their ceasefire is intact. But it is increasingly a threadbare ceasefire, if it exists at all. The chief constable—a very fine man indeed and we are fortunate to have him—has made it clear that all the elements of the combined Loyalist military command, in their own individual fashion, have breached the ceasefire. It is no matter then that the CLMC itself claims that its ceasefire is intact.
I do not make such an appeal in order to drive anyone out of talks. I make it so that when we start the talks on 3rd June we shall emphasise to those who are there, as much as to those who wish to be there but are not, that we must all abide by those fundamental principles. If it is said that the Republican Movement must have a ceasefire in word and in deed, we similarly must make a demand on the Loyalists that words are simply not enough and that ill deeds will also be judged against them.
I wish the Minister well. I wish the new Government well. I wish the forum well, though I have some foreboding about having to sit through its sessions, as some noble Lords will understand and appreciate. I look forward to the Minister's comments and replies.
12.27 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I too am pleased to have the opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to his place on the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his appointment and express delight that, when commenting on it, he used the word "privilege". I believe that it is a privilege to hold that position for Northern Ireland and I was delighted to hear that he felt so too. If I must hand on the baton, though I have a feeling that it was snatched from my hands, I do so with much pleasure, passing it into a safe pair of hands. Already I must congratulate him on his influence because, as noble Lords sitting alongside him will understand, to do Northern Ireland business before noon verges on the miraculous.
I hope that the noble Lord will have better success than I did in ensuring that his colleagues understand what a much harder task it is to be the Lords' Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. There will be few occasions when we discuss business for which the noble Lord is responsible, and there will be many times when it will be other Ministers' business. Also, I suspect, with the not insignificant majority of his party in the other place, there will be times when he will have to make the journey backwards and forwards while his other colleagues are—I believe the term is "slipped". I hope that he will ensure that they recognise the task that he is undertaking. I have discovered in the past fortnight that while actors out of work rest, Ministers out of work sleep. Nevertheless, the post gives to the occupant a great sense of enjoyment.
I praise the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. It has always been a pleasure to have more voices from Northern Ireland participating in Northern Ireland debates. I and, I am sure, the House look forward to welcoming a new voice in the near future, when the former Leader of the Unionist Party joins us.
I am delighted to welcome the return of the forum. I had the task of standing it down and did so reluctantly. I wondered whether legislation was necessary to set it up, stand it down and set it up again when the talks did not need that. But it had to be stood down by legislative necessity and needed to be brought back quickly. I am sure that the House understands that that turn of speed was necessary for that matter. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is driving a train in Northern Ireland which is rather slower than the bullet speed at which the Chancellor is driving his train. It always seems to me to be useful that trains should stop to pick up passengers, and perhaps the Chancellor might consider that.
In supporting the return of the forum I praise its chairman, who has carried out his job with enormous patience and much humour. There are a number of jobs in Northern Ireland which one would be grateful not to have; I suspect that chairman of the forum is one of them. The current applicant has not made that obvious.
I praise the forum without the pessimism shown by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. It is an ideal opportunity for new players to gain experience for the exercise of responsibility that must come. I support all noble Lords in their view that the sooner we can dispose of a
518
democratic deficit the better. For instance, "Making Belfast Work" is the job of the city council, not the Government.
I join other noble Lords also in asking the Government to do everything they can to encourage the SDLP to return to the forum. It will bring enormous benefit. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who asked for a timetable; my sympathies are more with the Secretary of State's expression that timetables can so easily become hurdles that one then has to move. I fear that there are many areas in Northern Ireland where people will use paint brushes that only paint into corners, and the fewer there are of those, the better.
I commend the useful work I saw of the committees of the forum, which gave members the opportunity to explore in detail the activities of specific areas. I wonder what the noble Lord's view would be on their request for Ministers to attend and discuss the policies with them. I look forward to his response. I share too the view of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that it is an expensive exercise; no one would deny that. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider persuading his colleagues to look at the question of those facilities being made available to voluntary groups when possible. They were refurbished at considerable expense and there are times when, for voluntary groups, they would provide a useful meeting place.
In the new forum I hope that the long-standing politicians will show a more welcoming attitude to members of the Women's Coalition than has been the case in the past. If this Government intend to try to take the "Yah-boo" out of the other place, perhaps they would also concentrate on taking the "Yah-boo" out of the forum. The lack of courtesy that has been shown brings peace no nearer and the previous silence of women's voices on the political scene could be one of the problems. I suspect that the women are underwhelmed by the success that the men have had in the past in achieving peace.
I look forward very much indeed to working with the noble Lord; I welcome his instatement into the Northern Ireland Office. I offer a warm welcome for the reinstatement of the forum. I echo the views of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that the warmth in this House for Northern Ireland is second to none. I have appreciated the bipartisan approach expressed in past years and I hope that that will be something the noble Lord will feel also.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all Members of the House who expressed their good wishes to me. I find it an exciting opportunity. I love the people of Northern Ireland; they are extremely warm, helpful and supportive. I have met many of them in the past two-and-a-half weeks. The people of Northern Ireland have one characteristic among many which is endearing; that is, they are extremely helpful in coming forward to give me lots of advice as to how I should do my job—a characteristic I notice shared by all Members of this House who have spoken in the debate this morning.

519
I appreciate that many Members of this House know a great deal about Northern Ireland and have made positive contributions and suggestions.
I welcome also the fact that the Prime Minister's speech at the Balmoral Show was so widely welcomed. It sets a clear pattern as to how this Government will move forward in Northern Ireland and I appreciate the helpful comments many Members made about the details of the speech.
I turn to some of the specific points raised this morning. First, I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. She made a brief point about the outlook of Sinn Fein. I am sure many other noble Lords will have sympathy for the points that were made. Nevertheless, we must be careful that in this debate we do not enter into the substance of the talks which are to follow. Some of the points made in the debate are matters of substance for the talks. It would be improper for me today to involve myself in details when they are clearly being left to the participants to resolve in the talks which start next month.
We want the talks to be inclusive. They have to be achieved within the criteria that the law lays down, including an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. I am sure that the points made by the noble Baroness will be included in the substantive agenda of the talks that will then follow.
I turn to the question of SDLP participation in the forum. As your Lordships know, the forum will have an important role to play in promoting dialogue and mutual understanding in Northern Ireland. SDLP participation would certainly enhance the forum's ability to discharge that role. The Government would like to see the widest possible participation in the forum and seek to encourage that. Ultimately, it is a matter for each of the parties to decide as to whether or not they will enter the forum. But your Lordships will appreciate also that the decision by an individual party not to participate in the forum, has no bearing on its eligibility to participate in the multi-party negotiations. I hope that that will be helpful.
A suggestion was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, that the facilities used on occasion by the forum should be made available to voluntary groups on other occasions. I shall look into that. I have met a number of voluntary organisations at work in Northern Ireland. They consist of committed and energetic individuals. I have a great deal of sympathy for the voluntary sector going back over the many years of my involvement with it in England and I shall certainly look into the suggestion to see whether there is any way in which the facilities could be made available.
My noble friend Lord Fitt knows a great deal about Northern Ireland and hopes that I shall leave my job as quickly as possible. I understand the spirit in which he made that remark and in that sense I agree. On the other hand, I also hold responsibilities for both the environment and agriculture in Northern Ireland and those responsibilities will continue even if we move towards a peaceful conclusion on other matters in Northern Ireland, which must remain the main priority at this present time.
520
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, urged me to read the Hayes Report. I shall do that. I put it in my briefcase this morning to read over the coming weekend. He asked a question to which he said he has not had an answer. He asked about an increase in the powers of local authorities in Northern Ireland. We have no doubt about the desirability of increasing the responsibilities discharged in Northern Ireland by people responsible to the electorate there. That will be a key focus of discussion in the multi-party talks. It is very likely that the enhancement of local government powers will be one of the issues addressed. However, as the noble Lord also knows very well, the question raises very strong feelings on both sides and has to be approached delicately. I suspect he will say that, as usual, he has not had an answer to his question. But, at this stage, I think that is the best I can do.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on, he answered a point which I made, but not the question that I asked. I asked where the next generation of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament will come from.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is a very wide question indeed and one which I suspect would be better for debate on a future occasion. If the talks process proceeds successfully, and if the forum proceeds successfully, there will be more opportunities for Northern Ireland people to develop their political skills. That may contribute in some way towards answering the noble Lord's question. However, in other ways, it is a very wide question indeed, and I am sure he will understand why I do not want to answer it just at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made a helpful contribution which I welcome. He has made constructive efforts to help in dealing with the problems of Northern Ireland over a period of many years. The whole House will recognise that when he speaks of the importance of bipartisanship and co-operation he does so from the standpoint of knowledge and personal experience. He is right in that and we shall hope for, and indeed expect, bipartisan support just as we gave it in opposition. We look forward to maximum co-operation from within the political parties in Northern Ireland. That, rather than the imposition of any panaceas, is the best way in which we may proceed.
The noble Lord also spoke of the need for openness. He is absolutely right in that. To the greatest extent possible the Government will aim to be as open as possible in all our approaches to the matters of Northern Ireland, even if on occasion being very open will result in us receiving perhaps a little more criticism than we would if we kept things quiet and rather secretive.
A point was made about how women in the forum will be treated. I hope that the forum will show tough and fair debate and that there will also be courtesy from all members of the forum towards all others. I hope and trust that the women members of the forum will be robust enough to speak for themselves. It would be impertinent of me to suggest how they should be treated by other members of the forum except to say that courtesy and fairness should be the watchwords of the way in which the forum will proceed.

521
This has been an interesting and useful debate which has gone wider than the strict terms of the order before us. I thank the many noble Lords who have spoken for their helpful contributions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EU R&D Framework Programme: Science and Technology Committee Report
12.44 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne The Earl of Selborne rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee. EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2nd Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 49).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first let me say what an enormous pleasure it is that this debate affords the House the opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, deliver his maiden speech. Any maiden speech is a notable event, but one from the Government Front Bench is a most unusual event. However, it is not quite so unusual today as there are to be two. We very much look forward to hearing the noble Lord's reply on behalf of the Government. I know I speak for all Members of the House in welcoming him to his office.
When the Select Committee is reappointed by the House, as I am very confident it will be, I shall no longer be the chairman. I rotate off under the remorseless but very necessary rules of the House which limit the period anyone can serve on the committee. It has been an enormous privilege to chair the committee, particularly so as I am not a scientist myself. There has been a very strong interest from all sides of the House in the committee. Such has been the pressure from noble Lords to participate that quite the hardest job I have ever had is trying to explain to highly distinguished scientists and captains of industry why at least for the time being there was no room for them on the committee.
The first report produced in my four years as chairman was on the fourth framework programme. It was a short report and we did not take a great deal of evidence. The report we are considering today is on the proposed fifth framework programme, which deals in greater detail with some of the same issues we identified as shortcomings in the fourth framework programme four years ago. But before I refer in detail to the findings of our inquiry, I should like to pay tribute to our specialist adviser, Sir Arnold Burgen, and to the two Clerks who successively helped the committee, first Dr. Philippa Tudor and then Andrew Makower. Anyone who has participated in the affairs of a Select Committee will recognise that that is no empty tribute.
The report was carefully timed to contribute to the discussions on the fifth framework programme which are now under way and which are likely to continue for some months. The new Minister responsible for science, Mr. John Battle, is already engaged in the Council of Ministers. The costs of previous framework programmes have been substantial. We refer to that
522
in paragraph 1.12 of the report. The current total budget for Framework Programme 4 is 13,200 million ecus, or about £9,500 million, representing about 3 per cent. of the EU budget. The United Kingdom contribution is £390 million, which is about 10 per cent. of our publicly funded civil research budget. The sums of money are considerable. It is important for Parliament to be satisfied that there is a need for these programmes, that they are appropriate for the European Union budget and that they are well managed.
Our witnesses supported the need for a European framework programme. The United Kingdom does well in attracting funding. Although nobody could tell us precisely how well we do, it appears to be common ground that we do well. To undertake the calculation as to how well we do would apparently not be considered conducive to harmonious relationships between member states.
A successful research and technology development programme goes to the very heart of the United Kingdom's and Europe's ability to create the jobs and the skills necessary for us to succeed in the next century. After the Whitsun break, my noble friend Lord Cranborne will initiate a debate on Europe's competitive status. This research programme will be recognised as an important component in trying to achieve global competitiveness.
Having said how important the European framework programme should be and how it was supported by our witnesses, it must also be recognised that there was widespread criticism, which can be summed up in three ways: too little focus, too many objectives and inappropriate centralised management. Throughout the consultations, which have gone on over the past year or so—the Commission is to be congratulated on the way it has opened up the debate—it has been evident that the Commission itself has accepted the need for the programmes to achieve better focus. The evidence we received from the Commission emphasised how important it saw its focus to be. Yet the working paper from the Commission, which we reproduce in full at the end of the evidence volume, did not meet our expectations.
After our Select Committee reported, the final proposals were published in April. The Commissioner, Madame Cresson, has, frankly, still not satisfied me at least—and, I suspect, other members of the Select Committee—that there will be a sufficiently robust approach to selectivity; that is, to reducing existing parts of Framework Programme 4 before new "key actions", as described in the proposals, are added to make the Framework Programme 5.
We still cannot see a properly defined strategy for a European research programme. That is something which the former Commissioner Davignon, who chaired the evaluation panel for the Commission, also called for in his report published in February. He said that the research policy lacks focus and is under-achieving. Those are his words and not ours.
We accepted that there are programmes which can he better conducted at the European level. We accepted that it is appropriate for there to be a European research

