Sitting of 13 November 1997

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

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Ordered,
  That the Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the Schedule be made.
  Standing Order 27
  Line 73, at end, insert Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 27A
  Line 24, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
  Line 25, after 'Environment', insert Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 29
  Line 8, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 30
  Line 6, leave out 'Energy' and insert 'Trade and Industry'.
  Standing Order 30A
  Line 5, after 'Environment', insert Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 31
  Line 6, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 32
  Line 13, leave out 'National Rivers Authority' and insert 'Environment Agency'.
  Standing Order 33
  Line 10, leave out 'National Rivers Authority' and insert 'Environment Agency'.
  Standing Order 34
  Line 10, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 37
  Line 10, at end, insert Transport and the Regions'.
  Line 17, at end, insert Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 39
  Line 3, after 'bill', insert 'four at the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
  Line 3, leave out 'at the Department of the Environment and'.
  Line 10, leave out 'of National Heritage' and insert 'for Culture, Media and Sport'.
  Line 10. leave out 'the Department of Transport'.
  Line 36, leave out 'Great George Street' and insert 'Whitehall'.
  Standing Order 42
  Line 7, leave out 'National Rivers Authority' and insert 'Environment Agency'.
  Standing Order 43
  Line 8, leave out 'National Rivers Authority' and insert 'Environment Agency'.
  Standing Order 45
  Line 20, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 47
  Line 11, after 'Environment', insert Transport and the Regions'.
  Standing Order 154
  Line 12, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
  Line 27, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Voluntary Work
    Ms Julie Morgan: What plans he has to encourage and support voluntary work in the community. [14320]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): We believe strongly in the value of voluntary work. For this reason, we have recently launched a consultation document on millennium volunteers, and we have been working closely with a wide range of voluntary groups to encourage their participation in the new deal for young unemployed people.
    Ms Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which I am sure will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. How does he propose to link the opportunities to be made available under the new deal and the millennium project with the social exclusion unit and the many young people who have become alienated and disaffected over the past 18 years?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which she put her question. There is an enormous problem with the exclusion of young people who have become disaffected and alienated from much of the mainstream of our society. We believe strongly in voluntary work as the most valuable means of strengthening the bonds of our society and creating a society in which all can contribute and all are valued. The voluntary sector option of the new deal and millennium volunteers are distinct programmes, as my hon. Friend knows. Both of them will be of considerable interest to others in the Government who, through the work of the social exclusion unit, will be monitoring and promoting the ways in which we address the problem.

    Higher Education Funding
    Barbara Follett: If he will make a statement on his proposals to increase funding for higher education. [14321]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In my statement in September, I outlined how we had identified £165 million for investment in opening up access to higher education, doubling the access funding and providing money to sustain the universities and to ensure that young people have the opportunity of taking up higher education in years to come. Yesterday, I was able to make a similar statement relating to further education.
    Barbara Follett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply and for the funds that he announced for the further education sector yesterday. Does he agree that those funds will send an important signal to the students
    1020
    and staff of further education colleges across the country that their work is valuable—as valuable as that of the universities?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend. The £83 million that we have identified for direct investment, and the minimum contribution of at least £100 million from the new deal for the under-25s—which will go into further education through the full-time and part-time options for education and training—will make an enormous difference in opening up potential for more than 70,000 additional students next year. The funds will help to protect the colleges, as we did the universities, from the draconian cuts imposed by the previous Government, who paid lip service to expansion while undermining the quality and standard of education.
    Mrs. May: The Secretary of State will be aware of the various comments made by spokesmen for Scottish universities on the likely impact of the decision by the Government that English, Northern Ireland and Welsh students will have to pay the full £4,000 tuition fees, while students from other European member states and Scotland will not. Is he aware that in last week's debate on higher education funding, the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office dismissed the statements that had been made by the Scottish universities on the issue? Who is presenting the correct picture—the Minister or the universities?
    Mr. Blunkett: We are of course talking about the £1,000 towards the tuition fee for the final and fourth year for those in the higher income bracket. There is no evidence yet on what the impact might be on English students, because applications have not yet closed in Scotland. One thing is certain: the more fear that is put in students' minds about what they can expect to find and when, the more likely it is that they will not apply. I am confident, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends in Scotland, that the quality of education at universities in Scotland is such that those who are privileged enough to have earnings that will oblige them to pay the full £1,000 fee will feel that it is worth the investment.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I know that further education colleges in my constituency will warmly welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend yesterday. Does he agree that it is an important part of the package to convince young people that further and higher education are worthwhile investments, and that those who take a degree are far more likely to have higher earnings, certainly by their mid-30s and for the rest of their lives, than non-graduates of the same ability?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. It is statistically proven that what my hon. Friend says is correct. We announced yesterday an expansion for further education, and the fact that adult students in further education already contribute towards their fees and feel that it is worth while to do so will be an encouragement to those who go on to higher education: they will see that the higher return on the investment made will be a tremendous financial as well as an educational and employment gain.
    Mr. Beggs: The Secretary of State's announcement of additional funding for further and higher education is

    1021
    welcomed in all regions of the United Kingdom, but we in Northern Ireland are concerned at speculation about the creation of an additional higher education centre in west Belfast, in which £65 million of public money could be invested. Will he consult the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), and advise him that it is our view that investment in that project is not justified and that moneys available would be better spent on the many existing further and higher education campuses in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall be happy to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and her colleagues about how to provide greater access to education for all members of the community in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: I recognise the problem that my right hon. Friend faces in financing higher and further education, but does he not agree that if the Government's proposals on student funding lead to a dramatic fall in student numbers, that will create an even greater crisis in the sector's finances next year? How does he intend to cope with that potential crisis?
    Mr. Blunkett: If there is a drop in the number of students, it will be a tragedy for those who have been discouraged from taking up their places by misleading and scurrilous propaganda: propaganda that suggests that the means-tested family contribution is to rise, when it is not; scurrilous misinformation that suggests to poorer students that they will have to find the £1,000 fee, when they will not; and scurrilous misinformation that deceives them into thinking that the grant is to disappear in one year, when in fact it is being phased out.
    There will not be a financial crisis if there is a drop in the number of students, because we are funding those students through the fee process, funding the residual grant and funding the loan. The tragedy would be if those young and mature students were denied the opportunity of better employment prospects and higher earnings from their investment in their own education.
    Mr. Dafis: Will the Secretary of State explain in as much detail as possible the connection between the decision to require students to contribute towards their fee, and the additional resources for higher education? Does he intend to ensure that the additional resources from the fee are ring-fenced for higher education, and how permanent will that connection be?
    Mr. Blunkett: By 2005–06, on current accounting procedures, an additional £800 million would be available for the further and higher education sector from the introduction of our proposals. That sum would rise substantially under alternative resource accounting processes. That money will be available for lifelong learning. I have made it clear here and in the Select Committee that that is why we are introducing the scheme. We believe that it is an important investment which will open access to the tens of thousands of students who would otherwise be denied it.
    Ms Hodge: May I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his ingenuity and skill in finding an additional
    1022
    £83 million to invest in further education? Does he agree that the needs of the 2.6 million students in further education are as important as the needs of the 1.8 million students in higher education? Does he further agree that the false divide in the tertiary sector between further and higher does nothing to help the opportunities for all our young people to fulfil their potential?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I entirely agree. Conservative Members might stop laughing if they realised that in our sixth months in office, my Department has identified within our existing resources, which we inherited, more than £250 million for further and higher education. That is £250 million that the Conservatives failed to identify and did not know was available. Their handling of their responsibilities was grossly incompetent.
    Mr. Dorrell: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the effect of his proposals is to raise the cost of a three-year degree course outside London for a typical middle-class student by £3,000, and that the cost of the same degree to a student from a low-income background will rise as a result of his proposals by £5,265? Why are the Government abolishing the means-tested maintenance grant when Dearing recommended that it should be sustained and when the effect of their policy is to deliver such discrimination against low-income students?
    Mr. Blunkett: We did not accept the Dearing proposition that the imposition of a contribution to fees should not be means tested; in other words, that all students should be expected to find the contribution towards fees. A party that cut the maintenance grant year after year, introduced the current unfair mortgage-type loan scheme, resisted our requests for an income-related scheme, stood on an election platform that did not say whether it favoured maintaining the grant or introducing fees, and has done a double somersault on its previous policies has no right to question us on this issue.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Dawson: What steps the Government are taking to prevent fraud against training and enterprise councils. [14322]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): The principal responsibility lies with the training and enterprise councils themselves. The Department operates a number of controls to check against uncertain, incorrect or improper payments. My hon. Friend may be assured that we operate those controls with energy and determination.
    Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that national vocational qualifications form the cornerstone of essential policies such as welfare to work, the new deal and lifelong learning and that those are the policies that will appeal to and give hope and opportunities to so many people denied chances under the previous Government? Will he assure me that he will look into recent fraud cases relating to training providers offering NVQs, and ensure that people

    1023
    who have had qualifications withdrawn are given the opportunity to retake tests and gain the appropriate qualifications?
    Dr. Howells: I assure my hon. Friend that we will do just that. National vocational qualifications are a tremendous boon to our education system. I believe in them; they have opened up possibilities for learning and entering higher education for a great many people. I have seen it wherever I have gone. Yesterday in a steel plant, I saw a rediscovered joy in learning. The men and women working there were involved in national vocational qualifications and were extremely keen to go on learning. We must ensure that there is no fraud in the system and that no nods arid winks are operated by any agency that receives money from the Government. The question of national vocational qualifications must remain completely unbesmirched by backhanders or sleaze.

    Higher Education (Enrolment)
    Mr. Spring: By how much he estimates that enrolment in 1998 in higher education will change, relative to the average levels of the previous three years. [14323]
    Dr. Howells: It is too early to estimate higher education enrolment levels in 1998. Applicant numbers are currently slightly down compared with last year.
    Mr. Spring: Does the Minister not recognise that the Government's plans will have an impact on young people, particularly from low-income families? Given the Prime Minister's famous words, "Education, education, education," will the Minister take this opportunity now to apologise for the Government's attack on equal access to higher education?
    Dr. Howells: I do not know the hon. Gentleman's educational background, but let me tell him this: when I discovered the percentages of young people from different socio-economic groups who go to university and receive higher education—
    Mr. Ian Bruce: How does scrapping grants for the poorest students help them?
    Dr. Howells: If the hon. Gentleman will wrap up for a moment, I shall answer the main question. Four out of five young people from families of senior managers and professionals go on to university, whereas fewer than one in 10 from unskilled families go to university. We are going to do something about that.
    Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that our starting point on this issue is that we recognise that the current system of student support patently does not work? It is also unfair, as it requires part-time and mature students to pay fees. Does he also agree that the Government's proposals—provided that students from low-income families are protected, as they will be—are the best means of ensuring fairer access to, and better funding for, higher education?
    Dr. Howells: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. We shall ensure that every student, regardless of background, has access to sufficient money now to get
    1024
    him or her through university degrees. We shall ensure that, when it comes to paying that money back, students will be able to afford to do so. That does not happen now. We shall institute a much better system that will allow it to happen.

    Unemployment (Rural Areas)
    Mr. David Heath: What proportion of the young unemployed in rural areas cite lack of available transport as a barrier to employment opportunities. [14324]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): As I expect the hon. Gentleman is aware, a recent survey by the Somerset employment service showed that some 40 per cent. of unemployed young people reported transport to be just such a problem.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. When he evaluates the new deal pilot areas, will he pay particular attention to the pilot scheme in Cornwall? Will he look at the barriers to young people in rural areas, and the barriers that prevent small businesses in rural areas from providing opportunities? Will he ensure that the new deal is a genuine new deal for young people in Somerset villages just as much as it is for young people in cities?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. I shall visit Cornwall on 19 December precisely to examine how the pathfinder proposals are working out there. A number of transport companies already offer discounts for young unemployed people, and those will be part of the new deal. Sheffield supertram operates a reduced fare, and National Express has announced a 50 per cent. discount for those on the new deal and free travel for unemployed people going to interviews. We want to turn that into a national programme and support initiatives with the Rural Development Commission for other ways to include transport in rural areas, such as the project in which the hon. Gentleman was involved in his constituency.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that transport is an especially difficult problem when there are no buses on which to get subsidised fares; and that there is a real need to ensure that opportunities under the new deal are genuinely available in rural constituencies, such as the one I represent, and not simply theoretical possibilities?
    Mr. Smith: Yes and I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency to see the work that he and the local community are doing to address those transport problems. I emphasise that new initiatives are being developed through new deal partnerships with the Rural Development Commission, TECs and local councils. Those initiatives include, for example, pooled taxi use, car sharing and even the leasing of mopeds, and the Government welcome those local initiatives to address local transport needs.

    New Deal
    Mr. Drew: What measures he has taken to ensure that options offered to young people on the new deal are of high quality. [14325]
    Mr. Blunkett: We count quality as being of paramount importance. That is why in both the gateway and the main

    1025
    programme there will be key elements, such as contacts with a personal adviser for each participant; contract team visits, which will be made from the Employment Service regions; quality inspection visits for both training and further education; and, of course, the supplementary hotline provided for those who have concerns or worries. It is vital that we work with both employers and the voluntary sector to make sure that this is not a make-work scheme, but a programme to be proud of.
    Mr. Drew: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. May I ask that the role of the dedicated advisers be brought to the fore, especially in rural areas where people face difficulties of access and a lack of provision and where those advisers will play an interesting and important role?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is quite right. In addition to the measures spelt out a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights, there will be a discretionary fund, specifically for transport, to assist those who are taking up the full-time education option in further education colleges. We want the advisers to be able to help from the moment young people enter the gateway, with education and social advice to build up their confidence and skills before they enter the main programme and so ensure that they are able to sustain the training and education elements throughout the programme.
    Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that young people, either those in the new deal or those coming into employment generally, will be concerned about the level of the minimum wage. Both the TUC and the trade unions have made representations in respect of the minimum wage. Given the new dispensation, may we have an undertaking from the Government that if, eventually, the minimum wage is set at a level equal to or above what is proposed in those representations, the donations to the Labour party made by the trade unions before the general election will be returned to them?
    Mr. Blunkett: If the Conservative party had handed back the money every time they gave a contract to or privatised a company that was associated with, or had been in any way involved with, a donation to the party through either an individual or an organisation, they would have handed back more than they have received over the past 20 years.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as education would help the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the new deal will provide excellent opportunities to improve the employability of young people, which is an important product of the scheme? Does he also agree that it will be a high-quality scheme and not one designed purely to massage the employment figures, like those of the previous Government?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. That is why every single option under the new deal will include education and training to a recognised qualification, including a year in a full-time education place. That is
    1026
    why the CBI, the chambers of commerce and the representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises are so supportive of the new deal programme. They recognise, as did the CBI earlier this week, that skills for the future are crucial to the competitiveness of our nation as well as to the life chances of the individual and will be a key element in ensuring that we can encourage growth without inflation and enable our economy to succeed in the 21st century.
    Mr. Don Foster: In view of the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), will he confirm to the House that a contract recently given for the delivery of the new deal in Hackney was given to Reed Personnel Services, that the head of that organisation is Alec Reed, and that that gentleman is alleged to have given £100,000 to the Labour party? Although I have no reason to believe that there was any impropriety whatever in that contract, can the Secretary of State confirm his support for the Prime Minister in acknowledging the urgent need to reform party political funding to remove even the whiff of impropriety in such arrangements?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman believes that there is not a whiff of impropriety because if he did believe that, he should say it outside the House.
    Let us make this absolutely clear. No Ministers were involved with the letting of the contract—that is an absolute, unequivocal statement. There are many people who have given, during the past few years, to all three political parties, who have subsequently, through their organisation or company, bid for Government contracts. There has been nothing wrong, and no one has previously suggested that there was anything improper or lacking in probity in the system that has been operated.
    If any Opposition Members have anything to suggest about the way in which the civil service does its job, they should do so and we will examine those suggestions.
    Mr. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new deal scheme will work because it is a quality scheme and is widely supported by business, the voluntary sector and participating individuals, unlike the schemes that young people have suffered in the past decade? The youth opportunities programme, youth training, the youth training scheme, training for work: you name it, we have had it.
    How does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that young people—those who will benefit from this high-quality training—are involved in consultation leading up to the start of the new deal and, more important, how will he ensure that quality is maintained throughout its delivery?
    Mr. Blunkett: Quality, continuity and accountability within the scheme are features which will distinguish the new deal from the programmes and schemes that the Conservatives introduced during their 18 years in office.
    It is vital to make it possible for young people to play a part in monitoring and reviewing the programme, to say what they think about the programmes that they are engaged on and, where necessary, to redesign a system that is responsive. It is vital for us to set up outreach

    1027
    facilities so that that can be done. I should like to suggest that young people should be part of the review teams; in that way, we can ensure that their interests and those of their age group can properly be reflected.
    Mr. Willetts: Can the Secretary of State confirm a figure researched for me by the House of Commons Library, which tells me that a young person who is unemployed already has an 84 per cent. chance of moving off benefit within a year? How much better than that does he expect to do with his welfare-to-work scheme? Can he also confirm that it was one of his socialist heroes who said that socialism is about priorities? Does he really believe that putting £3.5 billion into a problem that is obviously shrinking is the right ordering of priorities when there are so many other pressures on his budget and elsewhere?
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not believe that 15,000 to 20,000 youngsters a month reaching the point where they have been unemployed or out of education for more than six months is a minor problem, or something which should not be tackled by a Government who believe in the economic gains that can be made from investing in those young people—which I described a moment ago—and in the critical nature of social cohesion, which means that we must heal our communities instead of dividing them.
    I believe that the investment is worth making. If only 10,000 young people were out of work for more than six months—as opposed to the 122,000 young people in that situation at present—it would be worth applying that money to provide life chances and heal the communities in which they live. Our investment will give young people the economic opportunity to earn their own living and pay back the Exchequer, rather than drawing on it through dependence.
    Mr. Barry Jones: How many new deal welfare to-work places he plans to create in (a) Wales and (b) the north-west in the next year; and if he will make a statement. [14326]
    Mr. Alan Howarth: We shall offer help to everyone who becomes eligible for the new deal, and sufficient places will be available to meet that commitment. We are making very good progress in Wales, the north-west and elsewhere in planning and implementing the new deal. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights launched the first of the pathfinder areas this morning.
    Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that Wales's recovery from the great loss of steel and coal jobs still has a long way to go? This excellent scheme might provide a real lifeline to valleys and towns in Wales. is my hon. Friend aware that in Deeside in my constituency far too many young people have aimless, hopeless lives and have no access to worthwhile work? Is there any way in which my hon. Friend might enlarge the scheme? He knows that we will never heal the wounds of Thatcherism until we give work and hope to our young people.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend speaks from his deep commitment to his constituents, so many of whom have suffered as a result of the processes of industrial change. Shotton is in his constituency and Llanwern is in mine.
    1028
    Although his experience of these issues is much greater than mine, I well understand the trauma and the difficulty faced by steelworkers and their families who have lost their jobs and find it desperately difficult to gain new work opportunities.
    Against that background, we attach much importance to the new deal for the long-term unemployed and to ensuring that a new generation of young people does not suffer the same experiences. We are determined to make a great success of our existing commitments under the new deal, and we shall see thereafter what remains to be done.
    Mr. Keetch: Does the Minister recall the commitment that Labour gave before the election to help 250,000 long-term unemployed under-25s to receive the new deal? Will he comment on the figures supplied today by the Library which suggest that only 122,000 people qualify—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates to projects in Wales and the north-west. I have warned the House before that supplementary questions must follow the substantive question. I know that Hereford is not far from Wales, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) will be able to get his question in order. If any other hon. Member wishes to speak about Wales or the north-west particularly, I shall call him or her—I thought not.

    Higher Education (Scottish Universities)
    Miss McIntosh: If he will make a statement on funding problems in respect of students resident in England studying at Scottish universities. [14328]
    Dr. Howells: Many Scottish universities offer students with good A-levels the option of entering the second year of a four-year honours course, so it should be possible for students from England and Wales to get a Scottish degree after paying for the same number of years as they would have taken to graduate at a university elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those from low-income families will get free tuition in any case.
    Miss McIntosh: How will the Minister explain to students in Pontypridd and the Vale of York that they will be disadvantaged by having to pay £1,000 more than Scottish students to do the same course? Will he tell the House how Scottish universities might make up any shortfall if students who wish to do a four-year degree—as I did at the university of Edinburgh—are not in a financial position to do so? Will he invite the Prime Minister to intervene in the dispute between the Department for Education and Employment and the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Fabricant: Be statesmanlike.
    Dr. Howells: Thank you very much.
    First, it is not the same course and, secondly, only the wealthiest students will have to pay the £4,000. The hon. Lady asked me what I will tell the students in Pontypridd. She can be sure that I shall not feed them the litany of half-truths and lies that I have heard so often on this subject.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the failure to exempt English, Welsh and Northern Irish students from

    1029
    tuition fees in the final year of a Scots four-year honours course will deter potential students and cause academic and economic damage? Will he follow the good Scottish Office example, provide the funds and end the discrimination against English and other students?
    Dr. Howells: I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on the subject earlier. There are Scottish universities that already accept students with two good A-levels into the second year of four-year honours courses. I hope that they will continue to do so and that many other universities in Scotland will follow their example.

    Secondary Schools (Hertfordshire)
    Ms Ward: What measures he proposes for the improvement of the present admissions procedure to secondary schools in the Hertfordshire area. [14329]
    Mr. Blunkett: New admissions criteria will provide for a genuine partnership to get schools to work together with their education authority, to ensure that we overcome the scandal of some parents finding that they do not have places for their children in September, because they have had to make multiple applications in a chaotic system, such as my hon. Friend must suffer in parts of Hertfordshire.
    Ms Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for his acknowledgement of the problems in Hertfordshire. Is he aware that many parents in my constituency of Watford have serious concerns about the forthcoming round of selections by academic ability, which will result in some children not obtaining a place in any school of their choice, and the subsequent emotional effect on the children? Will he assure me that, in any forthcoming legislation, he will take into account the specific difficulties that face Watford and south-west Hertfordshire in the admissions process for secondary schools?
    Mr. Blunkett: I will give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that we will do so. Parents and children deserve a system that meets their needs and in which their preference is respected, rather than the school choosing the pupil, and chaotic multiple admissions systems that result in children failing to have a place, and therefore failing to have the opportunity that others take for granted.
    Mr. Dorrell: Can the Secretary of State clear up a misunderstanding which was raised with me when I was in a Hertfordshire school last week? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember telling the Labour party conference that, under a Labour Government, there would be no return to selection? Will he confirm to the House that his White Paper makes it clear that specialist schools will be able to give priority to children who demonstrate a special aptitude? Can the Secretary of State make it clear to the House and the people of Hertfordshire what made him change his mind, or is there a difference between selection and giving priority to those who demonstrate aptitude?
    Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know perfectly well that recognising an aptitude
    1030
    for music is entirely different from selecting a child by the 11-plus examination. We all know that the commitment that I have given on selection stands. It will stand. The admissions criteria that I will publish, and the Bill that we will pass through Parliament, will ensure that every child has the opportunity to use his or her talents to the full.

    Special Needs
    Mr. Bercow: What recent representations he has received concerning the special educational needs of children. [14330]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): We are beginning to receive responses to the Green Paper "Excellence for all Children", which was published on 22 October. 1 look forward to hearing from a wide range of interests during consultation on the Green Paper.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she recognise that the policy of integrating children in special schools in mainstream education must have strict limits to it, for there are children whose presence in the classroom would be detrimental to the education of their peers? That point has been regularly impressed upon me by teachers in the 21 schools in the Buckinghamshire constituency that I have visited since 1 May.
    Ms Morris: Of course I recognise that, and the Green Paper recognises it as well. There are some pupils for whom it is more appropriate, in their interests and in the interests of children who might be educated in the same class, that they go to a special school, perhaps for a short time, and not always for the whole of their career. Throughout the country, there are good examples of schools that include children with disabilities and children with special needs in mainstream classes. We want to encourage that. There are good reasons why, wherever possible, children who are deemed to have special educational needs should be educated with children of their age in mainstream classes. We will encourage that by spreading good practice and by reversing the cut that the Conservative Government made to the money available to schools to make the adaptations necessary for access.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister confirm that there needs to be better teacher training so that teachers are able to identify more quickly children who have special needs such as dyslexia and autism? It is important that those children's needs are dealt with earlier.
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is sad that many children who go through the school system with the designation of SEN would have had different levels of attainment had their special needs been recognised at an early stage. We should be trying to recognise children with special difficulties even before they start school.
    That is why in our early years development plans, which we have recently launched, we have insisted that, when local authorities and others plan places for children under five, they listen to those with expertise in SEN so

    1031
    that the identification to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be made early and immediate action taken to support those children. If we get that right, many of the problems that surface later in a school career will not surface.
    Mrs. Browning: When the Minister announces the outcomes of the review of special educational needs and whatever changes she decides to make, will she confirm that there will be no diminution in the current protection that the individual child has under the law—I stress "under the law"—and that existing statutes will be maintained?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We have not suggested that the rights of a child or a parent will be changed by some of the ideas that we have put forward. The hon. Lady's supplementary question gives me the opportunity to say that parents will retain the right to seek a statement, if that is what they feel that their child needs, and to go before a tribunal.
    The hon. Lady must remember, however, that, for every parent who is pushed into having to obtain a statement to get the help that his or her child needs, time and money are involved which could be better used in supporting the child without having to go through the statementing process. If there are any changes to legislation that emerge from our consultations on the Green Paper, we shall make a statement to the House.

    Lifelong Learning (Coalfields)
    Mr. Ennis: What assessment he has made of the coalfields learning initiative partnership; and if he will make a statement on the long-term financial security of grassroots lifelong learning projects in coalfield areas. [14331]
    Dr. Howells: It is too early to form an assessment of the coalfields learning initiative partnership, but we welcome its provision of adult education learning opportunities in former coalfield areas. Lifelong learning and the creation of a learning society are at the heart of our education and training policies.
    Mr. Ennis: Projects within the partnership have been an excellent vehicle for driving forward the Government's commitment to lifelong learning processes and the reduction of unemployment, especially in places such as the Acorn centre in Grimethorpe in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that such schemes are now established as a key component of post-16 education in the coalfield areas? Will he make the Further Education Funding Council aware of their success?
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to an important project which is operating in a hard-hit area. Indeed, nowhere has been hit harder than Grimethorpe. I know that my hon. Friend is doing an excellent job in representing the interests of his constituents.
    I hope that the partnership will look to European structural funds for support and examine every opportunity to use partnership approaches for funding in
    1032
    future when the present arrangements come to an end. I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the FEFC's attention.

    Church Schools
    Mr. Waterson: What proposals he has for further support for Church schools; and if he will make a statement. [14333]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Byers: Thank you so much. I felt the same myself.
    We have had detailed discussions with the Churches about the new school framework. We recently announced developments to that framework to meet representations made by the Churches, with a view to safeguarding the ethos of Church schools within an education service based on partnership and co-operation. I am pleased to say that the Churches have welcomed those developments.
    Mr. Waterson: I notice that it has taken until nearly 3.20 pm for the Minister for School Standards to make it to the Dispatch Box.
    Will the Minister assure the House that voluntary-controlled schools will be able to opt to become aided schools sooner rather than later, and that if they do so they will not have to pay retrospective compensation to local education authorities?
    Mr. Byers: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber at 3.15 pm. I was getting worried that I would not have a single question to answer.
    The Government have listened to representations made by the Church authorities, in the light of which the Bill will be revised. The Government are prepared to take on board the views expressed by other parties because we know that any changes that we introduce will mean a better Bill which will serve the interests of the nation's children—unlike the previous Conservative Government whose policies were based on arrogance and dogma, who did not listen and who, as a result, were rejected on 1 May.

    New Deal
    Ms Drown: How he will ensure that small and medium enterprises are able to be involved in the Government's new deal to help young people move from welfare to work. [14334]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Small and medium businesses are crucial to the success of the new deal. We are working hard to secure their involvement by reflecting their views in the design and delivery of the new deal, by helping them through local partnerships and by targeting national promotion to encourage their further involvement.
    Ms Drown: I welcome that response. Swindon has fewer young unemployed people than many other parts of Britain; nevertheless, they are a priority for the business community and the Employment Service. Swindon is

    1033
    aware of the Government's larger welfare-to-work programme and wants it to succeed, but the current welfare-to-work programme requires each area to go forward at the same rate. Will my hon. Friend consider bringing forward some parts of the scheme so that, from April, which is sooner than currently planned, areas such as Swindon can move forward to help the long-term unemployed and lone parents, particularly the long-term unemployed?
    Mr. Smith: The programme for the long-term unemployed will start in June. I thank my hon. Friend for her constituency work in promoting the new deal. She refers to the particularly acute needs of some of those eligible for the new deal programme in her constituency. In that regard, the gateway provision is crucial, providing personal support, assessment, mentoring and help with basic skills, and it will be brought forward as quickly as possible to help the constituents of my hon. Friend and others.
    Mr. Brady: Given that the Government apparently believe that the job subsidy under the new deal will create more jobs in small and medium enterprises, is it not obvious and unavoidable that the introduction of the minimum wage will cost jobs?
    Mr. Smith: The new deal will result in extra employment opportunities in small and medium enterprises precisely because the prospect of that subsidy and support in obtaining a trained and ready-to-work young person can make a critical difference to whether someone is taken on. The Low Pay Commission will recommend the level of the minimum wage, taking full account of employment needs. Rather than carping about the new deal, the hon. Gentleman, like so many other hon. Members, should get behind it in his constituency to end the scandal of long-term youth unemployment and help business.

    Universities (Financial Support)
    Dr. Kumar: If he will make a statement on the level of financial support for universities in 1998–99. [14336]
    Dr. Howells: We have taken decisive action to deal with the serious funding problems facing universities. For 1998–99, my right hon. Friend has announced that an extra £165 million will be spent on higher education, including an extra £125 million to enable universities and colleges to maintain and improve quality and standards, and to make a start on the backlog of maintenance and equipment replacement.
    Dr. Kumar: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The Secretary of State's announcement of £165 million for higher education is a tremendous support. Will my hon. Friend seriously consider one aspect of the Dearing report which has been overlooked? Universities face a crisis in funding for research, infrastructure and equipment, for which £400 million to £500 million is required. I urge him to reconsider the funding proposals or make additional funding available.
    Dr. Howells: We are examining the issue carefully. We are worried about the fact that some colleges and
    1034
    universities have closed important research sectors in their institutions. We are talking to colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and in other Departments concerned with this issue, and we shall ensure that this country retains an excellent research base.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister confirm that he has already taken the decision to withdraw from local education authorities the power to make discretionary awards to students in higher education? Why has he done that without proper consultation? Is he aware that, in taking away those discretionary awards, he is also taking away the student's right to the appeal process? In Surrey county, that process has enabled up to 40 per cent. of students to get at least part of the award for which they had applied.
    Dr. Howells: We have made no such decision; nor have we made any such announcement.