523
programme. We noted that a number of projects from the previous framework programmes have indeed proved successful.
But before a review of that nature is undertaken on the components of the fifth framework programme, two questions must be answered. First, are the components of the proposed programme best conducted at member state level or European level? Secondly, will the proposed programmes complement the existing programmes of member states? Without a clear strategy, firmly based on an intimate knowledge of member states' programmes, there will continue to be a lack of focus and a lack of a clearly defined strategy. The Select Committee and, for that matter, the Davignon evaluation panel, both considered that to be the most serious concern.
Again, before putting in place a new framework programme, there needs to be an adequate, systematic evaluation of results. The annual monitoring report is a helpful innovation, but it concentrates on administration and has little to say about scientific quality and results. Present evaluations rely heavily on participants. We are asking for something of a rather more systematic approach.
We are critical of the culture of centralisation, which permeates many of the functions such as planning and financial management. We would like to see much of this carried out closer to the actual research work. In paragraph 2.689 we draw attention to the acronym AMICA. I apologise for having to explain what this strange acronym stands for. It stands for "A molecular initiative in community agriculture". It is an attempt to move the management closer towards the research. We at least thought that it was a precedent that should be followed up. I shall be interested to know whether there is any prospect that that will continue into Framework Programme 5 or at least the concept which is incorporated in this delegation.
The Joint Research Centre is something that we referred to in the previous report four years ago. Since then it is true that an element of competition has been introduced for its funding, but it is still the case that it enjoys an anomalous status. We felt that it should be opened up to competition, peer review and assessment by an independent group, at least to a greater extent than at present. There is a lot of special pleading within Europe about the need for an independent source of scientific advice. Quite frankly, I believe that is overstated. There are many ways of getting independent scientific advice. Bearing in mind the Prior Options Review in this country, it would be odd if we were not to recognise that the element of competition would be desirable.
There is an element of the programme which seeks to achieve the EU's cohesion objectives. The economic and social cohesion of the Community is a desirable objective. But there are structural funds designed for that. If one uses the framework programmes to achieve the same objectives, we felt that there was a danger that cohesion would be used to justify mediocrity.
Last week this Parliament acted as host in London to a parliamentary conference on the EUREKA programme, which is a separate European research initiative embracing more countries than those of the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, chaired the meeting most expertly. From that meeting came a request for greater synergy between the two programmes, EUREKA and Framework Programme 5. I am sure that we would wish to endorse that. Also, I believe that we would recognise that the EUREKA programme is putting in place some organisational and administrative procedures which perhaps can be recommended to the framework programme. Quite frankly, they are simpler and more user friendly.
In paragraph 3.22 there is a specific problem whereby the universities are caught in a cross-fire between Customs and Excise and the Commission over VAT. Can the Minister say whether there has been any resolution of this annoying problem?
We have referred to the undesirable consequences of our policy of attribution. That policy assures adequate accountability for public funds and that of itself is a perfectly respectable concept. It means that someone has to account for the money even if it is spent through the European funding allowance. The only problem is that other member states do not use the same procedures. Therefore, our departments and research councils have a vested interest in not attracting European funds to their area of interest whereas we would obviously like to see them act as champions for their sector. This is a long-running problem which the Select Committee has drawn attention to before. Apparently, it has been impossible for the Treasury to work out how to resolve it. I hope that the Minister, with his fresh mind and great commercial expertise, will take this matter on board and perhaps achieve an easy win here. I am sure that it is a good one to tackle. There must be a way of achieving accountability without making people chary of obtaining research funding in their sector.
I have been, I fear, critical of many aspects of the framework programme, as has the report of the Select Committee. We have been critical in a constructive frame of mind. We are looking for some radical changes. However, we recognise that there is much, particularly in the overall concept of the framework programme, which is good. Perhaps I may look at what we commend; for example, the Training and Mobility of Researchers Programme. We believe that the Commission should be drawing on the best practice within member states. We would like to see Framework Programme 5 succeed and the Commission and the member states achieve focus on a limited number of clearly defined objectives. I know that our new Minister for Science, Mr. John Battle, will be doing battle in what will clearly be some protracted negotiations. Their outcome is of great importance to the future of European and indeed British research and development. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2nd Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 49).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
12.57 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, perhaps I should first declare an interest. I am a research worker and an academic professor at London University. I apologise to the House if I find that I have to leave before the conclusion of this debate. I have just had notice that there is a crisis meeting at Hammersmith Hospital because of a deficit in our health budget of over £500,000 for just my own directorate. That means that we shall be cutting the number of beds, reducing the number of nurses and I am also likely to lose a number of research medical staff. So I hope that the House will forgive me if I go to this meeting if I feel that time is pressing.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his outstanding chairmanship of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. As undoubtedly the newest member, I was quite scared of meeting him, knowing that his great-great-grandfather was responsible for the launching of Dreadnoughts. I have only experienced his very courteous and skilled leadership of that committee, which he has chaired with great distinction for some four years. Sadly, I did not sit on that committee but on Sub-Committee II, very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg.
I am sure that the House is also greatly looking forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, making his maiden speech. I am sure that the whole House would wish to congratulate him on his appointment as Minister of State at the DTI and to wish him well. I do not know whether in taking the name of Highbury we share a certain enthusiasm for a particular sporting club, but some of us can fervently hope that events at Highbury next year might elevate us from third place to first place in the Premier League.
One of the most serious problems which I fear that we face in this country is not only our removal from first place to third place, but actual relegation from the Premier League. I am referring, of course, to the increasing threat to our science base, partly because in my view it is chronically underfunded because it is undervalued, and partly because of the self-evident and increasing threats to higher education, on which much of that base is laid. That will have serious consequences for our national economy in the future. No matter how hard we try, we shall never greatly increase our national wealth through the mere brawn of manufacturing goods which can easily be mass-produced more cheaply in the developing world. We need to invest far more in our brains and to exploit their innovation.
In that respect, although I have no wish to cause my noble friend the Minister any embarrassment, I must say that the mute nature of both major parties in the run-up to the general election left most scientists feeling a good deal of disquiet. It seemed extraordinary that so little mention was made of plans for improved scientific endeavour and their importance to the whole of our economy. I hope that the new Labour Government may grasp that staff for our nation's health much more vigorously. There is huge support for the Government among scientists and academics and we must ensure that
526
their enthusiasm and optimism is riot only justified but increased. As a research worker, I know how much a feeling of optimism and of the innate value of what one is doing—or attempting—buoys up scientists during the long hours of loneliness that most research comprises.
The Select Committee's report is excellent and its members are to be congratulated. The report is both constructive and usefully critical and I commend it to the House. As the noble Earl mentioned, our spending on the framework programme amounts to about £400 million, which is about 10 per cent. of our non-defence scientific research spending. It is a hefty whack of the total research budget. It needs to be spent wisely.
Perhaps I should say clearly now that what I am about to say does not in any way alter my firm conviction about the value of the European Union and our need to collaborate most closely if we are to maintain innovation and competitiveness.
The report highlights a number of important issues to which I should like to refer. Not surprisingly, my first concern has already been raised. I refer to selectivity. It is frankly ludicrous to have a large sack full of well-sounding projects—a scientific omnium gatherum, as it has been called—designed in part to alleviate all the concerns and pet thoughts of individual contributors and member countries in the way that is currently proposed. Such European-based research should be almost entirely focused on issues which can only or best be dealt with by serious collaboration in a wider environment. Examples might be "big science" (although, as the report points out, on the basis of need rather than on the basis of mere prestige) and those issues which are of clear value to the European Community as a whole. Selectivity, as applied well in this country, must mean emphasising the strengths of European science.
Perhaps I may take just one example of what I mean by the need for selectivity. The thematic objective of the framework programme, "Unlocking the Resources of the Living World and the Ecosystem", covers a huge range of scientific endeavour which is bound to he wasteful and hardly relevant to a truly European endeavour. Given the growing importance of biotechnology to our science base and its particular relevance to the European economy in, for example, the drug industry, how much better it would be to focus on aspects of molecular biology and health issues.
We have already seen the genome project, an international project which was admittedly based largely across the Atlantic but which also had a good deal of European flavour. It will allow us to print out the entire sequence of the code to life—the basic blueprint of life. It will give us a complete encyclopaedia, which is made up of the volumes which make up individual chromosomes. It will give us print-outs of the individual genes which make up the proteins. The problem is that once the genome project is finished, we will have an encyclopaedia, but it will he unreadable. Although we will know the letters which comprise it, they will be meaningless unless we can translate them and understand the proteins which are responsible. That will require a huge international endeavour. It cannot be

527
done by a single nation. It is too complex; it requires collaboration. We should try to find some satisfactory solutions to that problem within the European framework programme.
I shall come later to the poor level of dissemination and exploitation of much of the research activity. An issue of prior importance is the evaluation of the programme and the transparency of the evaluation of the research. There is a need for better peer review. That issue was eloquently raised by Sir Dai Rees who gave evidence to the inquiry. The report emphasises the need to take note of the mechanisms of peer review of well-established organisations with an excellent track record, such as the UK research councils and the European Molecular Biology Organisation. That reform of thinking is clearly overdue. Sir William Stewart, another witness, drew attention to the issue when he pointed out that he saw,
"researchers winning grants in the Framework Programme, who would not stand a chance in the peer review system in the United Kingdom".
That is a particularly poignant remark given that so many excellent researchers in this country are currently turned down through lack of funds. I am reminded of the story of one senior researcher with whom I collaborate occasionally in my own institution. In the past eight months that biochemist has placed four detailed project grant applications with different research councils. Each was alpha rated—that is to say, was rated as of international standard—by peer review. However, none was funded. Effectively, that research worker has entirely wasted eight months of his research. It is true that he might gain something in knowledge, but he cannot apply that knowledge in a more constructive scientific endeavour. That is deeply disappointing, but it is a common theme in the United Kingdom.
The report also mentions the question of cohesion, about which the noble Earl also spoke. As Sir William Stewart mentioned, it justifies mediocrity. Researchers can possibly improve their chances of getting grants by taking on potentially less able researchers from other countries which are still somewhat scientifically depressed. That may be a noble objective, but it is not necessarily the best way to plan a programme. It is not acceptable that some of the less scientifically developed countries can hold the framework programme over a barrel, possibly even considering refusing funding unless there is concentration in a particular area of which those countries are fond. One of the challenges facing the European Union is to find satisfactory solutions to such concerns to ensure the health of the programme.
I have mentioned the dissemination and exploitation of research activity. Much of that will be taken up by the Select Committee on which I have the honour to serve which is considering innovation. Perhaps I should not say any more on that now, save only that there has been some doubt about the evaluation of the exploitation of the framework programme.
Finally, I turn to one of my own pet areas, the public understanding of science. This brings me back to my remark at the beginning of my speech about the lack
528
of value that is often given to science. Politicians are influenced by public perceptions, but sadly we live in a technology-suspicious environment and that often acts against the best interests of scientific endeavour as well as against our long-term economic strategy. This may be a minor area to fund, but it is of great importance in Europe.
Perhaps I may be allowed to use the paradigm of Dolly, the cloned sheep. We all saw Dolly in the newspapers, but what was not said in the newspapers was that Dolly was a remarkable scientific breakthrough of great importance. She will give us an insight into the ageing process by helping us to look at how mitochondria act in the cell and where they are important where nuclear DNA is not. A study of cloning will enable us in time to revolutionise transplantation technology by providing tissues which could be used to provide stem cells which might make blood tissue, skin tissue, muscle tissue or nervous tissue to control Parkinson's disease. That is a whole range of activity which is of great importance in medicine.
The central interest of Dolly is the nature of that remarkable reprogramming of the developed nucleus in the cell—the fact that it can be made to go back to its beginning and to start to express genes from the very beginning of embryo genesis. That is truly remarkable. It centres therefore on the way that the cell may be controlled. It is important for a whole range of human diseases such as cancer. There are also useful environmental issues such as the control of endangered species and the cheapening of the xenograft transplants in man. All of those things come essentially within the remit of the framework programme, but the ignorance of science led none of those things to be expressed, and what happened was a largely damnatory press. So much so that political leaders in Europe, including President Chirac, condemned that research and suggested that it should be halted. That is wrong.
This is an excellent report and an excellent example of the value of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in this House. It is a matter of considerable anxiety that the framework programmes, which have been in place since the 1980s, still have so many areas of criticism which have yet to be addressed. The report concludes that Framework Programme 5 must achieve a higher standard of scientific outcomes, with a better record of commercial exploitation. It must be focused and resourced adequately, properly and openly managed, and above all capable of meeting the needs and opportunities of the future. I commend it to the House.
1.11 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for introducing this debate on an interesting and comprehensive report on the EU framework programme. I shall therefore confine myself to a few brief remarks. I, too, welcome the maiden speech of the Minister to which I shall listen with interest.
It is obvious from the report, and from the comments of witnesses to the Select Committee, that considerable changes should be made to the framework programme