    New Deal
    Dr. Stoate: What has been the response of employers to the new deal for young unemployed people. [14337]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Employers across the country are responding positively to the new deal by pledging support, and by following up those pledges with practical action.
    Dr. Stoate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply; it will be good news to young, unemployed people in my constituency of Dartford and elsewhere. Does he agree with me that the new deal allows employers to address the skills shortage, which causes so much damage to British competitiveness?
    Mr. Smith: Absolutely. This is the right time to introduce the new deal. It maximises the opportunities for young, unemployed people to obtain work, and it helps business by ensuring that young people are equipped with skills and are prepared for work, so that they can develop their training towards a recognised qualification while in employment. That will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents and thousands of others across the country.
    Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister agree that, as a result of the steadily falling unemployment inherited from the previous Government, the proportion of young people who require the scheme and who are very disadvantaged, because of their social background, lack of education or other skill shortages, is growing? None of those people will be attractive to employers. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the time taken to get those young people up to the threshold at which most other young people start such schemes will be extended, so that they are on a level playing field and can benefit from the scheme?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I appreciate the understanding and sensitivity that he shows towards the young unemployed in his constituency, and towards the programme. As the overall numbers fall, those in particular need constitute a greater proportion. That is why the gateway period of up to four months of assessment, counselling and help with basic

    1035
    skills is so important. It also gives people the opportunity to try tasters of the different options available through the new deal.
    In response to consultation over the summer, the Government have introduced another opportunity, whereby young people with particularly acute needs can, after the gateway period, have three months' intensive basic education and skills training, before going on to employment.
    This is all about enhancing the employability of young people. It is founded on the good and wise principle that those who most need it will receive the greatest help.

    Degree Courses
    Mr. Illsley: What representations he has received regarding proposals to restrict colleges to offering degree courses by only one validating university. [14338]
    Dr. Howells: We have received a wide range of responses to the recommendation by the National
    1036
    Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education on the issue. The Government will announce its response to that and other recommendations soon.
    Mr. Illsley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply.
    My constituency has benefited greatly from Barnsley college's ability to offer degree courses franchised through both Sheffield and Leeds universities. The benefits to my constituency, not only educational but social, have been very welcome. May I therefore ask my hon. Friend to reject the Dearing recommendation, and allow colleges such as mine to continue to franchise degrees through more than one university?
    Dr. Howells: As my hon. Friend probably knows, the majority of the responses received so far to Sir Ron Dearing's proposals have been opposed to multiple franchising, or serial franchising as it is sometimes called, arguing that it should be stopped. They recognise, however, that there might be occasions when, for geographical or subject-related reasons, that would be impossible. I am sure that my colleagues will consider the matter carefully when we formulate our responses to Sir Ron's proposals.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to give next week's business?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [4th allotted day] [first part].
Until 7 pm, there will be a debate entitled "Public Services Under Threat" on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Motion to approve the seventh and eighth reports from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.
TUESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill [first day].
THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which a Government reply has been given. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Debate on the review of civil justice and legal aid on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 24 NOVEMBER—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
TUESDAY 25 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until about 7 pm, Third Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Plant Varieties Bill.
THURSDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill [first day].
FRIDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 November there will be a debate on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies: controls on cattle, sheep and goats, in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on the draft general budget for 1998 in European Standing Committee B, as I announced last week.
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that on Tuesday 25 November there will be a debate on biotechnological inventions in European Standing Committee B, and on Wednesday 26 November there will be a debate on food law in European Standing Committee A.
1038
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I remind the House that all Members may attend a European Standing Committee, and participate in questions to the Minister and in the debate that follows.
[Wednesday 19 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 10040/97, TSE: Prohibition of Risk Material. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 15-iii (1997–98) and HC 155-iv (1997–98).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 10153/97, Draft General Budget 1998; PE 262.699, 1998 Budget. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 155-iv (1997–98) and HC 155-vi (1997–98).
Tuesday 25 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 10510/97, Biotechnological Inventions. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-v (1997–98).
Wednesday 26 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 8150/97, Food Law; 8386/97, Consumer Health and Food Safety. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC I55-ii (1997–98) and HC 155-v (1997–98).
Thursday 20 November:
Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee. Relevant reports:

Reports Session 1996–97

Report No:

Title

HC No.

Publication Date

1

The office of Gas Supply: The Regulation of Gas Tariffs (The Gas Cost Index)

37

14 November

2

Progress in Completing the New British Library

38

20 November

3

The Sale of the Mining Operations of the British Coal Corporation

60

21 November

4

The Construction of Quarry House

69

27 November

5

Highways Agency: The Bridge Programme

83

28 November

6

The Audit of European Community Transactions

84

4 December

7

The Hospital Information Support Systems Initiative

97

5 December

8

Information Technology Services Agency: Outsourcing The Service Delivery Operations

98

11 December

9

Resource Accounting and Proposals for a Resource-based System of Supply

167

15 January

10

Excess Vote NI DHSS

19 February

11

Excess Votes Classes 1, IV, VII, XIII, XIV, XVII (7&13)

293

13 February

12

ODA: Turkish Universities Equipment Project

70

27 February

13

H M Treasury: The Second Sale of Shares in National Power and PowerGen

151

6 March

1039

Report No:

Title

HC No.

Publication Date

14

Dept for Education & Employment: Financial Control of Payments made under the Training for Work and Youth Training Programmes in England

61

13 March

15

The Award of the First Three Passenger Rail Franchises

39

13 March

16

Office of Electricity Regulation, Office of Gas Supply: The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services and Electricity Supply

89

19 March

17

Health of the Nation: A Progress Report

85

20 March

18

National Savings: Financial Reporting

214

25 March

19

Former Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

432

26 March

20

Payments to the National Lottery Distribution Fund

99

27 March

21

The Management of Space in Higher Education Institutions in Wales

159

2 April

22

British Rail Maintenance Limited: The Sale of Maintenance Depots

168

3 April

23

Ministry of Defence: The Financial Management of the Military Operation in the Former Yugoslavia

242

4 April

24

Department of Transport: Freight Facilities Grants in England

284

8 April

25

Plymouth Development Corporation: Regularity Propriety and Control of Expenditure

450

8 April

REPLIES

Treasury Minute on the First to Eighth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97

CM 3559

12 February 1997

Treasury Minute on the Ninth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97

CM 3577

12 March 1997

Treasury Minute on the Twelfth to Twenty-Fifth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97

CM 3714

16 July 1997

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply. It helps the House to be given two weeks' business, and to hear the fuller statements that she is giving.
The right hon. Lady will recall that the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would set out the Government's position on the tobacco sponsorship ban with "enthusiasm and relish". As he apparently omitted some information, which has since emerged overnight, will she arrange an early opportunity for him to set out the Government's position with not only enthusiasm and relish, but completeness?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, if the Secretary of State for Health had bothered to make a statement to the House about Government policy on tobacco sponsorship, as he should have done, instead of announcing it outside, and if the Minister for Public Health had done the House
1040
the courtesy of informing it of the Government's change of policy on the matter, as she should have done, instead of announcing it on the "Today" programme, the Government not only might have avoided much of the bother that they have created for themselves over the affair, but would have demonstrated that they have, after all, some regard for parliamentary democracy and convention?
As the right hon. Lady may know, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said yesterday on the Jimmy Young programme that it is the Minister without Portfolio who is running the Labour party. If she agrees with her hon. Friend, perhaps she could arrange for the Minister to appear at the Dispatch Box slightly more frequently than once every six months and for slightly longer than five minutes. She will know that last Monday's occasion was a terrible disappointment to the House. Given the great role ascribed to the Minister by the hon. Member for Brent, East, surely the House should be given more ample opportunity to question him.
Will the right hon. Lady make a statement to the House to confirm, or otherwise, that a substantial amount of office accommodation in the Cloisters, which was formerly used by hon. Members, has now been allocated to something called the parliamentary Labour party resource centre? If that is so, is not the taxpayer subsidising the Labour party's political activities within the House? Is not the centre taking up much needed office space, which should be for the use of elected Members of Parliament, including Labour Members?
Mrs. Taylor: I hope to be able to give two weeks' notice of business quite often. I cannot promise to do it on all occasions, and the second week's business will be provisional, of course, but I undertake to try to give as much notice of business as possible, and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments.
On the Prime Minister's answers yesterday, I do not think that there was a question asked by a Conservative Member that he did not answer fully, completely and enthusiastically. I am not sure which information the right hon. Lady thinks has come to light overnight. Does the Conservative party want to criticise the Labour party for taking an open donation, for giving back a donation and for refusing a donation? Other hon. Members might like a debate on all political funding in the past few years. For Conservative Members to complain about tobacco advertising is a bit of a cheek, as they never lifted a finger to tackle that problem.
On the right hon. Lady's comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I do not have time to listen to the Jimmy Young programme, so I missed his comments, but if she accurately reported what he said, on this occasion, he is mistaken. We have ample opportunity to question the person who is running the country—the Prime Minister.
The right hon. Lady is right to say that the resource centre is now in office accommodation in the Cloisters, having vacated its previous room to accommodate the needs of an hon. Member.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend take on board the idea of having several debates about political funding because, contrary to the view that is expressed by a few Tories as of now, it would help us considerably to take the lid off all those donations to the Tory party when it was in government?

1041
It was not a full statement yesterday by the Opposition because they omitted to mention that they had received £14 million from Bernie Ecclestone and did not give it back. Also, they made no mention of the money that they received from a crook, Asil Nadir, who gave them £440,000 which they did not give back. What is more, it has now come to light that they received more than £1 million from a Hong Kong family dealing in heroin. The money was made out of heroin dealing and was used to help them with their election campaign. It is time to lift the real lid.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is making a strong case for a debate such as he mentioned; we could make good use of parliamentary time on such issues. My problem is that we have such a crowded programme. However, issues such as this will not go away and will be aired at some time in some place.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House switch her attention from contaminated donations to contaminated land? Is she aware that there have been conflicting statements in the past few days from Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said that he still expects to be able to site development to the tune of 50 per cent. on brown land rather than taking green-field sites, whereas the Minister for the Environment said that the work that should be undertaken to decontaminate contaminated land cannot go forward, because the Treasury cannot afford the very small sum—£14 million—that is necessary to progress that programme. May we be assured that there will be a Green Paper, a statement and a debate on the Government's intentions with regard to the development of green-field and brown-field sites in the near future?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are committed to protecting the countryside and to helping regenerate towns and cities and provide the housing that is required. It is always a difficult balance under any Government. Each case has to be decided on its merits. I know that the specific problem of decontamination is very difficult, because there are often technical as well as financial problems. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman time for a debate, but I shall bring his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I press my right hon. Friend on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? May we have a debate on the Ecclestone contributions? We are told that he paid £10 million to the Tories and lent them £4 million. It is either true or not true. If it is true, surely an Opposition Member should come to the Dispatch Box, admit that it is true and tell us what the Opposition did in return for that money. What did they do for the money?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend again tempts me to agree to a debate on the issue that he mentioned. I see the strength of that case, not least because I recall the many occasions on which I and my hon. Friends sat on the Opposition Benches asking that the Nolan committee be
1042
allowed to look at those issues before the election. Had that happened, this information would have come to light much earlier.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I offer the right hon. Lady a constructive suggestion? We should have a rolling debate on political donations, starting with a debate on the moralistic posturings of a political party that makes high-sounding noises about these matters, and going on with a continuing debate so that each time a revelation is dragged out of the Government by the media, we can debate that new fact.
Mrs. Taylor: I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that Members of the previous Parliament of course had opportunities to vote for complete openness on political donations. I cannot remember him joining us in the Lobby.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the performance of the west coast main line? As she will be aware, I have a special interest in that. I attended the press conference in March, when Virgin was awarded the franchise. Given all the private companies, I welcomed that. We were told that there would be 90 per cent. reliability in a year. This month, we have found out that the line is the worst performing railway in the country.
The journey from London to my constituency takes four hours. Last week, a train took nine hours. Earlier in the week, a train did not start out for Carlisle because the company forgot to roster a driver. The situation is getting worse.
I appreciate that the problems are not all Virgin's—many of them are Railtrack's. Unless the problems are put right, Cumbria will not be able to exist as an economic unit until we have the tilting train and the 140 mph train in seven years' time. We need action now.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises a problem which is clearly of great concern to him and his constituents. It must be very depressing to be told that the line is the worst in the country and to endure experiences such as those that he described. I am sure that my hon. Friends in the relevant Department—and, indeed, the Rail Regulator—are aware of the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has made a strong case for highlighting the problem, but I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate in the near future.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Lady will know that, although six months have elapsed since the election, we do not yet have the Register of Members' Interests. May we have a debate to help hon. Members understand the rules? Under current rules, all of us must declare the amount and the donor concerning any outside interest or any funding of our private political offices.
The Leader of the House will know that current advice from the registrar is that blind trusts do not mean that such information need not be put into the public domain. Two right hon. Members, who are now the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, received money in that way. Such information needs to be published to conform with the rules of the House. We need a debate so that

1043
matters can be brought out into the open. Otherwise, everyone could claim to have received—or be accused of having received—contributions from blind trusts.
Mrs. Taylor: On the last point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his hon. Friends tried to make that point during the previous Parliament, and it was established without doubt that my right hon. Friends obeyed the rules that were in place at that time. It is important that all hon. Members understand the rules. The forms sent out and the advice available are very clear. Of course, we now also have a code of conduct. The register will be published later this month.
Ms Helen Southworth: May we have an early debate on the hazards of laser pointers? On Friday, the eyes of a young girl in my constituency were damaged in her school playground by a laser used by another pupil. The Trading Standards Authority told me that, of the 49 laser pointers that it has tested, fewer than 5 per cent. were safe. It also told me that some of the type 2 lasers that it had taken were in fact type 3 and hazardous. It is very concerned about that. As the House will understand, I, too, am very concerned about the hazards to children in my constituency.
Mrs. Taylor: I sympathise with the experience of my hon. Friend's constituent. To have somebody hurt in such a way in the school playground must be extremely alarming. I know that, in my constituency, a bus driver found himself under threat because of the misuse of laser pointers.
The police already have the power to consider laser pointers as offensive weapons when they are used in such a way. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs announced on 28 October that he was urging trading standards departments to use their powers under 1994 regulations to remove dangerous laser pens and pointers from sale. If there is a problem with classification, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) has indicated, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the potential problem.
Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of press reports that the Government will appoint a commission to consider proportional representation, may we have a statement so that hon. Members who have experience of the two forms of PR elections held in the United Kingdom may contribute to the debate?
Mrs. Taylor: The electoral commission has not yet been appointed; nor have its terms of reference yet been made public or, indeed, completed. I know that some hon. Members have experience of PR, and in the next few months that matter will probably be debated on several occasions.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As a little, bald-headed, man in his sixties, with glasses and false teeth and whose trousers do not match his jacket, I may seem an unlikely moderniser. However, I wish to press my right hon. Friend to consider having a debate on modernisation in Government time—although on a
1044
different subject from the debate that we are about to have—to discuss a modern, technologically up-to-date electoral registration system, including rolling registers; access to polling stations for disabled people; the measure that I introduced yesterday to ensure the registration of homeless people; whether expatriates should be excluded from the register; and whether people resident in this country, from outside the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland, should also be on our electoral registers, as they are part of our society and pay their taxes here.
Mrs. Taylor: I have no problems in thinking of my hon. Friend as a moderniser, especially on that subject, because he has campaigned for a significant time for changes, with much justification. I am sure that improvements can be made in the system of registration, and a review is currently examining what can be done. My hon. Friend may have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing say only this week that, together with local authorities, she is now examining the possibility of using different types of buildings, including possibly supermarkets, as centres for voting, to make it easier for people to exercise their democratic rights. I do not know whether that is too modern for my hon. Friend, but I hope that he appreciates that much thought is going into the subject.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The House will have noted the right hon. Lady's reluctance to grant a debate on the funding of political parties and drawn conclusions from that. May I suggest that we might discuss another funding matter—the funding of local authorities? Her colleagues in shire halls and town halls up and down the country are greatly concerned about the likelihood that the funding for local authorities will be infinitely less generous under this Government than under the previous Administration. The title for the debate could be "Rate Capping", given the commitment in the Labour party manifesto to abolish rate capping and the more recent confirmation from the Minister for Local Government and Housing that the Government intend to abolish crude and universal capping. May we have a debate on that subject?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not at all reluctant to find time to debate the funding of political parties. The problem is that we have a crowded programme and, although several of my hon. Friends have pointed out why we should be tempted to have such a debate, we have little time to do so.
There will be a statement before Christmas about the funding of local authorities, and the hon. Gentleman may be able to participate in that. Many local authorities are very grateful for the extra money for education that the Government have been able to find.
Mr. John Austin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, giving time to make progress on the measure to restore democratic government to London. She will know that when the Greater London council was abolished, the responsibility for the local authority housing in Thamesmead and for all the development land and other assets was transferred to a private development company. The assurances about community participation in the company given by the Minister at the time—the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—have been broken. My right hon. Friend may know that in the past few weeks,