529
before commencement of Framework Programme 5. As an engineer in industry for 40 years, I am well aware of the importance of R&D to our wellbeing and future technology, and other scientific areas.
From reading the report, I was surprising at the vast extent of those programme. I had not realised that Framework Programme 4 covered some 10,000 projects at a cost of £9.6 billion. I wonder whether that number of projects is too large to be managed reasonably. I note also that that sum represents about 3 per cent. of the total public and private sector research budget within EU member states.
The truly international flavour of the framework programme is shown by the statistics for the highly successful project establishing the complete sequence of chromosome III of yeast to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred. Some 140 scientists, working in 35 laboratories in 10 member states, were involved. I wish that we could all co-operate as successfully as that.
However, all in the framework programme garden is not roses. Not only are there concerns about the focus of Framework Programme 5, there are obviously enormous administrative problems at all stages of projects, from the receipt of bids, their authorisation, monitoring and the final dissemination of those results. Those problems are all well detailed in this excellent report, and need to be rectified before the inception of Framework Programme 5.
There are in addition some problems peculiar to our UK administration, to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred. I refer to the VAT issue, government departmental attribution considerations, and university funding. I do not consider that involvement in framework programme projects should result in such heavy financial disadvantages to our universities, as have been noted in the report.
The report examines in detail the proposals for Framework Programme 5, and their relationship to those of Framework Programme 4. I agree that Framework Programme 5 needs to be far more selective in its objectives and geographical outlook, with its emphasis on the strengths of European research, and on either major supranational projects beyond the scope of national bodies, such as JET and CERN and other large scientific facilities, or major international areas of concern such as global warming and other environmental issues. In any event, value for money is an essential key element.
There are also problems with the termination of Framework Programme 4 projects which need to be resolved before the commencement of Framework Programme 5. I agree with the committee that a contingency fund is a better method of dealing with unforeseeable and urgent research requirements such as the BSE crisis. Suitable provision should be made for that in Framework Programme 5 with controls to prevent its misapplication.
The funding of basic research is obviously controversial, and was referred to in the report. I agree with the committee that provision should be made on a basis similar to that of the UK research councils. It is
530
essential to maintain the continuum of basic, strategic and applied research to underpin individual projects, if necessary.
As stated by the committee, the role of the Joint Research Centre needs to be reassessed, and limited to those areas of activity where a distinctly EU view of the questions involved is required.
One point about which I wondered related to national versus European research projects. Presumably there needs to be some process to minimise duplication of effort in such fields. The situation with regard to the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises is one for which it is difficult to find a totally satisfactory solution. The wide range of such enterprises makes it difficult to propose a single and adequate answer. The most important objective is to ensure that the results of framework projects are disseminated widely in well written and presented reports. Where practical, SMEs should be involved in relevant projects.
The programme for the training and mobility of researchers is, I believe, one of the most valuable parts of the framework programme. That type of programme is most beneficial to an international understanding, in linking the member states of the union and breaking down cultural barriers between them. Once again, I commend this report to the House, and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Ellesmere: My Lords, perhaps I may begin, like earlier speakers, by saying how much I welcome this first debate on science and technology in the new Parliament and with a new government. In particular, I, too, look forward to the first appearance of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, and to hearing his reply to the debate. I trust that he will not feel too constrained by the conventions governing maiden speeches by restricting himself to non-controversial issues.
Many of the key points in the Select Committee report on the plans for Framework Programme 5 have been made by earlier speakers, not least by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who chaired this study, as he chaired the Select Committee, with his customary tact, skill and firmness. As he is now retiring as chairman, and as a member of the committee, perhaps I may express to him my appreciation of the way in which he has led the committee and introduced me and other newcomers to its procedures and objectives. We shall miss him.
I shall be brief. I have some concerns which are well known to my friends as hobbyhorses that I customarily ride. My first concern is that the DTI and the Office of Science and Technology in their advice on Framework Programme 5 seem still to adhere to a model of research and development underpinning innovation that has long been considered unhelpful. That is often described as the linear model, though my mathematician friends, jealous of their definition of linear, would prefer to call it the sequential model.
According to that model, the development of new products and processes starts with basic research, goes on to strategic research and applied research, then to

531
development, production, marketing and sales. There are obvious flaws in that model, which have long been recognised. Thus it is well accepted that successful products require continuous updating, and that that requires the feedback of information from sales to development, from development to applied research, and often from applied to basic research. This feedback, an interactive process, applies equally in the other branches of research, including medical, environmental and agricultural research, as well as that leading to advances, more obviously, in industry.
It was therefore a great disappointment to your Select Committee to hear that the DTI and the OST wished to exclude basic research from funding under Framework 5. As the report observes in paragraph 3.15, this view is in direct conflict with a statement in the 1993 White Paper. Realising our Potential, and I trust that the DTI, now under new management, will adopt a more up-to-date view of the role of basic research, consistent with reality. Happily, the European Commission itself appears to have recognised this need in proposing that each programme in Framework 5 should permit unlimited support for generic technologies and basic research.
Much has been said already about the need for Framework 5 to be a focused programme. Perhaps I may add a plea, which also appears in the report, for the programme to include provision for flexibility so that new problems can be addressed when they arise. One example will suffice to illustrate the need for flexibility and it also relates to my earlier remark about basic research. The problem I have in mind is that of BSE; bovine spongiform encephalopathies. This problem emerged in full force during the course of earlier framework programmes and that made it difficult for a concerted scientific attack on the problem to be made on a European basis under the umbrella of the framework programme. Flexibility is clearly needed and, associated with that, the ability to respond quickly to the need for action.
BSE also illustrates the need for basic research to be a part of the programme. As noble Lords will realise, BSE lays bare the truth that we do not yet have adequate understanding of many aspects of basic biology, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has already told us. Although we now have a very promising hypothesis concerning the nature and mechanism of action of the infective agent in BSE, this hypothesis is not yet universally accepted and, as we heard in this House yesterday in a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, we do not yet have the ability to detect the presence of the infective agent or the early stages of the disease. Further basic research of the highest quality is clearly needed.
Finally, I must emphasis the point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. The funds allocated to research groups under the framework programme have not covered the full costs of the research. This has grave consequences for research groups in universities, whose work under framework programmes has to be supported also by resources provided to universities through the Department for Education and the funding councils. I hope that Sir Ron Deering and his committee, who are
532
now considering the funding of research in universities, will give proper attention to this fact and that, in responding to the report of the Dearing Committee, the Government and all the departments concerned will ensure that all the universities in the UK are able to play their full part in association with industry in this important research programme.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, perhaps I may add my appreciation for the skilful way in which the noble Earl, Lord Selbourne, conducted this inquiry. It was a difficult task, considering the financial constraints of the research community and the universities these days. It was, indeed, difficult to detect criticism at all from the recipients of these programmes since it must be dangerous, to say the least, to bite the hand that feeds you. We had great difficulty in extracting any real points from people who gave evidence.
Perhaps I may also use this occasion to pay tribute to the noble Earl for his very successful leadership of the Select Committee over the years of the previous Parliament. I would also like to welcome my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury on making his maiden speech in this debate. We look forward to his winding up speech with great interest. I believe that it is called "jumping in at the deep end".
This is, in my opinion, a most important study. I have been involved with the European R&D programme since the late 1970s. I cannot recall a more complete, subjective critique in all that time, and I must compliment the clerks and our expert advisers on their splendid support in the drafting of this report.
There has, since the beginning of the framework programmes, been a good deal of schizophrenia about the purpose of the whole exercise. It was never clear whether the aim was best science or cohesion; in effect, to spread the work around to bring in everybody, almost irrespective of their capability. That has been mentioned by several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Winston.
In addition it has oscillated between pre-market and near-market research. Almost at the change of the commissioner, the emphasis changed from one framework programme to the other. There is a good deal of difference between these two. The net result has been a scattergun effect where a hell of a lot of activity has taken place with comparatively little result. Please take note; this after expenditure of nearly £20 billion—and that is a lot of money.
Multinational co-operative research is expensive, and a good deal of the expenditure goes to the travel industry and to telecomms as well as the excessive time spent by the researchers on co-operative meetings.
I do not disagree with the Commission that cohesion is important, but it would be far better dealt with as a separate programme with its own finance, and the R&D programme should concentrate on good science. It is interesting to note that the Germans have made the same comment during meetings in Brussels.

533
I also do not believe that co-operative research is an effective way of conducting near-market activity. There must be a lack of incentive and a continuing squabble regarding intellectual property rights. It is my opinion that it would be far better for the European Union to concentrate on pre-market activities.
It became obvious to me during the inquiry that there is a lack of sound, objective, independent technical assessment and audit available to the Community. Considering the magnitude of the sums involved, it is clearly essential that this must be rectified.
As I previously said, this is a most important report. I sincerely hope that the new Minister of Energy, Science and Technology will use it in his future negotiations in Europe.
1.28 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, to this House and to his new appointment, and I wish him well. Furthermore, I strongly associate myself with the well deserved words of praise said today about our chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Not only has he been an excellent chairman but, when I had to chair one of the sub-committees, he was extraordinarily helpful, encouraging and kind. I am most grateful to him.
In our committee's invitation to submit evidence to the inquiry, we posed the question:
"Can it be demonstrated that the UK gets clear value for money from participation in the Framework Programme?"
It came as a surprise to me that a vast sum—no less than £21 billion across Europe—had been devoted to Framework Programmes 1 to 5. And if "guestimates" are right, Framework Programme 5 may well cost more than £11 billion. However those sums are calculated, they are large. We examined a number of witnesses but failed to unearth any evidence of a serious or systematic attempt to evaluate, assess or monitor the out-turn for that large investment in research. Even allowing for the many difficulties in giving meaningful values to research projects, I feel that the European taxpayer who foots that enormous bill should be entitled to some indication as to the value of that expenditure.
The conclusions that we draw in our report are either anecdotal based or peripheral to the actual research effort. There must be added value to garner from getting both universities and firms to collaborate and share knowledge across European frontiers. But it is difficult to quantify. There was widespread support for the training and mobility of researchers' programme, with its focus on people rather than projects. Even though it receives only a small percentage of the Framework Programme 4 budget, it was seen as one of the most valuable—but again unquantifiable—parts of the framework programme. It is fair to ask how much of that value should be attributed to cohesion and social gains rather than to a plus for scientific research.
An area of the Commission's business which should be more amenable to cost-effective analysis is administration. An annual monitoring report is a valuable innovation and will concentrate initially on the many glaring weaknesses in administration. Those are
534
well known and acknowledged by the directors general concerned. But it was still very depressing for us to learn of some of the problems at first hand. Witness after witness expressed exasperation about the inefficiencies, whether in the high costs of administration, poor internal communication, inadequate delegation, over-centralised slow and secretive peer review and delays in awarding contracts. It makes a depressing paragraph 3.19 in our report.
I fear that so much effort will be expended on tackling that that it will be a long time before improved evaluation systems are put in place for Framework Programme 5. We press for those, recommending that cost benefit analysis and, where appropriate, targets and milestones are adopted. Those should lead on also to cataloguing the commercial successes.
It is that bottom line which at present features only little if at all in any review of the return on the very large research funds which are made available by governments. Although we pressed our witnesses, their examples of framework programme successes while in individual cases sounded most impressive—and as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, reminded us, there has been a particularly successful one in the genome studies—they did not, in total, seem to deal with and explain the £21 billion which had been expended.
Even a detailed scrutiny of our report will unearth little of substance as an answer to the question that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. For more than 40 years, I was exposed to a most searching Treasury scrutiny process of all main Ministry of Defence expenditure. It may have been rigorous, but one had to take that in good part because it was right to account for public expenditure of the large sums devoted to defence.
It is rather galling to find that there appear to be large fields of expenditure in the Euro-scientific areas which do not yet seem to be given anything like that same tight supervision. Bearing in mind the other very large Community programmes which Select Committees of both Houses have examined—for example, fishing and the common agriculture policy—we still seem to have a long way to go to tighten up our Euro-expenditure audits.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to one comment in the POST study which we mentioned several times in our report. It draws attention to the extent to which evaluations rely on framework programme participants to assess the value of the programmes from which they have benefited. We testify to that problem from our own experience in our inquiry. Our witnesses proved reluctant to criticise the goose which lays such golden eggs. I wish the new Government success in their efforts to tighten up in this important area of European financial collaboration, even at the risk, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, of not being conducive to harmonious relations within the Union.
1.35 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I begin, as have other speakers, by thanking my noble friend Lord Selborne for initiating this debate on his committee's excellent report and my noble friend and