1045
directors elected to represent the community have been hounded out of office after being forced to take polygraph tests. Will she find time for a debate on the future of Thamesmead, the restoration of democracy to the democracy-free zone of Thamesmead and the abolition of Thamesmead Town Ltd.?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not aware of the details of the situation to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am not sure whether it is within the scope of the measure that I announced we are to debate next week. He may consider such a topic to be suitable for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Scottish Office released the report "Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland" this morning and held a private press briefing? That report is not yet available from the Vote Office or the Scottish Office, in spite of repeated requests by hon. Members. Will she ensure that those matters are dealt with in the House and not at private press briefings?
Mrs. Taylor: I shall look into that.
Mr. David Winnick: Is there not a case for having an early debate on political party funding? Would it not be useful? Such a debate would show us whether the Conservative Opposition are in favour of disclosing in full all those who donate large sums to political parties, whether they are in favour of a ban on foreign donations and whether they take the view, as we do, that there should be a cap on the amount that can be spent in general elections—just as there is in constituency campaigning, where there is no controversy. Throughout the 18 years when many of us made proposals—through ten-minute Bills and questions—the Conservative Government were totally opposed to any reform of political funding. The Conservatives are about the last people in the world who should give us lectures.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right, and he is consistent. He was one of those who, in the previous Parliament, on several occasions raised the question whether political funding should be referred to the Nolan committee. Had our frequent requests been granted, the Conservative party's problems with political party funding might not have occurred.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Leader of the House return to a question put by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? After questions to the Secretary of State for culture and popular enlightenment on Monday, there was a five-minute slot to discuss the millennium experience and for the Minister without Portfolio to answer questions. We had waited six months, and many hon. Members on both sides wanted to ask legitimate questions. I and many others had never seen the Minister without Portfolio before, and thought that he was a figment of virtual reality—until I realised that I had seen him before. On Wednesday afternoons, he is the chap who plays peekaboo behind the Chair—like Kenneth Williams, frowning at Labour Members and saying, "Ooh, you are awful." This project involves millions of pounds and is supposed to be a national celebration of the
1046
millennium. We need the Minister responsible to come here more frequently than once every six months for five minutes.
Mrs. Taylor: The special slot for millennium questions was the result of popular demand. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will be glad to know that he is so popular.
Ms Beverley Hughes: May I welcome the appointment of Chief Constable Keith Hellawell as co-ordinator of the Government's drugs initiatie—an appointment which has been widely welcomed? Many of us wait with anticipation for his work to start, because drugs continue to be a significant problem, affecting many of our young people and associated with high levels of crime. When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement to the House on the terms of reference of his appointment, and on his immediate and long-term objectives and how he may set about achieving them?
Mrs. Taylor: There has been a significant welcome for Keith Hellawell's appointment. Whether we use the term drugs tsar or anti-drugs co-ordinator, it is an important role and his job will be to advise Government on how we can build on the current strategy. Drugs are a significant problem and do indeed wreck many people's lives and cause a great deal of criminal activity.
It is hoped that early in the new year Keith Hellawell will be able to publish more information and present reports to the Government. At present, he is still a chief constable, although he is spending some time on his new post, and certainly in preparation, and I hope that both sides of the House will welcome his appointment and agree that tackling drugs should not be a party political issue.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Leader of the House accept that the whole House should be truly shocked by the levity with which she treated the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about questions on the millennium dome? Does not she think it incredible that we have not been granted a debate on the Floor of the House to allow us to test and probe the extent and nature of a project that will spend £750 million of taxpayers' money? Is not that completely improper in terms of parliamentary accountability?
Mrs. Taylor: We will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of a Government who did not believe in accountability at all.
Mr. John McDonnellIn the light of newspaper reports this morning that Conservative peers are planning to vote against key elements of the programme on which the Government were elected, will my right hon. Friend allow an early debate on the proposed abolition of the hereditary peerage? As there are murmurings that they may vote against a ban on hunting, will she act with some urgency, so that the hunters may feel what it is like to be hunted?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. I am afraid that I cannot find time for such a debate in the near future, but I shall keep it in mind.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week

1047
to update us on the number of members of the Labour party elected to public office who are currently under suspension, and perhaps let us know what the party's target is for Christmas?
Mrs. Taylor: Internal Labour party matters are not a subject for debate in the House.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I renew my call for an early debate on the operation of the law of perjury? Does my right hon. Friend share my disquiet that, in the many months that have passed since Jonathan Aitken discontinued his libel action against The Guardian, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has spent only 35 days—that is one officer working for 35 days—investigating the serious allegations of perjury against that former Cabinet Minister and Conservative Member of Parliament? Is not there a pressing case for an early debate on the matter?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that I can find time for such a debate, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the relevant Ministers' attention.
Mr. John Bercow: Having listened to hon. Members' views, can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House next week on the formula one fiasco, so that instead of continuing to pretend that his handling of the matter has been flawless and fooling no one, he can take the opportunity to show a little humility and strength of character by apologising to the House for his errors of judgment on the matter?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is any requirement for any apology for any errors of judgment. The decisions that were taken were the right decisions, taken for the right reasons.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that at Question Time, many hon. Members expressed their concerns about higher education funding. She will also have noticed that
1048
yesterday in another place, there was a debate about preserving the grotesque overfunding of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Could not those matters be usefully brought together in a debate, so that right hon. and hon. Members who represent other universities and colleges of higher education can discuss how to redistribute that money?
Mrs. Taylor: As I do not read them out, my hon. Friend may not know that the debates next Wednesday morning include one on Oxford and Cambridge college fees.
Mr. Graham Brady: I was surprised that the Leader of the House did not respond more favourably to earlier requests for an urgent debate on local government finance in the light of this morning's Audit Commission report, which shows a £1 billion shortfall in the local authority pension fund arising from the number of early retirements. It is projected in a few years to amount to some 12 per cent. of the local government salary bill. The Accounts Commission for Scotland suggests that the Government's changes to advance corporation tax will add 3.5 per cent. of the local authority salary bill to the cost of maintaining pension funds.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right that an awful lot of money is spent that way, but the liability has not built up since May. Local authority finances are debated in the House from time to time. The next significant discussion of such issues will be on a statement on what used to be the rate support grant settlement, which, as I said earlier, will be later this year.

BILL PRESENTED
  RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
  Mr. John Austin, supported by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Simon Hughes, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Terry Rooney and Mr. Marsha Singh, presented a Bill to make discrimination on grounds of religion unlawful; to outlaw incitement to religious hatred; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 82].

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. John MacGregor, Dr Nick Palmer, Dr Howard Stoate, Ms Gisela Stuart and Paddy Tipping be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in pursuance of Section I of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.—[Mr. McFall.]
4.6 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I wish to refer to the hon. Members who are to be appointed trustees, because it is important that something that has, historically, involved considerable battling over many years should be understood by the new trustees. I think that at least five of the eight came to the House at this year's general election.
I am in a happy position because what I am going to say cannot affect me, though it can affect a host of other Members. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Labour party won a famous victory by defeating a motion of the Conservative Government in July 1980. It was decided that the pension accrual rate should not be one sixtieth but one fortieth; in other words, that people who had served 20 years in the House could have half pensions. I am delighted to say that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) marched arm in arm with me through the Division Lobby. New Members will not have realised that. Only one of the new trustees was here then.
I am glad that the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) is going to be a member, and I hope that he will chair it.
Mr. David Winnick: I could be wrong, but I believe that I am right. The right hon. Gentleman, whom we are pleased to see back in his place, said that the pensions position was 40 per cent., whereas it was reduced to 50 per cent. He said that 20 years' service provides half a pension, but he should have said 25 years' service.
Sir Peter Emery: I was trying to make it clear, so that nobody misunderstands, that, at that time, the referral was one sixtieth. We tried to reduce it to one fortieth so that 20 years' service would give a half pension. The Conservative Government refused to accept the motion of the House and came back, in February 1981, with all the Whips on and proceeded to refer back to one sixtieth. In July 1983, that was changed to an accrual of one fiftieth.
I simply remind hon. Members who will serve as trustees of the great and extensive service given by Mr. Morris, who chaired that Committee. He was a most distinguished Labour Member for many years and is now in another place, I am glad to say. His work in defence of hon. Members' pensions was considerable.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the trustees can take evidence? If they can, is he suggesting that he might wish to give evidence?
Sir Peter Emery: I have never considered giving evidence to the trustees. They have prepared a whole host
1050
of work and it rests very much with the Chairman as to how to proceed. As the at least five of the trustees are new Members, and only one knows of the instances of which I am talking, I thought that the matter was extremely relevant. Sadly, I do not see all the hon. Members in the Chamber, but they should be able to see in Hansard the point that I am making about pensions so that they can bear it in mind in any future action.
I hope that the trustees will be successful, as the Labour party at the time was adamant about moving to one fortieth.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not everybody.
Sir Peter Emery: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Division Lobby with me. I have the Division list before me—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall check up afterwards. It is not relevant to this debate.
Sir Peter Emery: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As long as I know that you were with me, that is all that matters.
I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the trustees understand this matter and can look into it to see whether the present Government will move in the direction that the Labour party urged on the House 17 years ago. Many new Members, who do not necessarily stand a chance of being in the House for more than 10, 15 or 20 years, need to ensure that their pension rights are better protected than at present. It is not exactly the same as in industry because nothing can be quite as problematical for a long stay than being in politics as a Member of Parliament.
It seemed worth while to raise this matter as we appoint hon. Members as trustees because it is imperative that they bear the matter in mind.
4.13 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I confess that I am disappointed that, given that this is the first opportunity that the House has had to debate this important matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is the second opportunity."] It is the first opportunity, because the Leader of the House withdrew the motion in a fit of pique the other night and would not let the House debate the matter.
Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier this week, we debated the motion and the right hon. Gentleman spoke in that debate. I do not know how he can claim that this is the first opportunity to debate it.
Madam Speaker: Order. The debate was on the second motion.
Mr. Forth: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should have established his facts before getting to his feet.
As I was saying, this is the first occasion that we have had to debate this important matter, which relates directly to the interests of every Member of the House.

1051
I am doubly disappointed because, so far, the Leader of the House has not sought to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to explain to the House why the names that have been suggested for the managing trustees are such as they are. The right hon. Lady might have had a hint from the debate—however truncated it was—on Monday night that there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction about the nature of the names being offered, albeit in connection with a different matter.
Any hon. Members who were then present might recall that I expressed the view that, in these matters perhaps more than any other, it was vital that those to whom we give the trusteeship of our pensions or of the Members' fund should represent the widest possible range of Members of Parliament in terms of background, experience, and so on. I should have thought that that proposition was self-evident, but apparently it is not.
However, even now, the Leader of the House has not done us the courtesy of offering an explanation of the reasoning behind the proposed membership of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. That is not an unreasonable request.
The matter should be uncontroversial. I should have thought that the Leader of the House would come to the House with some confidence and explain briefly the reasoning behind the nature of the appointments. I would hope that we would all then be satisfied and the matter could be dealt with swiftly but properly. None of that has happened. Instead, we had this and the other related matter brought before us late on Monday night, apparently on the assumption that they would slip through quietly on the nod. We did not even have the opportunity to have the full debate allowed on the Order Paper. I am therefore glad to see that now we have up to an hour and a half to debate each of these matters. That reflects the importance that should be attached to them.
In order to establish my point of reference, I obtained from the Vote Office a copy of the "Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund Accounts 1995–96". Helpfully, it states in paragraph 11:
"The Managing Trustees appointed in accordance with Section 1 of the 1972 Act by Resolution of the House of 22 May 1992 are"
and gives the names of the hon. Members in the previous Parliament who were the managing trustees of that important pension fund. Those members included, from the then Opposition, the right hon. Alfred Morris, who was the chairman, the right hon. Gordon Oakes—a senior and highly respected Member of Parliament—and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, but who was at that time a relatively new Member.
The significant point is that the view taken by the then Opposition of the managing trustees was that it was appropriate that there should be a spread of experience, ranging from the hon. Member for Pontypridd to senior Members such as Gordon Oakes and Alfred Morris.
I should mention in passing that the Conservative trustees were none other than Sir Peter Hordern, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), Sir James Spicer and Sir Gerard Vaughan. That gives some idea of the way in which the previous Parliament thought that the
1052
managing trustees should have experience, knowledge and wisdom about matters relating to the House, to Members of Parliament and to their pension fund. That is appropriate and I cannot recall anyone having any difficulty accepting that or any protests—everybody seemed to agree that that was the correct balance for that body of people.
One would have expected that in the present Parliament there would be a similar range of experience among Members to be appointed as managing trustees. You can imagine my shock and my disbelief, Madam Speaker, when I read the list of names that was first suggested to us a couple of nights ago. The Government seemed to have decided that Labour trustees would largely be newly elected Members.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How does the right hon. Gentleman know that a number of these people are not experts on pensions? Has he asked them?
Mr. Forth: That is a fair question.
Mr. Mike Wood: What is the answer?
Mr. Forth: The answer is that I do not know any of them because they have not been in this place long enough.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Incredible.
Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of allowing me to develop my argument—these are only my opening remarks—he will learn that I do not rest my case on such a matter as knowledge of pensions, important although it may be.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Ah!
Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman invites me to, I shall digress a moment—staying in order, I hope.
I readily accept that it is relevant and important that some of the trustees should be Members who know about pensions. If such Members were also newly elected Members, I believe that that would be entirely appropriate, because I do not dispute the fact that a new Member, or even two of them, should serve as trustees to provide that perspective. My difficulty with the proposal is that there are so many of them, to the exclusion of Members with experience and long service in the House.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) obviously knows all those new Members intimately. I respect his judgment in that matter, and if he tells me that one or more of them are pensions experts, I welcome that. I welcome the fact that the trustees include a Member or Members with pension expertise.
The point at issue, however, is whether the trustees have sufficient understanding of the House, of the membership of the House, of the difficulties that may arise as Members serve in the House and, specifically, of the problems that might arise when Members reach pension age and become eligible for the different pension arrangements.
Mr. Winnick: On Monday night, I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was simply being obstructive;

1053
I now realise that he genuinely wants the matter to be discussed. I shall not think otherwise unless I have reason to do so.
As I know many hon. Members from both sides of the House who served during the previous Parliament, I would be the last to question their integrity. Is there not a case, however, for saying that fresh blood entering the House—Members who are unlikely to receive pensions in the near future, and not just one or two of them—should be able to consider the matter?
If the majority of the Members who serve as trustees are likely to draw their pension in the next five or 10 years—I am not suggesting that that is the reason for their appointment—some people outside the House might take the view that they have a vested interest. I do not share that view, but there is an argument, which obviously the right hon. Gentleman does not accept, for having as trustees new Members who are unlikely to benefit from pension arrangements for many years.
Mr. Forth: That is a reasonable point of view, which I respect. It was not the view that we took in the previous Parliament or, as those with longer memories may agree, in previous Parliaments that I can recall. That view has not been taken until now. If it were suddenly the view of the House, that would be another matter.
I concede, as I did to the hon. Member for Workington, that there should be a balance of experience of trustees, and the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes has some validity. I cannot go as far as he wants me to go and say that there should be a majority. I readily concede the principle that he has enunciated—the need to balance possible self-interest in the approach of pension age with distance from pension age.
I am arguing for some balance and breadth of representation among the trustees. From the beginning, I have believed that the names suggested by the Government go too much in one direction. As I have said, I regret that I do not know those individuals personally—I hope to get to know them well in the coming years if I am spared to survive in this place beyond another election or two. I am sure that some of those hon. Members will make a very valuable contribution—in terms of their expertise in pensions, the fresh views that they may bring to these matters or their distance from their pension entitlements. I readily concede those points.
However, the point at issue is whether the trustees should contain a breadth of representation. I hope that it is not too late to ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter and provide a better range of representation. I have no wish to obstruct this process: it is very much in my interests, and in the interests of all hon. Members, that the trustees should exist and function properly. That is even more important for the trustees of the Members' fund, which we are to discuss next.
I have no desire to be obstructive, but I have a strong wish to see the trustees constituted properly. I ask the Leader of the House—I hope reasonably—to re-examine the matter very quickly.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. On Tuesday night, I offered him the chance to discuss the matter
1054
further. I have received no representations about the issue—although one of his hon. Friends spoke to me about it. As I explained to him, those who serve as trustees are volunteers: we cannot conscript people to do such work. We have selected to serve as trustees people with some relevant experience. My hon. Friends the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have made significant points in that regard.
When the trustees are appointed, I do not think that there will be any barrier to an expansion in numbers if it is felt that extra experience is needed. The House could ask other hon. Members whether they wished to serve. However, the Government do not conscript people to serve as trustees if they are not willing to do so. I do not think that that would be a useful way of doing things. I believe that the hon. Members chosen to serve have a great deal of experience between them and I have confidence in them. However, if other experience is needed, I do not have a closed mind to suggesting that the membership should be altered in the future.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that response, but I am a little disconcerted—I think that that is the right word. I shall not make any further inquiries about the matter and I accept the right hon. Lady's explanation at face value. However, I am surprised that apparently it was not possible to find, from more than 400 Labour Members of Parliament, hon. Members with more experience to serve as trustees.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: How does the right hon. Member know? He does not know what their experience is.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman raises the same issue from a sedentary position. I am talking about length of experience in the House, not pension experience. I am very surprised that, from more than 400 Labour Members—I concede that a number are occupied with Government responsibilities—it was apparently difficult to find hon. Members who entered the House in 1992, 1987 or whenever to serve as trustees.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I reinforce the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. The vast majority of Labour Members with the experience of the kind to which he refers are either members of the Government—it would not be appropriate for Ministers to serve on the body—or fulfilling other very responsible roles on Committees of the House. I think that he would be somewhat disconcerted if we suggested that new Members should assume the chairmanship of Select Committees in order to free more experienced Members for this kind of work.
We cannot force people to do such work; we rely on volunteers. I have said that if other types of experience are considered necessary in the future, we will be happy to consider the proposal, but, at present, there are no hon. Members with the kind of experience that the right hon. Gentleman describes who are willing to serve as trustees.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I am tempted, but I shall resist the temptation, to get into a side debate about whether new Members should be Chairmen of Select Committees. In that case, the freshness of view argument might indeed be relevant. It is an interesting

1055
question whether old lags should always be Chairmen of Select Committees. We might return to it on another occasion.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) implied that there was a corollary: that new Members might have experience in pensions? Having just referred to the "Vacher Dod" guide, I see that one of the new Members is an economics lecturer, another is a general practitioner and a third was a translator before coming to the House. They offer nothing to the Committee, other than newness and freshness—no experience in the running of pensions or the organisation of the House. No doubt they will contribute later to the debate on modernisation of the House, and argue how sensible it would be to introduce clapping.
Mr. Forth: I am confused. I hope that, as a result of my hon. Friend's intervention, the hon. Member for Workington will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and explain why, with his intimate knowledge of his colleagues, he thinks that they have pensions experience that would be useful to the trustees. He suggested strongly that they had such experience. My hon. Friend suggests, from the information available to him, that that may be in doubt. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put our minds at rest—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman does not know whether my hon. Friends were trustees. That would not be in the record to which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred. As for the medical practitioner, there is a requirement that a medical practitioner should be a trustee. The fund may have to deal with people like me, who may at some stage want ill-health pensions.
Mr. Forth: I have no difficulty with any of that. If, as I said at the outset, we had been told briefly but carefully the rationale behind the names proposed, none of this discussion would have been necessary. If, for example, it had been explained that one of the trustees must be a general practitioner, that would have been sufficient. If it had been demonstrated that an hon. Member had relevant pensions experience, that might have been appropriate. If we could have found someone who was a new Member and a GP with pensions experience, we could have had the whole lot rolled into one.
It would have been helpful if, as a matter of public record, the House had been given such an explanation, but that explanation has still not been forthcoming. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the information that it has apparently proved difficult—nay, impossible—to find Labour Members with the range of experience that I suggested was necessary.
I shall reflect on that. It was, and still is, in my mind to seek to divide the House on the matter, such is my strength of feeling about it. I sense that some of my hon. Friends want to make their contribution, and I shall reflect on what the Leader of the House said before making up my mind.
1056
I hope that I have made my views clear, and that I have persuaded hon. Members present that the matter is important. At the very least, we now have a clearer view from the Leader of the House of the background and the possibilities that lie ahead of us.
4.33 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have promised to help to secure the re-election of Gerry Malone as the hon. Member for Winchester and I am already late for that appointment. That being so, I shall not delay the House for long, but an important matter is before us.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) intervened because he recognised, as a Labour Member, that the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on Monday night and by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) tonight show that we, the Opposition, are not seeking to filibuster to delay Government business. After all, the next debate will focus on the modernisation of the House, which is a matter of concern to all hon. Members.
As my right hon. Friends have said, however, we are much concerned about the compositions of Committees. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I felt on Monday, in my anger, that we were faced with another example of the contempt with which the Government regard the House.
I had reason to take that view because I have raised on the Floor of the House the membership of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a distinguished member. I felt it wrong that a Committee dealing with matters relating to past events and going much to the heart of Members' activities should be in the hands of those who had no experience of the House. It was not a particularly partisan point, but I would not claim to be completely green on that issue.
The issue arose to even greater extent when nominations as trustees for the pension fund appeared on the Order Paper to be rushed through on Monday night. Not one Government nominee had served in the House before May. [Interruption.] I am sorry, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) had served for one Parliament. However, none of the Government Members nominated as trustees of the Members' fund has served in a previous Parliament. I realise, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are debating not the Members' fund but the contributory pension fund. I accept that one Labour nominee has served in a previous Parliament.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for acknowledging that we had a brief conversation yesterday. I am grateful also to her for taking me into her confidence. I have breached that confidence because she raised the matter from the Dispatch Box. She said that those who appoint Members to act as trustees of the funds have had difficulty in persuading Labour Members, especially right hon. Members, to serve.
I find it extraordinary that a party that enjoys the largest representation in the House since the second world war cannot find within its ranks senior Members who have the time that is necessary to devote to such important work.
We are talking about what used to be called House of Commons matters in the old days, not party political matters. These are matters that unite Members across the

1057
board, and they relate to the difficulties of leading the life of a Member, which involves balancing constituency obligations with House obligations and balancing commitments to the political process with the need to devote time to the family. These matters serve to bring Members together rather than to divide them. There is a need also to deal with financial matters.
Since I have been in this place, it has seemed to me that it has been agreed policy that matters such as those before us would be dealt with by the great and the good. I fear that there is now an absence of the great when we read the list of Labour nominees. I make no judgment on whether the new Members are good—those who are appearing for the first time—but they are not great, because they have not served in the House previously.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I recall hearing these arguments before. They are arguments that the previous Government used against the then Opposition Front Bench. They said that because Labour had not been in government for nearly 18 years we did not have the experience to go into government. There is a fine team of Ministers on the Treasury Bench that is competently running the affairs of the United Kingdom, and most of its members have had no previous ministerial responsibility. They have acquired their competence in a matter of months. What is the hon. Gentleman going on about? I think that he completely misunderstands what the debate is about.
Mr. Howarth: That is unbelievably rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. Surely he has been reading the papers lately. He must have seen the Government's catalogue of incompetence, which reached a pinnacle this week—I am sure that there will be many more pinnacles to conquer in the coming weeks—with the nonsense about sponsorship by tobacco companies. I shall not pursue that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or you will stop me.
The Conservatives' argument in government that there was a lack of experience in the Labour party has, sadly, been fully confirmed since the new Government assumed office. The hon. Gentleman invites me to take a partisan approach when I was trying to be as non-partisan as possible. He always tries to tempt me, whether in the Chamber or the Tea Room, but he should resist or we shall stray from what I hope is common ground.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, it is not that we believe that Labour nominees lack the competence to deal with pension matters, but they have no range of experience. They may provide fresh blood, but, apart from the hon. Member for Sherwood, who has served one term, there is no one such as the hon. Member for Workington, who has served for a number of terms and understands how the House works.
On a House of Commons matter, it is important to understand how the House works, and one way in which Members understand how the House works and the pressure faced by them is by virtue by their length of service. Therefore, I do not cast aspersions on those hon. Members who have been appointed.
However, I return to my astonishment that, within the ranks of the 400 Labour Members, neither the hon. Member for Workington nor the hon. Member for Walsall, North could be persuaded to serve as trustees. The hon. Member for Walsall, North does sterling service
1058
with me on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but I dare say that he could still find a slot in his diary to help out as a trustee.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Howarth: Is the hon. Gentleman volunteering?
Mr. Winnick: I am not volunteering. The hon. Gentleman refers to Labour Back Benchers with many years of experience. Leaving my position aside, is it not of interest that all those Labour Members have various positions of responsibility, including—I do not wish to embarrass him—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is chairing an important Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a member of that Committee and of another Committee which carries some responsibility.
Unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman started his speech, but I know that he understands some of my arguments. Unless he can show that those senior Labour Members to whom he refers are not pulling their weight in Committee and in the Chamber—we know the work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—he is weakening his case.
Mr. Howarth: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman should consider me qualified to appoint senior Labour Members of the great and the good. That is not my duty and I think that he would regard it as presumptuous of me were I so to do. However, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is in his place. I am sure that he has time to spare. He joined the House at the same time as I did in 1983. He and I find time to share holy communion from time to time and I am sure that he could be persuaded to serve on behalf of the House.
Mr. Peter L. PikeI was a trustee of two pension funds before I became a Member of the House. I have every confidence in those Labour Members who have been appointed to represent us. I am serving on the Modernisation Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee, and I shall serve on the Select Committee on Deregulation, probably as Chairman. Therefore, I have plenty of work to do without being trustee of the fund.
Mr. Howarth: As those with plenty to do always have time to do a little more, I think that we have a nomination from the hon. Member for Burnley. Given his qualification as a previous trustee of two pension funds, he is ideally qualified. We are making progress.
In contrast with the situation in which the Labour party finds itself, apparently having too many Members committed in other places, the Conservative party has 165 hon. Members, the lowest number for many a long year, but, despite my right hon. and hon. Friends' responsibilities in the House as her Majesty's loyal Opposition, we have nominated my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who has a distinguished record of service in government and as

1059
Leader of the House and understands how the House works—a volunteer, not a press-ganged man—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who is not in the Chamber today but is also a Conservative appointee, willingly serving.
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have appropriate experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West is the adviser to the British Insurance and Investment Brokers' Association, and so has relevant experience, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, is a non-executive director of London and Manchester, dealing with pensions.
The Opposition have discharged their responsibility to the House to nominate as trustees those with relevant experience who can bring something to the corporate body of hon. Members who need to ensure that their pension fund is in safe hands.
I do not cast aspersions on Labour Members, but we do not know them.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman said that this is a non-partisan issue, without party divisions, but has he not argued that there will be Conservative Members on it with satisfactory credentials? When the matter was debated on Monday, aspersions were clearly cast on the nomination of the Liberal Democrats, who is an hon. Member with wide industrial and commercial experience who is entirely suited to the membership of the body. The trustees represent a variety of ages, politics and experiences who, taken together, form a sound body. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?
Mr. Howarth: Frankly, that is garbage. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That is simply not true. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was chief economist at Shell. I do not dispute that he has something to offer from outside, but he has no knowledge of the workings of the House. He has six months' experience of being a Member, so he has no breadth of experience of the difficulties that hon. Members face.
Ms Joan Walley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I shall give way provided that the hon. Lady does not accuse me of prolonging the debate.
Ms Walley: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the proceedings of the House, would it not be better if we could make some progress and get on to the debate on how we run the place?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I promised that I would not speak for too long, so I shall begin to wind up my remarks because the next debate is on an important matter.
1060
I hope that my right hon. Friends and I have made the point. We do not wish to attack the external credentials of the Labour nominees, but it is a mistake for the House to appoint as trustees too many hon. Members who do not have the relevant experience of this place. That is the issue about which we feel strongly. We shall have to decide whether to divide the House.
4.49 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I have been in the House longer than anyone who has spoken in the debate, with the exception of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who has taken a keen interest in this matter for a long time. He implied that previous committees of the great and the good had perhaps not done as good a job as some of those who advocate that more of the great and the good should be trustees might think.
On Monday night, I offered to listen to suggestions from any hon. Member who was concerned about this issue, but only one raised the matter with me. After listening to contributions from Conservative Members, I think that we will have an experienced group of trustees. It will comprise Opposition Members, some new blood and at least one hon. Member with experience of one Parliament. Overall, it will be a pretty balanced group in which we can have confidence.
Conservative Members have not quite decided whether they are or are not attacking the individuals who have been nominated. They have not made their case by arguing that some of the Labour nominees are too inexperienced. By definition, this is not a party political activity. If the trustees include new Members, Members with some experience, Members with great experience, people with knowledge of the pensions industry and GPS with useful experience, we will have a group in which I have more confidence than perhaps I would have had, if we had not had the debate. We have considered the many aspects that the trustees will have to cover and the qualities that they should have.
I have no concerns about the make-up of the trustees. Hon. Members who want to serve are doing us all a service. Instead of their being pilloried, the House should be grateful that they are willing to serve on our behalf.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. John MacGregor, Dr Nick Palmer, Dr Howard Stoate, Ms Gisela Stuart and Paddy Tipping be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in pursuance of Section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

  HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND
  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Dr. Nick Palmer, Dr. Howard Stoate and Ms Gisela Stuart be appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.—[Mr. McFall.]