535
the committee for their efforts in analysing carefully the complex evidence and representations that were placed before them.
The committee consisted of four Conservative Peers, two Labour Peers and five Cross-Bench Peers. The fact that they could produce such an excellent, clear, unfudged unanimous report shows the important and effective role that your Lordships' House has in the conduct of this country's affairs.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, on his appointment and to wish him very well in his Front Bench duties. It is unusual for a maiden speech to be made from the Dispatch Box but, without having yet heard it, I am absolutely certain that the Minister will do the occasion the fullest justice.
We welcome the Select Committee's report. It has highlighted areas of the EU's research programmes which could be improved. That is essential if European Union research is to be effective and provide value for money. It makes the absolutely key point that research and development are central to industrial competitiveness. By drawing on a wide range of scientific expertise, the report offers an authoritative analysis of the EU's framework programme.
The first of the four chapters into which the report is divided is factual, dealing with present facts and future intentions of the Framework Programme, the present five-year plan and the forthcoming one. The Framework Programmes are an essential tool in co-operation in scientific and technological research throughout the European Union. They are exactly those matters which the European common market was intended to support rather than some of the grandiose plans which emanate from Brussels.
The United Kingdom has contributed substantially to the first four Framework Programmes, taking a leading role. The last Government had committed us to similar participation in the forthcoming programme to begin in 1998. As my noble friend Lord Selborne has told us already today, the United Kingdom's contribution for 1996–97 is £391 million, which is more than 10 per cent. of the Government's planned spending on civil science and technology. Although it is difficult to measure these things, my right honourable friend the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the committee that Britain receives back in benefits at least as much as we contribute.
I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time by going through the introductory section of the report in detail. As is clear from the excellent contributions to this debate, your Lordships have read the report carefully. However, I should like to pick out one or two items which have struck me particularly.
The main aim of the successive programmes is to increase European industrial competitiveness. The report states that the record of the United Kingdom in research is an enviable one. Our record in development and taking discoveries to the market is perhaps less to be envied. It has been ever thus since the end of the war, from the development of the hovercraft onwards. That is not a matter solely for
536
governments. British bankers and industrialists need to be prepared for more risk taking than hitherto. In that respect, the Minister's former company, BP, is to be congratulated on its plans, announced just last weekend, to increase its sale of solar energy equipment tenfold from £100 million to £1 billion over the next 10 years.
However, remembering that the programme involves research and development, European governments must be prepared to co-operate over the exploitation of discoveries and inventions in the same way that they do over the development of military hardware and civil aircraft. Exploitation of new discoveries also produces for Britain more than a juste retour in the terms of profitable new industries and new jobs. We are glad to see that the Commission in its Green Paper Inventing Tomorrow proposes to give more encouragement to exploitation. That is essential if the programme is to achieve practical success.
The Commission proposes to give grants to bring in young researchers from outside the EU to work on FP5 projects. There must be a caution placed against this, laudable as it sounds. What has to be avoided is merely funding political correctness and tokenism. The one and only qualification for grants must be the academic capabilities of candidates for grants and their ability to transfer what they learn back to their own countries. As the Office of Science and Technology said in its evidence, the framework programmes should not be tempted to stray into the fields properly the province of the structural programmes. The committee accepted the evidence on that point of Sir William Stewart, when he said:
"Cohesion has been used to justify mediocrity"
and confirmed the belief that researchers think that they can improve their chances of getting EU funding by including a token researcher from what they call a "cohesion country". On the other hand, the projects for training and mobility of researchers and research training networks are welcomed by the committee as a valuable means of sharing the results of research programmes. The committee urges that for Framework Programme 5 the process of selection should be improved.
One disturbing fact brought to light by the committee's investigation is that there is no task force theme aimed specifically at information and communications technology. The vast sum of £691 million swallowed by the Joint Research Centre this year includes only just over 1 per cent. for this very important area. We simply cannot rely on the USA and Japan, nor can Europe allow itself to seize the high ground on this most important development for the future. Equally, we may not be able to rely on the provision of finance by such leaders in the field as British Telecom, if the Government are going to confiscate part of its assets which would otherwise be available to fund research and improved infrastructure.
At the end of the factual part of the report the committee refers to the Commission's claim that, in 1995, 1,782 smaller firms participated in the Framework Programme and accounted for 15 per cent. of the

537
budget. But the Commission admits that the current level of participation of small and medium enterprises must he improved; and we agree that it must.
I shall not spend too much time on chapter 2 of the report, which contains a summary of some of the evidence taken by members of the committee who dealt with much of it in their conclusions. The Economic and Social Research Council wanted decisions on the funding of projects to be based on majority voting rather than unanimity on the fallacious grounds that it would reduce "horse trading". On the contrary, it might increase the opportunity for deals on the basis of, "You vote for our project and we will vote for yours".
There is more demand for funding than there are funds available. The only projects which should be helped are those that command unanimous approval. The Engineering and Physical Research Council wants to concentrate projects in states that are capable of undertaking research to the highest standards but giving fair access on a Europe-wide basis, while Professor Routti, the Director General of Directorate XII, is in favour of subsidiarity, defining what we need to do together and what can be done separately.
I am pleased to note that the committee confirms that the
"focus should be on the strengths of European research and development …of Europe's best researchers and centres of scientific excellence".
However, I find it strange that, with it being admitted that the resources are limited, Professor Routti and Commissioner Cresson propose that socio-economic research should have an element of the available funding—hardly, I should have thought, within the definition of the type of practical science with which the Framework Programme is, or should be, concerned.
It is also disturbing to note that the administrative costs of the framework programmes are so high-8 per cent. compared with the UK's research councils which cost under 5 per cent. Then there are the inevitable financial irregularities. In November, the Court of Auditors reported irregularities in just eight research projects amounting to some £385 million. The committee makes reference in its conclusions to administrative inefficiency but I very much trust that the Minister in his new capacity of responsibility for trade and competitiveness in Europe will take vigorous action to put an end to those complaints.
I now turn to the succinct conclusions of the committee with which, as I said at the outset, I am pleased to say we substantially agree. I shall select just some of them because I know that noble Lords will have read them for themselves. First, there is the need for the next framework programme to be focused on a smaller range of better defined subjects and to urge the Government to force the Commission to honour its commitments in that respect. Secondly, the framework must play to the strengths of European R&D and its best researchers and its centres of excellence. Thirdly, there is a need not to indulge in too wide a range of international collaborations outside the European Union. Then there is the importance of the training and mobility researchers programme and realistic funding for academic posts.
538
Further, in response to the debate on whether the funds should be allocated to basic research or projects closer to the market, the committee recommended that the Commission should follow the model of UK research councils. Perhaps I may add my own personal endorsement of that particular recommendation. When I had the responsibility for carrying a research councils order through your Lordships' House in 1995, I had to brief myself on their structure. I can only agree that our European partners would do well to follow that.
Probably most important of all, we share the committee's view that the Commission should be encouraged to envisage dissemination and exploitation as an important activity, especially in assisting smaller firms, and also to address the problem of venture capital. Making a scientific discovery is one thing; bringing it to the market and making money and creating jobs from it, or curing disease from it, is no less important but much more difficult.
I understand that the Commission's formal proposals for FP5 were to be published at the end of March, when we were all preoccupied with the general election, and that they were to be considered by the Council of Research Ministers on 15th May. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what transpired. However, if he cannot do so today, then perhaps he can write to me shortly. Perhaps we may also have a statement when final agreement is reached between the Council and the European Parliament, which I understand will be some time next year.
The United Kingdom has only 1 per cent. of the world's population but carries out 6 per cent. of its research, produces 8 per cent. of all scientific publications, and achieves 9 per cent. of its citations. Funding for our science and engineering base has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms in the past decade, and the science budget increased by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. British companies have increased their R&D investment for six consecutive years—4.2 per cent. in this last year alone. A recent study, the European Report on Science and Technology Indicators, showed that in the 20 to 24 year-old age group there are more science graduates in the United Kingdom than in the USA, Japan or Germany. All of this was achieved under the last Government, disproving the constant allegation by the party opposite that we were neglecting science and industry.
We do want a more competitive and prosperous Europe. Framework Programme 5 should concentrate on that. The committee closes its report with the words:
"The United Kingdom and the European Union have much to gain from Framework Project 5. All those involved in the negotiations over the coming months need to work together to ensure the Programme is focused, adequately resourced, properly managed on the basis of uniformly open competition and capable of meeting the needs and opportunities of the future".
Those are sentiments with which we can associate ourselves entirely.
1.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, it is a somewhat daunting honour to speak in conclusion

539
today on this important subject of research and technological development in the European context to which your Lordships' committee has given such diligent attention. Indeed it is perhaps so early in my attendance in this House that it is ambitious to comment on this first occasion where so many distinguished committee members have combined to offer their joint experience.
I am encouraged on this first occasion, however, by my good fortune—which, frankly, one learns to appreciate after 36 years in business and industry, particularly in oil—not only to have been generously welcomed in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, but also by many others speaking today. I have good fortune not only in that respect; on this occasion I hope I shall also be able to speak from the practical experience of my recent past. I speak both with great respect and much personal enthusiasm for the body of opinion expressed in this report which we are discussing today. I hope this will not turn out to be what we would have called a "dry hole".
My government and ministerial role will no doubt offer further opportunities to speak on the twin themes of Europe and competitiveness. My BP career from university apprentice to the chair of the board which I left but two weeks ago was conducted more in Europe than in any other geographical area. As has been noted kindly today, I am proud to say that BP has not wanted in terms of competitiveness of late, particularly in the solar area. Your Lordships' report offers evidence that we must insist on good research, good science and above all clear focus in technology development and application if we are to win the future battles on competitiveness that this Government are committed to win, both with our European partners and for the UK within the Union. As has been mentioned, the impact of global competition on both manufacturing and, perhaps more recently, on service industry development in the UK and Europe certainly requires a vigorous commitment to improvement on the part of both industry and academic research in order better to use our science base, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, commented.
The report rightly concentrates not only on the vital identification and selection of research topics but also on the need to improve the management of this large planned expenditure and also on the exchange and communication of learning and the development of individuals in the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, noted, the crucial building of a first class European network binding researcher and users together is the only way to ensure real value and value added from this important spend of some £400 million annually for the UK, and perhaps, as we noted, up to £13 billion in Europe over the four years of the Fifth Framework Programme.
In this light it was encouraging to hear mention of how well supported was the 8th Eureka inter-parliamentary conference hosted in London by the Department of Trade and Industry. I am glad to say that there was strong support from Members of your Lordships' distinguished committee. This is the year of Britain's chairmanship and the House of Lords Select
540
Committee took on the role of host in case there were no parliamentarians from another place. In the event they were only just finding their way around the Palace of Westminster, never mind the Eureka conference. It was a successful conference and it gave more focus to applied research which is an important issue.
After those short personal reflections, as this is my first appearance in the House of Lords I offer the Government's thanks for this timely and perceptive report. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government agree with and welcome most of the report's findings. I hope that our positive attitude to Europe will be reflected in our attitude towards the framework programme. The Government are also particularly pleased that events have conspired to enable us to have this extremely interesting and constructive debate before the Government put pen to paper to frame their written response to the committee. I am extremely pleased about that because it allows me to say that many of the detailed questions of today will be answered in our written response. In saying that, I am also pleased to record my gratitude and my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and his colleagues for the excellent report and for their skill in securing this debate which has given us the opportunity today to obtain much more information.
Since the report was published on 6th March the Commission has produced its formal proposal for the Fifth Framework Programme. The proposal has responded in some respects to points made by the Select Committee. For example, it recognises the value of support for the training and mobility of researchers and has proposed a significant increase in the resources devoted to that part of the programme. In other respects, however, improvements which the committee and the Government would like to see, particularly on the structure of the programme, are still lacking. The UK and other member states—we are not alone in this—made clear their concerns on these points at the research council meeting which my honourable friend the Minister of State attended last week. The structural questions are still very much under discussion. The committee's report has proved absolutely invaluable as a firm and clearly argued backdrop to the Government's position in ministerial and official level discussions on the Fifth Framework Programme. We are much obliged to noble Lords for their thorough and helpful work on all the issues that have been raised.
Before I end my comments on the programme, I wish to say a few words about the current Fourth Framework Programme. As a newcomer to this rather broader sweep in the area of European co-operation I have been particularly struck by the high level of UK participation in the current framework programme. I hope that that continues into the fifth programme. Our researchers take part in over half the fourth framework projects. In some areas that proportion is higher. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, when I say that in biotechnology, for example, UK teams are currently taking part in approximately 70 per cent. of all funded projects. In other important areas, such as communications technology, the figure is over 70 per cent. They are involved in 65 per cent. of the projects in the telematics programme.