Modernisation of the House
4.52 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: The Legislative Process (HC 190).
I am pleased that we have now come to the debate on this important topic. Many hon. Members are pleased that the Select Committee on Modernisation has produced a report so quickly. Soon after the general election, in the debates on the Gracious Speech and in subsequent debates, hon. Members showed that there is a great desire for modernisation. What struck many of us was that not just new Members are interested in changing our procedures, but many experienced hon. Members who have been in the House for some time want better procedures so that their time can be put to better use.
It becomes obvious to hon. Members who have been in the House for some time that some debates are not as fruitful, productive and enlightening as they could be, although I draw no conclusions from the previous debate. Some hon. Members may feel that that hour could have been better spent, and that one of the lessons to be learned is that if all hon. Members did their homework before they came into the Chamber, the debates would be of a better quality, although that aspect is not yet being considered by the Committee.
At the general election, the Labour party promised to put the issue of the modernisation of the House of Commons on the agenda, and to establish a Select Committee to examine the topic. We are discussing the Committee's first report and its progress to date. I hope that the debate and the responses of hon. Members by letter or through discussions will enable the Committee to set priorities for its future work. We intend to consider the parliamentary year and the parliamentary week, the conduct of debate in the Chamber and the scrutiny of European legislation.
I shall begin by referring to the report and its specific recommendations. I hope that our proposals and the reasons for them are clear from the report, which was agreed unanimously. When the Committee was first established and the names of its members were published, there was some doubt as to whether it could proceed on the basis of unanimity, but we worked extremely well as a Committee. I pay tribute to members of the Committee for their appreciation of the mood for change that has been evident in the House.
To some people, any discussion of the procedures of the House may seem dry and boring. Perhaps that is inevitable. If the changes that the Committee has suggested could be made to work—which could happen only with the good will of all hon. Members—we would make better use of parliamentary time, and the scrutiny of Bills would be more appropriate. The procedure would be more flexible, so that the treatment of each Bill would depend on what was appropriate for that legislation.
The Committee is grateful for the comments of the Chairmen's Panel. We appreciate the fact that it considered the report quickly, and its response has been very positive. The points that it has raised and the items that it wants us to examine in further detail can usefully be discussed. We are grateful for its constructive comments.
1062
The Committee dealt with a range of issues. We discussed the possibility of programming certain Bills to make better use of the time available, and to ensure that the different parts of a Bill are discussed appropriately. We have come up with suggestions for greater flexibility, particularly in Standing Committees. For example, the new clause procedure could be used when discussing every part of the Bill. Instead of discussing all the amendments and then having a clause stand part of the debate at the end, we could, in Committee, have a clause stand part debate at the beginning, and then move on to consider amendments once the Committee had decided to accept the principle of the clause. That would allow members of the Committee to discuss the clause, and amendments to it, more constructively, which would benefit everyone.
Sir Peter Emery: According to paragraph 16 of the Chairmen's Panel report on the Modernisation Committee's proposals concerning the legislative process, the panel's members
"see some difficulty in adapting to this method of proceeding."
We would be wise to consider that with some care. I do not want to raise hopes that we are going to do something until we are certain about it.
Mrs. Taylor: I have discussed the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means. I understand that the Chairmen's Panel would like an experiment to be carried out—not just in one or two Standing Committees; a more widespread experiment. That would allow the changes to be experienced in different sets of circumstances. Perhaps we were not being adventurous enough for the Chairmen's Panel. There is, however, a constructive point to be made: if we are to conduct experiments, they must be sufficiently extensive for us to learn something from them. 1 do not think that I am breaking any confidences when I say that, when I spoke to the Chairman of Ways and Means, I undertook to consider that recommendation and to discuss it further, bearing the Panel's views in mind. I thought that those views showed a constructive approach to our suggestions.
Much of what the Modernisation Committee says suggests that we should use the existing procedures of the House in a more imaginative way than we sometimes do. I think that many hon. Members—including, perhaps, some members of the Committee—were struck by the flexibility that already exists in our proceedings. We often do not take advantage of that flexibility, using routine procedures as a matter of course. The diagram at the back of the Committee's report is very illuminating. There is much that we can do to improve the position if there is good will throughout the House. When we want change, we should make that change on an experimental basis. We should not rush to presume that the Committee has uncovered every detail of the change that is required—and, certainly, the Committee did not approach its work in that way. For the Government's part, I submitted a memorandum to the Committee, which has been published. We welcomed the report, and will of course co-operate in trying to ensure that the proposed changes work in practice.
The section on draft Bills, which was in the memorandum, has found general favour. We have also said that we will introduce—this year, I hope—seven draft Bills, and I hope that it will be possible for at least some

1063
of them to be considered by the departmental Select Committees with the aim of improving decision making and giving Back Benchers a more constructive role. I am pleased to say that the Select Committee on Social Security—which is chaired by a Liberal Democrat—has already agreed that, when the draft Bill on pension sharing is ready, it will conduct an investigation, and try to ensure that the Bill's proposals are workable. I believe that, had we adopted a similar approach when, for example, the Child Support Agency was introduced, we would not have our present problems.
Draft Bills can be used to deal with other problems that arise from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly publish a draft Bill dealing with rapid-draw lotteries, which are causing concern to many people but on which it will take time to legislate. A draft Bill will enable others to see what proposals are ready, and we can legislate when we find a slot. Draft legislation can play a constructive role, and, when it deals with significant issues such as pension sharing, it will benefit everyone if a Select Committee is involved. There is agreement on that now.
It is possible that not all the Committee's recommendations can be tried out this year. It may not be possible to try out enough of them to conduct a proper experiment. For instance, I cannot at this stage mention a suitable Bill for a rollover experiment. Perhaps, over the next few months, an issue will emerge to which the Government will want to respond—or will be under pressure from the Opposition to respond—and legislation will be required, to be dealt with by a Special Standing Committee. On that basis, we might want to recommend such a Bill for rollover: I do not rule that out. The Government, however, will not manufacture such a Bill simply to test the procedure. We should keep an open mind, and use the suggestions in the Committee's report as appropriate.
This is an unusual year. It is the first year of a new Parliament, and the first year of any new Parliament generally involves a heavy legislative programme. That was the case under earlier Conservative Governments, and the legislative programme of a new Government who have been out of office for 18 years is particularly heavy in the first year. It may not be possible to assess the full impact of the proposed changes, because they cannot be assessed against the background of the weight of business in a normal year. I hope, however, that we can test as many of the new proposals as possible, and that most of them—perhaps with minor modifications—will prove useful to the House.
Some of the changes recommended by the Modernisation Committee have already been implemented. Let me give some examples, which may seem minor to those outside the House but have, I think, been helpful to Members of Parliament. One of the first pressures that we experienced came from new Members who were appalled at the congestion in the Lobbies. We examined the problem urgently, and suggested that a third desk should be used. That alleviated—but did not solve—the problem of congestion at voting times. After the Committee made that recommendation, the House implemented it swiftly; we were grateful for that.
1064
The Committee will consider other possible changes in voting procedure in the new Session, and will take evidence about the possibility of electronic voting. It has not been decided to adopt such a system yet. I think that one point on which all members of the Committee are agreed is that, whatever changes are made, voting should take place either in the Chamber or in the Lobbies—in the vicinity of the Chamber, rather than remote from it. The Committee is still considering the matter, however, and is seeking extra evidence.
We also—you, Madam Speaker, are aware of this as much as anyone—made recommendations on changing the Order Paper, and you authorised the introduction of the new Order Paper after the summer recess. The response was much more significant than I had thought it would be—Members seemed really to welcome the change. Members of the press in particular were somewhat puzzled by the fact that they could now understand what was going to happen later in the day.
It may be possible to make even more improvements to the Order Paper and to build on what we have done so far. One or two suggestions have been made and if hon. Members have any other ideas we will, of course, consider them. One that has been mentioned to me is to incorporate into the Order Paper once a week the times and nature of Select Committee sittings when evidence is being taken, so that Members have further warning of what is happening. Sometimes, they do not realise until the morning that such a sitting is taking place and, by that time, they have other commitments.
Another matter that may seem technical and dry, but which is important, is the explanatory memorandum. Some legislation has already gone through the House and new Members in particular may have been somewhat puzzled by some of the information that accompanies a Bill. The so-called explanatory material is often as difficult to comprehend as the Bill. It can often be extremely technical and it does not always give a full picture of exactly what the Bill does. Often it uses the same technical language as the Bill. That problem has caused concern for many years. Committee members shared my concern about that, as did the Parliamentary Counsel Office, which is responsible for the drafting of Bills and of explanatory memorandums.
Ministers have often provided at least notes on clauses. Sometimes, those are informative; sometimes they too simply echo the clauses to Committees. That does not seem to take us much further forward. What is required is one document that sets out in non-technical terms the key points that are needed to grasp what a Bill does and how it will do it. We suggest that there should be changes on the part of Government when a Bill is presented. The First Parliamentary Counsel has been working to provide a new document, which might be called "The Explanatory Notes to a Bill", and would replace the existing explanatory memorandum and notes on clauses. To have such a document published for the assistance of Members would be a significant step forward and, of course, it could be made more widely available—including, I would hope, on the internet.
The only sensible way in which to judge the value of this proposal is to consider examples, so I am going to write to each member of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, setting out some of the detailed proposals, including an example or two of what a new set of explanatory notes could look

1065
like. I shall ensure that those examples are placed in the Library, so that other Members can see them and comment. Then the Committee might wish to discuss what advice it wants to give to the Government in terms of proceeding along those lines. It would be helpful if we informed Members in a better way exactly what the purpose and contents of Bills are.
All those things are not exactly earth shattering. Some people would say that we would not have had any changes had they been so, but they mark real progress and there is certainly much more to do. Some people said a few months ago, "When will you modernise Parliament?", as if modernisation were one event. None of us on the Committee thought of modernisation as one event. It is a process and we have started well on it, but there is much more work to come.
Ms Joan Walley: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention how pleased I am with the progress in respect of legislation? That is absolutely crucial, but a further aspect concerns me as well, which I hope the Committee will have an opportunity to move on to because it is important, too. It is how Parliament has proper scrutiny through Select Committees of what the Government are doing. May I bring to her attention the work and recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a current member and on which I have sat previously? Recommendations in its report relate to the Crown jewels procedure and to whether we should have a procedure for parliamentary investigations instigated by the House or by Select Committees. In certain circumstances, such a parliamentary investigation could perhaps have more resources than Select Committees currently have for particular inquiries. I urge her to consider that issue, too, when we have got through this legislative programme for improving our procedures.
Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has done much work on Select Committees and I value her expertise. I cannot promise that we will recommend the changes that she suggests, but we will certainly come on to the work of Select Committees. All Members at that stage will have an opportunity to feed in their ideas and she will be able to expand on hers at that time.
On the future work of the Select Committee, let me remind Members of the work that we are doing immediately and in the near future. We are doing further work on the feasibility and desirability of electronic voting, and we are considering the way in which the parliamentary year, parliamentary week and parliamentary day are scheduled. We have had a couple of interesting and open discussions, although no conclusions have been drawn. We are going to consider the conduct of debate in the House and the scrutiny of European legislation. All are areas of concern to many Members. We received many representations on them when the Committee was first established.
I should be happy to hear more from Members this evening about what their priorities are, but I know that there are conflicts in the views of different Members from different parts of the country or in different groups. All Members should appreciate that there are no easy solutions to these problems.
Following the Jopling changes, surveys were done and the information that we have already from Members shows us that, in some respects, there is an agreed pattern
1066
of what a parliamentary week should be. Most Members believe that Parliament should sit from Monday lunch time to Thursday tea time. Many think that there should be no very late nights, although London Members would define late nights differently from Select Committee members, as would northern Members.
There is concern about the fact that Parliament sits so much when schools are on holiday and it is half term. There are demands for constituency weeks, for early notices of the recess, for no diminution in the power of Back Benchers and for the Government not to use guillotines, yet there is also a requirement for Government to get their legislation through. It is clear that all those objectives are not compatible. Different Members legitimately have different priorities. For some Members, the priority is to be in this Chamber. For others, it is to serve on a Select Committee. Some will specialise in European legislation or regional advocacy and others will want to spend a lot of time representing the interests of their constituents, perhaps at constituency level.
It is impossible to please everyone, but we are trying to devise a system that will allow all 659 Members to undertake their jobs in their individual way—in the way that they think is most appropriate to their constituents. That is the difficulty with which we wrestle. Every hon. Member carries out their job in a different way, according to what they think is appropriate for their constituency. We have to provide a framework to enable them to do that.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The right hon. Lady was describing the different ways in which Members of Parliament approach their job. Will she accept that, in the circumstances that she has described, it would be impossible to lay out a job description for Members of Parliament? Will she resist the calls that I understand are being made to produce such a document?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that our constituents would be surprised to learn that there is no job description for Members of Parliament. The problem is that one runs into significant difficulties as soon as one attempts to write such a document. That is why I acknowledge that all Members of Parliament do their considerable job in very different ways. The priorities I have expressed, such as the Chamber, Select Committees and constituency work, are all legitimate priorities. I suspect that all hon. Members would, or at least should, acknowledge that they have to cover all those points at some stage during their parliamentary life.
We need a framework to allow Members of Parliament to do their job in the way that they each think fit. At the same time, we have to deliver good government, and that is a tall order. We have to ensure that we satisfy everybody and that everybody can undertake their work as they wish.
From the responses we have had it is easy to see how different the priorities are. Some people ask for more time for Adjournment debates, some are demanding more morning sittings and some object to any morning sittings at all because they want to get on with their constituency work. We have had demands for early evening finishes or for Committees to sit in the evening. We have had objections to such proposals from Members with constituencies in different parts of the country; they take a different view. The Committee will have to take on board all those different views.

1067
The Committee is aware that there is consensus for change, but we also know that there is not yet consensus about what that change should be. It is important that the Committee should formulate ideas in the context of keeping in touch with hon. Members. That is why we will continue to encourage hon. Members to feed in information and to keep in touch with members of the Committee.
We have had many suggestions about the Chamber that I know will interest you, Madam Speaker, and your Deputy Speakers and Chairmen. There have been suggestions that Question Time should be in the morning rather than the afternoon and that the House should rise at 7 o'clock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There have been suggestions that the House should never sit on Fridays and that we should use Tuesday and Thursday mornings for Committees of the whole House.
All those suggestions have some logic and my hon. Friends are saying "Hear, hear." to some of them. If we did all of them, we would get no business through at all, especially if we had constituency weeks as well. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) approves of the idea of us getting no business through. He has already proved today that he is not a moderniser so I would expect nothing less from him.
Mr. Eric Forth indicated assent.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad to have that confirmed.
During the next few weeks, we will be discussing the conduct of debates in the House. That is necessary because there have been so many changes in attitude to debate over the years and because some of the normal courtesies of the House seem to have gone out of the window. We saw that yesterday during the introduction of the new Member with some of the most appalling scenes I have seen in the House for some time.
When the new Members first arrived in the House they looked for quick solutions such as suggesting that every speech should be limited to 10 minutes. There have been suggestions that Privy Counsellors should not be given precedence in debate. There have been discussions about wigs, top hats and about referring to Members by name rather than by constituency. We have reached no decisions on those matters and our main concern will be to ensure that the House functions properly and that good use is made of the time of hon. Members.
The Select Committee has made a good start on the process of change, but it is a process. I hope that the House will support the report and assist the Committee in its future work.
5.24 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: As the Leader of the House has pointed out, the report has been agreed unanimously by the Committee and we all welcome that. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) have been in touch with her to explain that they had engagements which predated their membership of the Committee and that that was why they could not be here today.
1068
The Opposition welcome the Committee's recognition, in examining proposals for change, of the principles laid down by a distinguished predecessor of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). In his evidence to the Jopling Committee, he said:
"the position of Government must not be undermined and the Government of the day must still be able to get its business;
the Opposition must have adequate opportunity to oppose and its legitimate rights must be sustained;
back benchers must have adequate scope to raise matters of concern to them or their constituents, but a balance has to be struck between unlimited freedom for back benchers and the efficient operating of Parliament as a law-making body."
The Leader of the House has illustrated the difficulty of balancing competing claims. She has given examples of the type of demands that are made of the process of modernisation. The Committee's report reflects the principles laid down by my right hon. Friend.
What will he particularly helpful is the insistence that the various options for change should be tried out on an experimental basis and the view that comments from hon. Members and others will be an important part of any change. It has been interesting to receive comments from new Members and to set those alongside the views of more seasoned members of the Committee and others. I believe that the report is a little optimistic in the way that it thinks we can deal with the red-in-tooth-and-claw nature of political activity in the House. However, the experimental approach adopted will at least demonstrate those areas where easier progress can be made.
The Opposition's view has been guided consistently by the conviction that Parliament—the House of Commons and the other place—is one of the principal and foremost institutions of the British constitution. That constitution is rooted in the notion that Parliament is sovereign and that the laws of our land can be made and repealed only by Acts of that Parliament. It is a matter of regret that the Government, in their ill-thought-out dash for votes in Scotland and Wales, have not so far allowed sufficient time for consideration of the implications for Parliament and for our constitution of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
I believe that the Government's plans for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law call into question the sovereignty of Parliament. In contrast, our attitude to reform has always been that change to one of the principle pillars of our constitution should be evolutionary. So far, thankfully, that has been the Modernisation Committee's approach. We are not opposed to sensible examination of the way in which Parliament works. Indeed, it has been under Conservative Governments that some of the most far-reaching and beneficial constitutional reforms have been introduced—notably, the Jopling reforms on which the Committee has built its work.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has expressed her support for the report, but does she share my unease about the analysis in paragraph 8? It says:
"The Committee stage of a Bill, which is meant to be the occasion when the details of the legislation are scrutinised, has often tended to be devoted to political partisan debate rather than constructive and systematic scrutiny."
Does my right hon. Friend share my problem with that, which is that that analysis, which is fairly accurate, is based on the experience of the last few Parliaments,

1069
when the Labour party was in opposition? Does she share my regret that we have not had an opportunity to see how the new parliamentary regime works with we Conservatives in opposition, where we might oppose more effectively? Does she therefore share my unease at the proposals emerging from the one-sided analysis?
Mrs. Shephard: As I said, I think that the report is a little optimistic in the way in which it tends to ignore the political nature of activities in the House, which, after all, is one of the points of its existence. However, as we do not intend to be in opposition for very long, my right hon. Friend's anxiety is perhaps ill-founded and needless.
The previous Government produced a balanced package of improvements to parliamentary procedure in response to the Jopling report. They introduced more practical working hours, constituency Fridays, private Members' business on Wednesday mornings, more notice of business and recess dates, more voluntary timetabling of Bills and opportunities for the whole House to debate Select Committee reports.
I was most interested in what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said about Select Committees. This is absolutely in parenthesis, but I, too, have my concerns—having been hauled up before Select Committees in various ministerial guises—about the ways in which some Select Committees go. I shall take careful note of the examples that she has drawn to the attention of the House to see what lessons can be learned when the Modernisation Committee considers Select Committees.
Ms Walley: It is crucial that Select Committees play an important part in what goes on. I believe that the Environment Sub-Committee—a new Select Committee which has been set up since the election—along with the Public Accounts Committee, provided that it has adequate resources, could make important progress.
Mrs. Shephard: As I said, I am very interested in what the hon. Lady says. May I ask the Leader of the House whether we are to consider Select Committees eventually? There will be varied experiences among the Committee's members—hon. Members who have served on Committees, chaired Committees and been grilled by them. The examples quoted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North are useful. There should be an opportunity to consider things in depth. Although I am not being asked to say all this, I do not think that Select Committees should be asked to respond instantly to the political flavour of the moment. Their work ought to be more on-going, but that has not always been so.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Lady asked about the modernisation of Select Committees. We shall, of course, have to decide that in due course. I hope that we will get around to considering Select Committees, but I do not regard it as an immediate priority—not least because I think that most people believe that Select Committees work quite well.
Mrs. Shephard: The right hon. Lady heard what her hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said. Of course we have a great deal of work in front of us in any case before we get to Select Committees.
I was going through what the previous Government did in response to the Jopling report. It is worth mentioning that the Chairman of Ways and Means conveyed to the
1070
Modernisation Committee his view that the Jopling reforms have resulted in a marked improvement in the way in which business has been conducted in the House in recent years.
The Chairman of Ways and Means pointed out some of the strengths of the present system, such as the appointment of a separate Committee for each Bill, the fact that the process of detailed consideration and confrontation is carried out in public and the tradition of impartial chairmanship. He also pointed out that many of the existing flexibilities were not used fully. That is a really important point: it was flagged up by the Leader of the House and I hope that the Modernisation Committee will return to it. It is ludicrous that we are not using all the opportunities available to us, while trying to find new ones. I know that we shall return to that matter.
Some of the Committee's discussions have illustrated the inherent difficulties of introducing any change at all. The Government of the day—and certainly Ministers of any party—perceive any change as a threat to their ability to get legislation through. Opposition parties in turn are suspicious that any change might prejudice their ability either to criticise or to oppose. Some hon. Members—mostly, although not exclusively, the newer ones—have been at pains to point out the way in which parliamentary procedure is not always perceived flatteringly in the outside world. We have, however, all been able to agree that some practical change is possible. The fact that all changes will be introduced on an experimental basis is welcome.
The Modernisation Committee has sought to increase consultation with Members and the House as a whole before Bills are introduced, to allow time for Members to receive representations from interested parties, and to change procedures and, it must be said, the prevalent culture so that Bills can often be changed after their formal introduction. A macho attitude prevents such change from occurring. Pre-legislative scrutiny—there should be more of it and it should be more systematic—is intended to ease that process and, as the report said, make any change before the whole thing is set in concrete less of a climbdown for Ministers.
The Committee has sought to organise the business of the House so that activity is more evenly spaced throughout the year—although, frankly, that will be hugely difficult, given the competing claims already described by the Leader of the House. The Committee has also sought to maintain the flexibility that is obviously required in any legislative system to cope with an unforeseen situation that has to be legislated for. There have been many such examples in the previous Parliament and other Parliaments, and there will be examples in this one. It clearly makes much sense that there should be more opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation.
There should also be as much clarity as possible in proceedings, from the explanatory material published with Bills right through to the Order Paper. I am glad that the changes to the Order Paper have been well received.
There are ideas for more flexibility in the arrangements for Committee sittings and for experimenting with the ways in which a Standing Committee considers clauses in order to encourage more constructive consideration. All the ideas are sensible.

1071
The Opposition have made it clear that we would, however, strongly resist any suggestion that there should be change to what "Erskine May" calls
"the regular practice for Government bills of first class constitutional importance to be committed to a Committee of the whole House".
Our view to that effect is recorded in the Committee's report. We reject suggestions from some that there might somehow be problems with definition or with ordering such business or that the House is incapable of scrutinising such Bills adequately and in detail.
The Leader of the House has chaired the Committee with skill and, on occasion, the patience of at least a minor saint—and that was only with those on her own side. I name no names. We on the Opposition Benches accept the report, while putting down a marker about our reservations on the treatment of constitutional Bills. Clearly, the report is one thing and what the Government intend to do about it is another. The Leader of the House gave some indications in her opening speech of the Government's ideas.
The Chairmen's Panel has expressed its view on the report's implications for the Chairman's role. We must take great notice of that. The work that our Chairmen do as impartial arbiters in Committees and elsewhere in the House is of inestimable importance. We need to take very seriously the points that they make.
I must give notice that we shall scrutinise the Standing Orders carefully when they are eventually placed before the House, in the interests both of the official Opposition and of the House. In particular, we shall examine the proposals for changes in timetabling business to see whether what is proposed will achieve a more consensual approach to a contentious and potent political issue or whether we are merely considering more user-friendly terminology.
One way of achieving the genuine consensus described in the report might be for timetabling motions to be required to be submitted in the name not only of the Leader of the House but of the shadow Leader of the House and the leaders of other Opposition parties. There will be time to discuss all that. Perhaps the Leader of the House might like to consider it.
Mention has been made of changes in attitude towards debate in the House. As we are talking about matters of great importance to the House, I must express some regret at the reputation that, sadly, the Government have earned already for a contempt for Parliament and all its works. I must make my feelings clear, although I will be brief. It is a matter of regret that Prime Minister's questions take place only once a week. It is a matter of regret that the announcement of the operational independence of the Bank of England was made not by a statement to the House but by a press conference. It is a matter of regret that we had an announcement of the Government's policy on the European single currency, again not by a statement but by telephone calls by the Chancellor's press secretary. Those calls caused enormous fluctuations on the equity markets, affecting the value of the future pensions of millions of people. Other unfortunate blips have occurred when, for example, the Minister of Transport did not turn up for an Adjournment debate at all.
Members of Parliament have not been elected to be made over—a process to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred this
1072
afternoon—or to be on message, or to stay submissively silent until paged to speak. That is not what their constituents expect and is not what parliamentary democracy is about. Sensible, evolutionary reform can strengthen our parliamentary democracy: we support it. Contempt for Parliament and its conventions weakens our democracy and our country: we will not allow that to happen.
5.40 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is clear that my right hon. Friend intends to be a reforming Leader of the House, following in the footsteps of Dick Crossman and Norman St. John-Stevas. The best time to undertake reform is in the early years of a Parliament and I am pleased that she is doing so.
I wish to make one point about our practice of calling hon. Members by their constituencies rather than by their names. I have always been proud to be the Member of Parliament for Ashton-under-Lyne. It is my constituency and I am here not because I am myself, but because I represent the people of my constituency. It would be a retrograde step if we were to abandon that practice.
The House is now a more full-time House than it has been in the past. One example is that, when I arrive in the morning, at 9 o'clock or sometimes earlier, many more hon. Members are around. Incidentally, the Vote Office is closed until 9.30 am, and we should change that so that it is open earlier for Members' convenience.
The main burden of today's debate is the scrutiny of legislation. We must remember that Standing Committees are really ad hoc committees and their members do not necessarily have any relevant expertise. They are brought together to scrutinise some legislation without necessarily having much of a background in the subject. Of course, some members will have some background knowledge, but the advantage of the involvement of a Select Committee is that its members do have a background in the subject.
The big problem with the way in which Standing Committees currently operate is that it involves the silent being hectored by the voluble. Members of the Standing Committee from the governing party do nothing, although they may be very able and well equipped to contribute. It is a major scandal that our legislation on important issues is dealt with in that way, but that has happened because the Opposition's principal weapon is the power of delay. The best example of the use of that power that I can recall was by lain Macleod in 1967, when we introduced a Standing Committee to scrutinise the Finance Bill. Before that, Finance Bills were always taken on the Floor of the House. The then Leader of the House, Dick Crossman, suggested that the Finance Bill be taken in Committee, but that was wildly resented by the Opposition. Iain Macleod, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, spent one and half days in Committee Room 10 talking about the temperature of the Room. That was very effective, because it brought about the realisation that the Opposition had rights. As a result, a sensible and effective compromise was reached, whereby the Opposition could choose matters for debate on the Floor of the House and other matters could be taken in Committee.
The problem now is that the Opposition's power of delay has been eroded, through the increased use of the guillotine. The Whips have also tended to use their power

1073
to ensure that dissentient voices are not heard so frequently in Standing Committees. As a result, Standing Committees no longer resemble the bodies that existed in the past. I well recall the Rooker-Wise amendment, because I was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time. The two Members of Parliament after whom the amendment was named could not be shut up, and when I heard that they were to be members of the Standing Committee I went straight to the Chief Whip and said that that would cost us £500 million. The actual cost was £1 billion, but those two hon. Members were right. However, that situation is not likely to happen often.
Another problem is that senior Ministers do not attend Standing Committees as they used to in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used to handle the Finance Bill. Now it is not even the second Minister who attends, but the third Minister. If a senior Minister is present and has to go through the night, he or she tends to be more convinced by the Opposition's arguments. Now, the third Minister may complain about being kept all night, but the Secretary of State in charge gets up in the morning and waves the objections aside. That is understandable, because he or she wants the legislation to go through.
I have come to the conclusion, much to the disgust of many of my right hon. Friends, that the hopes of compromises in Committee have had their day. The Opposition can no longer use the power of delay in the same way, so we should now ensure that legislation is sensibly examined. On several occasions, legislation has fallen seriously below an acceptable standard, and that has happened when a Government have been sure that their actions were right and the Opposition—having only a truncated power of delay—fail to make any changes to it.
As a result, I now believe that timetabling is essential. Timetabling can be to the advantage of the Opposition, as well as the Government, because there must be a trade-off. The Government get their business through and the Opposition get time. That was the obvious trade-off in the past. In the past, the system was informal, but we must make it a little more formal, because the Opposition have the right to put their view and to be heard. I believe that timetabling will be the crucial issue affecting legislation. The most important date in the timetable is that for the Report stage, because a timetable is not so necessary after that.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right to say that we need the confidence to undertake experiments. Not every aspect of the modernisation process will be right first time, but if we allow for some variation we can find ways to make more permanent changes. That is the way to proceed.
I wish to deal with one or two particular aspects of the very useful Select Committee report. Paragraph 37 talks about Acts being written in clear language, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred rightly to explanatory notes. The net could be more widely used, but a major problem is how the notes will be looked at by lawyers and others implementing the Acts and considering the intentions of Parliament.
I have particular personal experience of that because, 20-odd years ago, I introduced the benefits-in-kind legislation, under which people were to be charged income tax on the benefits that they received during their work. We went right through several nights running and I—with a small team in those days—tried to explain why
1074
the measure was essential. To my surprise, many years later a procedure was introduced whereby what I said became a part of the intentions of the Government and was used to interpret the Act. I had to look at what I had said at 3 o'clock in the morning in the hope that it made sense. Luckily, it did. I am not sure how fortuitous that was.
Clearly, Ministers replying now try—as they should—to expound the principles behind an amendment or other measure, but they should try also to achieve some compromise wherever possible. If they have to bear it in mind that what they say will be interpreted in this way as part of the Act, they will be more constrained. I am uneasy about the fact that the explanatory notes—which are not intended to be a part of the Act—could be shown to give an understanding of what was behind Parliament's intentions. This was never considered 20 years ago, but is now part of the fabric of our legal system.
Paragraph 97 of the Modernisation Committee's report suggests that the Chairman could be given new powers to limit the length of speeches. Clearly, that would apply only when a filibuster was under way. In my experience of Standing Committees, that is much of the time. A greater problem is that, in a Committee, one can speak more than once. That is justifiable, because the point of a Committee is that, after listening to colleagues and to Opposition Members, one may find something that, perhaps, one had not thought of before. How will the Chairman be certain that a filibuster is taking place? Our colleagues are ingenious; they do not read out the telephone directory, as they know that the Chairman would not allow it.
The report referred to Select Committees meeting during the recess, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the importance of Select Committees. Select Committees have met during the recess—one of the great things we saw was the enthusiasm for Select Committees, which I wholly admire. We need to improve their work. When I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, I found that, when I arrived there at 9 o'clock in the morning, the minutes of the previous day's meeting were available. When we have a Select Committee, we receive the minutes three weeks later. I know that special arrangements can be made to have them within 24 hours, but even that is not good enough. I spoke to Lord Nolan and those involved in his committee to see how they achieved that. I shall visit my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to discuss this—I do not expect an answer now.
What happens in Select Committees is important—frequently more important than occasions on the Floor of the House—and we need to get their proceedings involved in the parliamentary process. Hon. Members must come here with evidence from Committees and integrate it into a consideration of the political problems of the day. Many members of a Select Committee—Chairmen included—are asked to comment on the previous day's proceedings. They must be careful because, although they have privilege in the Committee, they do not when they appear on radio or television or are reported in the newspapers. They may not be sure exactly what was said, unless they have the minutes.
The reports could be part of the general structure of the parliamentary day, rather than the cold porridge that so many of them are now. Some of the most important

1075
evidence is not read. Who will read it three weeks' later—unless one has a particular interest? If yesterday's evidence were available, people would queue up to read it.
We must look at ways of monitoring and following up the reports of Select Committees. I know that we have three days of debates—I welcome that—but a proper follow-up is just as important. Was the Committee right in coming to a conclusion? Only time can tell. If we want to see what time has told, we must see what has happened in the meantime. The Public Accounts Commission has a superb system, involving the National Audit Office, to deal with 50 reports every year. If the Government agree with the Committee's conclusions, the NAO checks that they have implemented what they said they would. If they disagree, we see next year whether the Committee was right, or the Government.
Ms Walley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Environmental Audit Committee had those facilities, that would make an enormous difference to the role which it plays in seeing whether the Government are making progress?
Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I hope that the Liaison Committee will act as a clearing house for some of the new ideas. The Treasury Select Committee is undertaking what may be called "confirmatory hearings", and those will be useful in examining the Committee's role in some matters. I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to discuss some possibilities. Clearly, she intends to be a reforming Leader of the House. I welcome her appointment and her actions here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I will call the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) next. May I just say that many right hon. and hon. Members are interested in taking part in the debate? Unless those speaking discipline themselves, all Members will not be called. I would not dream of inhibiting the right hon. Member for South Norfolk.
5.58 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: I shall try to be as concise as possible, Madam Speaker. I speak as a supporter of appropriate modernisation, as I hope I demonstrated when I was Leader of the House—not least in setting up the Jopling Committee. My only regret about that is that there was insufficient time between the Committee's report and the 1992 general election to enable me to implement its recommendations.
I take the point of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that it is sometimes easier to get changes through in the earlier part of a Parliament than the latter part. I was pleased that my long-standing friend and ex-colleague Tony Newton, as Leader of the House, was able to make the reforms, with great co-operation from the present Leader of the House.
I wish to make a few general points before I deal with one or two specific proposals. First, I want to refer to the importance of carrying the House on any changes. This is partly a cultural point and partly a practical point.
1076
Paragraph 17 of the report says:
"Another major factor in the largely inflexible approach to legislation adopted hitherto is essentially that of the culture of the House."
I agree with the point about culture, but I do not think that we have been inflexible: many changes have been made and the report builds on them. The paragraph is absolutely right when it says that
"there must be a will in all parts of the House to achieve cooperation wherever it is possible."
I am glad that the Leader of the House acknowledged that when she spoke about good will on all sides.
The will to co-operate was in my mind when I set up the Jopling Committee and it is why I sought to have hon. Members of all parties and of different ages and experience on it. Many people then thought—as the Leader of the House said was thought about the present Committee—that it would not be possible to reach agreement in that Committee, but it was, and that was of huge benefit in getting the changes through.
When I was an Opposition Whip, then a Government Whip, then a Minister in various Departments, before becoming Leader of the House, I was frequently struck by the fact that the procedures of the House are such that a determined minority—often a very small one—can hold up processes and make change almost impossible. Many who were then Opposition Members were expert at that, and one had to take that into account when making changes.
I underline the importance of what my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said when she stressed the importance of good will, especially among Government Back Benchers, and of the Government's approach to such matters in the House.
I was very disappointed when I heard a Labour Member say, I think, "Now you've spoilt it" while my right hon. Friend was speaking. That comment showed a potentially dangerous misunderstanding of the point that she was making. The hon. Gentleman who said it should be aware of that. There are all sorts of legitimate opportunities to hold matters up, sometimes simply to express the irritation of Members of Parliament who feel that they are being bypassed or that their role is being diminished.
Some of the abruptness and impatience that we have witnessed from the Government, supported by their Back Benchers, should not occur, because, if we are to get the changes through, as we all want, the Government must understand the sensitivities. If there is a feeling that Parliament is being bypassed or ignored or that its role is being diminished by the Government, it is less easy to put into effect the practical, commonsense changes that we think will benefit the House. The Government should be willing to put up with the odd filibuster, because there may be a good reason for it.
Paragraph 7 of the report refers to
"a distinct culture prevalent throughout Whitehall that the standing and reputation of Ministers have been dependent on their Bills getting through largely unchanged."
That may be true to some extent, but civil servants also feel that their reputation depends on resisting every amendment, even purely technical ones, to a Bill that they have been involved in drafting. As a Minister in charge of Bills I noticed that "Resist" was written above almost every amendment, even if the point was technical.