541
Across the framework programme both industry and universities figure strongly. That performance is a real measure of the quality of the UK's research teams in both the public and private sectors. It is a performance we need to be careful not to undermine in our approach to the next framework programme. That said I in no way wish to underestimate the value to our universities of top class collaboration in Europe but it is clearly vital if we are to maintain and improve on our competitive position in world markets that the framework programme research and development should in future address the sort of medium-term issues and priorities which will attract a strong field of industrial participants from the UK.
I do not think this is the place to comment on linear models and the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. However, we agree with him that linear modelling will not be the answer to the problem. We need to focus as soon as possible on good projects from the activity programme where industrial application is clear. We know that we have to concentrate on improving the European Union's industrial competitiveness. We have currently a disappointing competitive position relative to the United States and Japan in the research field. It is undoubtedly due to the fact that we are spending less on research and development. There is wide scope for discussion on the reasons; I do not wish to go into them now. However, it is not just a question of raising the budgets but of focusing the spend. That point has been echoed often around the Chamber this afternoon.
In summary, the Government's response to the report is extremely positive. We agree that we want our research objective led and on the industrial side with an applications bias to the programme.
With my business training, I should like to respond to some of the points. I believe that they can be responded to quite quickly. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned the AMICA project. We are much in support of that and would like to take that process further. He asked about VAT. I am extremely pleased to be able to announce that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has negotiated the right response. That will be reclaimable. There will no doubt be some administrative problems because then it will worry about double VAT reclaiming. However, the matter is in hand, which is good news.
As I said in reply to the question about biotechnology from noble Lord, Lord Winston, I am sure that it will come through strongly in our bids in the next programme. Indeed, we shall look to Dolly's example and, I hope, take that further in the way that we structure our research bids.
I have mentioned the linear model of research. I do not think that we want to support that very much further.
I much appreciated the businesslike summary by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and her welcome, too, to this Dispatch Box. We are in agreement, I understand already—I hope that that may continue long in my career here, however short it is—on many of the points in the summary. We shall be writing a report following the council meeting attended by my colleague
542
John Battle. We shall respond to further points; with the election, we have been waiting. With the council meeting now having been held, I hope that we shall be able to give a better response.
With those brief points in summary, and the clarification that we shall respond in written form to many of the further points raised, perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the debate and for the kindness shown on my first opportunity to speak. Perhaps I may add myself to the long list of contributors who have offered particular thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on his outstanding chairmanship of the committee. I regard it as a very important committee. I regard it as an important spend in terms of competitiveness, and as regards innovation and entrepreneurship which our country needs to develop as strongly as we can. I thank all speakers for their kind words and encouragement.
2.3 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, it is with great sincerity that I rise to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, on his distinguished maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. He hoped rather tentatively that it would not be a dry hole. I can assure the noble Lord that it was a very productive strike. It has been a most positive response from the Front Bench. All members of the Select Committee will be absolutely delighted. We expected no less. With the noble Lord's practical experience—36 years in industry, a clear understanding of the issues that we debate today, and great experience of the Bank of England—we knew how lucky the House and the Government are to have attracted his services. Perhaps I may say how gratefully we are in the noble Lord's debt for having made his great expertise available to us all.
Normally it is customary to urge a maiden speaker not to wait too long before he rises to his feet again. Quite frankly, the Minister has no choice. He will be back time and again. But we look forward to that enormously. If the noble Lord is as positive in future as he has been today—and I am sure he will be—we shall look forward to that with great interest.
It is clear that there has been a great measure of unanimity from all parts of the House. Everyone has been surprised by the sums of money which were quoted time and again. It is an area where clearly we all feel that the framework programme needs focusing. It needs attention. I hope that when the Select Committee is reappointed it will keep a close eye on future negotiations. I thank all those who have spoken in the debate today. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chinook Helicopter Accident Inquiry
2.5 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the accident involving Chinook helicopter ZD576 in June 1994.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before explaining the background, perhaps I may offer a warm welcome to the noble Lord on his first appearance at this Dispatch Box as Minister of State. This is, of course, not his first tour of duty as a Minister, and he brings to this House a formidable fund of knowledge of defence matters.
More than 30 years ago I made my own maiden speech in your Lordships' House from the same Dispatch Box as a Minister of State but then without the political experience of the noble Lord. I welcome his appointment in the confidence that we shall receive from him the same consideration and courtesy as we were accustomed to receive from his predecessor, the noble Earl, as a Minister in the previous Government.
In that context perhaps I may say at once that I ask this question in no confrontational or contentious spirit. It is an attempt to clarify a matter which has been a mystery to me for some time, and, as it became clear from a recent, and quite remarkable television programme on the subject, has been a mystery to many other people as well.
The story which lies behind this question begins on 2nd June 1994, when a Chinook helicopter of the Royal Air Force crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland on a flight from Northern Ireland. It was carrying 25 passengers, most of them senior members of the British Intelligence Services, and it was manned by a crew of four—two pilots and two loadmasters, all from the Royal Air Force Special Forces. All 29 people on board were killed in that accident.
After a year of investigations into the crash, a Royal Air Force board of inquiry concluded that the two pilots—Flight Lieutenant Tapper, the captain, and Flight Lieutenant Cook, the co-pilot—had been guilty of gross negligence and that that negligence was to blame for the disaster. My purpose in raising this issue now is to suggest that to the families of the two pilots, and to many knowledgeable people both inside and outside the Royal Air Force, that verdict constituted a grave injustice to the two young pilots.
The important point of departure in this analysis, and one that one must keep in the front of one's mind throughout any consideration of it, is the apparently unambiguous guidance issued by the Royal Air Force relevant to accident investigations of this kind. With the leave of the House I shall quote it verbatim, because it is important. It states:
"only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew he found negligent".
The simple and fundamental question is: was there in this case absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident?
For me it is the only question. Speculation about aircraft serviceability, inadequate equipment, even the dark possibility of intelligence-related cover-ups and sabotage is entirely unsubstantiated. But it can also be argued that negligence on the part of the pilots is equally unsubstantiated and the history of this episode
544
demonstrates clearly why there is a widespread belief that this was not a case in which there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
Let me go briefly through the sequence of events. In the first place the initial findings of the president of the very thorough and comprehensive Royal Air Force board of inquiry contained the following conclusions:
"There were many potential causes of the accident and, despite detailed and in depth analysis, the Board was unable to determine a definite cause".
With regard to Flight Lieutenant Tapper, the board's findings were:
"it would be incorrect to criticise him for human failings based on the available evidence":
and on Flight Lieutenant Cook,
"The board concluded that there were no human failings with respect to Flight Lieutenant Cook".
The officer commanding Royal Air Force Odiham, the parent station in this case, reviewing these findings, referred to a possible failure to ensure the safety of the aircraft, but observed:
"In assessing human failings, the evidence is insufficient to he specific".
And the station commander RAF Aldergrove, the station from which the flight originated, noted:
"I am impressed by the meticulous and detailed examination of events which the Board has provided. However, I believe that the exact train of events can never be determined with absolute certainty".
So far, so good—all the opinions and evidence indicating that up to this point the Royal Air Force view, the view of the board of inquiry and two station commanders, was that this was certainly not a case of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
However, in reviewing the proceedings of the board of inquiry, Air Vice-Marshal Day, the air officer commanding No. 1 Group, interpreted the same evidence differently, coming to the conclusion that Flight Lieutenant Tapper and Flight Lieutenant Cook were both,
"negligent to a gross degree";
and Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten, at that time the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command, although conceding in his review—this is a very important qualification made by the air chief marshal—that:
"there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact",
nevertheless concluded that:
"the actions of the two pilots were the direct cause of this crash. I also conclude that this amounted to gross negligence".
It is important to be clear that these two senior and experienced reviewing officers had every right to disagree with the opinion of the president of the board of inquiry, as they are an integral part of the whole inquiry procedure. It is not over until they have concluded their review.
I have been able to discuss this issue with both these senior officers. They are clearly both men of great experience and total professional integrity, who would not do anything which they did not believe to be fair

545
and in the interests of the service. However, the families of the two pilots, among many others, find it difficult to understand, in the light of the opinion of the president of the board of inquiry and the other officers concerned, how they could possibly have come to a conclusion that there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" about the cause of the accident.
Their judgment was delivered in April 1995. But they were not the last words on the subject. Because the accident took place in Scotland, early in 1996 a fatal accident inquiry was held under a civil judge, Sheriff Sir Stephen Young who is a distinguished legal figure. After hearing all the evidence, including that of the president of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry, the sheriff came to the conclusion that there was no proof that the pilots were to blame. I quote a crucial passage from the judge's determination:
"I have found myself unable to accept the conclusion reached by …the [RAF] board of inquiry…It may then be asked what was the cause of the accident. For my part, I can only say that I do not know …in the absence of any evidence from eyewitnesses aboard the aircraft or of information that might have been recorded from a cockpit voice recorder or an accident data recorder, I do not think any useful purpose would he served by my speculating further on the matter".
It seems to me that in the light of all that it must be a matter for grave concern that two young officers of the Royal Air Force Special Forces, officers with exemplary records and considerable flying experience, should be found guilty of gross negligence and held entirely responsible for a disaster of this magnitude when two thorough and comprehensive inquiries—one military and one civilian—have clearly been unable to identify beyond doubt the cause of the accident. It is impossible to imagine a more terrible indictment of two professional service officers than that they have brought about by gross negligence their own deaths and the deaths of 27 other people, not to mention the total destruction of the aircraft which was under their command.
Apart from the appalling impact of that on the families of the young men, the episode must inevitably involve the jealously guarded honour of the Armed Forces. It seems to me that there would be nothing dishonourable in now conceding that the verdict of gross negligence was severe and unjust, however honestly and sincerely it might have been reached.
When the television film was made—and it was a quite remarkable documentary film—the Ministry of Defence complained subsequently to the programme makers that the Royal Air Force side of the case had not been adequately represented. In concluding, I express the hope that if the Question today does nothing else, it will provide the Minister with an opportunity to repair that alleged omission and to explain precisely why, in the absence of evidence and in the absence of a situation where there was no doubt whatsoever, these young men were found guilty of gross negligence. I hope too that the Minister will be able to go further and agree to review the whole matter in the expectation that it might be possible to restore the reputations of two young officers and bring at least some comfort to their families.
2.17 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I warmly welcome the Minister to his new position in this House and hope that his past considerable experience in the Ministry of Defence will make it easy for him to hit the ground running.
I speak to this Question with a great deal of reluctance. I am not aware that there is any new evidence or information which is relevant to the cause of the tragedy. Of course, if there were, then it could be a reason to re-open the inquiry. I assume that there is not and that the Minister will confirm it when he speaks.
My reluctance arises because to discuss this tragic event yet again may be distressing for relatives of many of the 29 who were killed three years ago on 2nd June 1994. I hope most sincerely that what I say will not add to that distress. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, I know a great deal about Royal Air Force boards of inquiry, their importance and the way in which they are carried out.
The two senior officers and others involved with the inquiry are well known to me. I have not read the full report of the board but I have on a number of occasions discussed the contents and findings with Air Chief Marshal Wratten, Air Marshal Day and others. I have absolute confidence in the integrity of those officers, but what I say is entirely my own view.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has spoken to the Question in his admirably lucid and cogent way. I listened to his speech with the closest attention, which it fully deserves. The nub of his call for a review is where he asks whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident.
The civil Air Accident Investigation Branch—the same organisation which established the cause of the Lockerbie accident and many others of extreme complexity—was able to rule out categorically any structural or technical malfunction. Sabotage and terrorism were also ruled out. The Chinook was climbing close to its maximum forward speed and the navigational equipment was functioning up to the point of impact. That the Air Accident Investigation Branch, with help from the manufacturers, could establish so much factual evidence from the wreckage not only points to their expertise; it has an important bearing on the findings.
To my mind, the key question is not: what may have happened on board the Chinook in the remaining seconds before it crashed? The question to ask is: why was it advancing in poor visibility below a safe altitude? Why was the Chinook being flown in that way? Noble Lords will note that I refer to "the Chinook" and not to "the aircraft". A Chinook, any helicopter, has much greater freedom of manoeuvre in the air than a fixed wing aircraft, which must keep moving forward to remain airborne.
Until shortly before it reached the cloud covered Mull, the Chinook was flying in clear conditions. The pilots were in visual contact with the sea, a few hundred feet below them. If the Mull had been clear of cloud and they could have flown over or around it while relying on visual references to fly safely, they could have

547
maintained their planned route at low level to Scotland. If, however, cloud or poor visibility on their planned route precluded reliance on visual references, there were two options to ensure the safety of the Chinook and its passengers. Both would be covered by flying orders well known to the pilots.
One option would be to alter course, even to retrace their route, to maintain that visual contact with the surface and separation from poor weather. The other would be to put the Chinook into a maximum rate climb, to attain a safe height. But the evidence is that the flying pilot and the other, whose responsibility it was to monitor the actions of his colleague, did neither. The Chinook hit the side of the Mull below 1,000 feet.
If they had been inexperienced air crew, unfamiliar with the route that they were flying, perhaps misled by a more favourable weather forecast than the actual conditions, their action might be classed as an error of judgment. But the pilots were both highly experienced on Chinooks. They had more than a normal responsibility of care because they were carrying passengers. They were qualified and trusted to adhere to the highest professional standards of flight safety and airmanship at all times. The safety of their Chinook and passengers was their top priority.
For the purpose of a board of inquiry finding, negligence is defined as:
"The doing of something which in the circumstances a reasonable person would not do or do differently".
It is not reasonable to put at risk your aircraft and the lives of all on board. It must be dreadfully distressing to some of the many concerned with this tragedy that the view the senior officers recorded was that the two pilots displayed, perhaps even for a short moment of time, such negligence of their responsibilities.
Noble Lords will appreciate that these views are reached only after considerable work and study of all the evidence by experts at headquarters. The views recorded will have been guided by that painstaking study. In other words, we see the result of many minds and experts in the operation of aircraft being brought to hear in reaching these findings.
I fear that it is a feature of aviation, both Service and civil, and throughout the world, that pilots, being human, can make mistakes. One of the most insidious is to be tempted to continue in deteriorating conditions, believing that they may be transitory, or that there is no danger, even though one is in cloud. Too many aviators have found to their cost that not all clouds have soft centres. The temptation to behave unreasonably in poor weather is not confined to aviators. Winter after winter there are motorists driving too fast in fog who meet untimely deaths.
I learnt a terrifying lesson about that hazard early in my own flying career. I was on my third or fourth solo flight; I was drug-high on excitement; on a sense of achievement; on the freedom of flying by myself. What could be more exhilarating for a young man, 10 to 15 minutes after takeoff, than to be skimming just along the tops of the clouds, weaving in and out of the hills and valleys that they made with the sun streaming down
548
on this brilliantly white, cotton wool world? As I clipped the top of one of the higher cloud hills I was confronted by the crown of a large tree sticking out from the top of my cloud. I pulled up hard to safety from a height which I afterwards realised could have been less than 50 feet from the ground. My rolling cloud-land was the top of a fog bank over the Lincolnshire fens.
Flying is a seductive mistress. Constant training, strict professionalism and obedience to flight safety rules must never be relaxed if aircraft and their occupants are not to feature in yet another accident. We learn not only from our own mistakes, but also from the behaviour of others. Boards of inquiry are expected to identify actions to minimise the risk of recurrence. If the lessons sink in, maybe another death, another accident will be avoided.
Adverse board of inquiry findings, so sad, even tough when key individuals are not there to explain or account for their actions, play a part in flight safety. Others will learn about the ever-present danger in the air if, even for a moment, awareness and anticipation lapse. I hope that the lessons from the tragic event on the Mull of Kintyre will serve to save the lives of others.
2.27 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I warmly support the action of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in raising this very serious Question in this House. At a time when the services are threatened by yet another defence review and the cuts that reviews have so far inevitably brought, service morale must be at a low ebb. I am sure therefore that the new Minister—I warmly welcome him to the House, though he has a hard act to follow; we have been admirably served, as have the services, by his predecessor—will recognise the importance of reviewing the matter.
I have two concerns. The first is that there was no cockpit voice recorder or accident data recorder on the aircraft. I believe that plans are in hand to install those in the future and that the reason they were not there was because of expense. I hope it will be recognised by the MoD that such an expense is more than justified when it comes to establishing the true cause of this and possibly other accidents.
My other concern is: what did cause the accident? I speak with some diffidence after the noble and gallant Lord's cogent speech, but I shall persevere. We do not know that there was inadequate equipment or maintenance; we do not know that there was not. I believe that in pursuit of market testing and the overriding objective of saving money, too much contractorisation, coupled perhaps with understaffed and possibly inadequately trained and experienced quality control and maintenance staff, are putting the lives of pilots as well as their valuable aircraft at risk. I believe that that could be an underlying cause of what happened.
In 1993 16 Tornado aircraft had to be withdrawn from service because of serious damage they had sustained when they were being modified by a private firm, Airwork, which won the contract against British Aerospace (which had the proper skills) because the Airwork bid was the lowest. Those aircraft cost, I believe, roughly £25 million each. The loss of the

549
highly trained pilot in any accident sustained by such aircraft must carry a heavy financial loss also, if we are to speak, as we are constantly required to do, in terms of money alone. Yet Airwork was allowed to certify its own work as properly done, and was paid for it. Only a routine inspection of undercarriages at RAF Leeming before a Tornado squadron flew to Bosnia revealed the very serious damage done, damage that undoubtedly constituted a threat of several fatal accidents. I cannot forget that, to quote from co1.183 of Hansard of another place of 20th July 1993:
"Huge quantities of aircraft polyfilla, known as thyokol, had been used to cover up the damage".
The defence committee subsequently established that accidents would have occurred and lives would have been lost if those aircraft had flown. Indeed, one of them, even after the damage had presumably been corrected, crashed into the sea on a test flight. It seems unbelievable that, after its performance with the Tornados, Airwork was given the contract to modify the almost equally valuable Hercules aircraft and managed to damage 11 of these before quality inspectors discovered what was happening. According to page 21 of the report on market testing,
"Airwork had underestimated the complexity of the task, failed to provide adequate staffing in terms of numbers and skills, and finally failed to highlight technical problems when they arose".
Even after that, a full rectification programme was initiated by Airwork. It had another go at those 11 aircraft and then was sent some more. In both the Tornado and Hercules contracts the MoD expected, we are told, to get financially recompensed eventually, and,
"no long term airworthiness implications for the Hercules fleet as a result of the damage were expected".
I share the amazement of the defence committee that the MoD accepted back the eight Tornado aircraft which Airwork returned, and paid for the work without any inspection, so that the very serious damage was discovered only because an RAF technician was alert.
The reason I have spoken at some length about these two cases—my noble friend Lord Howe will know that I have raised the subject of Airwork before but I make no apology for that—is that I believe that the MoD's commitment, in pursuit of previous government policy laid down for it, to saving money and contractorising has very dangerous long-term implications both for the safety of the aircraft and the crews. Are too many corners being cut in the sacred name of value for money?
One would have thought, incidentally, that the Tornado and the Hercules experiences should have demonstrated that money is not being saved, since 18 Tornados costing £25 million each, and 11 Hercules which can scarcely be cheap, were out of action for years. Could the cause of this accident, therefore, have indeed been in some way the result of poor maintenance, inadequate training, pressure on inadequate staff, the financial pressures of the budget and the competing-for-quality programme, and too severe cuts in service manpower at the support end? All these things are not only dangerous but deeply destructive of morale. Is the remorseless reduction of skilled in-house
550
manpower leading to a failure to communicate at an inter-service level, moreover, between under-staffed, overworked maintenance teams?
One of the private contractors working in the military field said in written evidence to the defence committee:
"We believe that a range and depth of what are broadly classified as the Services support functions must remain in uniformed hands, under the direct control of the military. Too extensive a transfer of such tasks to the private sector would inevitably impact adversely on the ability of the Armed Forces to react in a timely and effective manner to the challenges of the post-Cold War world. It must he recognised that if, through the excessive pursuit of contractor-isation in the interests of cost-saving, the size and capability of the uniformed support services are less than is required for the effective support of front line forces, not only will it adversely affect their capability hut it could and probably would also be prejudicial to the very concept of contractor-isation of military support services".
It would be difficult to improve on that very prescient statement.
I am sure the RAF will have made the most exhaustive inquiry into the previous history of the Chinook—whether, when and by whom it was modified and serviced, and whether the pilots would have been fully aware of any modification. Yet only one failure to check a piece of equipment with the proper rigour, somewhere along the line, could surely have been enough to explain this accident.
I cannot but feel that somewhere along the line a weak link developed, for I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and that of the RAF Board of Inquiry, and the civil inquiry, that not one but two experienced pilots surely could not have been guilty of the "gross" negligence which has been attributed to them. I believe that we should be concerned not only, and rightly, for the good name of two young men now dead, but that we should pursue this matter in the interests of those pilots who are still flying in what may be unacceptably dangerous conditions. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to pursue this matter effectively.
2.35 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am somewhat daunted at the prospect of following the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park. In contrast to them I shall seem somewhat lightweight. However, having listened to them, does not alter that which I wish to say, nor does it alter my belief that what might have been a questionable decision should be looked at again. I promise to be brief.
Before proceeding further I should mention that I used to work with Flight Lieutenant Tapper's father some 25 or so years ago and, I suppose, this could possibly be construed as a form of declarable interest.
On the basis of the information which I have been given and elicited following the crash, it seems to me that the finding of gross negligence against the pilots is, to say the least, suspect. However, without having access to all of the papers, it is difficult to be specific about the finding of the RAF's board of inquiry being unjust. I do, however, have a two-page summary published by the Ministry of Defence. It is not very helpful, but it does indicate that most possible causes of

551
the accident were eliminated. Notwithstanding that, its sole observation on the weather is that conditions were bad with poor visibility and low cloud. Did the inquiry exclude the possibility of katabatic winds being present? Whilst this is not very likely, if they were present, could not the handling characteristics of a Chinook aircraft have been affected? I have no way of knowing as I have no access to papers other than the summary. The Minister, whom I welcome to your Lordships' House and congratulate on his appointment, will no doubt make appropriate observations.
Not all aircraft of the RAF contain voice and data recorders. In the case of Chinooks, however, much data can be extracted from alternative sources in accidents. But we will never know what words passed between the pilots, which would, in all probability, have been helpful to the inquiry. Both accident and voice data recorders are being fitted to Chinooks before the end of 1998. It would be interesting to know whether this was planned before or after ZD576 crashed.
I make no apology for repeating part of that previously mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. There is doubt written in large letters, underlined and highlighted in those extracts of reports which I have received. And that includes an extract from the review of the RAF board of inquiry by Air Vice-Marshal Day where he used the words, "a degree of speculation". Part of the dictionary definition of the word "speculation" is "theory or conjecture about". I wonder if Air Vice-Marshal Day in using those words, really had doubts as to the actual cause of this crash. His use of these words leads me to speculate that this is possible, but I only speculate because I do not really know. If he did have doubts and thereby joins the throng of those who also have doubts, then the finding of gross negligence against these two experienced aviators must be reviewed. Such a finding can only be given when there is no doubt whatsoever.
2.39 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am sadly lacking in the expert knowledge of previous speakers such as in particular the noble and gallant Lord who has such a noble and gallant record of service in the RAF. But I am distressed precisely by how very much is unknown and unknowable about this disaster.
So for the past three years the family and friends of two RAF officers have endured a double burden: the grief of their personal loss and their grievous inability to understand the posthumous conviction of their loved ones. In calling for a review, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, deserves the gratitude of everyone concerned with air accident investigation where—so often—crucial and convincing evidence is inevitably lacking.
I served with RAF Bomber Command for five years and witnessed some terrible disasters at close quarters. It was not unusual for a court of inquiry to conclude that the cause was pilot error. But I do not recall a single instance in which that error was damned as so culpable as to call for the verdict of "gross negligence".
552
Of one such crash, I have especially vivid, cruelly indelible memories, nightmare-inducing even after more than half a century. A bomber returned to base from a mission over Germany, badly disabled by enemy fire. After circling for some time in obvious difficulty, the aircraft landed with undercarriage incompletely lowered. It burst into flames, with the screaming aircrew unable to escape the inferno, except for one who was thrown out as the fuselage split open. He died within minutes of quite horrendous injuries, but not before being heard to say, "The skipper panicked". I am glad to say that the court of inquiry disallowed the recording of that claim, because the witness was unhappily beyond giving evidence and because, even if the court had been satisfied with the authenticity of those dying words, his judgment on the pilot's state of mind might well have been affected by his own hideous injuries.
By contrast, in the case of the crash on the Mull of Kintyre, senior officers have been able to convince themselves that there was culpable negligence on the part of two officers. On the evidence that I for one have read—and even the additional evidence that I have heard today—the source of their certainty remains entirely unclear. I quote the passage already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased air crew he found negligent".
So reads the relevant RAF regulation. On what grounds was doubt removed so absolutely in this instance?
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, your Lordships may have observed from the unamended list of speakers that I was down to speak in the debate on the report of the Science and Technology Committee. That was an error—no doubt due to gross negligence on my part. As far as your Lordships' House is concerned, it operates as a blessing in very small disguise because whereas noble Lords who are down to speak are limited to 12 minutes each, as I now fall within the gap I am limited to four minutes. I am obliged. Having to be brief will no doubt be a very good self-discipline.
I put down my name to speak to discover what was the material available for the finding which was ultimately made. I was devoid of any real specialised knowledge on this, save that I appeared for the Crown when I was at the Bar in the inquiry into the Vanguard air crash at Heathrow some 30-odd years ago. I am concerned about the onus of proof: "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" is apparently the test.
Via the Library, I managed to achieve a summary of what was in the full report. I was told that I could not see the full report because it was not available to the public. I noted that in the full report the very heavy onus is not referred to at all. The summary states:
"The Inquiry therefore concluded that the cause of the accident was that the two pilots had wrongly continued to fly towards the high ground",
in a situation which it concluded was negligent.
That could probably have been the cause, and that might have been the basis of that decision. Perhaps it was "very probably" the cause, and that might have been

553
the basis of the decision, but in either of those two cases the onus has not been satisfied, and the conclusion reached would not be sustainable.
The criminal obligation of proving beyond reasonable doubt is involved in the phrase "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In fact, it could be argued by the purist that that was an even higher level, because "no doubt whatsoever" must include an unreasonable doubt. But I do not put the matter as high as that, because I can see that there can be arguments to the contrary if you once let in a reasonable doubt. But the high degree of certainty should be reflected in the judgment which was given. If it was not reflected in the judgment that was given—I have only the summary to go on—then one is entitled to say that the board of inquiry did not apply the appropriate test.
I hope that when replying the Minister will devote some time to demonstrate to us to what extent the very high test in regard to the onus of proof is reflected in the decisions and is reflected, in particular, in the views of the two very senior officers who, on review, appear to have departed quite clearly from what was the initial finding.
2.47 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. I had considered speaking on this Unstarred Question but decided not to. However an issue has been raised which I felt that I could not ignore. We are discussing a depressing matter. I have a high regard for my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. We worked together on the all-party defence study group, but I must take issue with her views on the use of defence contractors.
When carrying out its own maintenance of equipment, whether aircraft, tanks or wheeled vehicles, the MoD has its own technical problems, but when the work is carried out in-house those technical problems are hushed up; they are kept quiet. When you use a commercial contractor, those problems become all too evident. My noble friend referred to the difficulties of obtaining recompense from a contractor. At least you can get recompense from a contractor, whereas when you do it yourself and make a mistake you cannot obtain any recompense from yourself.
Commercial airlines, especially the smaller ones, use third party maintenance facilities for necessary servicing and even major repairs on their aircraft. There may be maintenance problems in that situation, and there is commercial recompense when things go wrong. So I would caution against damning the use of contractors for maintaining MoD equipment. I hope that the Minister will say that the MoD will continue to use contractors where it is appropriate and where it gives best value for money and maximum safety for the users of the equipment.
2.50 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise for only a few moments to associate myself with the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for a review of the Royal Air Force inquiry.
554
I come from Northern Ireland and I know many of the people involved. I knew the policemen. Since the event, I have been in almost daily or weekly contact with the widows of those who lost their lives. Whatever the clinical assessment which was made by the Royal Air Force inquiry, people in Northern Ireland, and particularly the widows and descendants, feel particularly bitter and aggrieved that the two young Air Force pilots are now being charged with responsibility for the deaths.
The tragedy had a devastating effect on the community in Northern Ireland. The whole security situation was called into question. But knowing the policemen who were killed in the crash, and knowing the widows and children of those who lost their lives, I am absolutely certain that it was not as a result of any act or overt mistake made by those pilots or the people on the plane.
I wish to put on record that whatever the clinical assessment from the point of view of the Royal Air Force, people in Northern Ireland will not believe that the two young pilots were guilty of negligence and of causing the deaths of their comrades.
2.52 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, first, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and welcome him most warmly to his place on the Government Front Bench. He brings with him a wealth of experience from another place, including an in-depth knowledge of defence matters. It would therefore he difficult to imagine a more appropriate appointment. We wish him well in it during the months and years ahead.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the background to the Question that he has brought before the House. I am well aware that this tragic matter has occupied the noble Lord, others of your Lordships and, indeed, the wider public for a good many months. As someone who went into the facts of the case in a good deal of depth during my time at the Ministry of Defence, I feel qualified to offer a number of observations on it. However, naturally, it is the response of the Minister which must merit our chief attention.
I must say at the outset that I find myself in some difficulty with the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to bring this Question to the Floor of your Lordships' House. With all respect to him, I do not agree with that decision because I believe that there are ways of satisfying his concerns which do not risk further public hurt to the feelings of the families of the dead pilots and of the RAF. Furthermore, I am far from convinced that this kind of formal debate enables the Minister to place on the record all the necessary facts and arguments. However, I shall be happy to reconsider that view once I have heard what the Minister has to say.
I turn briefly to the substance of the Question. All along, the noble Lord's concern has been with the board's finding of gross negligence. With the evidence available to it, how could the board have been in absolutely no doubt that the accident was not attributable to other factors? If it is true that extraneous causes can be ruled out, how can the board have said with total confidence that this was not a case of pilot error?

555
In my experience, many people who ask those questions are under the impression that the board of inquiry was obliged to base its conclusions on an extremely thin body of evidence. The reality is very different. The evidence available to the board was not only clear but, in my view, it also pointed unambiguously to the conclusion which was reached. What the board had to do in the first instance was to examine thoroughly all possible causes of the accident. Through the Air Accidents Investigations Branch, it was able to confirm that both engines were functioning normally up to the point of impact and, I emphasise to my noble friend Lady Park, it was able to rule out categorically any structural or technical malfunction. Sabotage and hostile action were also eliminated as possible causes. In addition, the inquiry had the benefit of data downloaded from the aircraft's tactical air navigation system. From that information, it could derive an accurate picture of the Chinook's flight path. It was able to establish the fact that the aircraft was climbing; that it was travelling at a certain speed; and that the navigation equipment was functioning properly up to the point of impact. Having ruled out any mechanical or extraneous cause, the inquiry was left with only two possible conclusions: pilot error or pilot negligence.
Why did the inquiry reach the latter conclusion and not the former? To answer that, it is necessary to understand one thing and one thing above all; namely, the nature of the rules which governed that particular flight. Because of forecast weather conditions, the flight was carried out under visual flight rules, or VFR. Those rules state that a flight should be undertaken only within closely defined conditions of visibility and cloud clearance and at a safe height and speed.
Under VFR, it is the air crew who have prime responsibility for terrain avoidance so that, at low level, they must rely on actually seeing the ground and other external reference points to fly the aircraft. Nevertheless, the rules provide for a huge margin of error. They stipulate that an aircraft operating in limited visibility, which the Chinook was, must be at least 1,000 feet above the height of the highest obstacle. The highest point of the Mull is 1,463 feet. Therefore, the aircraft should have been flying at around 2,500 feet as it completed its transit of the Irish Sea. In fact, we know that 40 seconds before impact its height was between 200 and 400 feet. At 15 to 18 seconds before impact its height was approximately 460 feet. It crashed at a height of 812 feet. It is clear that, until the crew's emergency manoeuvre in the last few seconds of flight, the Chinook was at least 2,000 feet below the height at which it should have been flying. Incidentally, there were no atmospheric conditions or icing restrictions preventing it from flying at the correct altitude.
The VFR rules insist also that, as well as the minimum height requirement, the crew should also have not less than five kilometres of visibility. As the Chinook approached the Mull those conditions no longer obtained. The Mull was covered in cloud.
556
The crew should also have been flying at a safe speed. We know that the aircraft proceeded directly towards the Mull at a very high speed, slowing down only in the final few seconds, as it attempted its avoiding manoeuvre. On impact, the speed was 151 knots.
The board of inquiry, including the senior officers who reached the finding of gross negligence, asked themselves how it could have been that two experienced pilots could have broken the fundamental rules of VFR—safe height, safe speed in safe weather conditions. The members of the board were at a total loss to understand that. What the pilots did ran contrary to all the training they had received. It belied completely the professional standards of airmanship which they had attained.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, BOI regulations define negligence as:
"The doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently".
The actions taken by the pilots led directly to the crash. The senior officers were in absolutely no doubt that this was not a case of excusable error; it was gross negligence.
There is a great deal which could be added to that inevitably brief summary. A lot of misleading, tendentious and erroneous things have been said about the matter in the press and on television. I should like to add only one thing. The integrity and the diligence of both senior officers whose duty it was to reach the board's finding—Air Vice-Marshal Day and Air Chief Marshal Wratten—are beyond question. They had expert evidence before them and they reached their verdict with scrupulous care and total honesty.
The sympathies of this House must go out to the families of the pilots and all those killed on that terrible day, nearly three years ago. However, in my opinion, there are absolutely no grounds on which a reopening of the investigation or of the inquiry would be justified.
3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I understand that it is a very sensible tradition of your Lordships' House that maiden speeches should be non-controversial. It is my lugubrious fate today to have to break that tradition, although I am very glad to say, following on from the extremely helpful and lucid remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the controversy does not exist between the two Front Benches with respect to this very sorry matter.
Before going into the speech that I had prepared for me today, I think it might be helpful if I were to address one or two points that other noble Lords have mentioned during the debate so that I can make quite sure that I have covered them. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon—and perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I do not get everyone's name right to start with—raised the question of katabatic winds. The fact is that, at the time of the accident, the aircraft was flying with a 30-knot tailwind behind it and, when approaching

557
higher ground, that tailwind would actually have had the effect of lifting the aircraft rather than causing it to go into a precipitate descent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked whether or not there were cockpit voice recorders; there were not. However, I am happy to confirm that they are being installed in all Chinooks. I am not sure whether the programme is yet finished—indeed, I do not believe that it is—because the process is an on-going one. The noble Baroness, quite understandably, took the debate far wider than the Unstarred Question tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and took us into the sphere of maintenance questions.
I am fully seized of the importance of the questions that the noble Baroness raised. It may be helpful for her to know that one of the very first instructions that I gave to officials when re-entering the Ministry of Defence was that I was unhappy that we had the balance between the acquisition of weapons systems and platforms on the one hand, and spares and maintenance, on the other, correct and that I wanted to give that the single highest priority during my time of office however long or short that may be. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness asked about the possibility of there being an equipment failure. All the evidence is that there was not an equipment failure. But even if we were to assume that the people who in good faith undertook the investigations—and I shall deal with them in some detail in a moment—made an error and there was such a failure, the fact remains that that aircraft should not have been where it was. That is why I turn for support to the admirably eloquent speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who, to my mind and distinction, if the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will forgive, did ask the crucial question. That question is not: was there no doubt whatsoever as to why the pilots were there? The question is: why was the aircraft being flown in that way at that time? Because there seems to be no doubt whatsoever as to where it was and the weather conditions at the time, the verdict of negligence is one which, very sadly, it is impossible to resist.
The tragic accident that we have been discussing today saw the loss of 29 lives of very loyal servants of the Crown who died suddenly and without warning in the course of their duties. As we have heard, not only did the events of that evening cast a very long shadow, they also brutally disrupted the lives of the many families that lost a loved one and seriously affected all those who had to try to deal with the consequences.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that I personally have the greatest sympathy with the families of the two pilots. I fully understand their desire to overturn in some way or other the apparently harsh verdict of the Board of Inquiry of the Royal Air Force. I also fully understand the incomprehension expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, which is felt by many that these two brave young men, trained and competent as they were to fly the most hazardous of helicopter missions for the RAF, could have been responsible for the deaths of so many people on what was, after all, a routine transport flight. I understand therefore the incredulity of all those who,
558
knowing these two men, believed that there must be some other explanation of the events of that day. However, I must say to noble Lords that the facts must be allowed to speak for themselves. These are the facts that were available to Air Vice-Marshal Day and Air Chief Marshal Wratten who, in the proper exercise of their discretion, reached their considered conclusions.
I wish to emphasise that the Royal Air Force's investigation into this accident was carried out not only by RAF experts but also by civilian specialists from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. They had unstinting assistance from the manufacturers both of the aircraft and of its systems. The investigation was scrupulously thorough and exhaustive. It found no evidence whatever of structural or technical malfunction, nor of any hostile action and concluded that the accident had been caused by the action of the two pilots who had continued to fly their aircraft towards the Mull of Kintyre at high speed at an unsafe altitude in extremely bad weather. I pray in aid here the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, as to how seductive it can often be to fly an aircraft into conditions of danger. That unfortunately is something that one sees all too frequently in the civilian as well as the military field.
It was the view of the senior officers responsible for this inquiry, and consequently it was the overall finding of the inquiry, that the pilots in handling their aircraft in this way had not exercised the skill, care or judgment that they were known to possess, and that their actions regrettably but unmistakably constituted a breach in their duty of care to a degree that amounted to gross negligence. Negligence is not a word which the Royal Air Force uses lightly. But it is important that whenever possible the causes of accidents are clearly established so that the necessary lessons are learnt and the risks of such accidents happening again are minimised.
Much has been made in the media—and mention has been made today—of the so-called difference of opinion between the president of the board of inquiry and his senior officers and that aspect of this sad affair, as I say, has been touched on this afternoon. I think therefore it is necessary that I make it clear to the House that the assessments by the convening officer and his commander in chief are an integral part of the inquiry and are a way of bringing to bear not only the wide range of skills and expertise of their specialist staffs, but also their own considerable personal experience of the service and of flying standards. In the case of this crash the president of the board concluded that the accident was caused by the pilots selecting an inappropriate rate of climb.
Some may feel—and I would agree—that this was not an illuminating conclusion. The station commander at RAF Odiham went further, concluding with regret that the pilots had failed in their duty. It was left to Air Marshals Day and Wratten as the most senior officers involved in the inquiry to assess what that failure amounted to. They concluded sadly and with great reluctance that it amounted to gross negligence. Both these senior officers are men of the highest integrity. They would clearly have very much preferred to have found some other explanation as to what caused this accident. However, all the evidence, and not just some

559
of it, pointed in the same direction. It was the Air Marshals' duty to reach an honest conclusion upon the evidence and that is what they did.
I shall now turn to the evidence. It is well known that the weather in the vicinity of the Mull is often foggy and affected by low cloud. On the day in question the crew received an accurate weather forecast indicating suitable conditions for the flight which was intended to run from RAF Aldergrove to Inverness. However, the forecast included a warning that there would be a risk of poor conditions affecting the area of the Mull of Kintyre. This would have required a bad weather contingency plan. The pilots, in their proper discretion, elected to carry out the flight under visual flight rules which stipulate that a flight should only be undertaken within clearly defined weather conditions, as set out by the noble Earl. I shall not repeat them in detail. They are defined in terms of visibility and cloud clearance, at a safe height and speed. At low level, air crew rely upon seeing the ground and other external references to fly the aircraft. Electronic navigation aids can be and are used but these are secondary. At all times the pilot flying under visual flight rules must remain in visual contact with the ground. The highest point of the Mull of Kintyre is 1,463 feet above sea level. Instrument flight rules stipulate that an aircraft must be at least 1,000 feet above the height of the highest obstacle along the intended track if the crew is not in visual contact with the ground.
On this particular day the transit across the Irish Sea was uneventful and conducted in clear conditions. But, as forecast, there was a very low cloud base and poor visibility over the Mull. We know from an eye witness that at a distance of about two nautical miles from the Mull or approximately 40 seconds from impact, the aircraft was flying at a height estimated at between 200 feet and 400 feet.
From this your Lordships will understand that the aircraft was approaching the Mull of Kintyre at least 2,000 feet below the height at which it should have been in order to clear the Mull under instrument flight rules. It was travelling at a high speed, climbing only gently until the final few seconds. The question is, why? There were two alternative courses that the crew could have taken. About 20 seconds before impact, the crew selected a way point change, releasing the on-board computer from its fix on the Mull of Kintyre and locking on to Corran, 87 miles to the north. At this way point change, or preferably earlier, the crew could have turned to the left, away from the Mull, and gradually started to climb. Alternatively, the crew could have slowed down and devoted full engine power to a rapid climb. The latter manoeuvre, known as a "low level abort" is a procedure which the handling pilot had recently practised. The crew could then have diverted or climbed and requested an air traffic service under instrument meterological conditions. Either of those courses of action would have been the proper response.
At 15 to 18 seconds before impact the helicopter's height was 468 feet; at 4½ seconds before impact the crew exercised an emergency manoeuvre and the
560
aircraft climbed about 150 feet in those final 4½ seconds. The aircraft crashed at a height of 812 feet at a ground speed of 151 knots.
Unfortunately, there was no cockpit voice recorder or accident data recorder to let us know precisely what happened in the cockpit in those final seconds of flight. So we turn to the aircraft's tactical air navigation system. This is a computer which continually updates the aircraft's position using two independent sources. Those are satellite transmissions from the global positioning system and a Doppler velocity sensor linked with the aircraft compass. I should explain that the tactical air navigation system, for navigational and system operating reasons, stores masses of data which are retained in its memory each time the computer powers down. The board of inquiry invited the manufacturer to extract all the data from the system and analyse it. The resultant report formed one of the many pieces of evidence considered by the inquiry.
While the manufacturer stated in this report that.
"The equipment is not designed to store historical data".
the report also stated that,
"The analysis reveals that the tactical air navigation system and the navigation sensors to which it interfaces appear to have been performing perfectly at the time of loss of power".
The inquiry used that, together with other statements in the report, to assist with its determination of the likely final flight path of the aircraft. The inquiry also used the Air Accident Investigation Board's technical reports and the Boeing flight path simulation, supported by the findings of a second flight path simulation carried out by the Defence Research Agency. From that mass of data the board of inquiry was able to derive an accurate picture of the Chinook's flight path.
Some have suggested that because there were restrictions on the MK2 Chinook relating to icing conditions the pilots had little freedom of manoeuvre. That was not so. Although the icing restriction would have been relevant for that part of the flight which took them over the Scottish Highlands, there was nothing that would have prevented the aircraft from climbing to a comfortable safety height over the Mull itself. The weather report known as the aftercast showed that at the time of the accident the MK2 Chinook icing limit occurred at a height of 5,000 feet above sea level.
Another theory in circulation has had it that the Chinook MK2 was rushed into service and that some technical fault might have caused the crash, or at least distracted the pilots from their safe operation of the aircraft. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. The aircraft conversion programme began in 1992 and the first aircraft was delivered to Boscombe Down in April 1993; the resulting Chinook MK2 release to service was signed on 22nd November 1993. At the time of the accident in the following June 1994 the aircraft was properly cleared for routine squadron flying and the transport task on the evening in question was well within its capabilities.
There have been reports that the aircraft had been grounded by test pilots at the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation at Boscombe Down. Those reports should be seen in the context of the role of the

561
Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation. Test pilots fly an aircraft in order to extend its cleared envelope, beyond that which has already been cleared for use by Royal Air Force aircrew for routine squadron flying. Such testing to extend the cleared envelope stopped in April 1994 for a short period to allow a review of trials safety precautions. No change to procedures was needed. That is regarded as normal practice in trials planning. Test flying was stopped again in early June 1994 when specific information was requested from the aircraft and engine manufacturers on the engine control system. The trial then being planned was the icing trial for which partial blockage of the engine air inlet would be used to simulate the formation of ice. In such a situation a full understanding of any possible control malfunctions was vital. Once the information was received, trials continued with no changes to the aircraft and no additional operating limitations.
These suspensions of trials to extend the cleared flight envelope had no bearing whatsoever on the use of the aircraft by the Royal Air Force, which continued to operate it within the already cleared flight envelope. The transport task undertaken by Chinook ZD576 on the evening in question was well within its capabilities.
It has also been said that the pilots did not have a complete handbook for the aircraft. Again, that is not the case. In order that aircrew shall have the most up-to-date information it is normal practice to issue loose-leaf amendments, as they arise. All the limitations, including any amendments, were part of the release to service document, which was available to all aircrew. Both pilots were fully briefed and had signed as having read and understood the latest amendments to the release to service document. All the evidence is that ZD576 was fully serviceable when it crashed.
I turn now to the subject of the fatal accident inquiry. I must stress that this and the Royal Air Force board of inquiry were carried out for entirely different purposes. The Royal Air Force board of inquiry was carried out to ascertain the cause of the accident and identify what action was necessary to minimise the possibility of recurrence. The fatal accident inquiry, on the other hand, which took place some nine months after the findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry had been published, was convened to determine the cause of death, a much more restrictive term of reference. It is an essential part of the board of inquiry process that, where any human failings have been identified, they are clearly stated so that any necessary lessons can be passed on to personnel throughout the RAF. In the case of the fatal accident inquiry, the sheriff was not under such a remit and that he did not feel able to reach a verdict should not detract from the fact that a very thorough RAF investigation, carried out by experts with first-hand experience of flying Chinooks, concluded that the pilots were responsible.
The RAF inquiry has looked with scrupulous thoroughness at all the possible causes of this sad accident. The conclusion, from all the evidence, is that
562
the aircraft was flown at high speed, well below safety altitude in cloud, in instrument meteorological conditions, in direct contravention of the rules for flight under either visual flight rules or instrument flight rules. Various factors and scenarios have been postulated, including whether the pilots were distracted or disorientated, in attempts to explain why the crew might have failed to make a safe transition to instrument flight rules. The inquiry concluded that none of those hypotheses was so compelling that it would have been likely to prevent an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight. As the commander in chief himself commented, why the crew elected to ignore the safe options open to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know.
In conclusion, I can only add once again my sympathy to all those who lost family or friends in the tragic crash of ZD576. I recognise very clearly the particular anguish felt by the families of the dead pilots but I am confident that the House will accept that the Royal Air Force has approached this case with honesty, frankness and great experience. It has provided and tested the facts as we know them, however unpalatable they sadly may be.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may claim the indulgence of the House to do one thing which might otherwise go by default. It is to congratulate the Minister on his maiden speech. It is rare that a maiden speech is made from the Front Bench in reply to an Unstarred Question and it would be sad if we allowed such a distinguished performance to go by without comment.
I cannot pretend that everything the Minister said has satisfied me nor that it will satisfy others concerned. I might also in passing remark with a sense of wonder on the total identity of view between the two Front Benches. I wonder whether it will continue for long.
I conclude by saying that I thought it was a remarkable performance which demonstrates the noble Lord's ability not only to master a complicated brief at enormous speed, but also the depth of his background knowledge of defence matters. I welcome his speech, I congratulate him on it and hope that we shall hear many similar performances from him.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, by leave of the House—if that is the correct formula—I am grateful to the noble Lord, an old friend of mine, for saying that. I am happy at the coincidence of view between the two Front Benches on this sad matter, not because it relieves the Government of some potential embarrassment but because it has always been my view that defence questions in this country should be treated on a far less partisan basis than they often are in other places.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at twenty-four minutes past three o'clock.

  Landmines
  Landmines
  Childcare Facilities in the House of Lords
  Childcare Facilities in the House of Lords
  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997: Fees
  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997: Fees