1077
If Parliament is to play its proper role in scrutinising legislation, Ministers must be willing to overrule their civil servants, who in turn should not feel that every bit of a Bill that they have drafted is inviolable. Sometimes a Bill comes back from another place with about 500 amendments; how much better it would be if they were made earlier.
I agree with all the criteria set out in paragraph 14, although some are more important than others. I want particularly to stress that
"All parts of a Bill must be properly considered".
That will lead me on later to a point or two about timetabling.
Paragraph 14(d) caught my eye. It says:
"The time and expertise of Members must be used to better effect."
I was glad that the report recognised Members' expertise. That brings me to a wider point, which is perhaps more relevant to the Nolan committee. I have always been a strong advocate of the House being composed of people with outside expertise, not derived only from their constituents, that they can bring to the workings of the House, especially in legislation. That is why I have always strongly advocated Members continuing to have outside interests. The report acknowledges that their expertise can be relevant on Bills and in other ways.
I strongly agree with the report's approach on flexibility and its recognition that not all Bills are the same, that some may be treated differently from others, and that we can experiment. One or two of the proposals will probably die a death in due course, but I am perfectly happy for us to experiment with them to find out whether they have a contribution to make.
The Government must recognise that several of the recommendations have a considerable time implication. If the Government are to implement them thoroughly, more parliamentary time will have to be given to Bills and there will have to be less legislation. That applies in particular to some of the suggestions in relation to First Reading.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman says that if we give more time to certain Bills we will have to extend the overall time and have less legislation. Does he agree that in the strict routine that we have for legislation we do not always need to give matters as much time as we do? We are very good at wasting time in the House. The fact that we want to extend time in one area does not mean that it could not be saved in other areas.
If we had more draft Bills and early legislation and got the legislation nearer to how it should be at that stage—I believe that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) agreed with that—it might go through more quickly. We need to be flexible and do what is most appropriate for each specific Bill.
Mr. MacGregor: One of my hobbies is mind reading, and as I made my last remark I could almost read the right hon. Lady's mind. I knew what she was thinking and I recognise her point, which is why I was treading fairly carefully. She is right in some respects, but I suspect that, in practice, when there is draft legislation followed by the normal processes, those processes may not necessarily be all that much shorter. The great merit will be that the House will pass more considered legislation. I hope that that will lead to our not having to revisit the legislation.
1078
One of our defects—I have been guilty of it myself as Leader of the House—is that we spend so little time considering the revisions by the House of Lords. It is a bit of a scandal that we sometimes make a large number of Lords amendments with hardly any consideration. Many of the amendments are technical, granted, but not all. We agree that the way in which both Houses consider legislation may become lengthier, but will be better.
I am not entirely enamoured of one or two of the specific proposals. I am not sure that they will be a permanent feature. I strongly agree with the drift of the report that permanent legislative Committees are not really the answer, for all the reasons set out in the report. I have some doubts whether the departmental Select Committee is the right place to consider legislation in draft because the membership is already decided for reasons other than the specific piece of legislation.
It may be better to have an ad hoc Select Committee, as the report recommends, because it will be possible to appoint people with specific expertise—in pensions, for example, as the Leader of the House said. The ad hoc Select Committee is probably the right way to take this forward, and 1 would like some experiments on that. I am doubtful about several of the First Reading Committee proposals, but let us see how they work.
I particularly favour two proposals: the ad hoc Select Committee, on which I do not intend to elaborate further, and the Special Standing Committee. As a very junior Minister—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry—I took through what I believe to have been the first Bill with a Special Standing Committee procedure attached to it. It concerned international exploitation of mineral resources, in particular manganese nodules, in the sea. It was a fairly technical Bill but interesting for me as a Minister and, I am sure, for all the Back Benchers. It was a worthwhile experience, and I am rather sad that we have not used the procedure more.
The Bill required many representations from big international companies and from the many scientists who were directly affected by it. The Special Standing Committee procedure, whereby Ministers and Back Benchers are able to question witnesses, meant that we all learned a great deal. I think that I learned more from that process than from the departmental briefing. We got agreement on some of the issues and therefore did not have to deal with them in the Bill's later stages.
Sir Peter Emery: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the recommendations for a Special Standing Committee procedure were made by the Procedure Committee in 1988–89 but seldom, if ever, carried out by the Government of which he was a member?
Mr. MacGregor: I said that sometimes I plead guilty. The Bill that I took through had an earlier form of Special Standing Committee procedure because it was in the early 1980s, before that recommendation. The principle and the benefits were the same.
I strongly agree with the report's sensible suggestions in paragraph 44 on greater flexibility on Special Standing Committee procedures. In the past, it has always been thought that Special Standing Committees are of greater relevance to non-political or highly technical Bills. They are relevant in those cases, but there will be politically contentious Bills that are not of the type to which we have

1079
previously applied the procedure but in respect of which there is much expert outside interest. The ability to probe witnesses in front of the Committee greatly adds to the strength of the process. I hope that it will be regarded as a measure not only for technical Bills but for others: some pensions Bills are an obvious example.
I concur with the widely expressed criticisms of the methods that we have used in Standing Committees. I do not need to rehearse the arguments because we are all familiar with them. We know how we got into situations where large parts of Bills were not considered and why they had to be guillotined and so forth. I believe—I said this when I was Leader of the House, although I know that it is not accepted by all right hon. and hon. Members—that timetabling has to be the right way to ensure that all parts of Bills are properly considered. That was the target that the Modernisation Committee set itself.
The result of the Jopling report was a voluntary agreement on timetabling in the previous Parliament, which I think worked well. It was greatly to the benefit of the House and, above all, to proper scrutiny of Bills. I am not sure that the more detailed and formal format now proposed is necessary, but I am again prepared to see how it works. I recognise that there may be contentious Bills where such a format is necessary to get agreement. In most cases, I hope that it can be done through the usual channels as in the previous Parliament. The matter lies at the heart of proper scrutiny of Bills and it is therefore important, whether done formally or informally, that it is carried through.
On the carry-over of Bills and paragraph 102 of the report, I think that it is right to have the flexibility that applies to private and hybrid Bills, not least because it is one way of handling the too frequent problem where many amendments come back from the House of Lords and we rush them through in the last three or four days. No one could argue that that is satisfactory. The problem arises because, inevitably, some Bills will be introduced later in the Session; they cannot all be done earlier. A genuine pressure on time causes that. Used sensibly, this proposal is a way of ensuring better scrutiny at that stage. That is why I have one point of doubt about another part of the report.
The report suggests that the new approach should apply if there is
"identification by the Government as early as possible of any Bill it wished to be subject to a carry-over procedure",
and
"that the procedure should only be used for Bills which are either to be subject to select committee type scrutiny or are introduced after a certain period in the session".
That is unnecessarily restrictive.
There may be occasions when a major Bill that is introduced early in the Session, but is not identified as one to which the procedure should apply undergoes many changes—especially in the other place. It may be better to allow a limited amount of carry-over than do what we have done in the past—give no attention to what the other place has done and have no opportunity to discuss the changes that it has made. I am in favour of the principle, but I hope that there will be flexibility.
1080
I hope that my remarks show that I applaud the Committee's work. The fact that it is unanimous is highly desirable. Above all, it will need good will, not least on the Government's side, to ensure that the new reforms work.
6.16 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Modernisation Committee's report. The Prime Minister has rightly said, both before and since the general election, that if we are to improve democracy we must address the problems of democracy in the way the House functions. That is what the Modernisation Committee is addressing. There is much that we will have to do.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made several points. I welcome his comments on rollover; if anything, the report is too restrictive. I recognise, however, which it is an important change of principle. It may be something that we must test before gradually moving further in that direction.
I have said several times that people elect a Parliament for five years, not one. The Government could have a much more balanced programme than having all Second Readings at one time of year, then having Committees before sending Bills to the other place, bringing them back here and causing an unnecessary crush.
When we debated the railway privatisation legislation, the other place would carry amendments and send them to us. We did not know what they had carried, and we were asked to vote on amendments that had not even been printed. That was nonsense. I have questioned—some might consider this heretical—whether we need a Queen's Speech every year. Why not just have one at the start of Parliament? If we must have annual speeches, why not announce that the Government will introduce legislation, but continue with other legislation? I see no reason for not moving in that direction.
Hon. Members have commented on Select Committees. I served for a number of years on the Environment Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Rossi. Some 15 years ago, we produced a tremendous number of reports on environmental issues such as acid rain, nuclear waste and river pollution. People condemned them as outrageous, but most of them were subsequently accepted and they are now considered the norm.
Select Committees do a tremendous amount of good work, but the resources available to them for expert advice are a little too tight. I do not say that we should go mad, but I hope that we shall ensure that Select Committees are adequately resourced to do their job. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) rightly said, we must ensure that all Select Committee reports have an opportunity to be debated and are monitored at a future date to see what effect they have had.
We sometimes allow people outside this place to judge Parliament by what is done in the Chamber, whereas much important work is done in Committee. The other day, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that some 467 hon. Members were serving on various Committees at that point, yet most people, even if they read the newspapers, do not know what those Committees do. We must therefore ensure that people are better informed.

1081
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to voting. The third voting desk has certainly helped. She said that it had alleviated the problem; it has not solved the problem, however, and we should not pretend that it has. I dread the day when the Conservatives vote with Labour and opposition comes only from the Liberal Democrats—the crush would be unbearable.
We should try to maintain the principle that votes are taken in person in the Chamber or close to it. We should not introduce desktop voting in various parts of the House. While it would be wrong to jump to conclusions, the Committee should look further into all these issues.
My right hon. Friend also referred to European legislation. The last Procedure Committee produced a unanimous report on European legislation which I hope will be used as a base for the Modernisation Committee's work. The Committee did a lot of the spade work, so some repetition could be avoided if its report is taken as a starting point.
There are differing views on the parliamentary day and year. Some want to start work on a Monday morning, but others who live a long distance away would then have to travel to London on a Sunday, which would be detrimental. The 2.30 pm start on Mondays, whatever happens on other days, should remain. Some people believe that finishing at 7 o'clock on Thursdays would enable everybody to get away to do constituency work on Fridays. That is nonsense for those who depend on public transport. They would have to use their own cars if they wanted to return to their constituencies on a Thursday night and use constituency Fridays fully. When I have a constituency Friday, I try to put four or five appointments in my diary to use the day fully, but I cannot rely on public transport and have to use my own car in both directions.
Another difficulty, which arose just after the general election, is where hon. Members can speak from in this Chamber. It is ridiculous that so few seats are available when there are other seats in the Chamber where additional microphones could be installed to enable more hon. Members to exercise their right to speak.
Some might say that the Chamber is rarely full, but it is wrong that a percentage of hon. Members should be excluded from their democratic right to speak in Parliament. A couple of weeks ago, I came into the Chamber for Prime Minister's Question Time half an hour beforehand and found the Labour Benches already full. That barred me from the opportunity to speak, had I wanted to do so. We should extend the available speaking places to other parts of the Chamber.
We should also consider 10-minute time limits for most speeches and review the rules on interventions. It must be recognised that interventions should be relevant and brief. The character and debating style of the House are spoilt by people delivering 10-minute, sterile speeches, with no to and fro in the debate. We must maintain some flexibility.
The report is not one which the Government can accept, because it is not just for the Government. Some aspects are, because they initiate the legislation, but the Opposition have responsibilities too, if we are to proceed positively. Indeed, every Member of Parliament has a responsibility to make our procedures work if we are to proceed as the report suggests. If we want better
1082
government, better legislation, better debate, and an Opposition able to look at different parts of Bills properly, we need to proceed as the report suggests.
I remember my first full Bill in the House. It was the Transport Bill of 1985, on which I spoke for four hours in Committee without adding one iota to the debate. Many important clauses were not debated as a result.
This proposal is sensible for good government and good legislation and it gives the Opposition, whichever party they happen to be, a fair opportunity.
6.25 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). He serves with me on the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and was an astute Member of my Procedure Committee for many years in the previous Parliaments. He would support my claim that nobody has been a greater procedural reformer in the House than I have tried to be over the 14 years that I chaired the Procedure Committee.
I remember discussing with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) the need to set up a Jopling-type Committee—for example, with a number of Privy Counsellors, and the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—rather than leave everything with the Procedure Committee. That was so that greater weight could be put into the recommendations and so that the Committee had the strength to command the approval of the vast majority of the House.
It has been pointed out that it takes very little to stop procedural reform. I remind new Members that Jopling was delayed for two years because of the conservatism of one particular Member of Parliament. At that time, he sat on the Opposition Front Bench next to the Gangway. Don Dixon was Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party. Only when we could swing him round could we proceed with Jopling. We therefore need reports that can be carried with the vast majority of opinion in the affirmative.
Mr. Frank Cook: I remind the House that Mr. Don Dixon, now the noble Lord Dixon, was not swung round at all. He is still very much averse to the Jopling proposals. I remind the House that the need for Jopling arose because the Government left the reports issued so regularly and consistently by the Procedure Committee, of which I was also a member, on the shelf gathering dust.
Sir Peter Emery: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman says. It only goes to show that proposals need Government support, whichever Government are in power, and I shall fight this Government as I fought my own to advance the procedures.
I should like to pose a few questions—I do not know who is to wind up. I am delighted that the report expresses a unanimous view that we must find procedures to ensure that all parts of a Bill are debated in Committee before it comes back to the House. It was a crying disgrace that legislation used to come back on Report when perhaps only a third—or sometimes a quarter—of the Bill had been considered in Committee. That is not the way in which the Opposition should perform, and I would not want the Conservative party in opposition to perform in

1083
that manner. We are here to try to make the best possible legislation, and that must mean that all sections of a Bill must be considered in Committee.
I am sure that, like me, the whole House welcomes the Committee's suggestions on pre-legislative scrutiny. Such scrutiny would make legislation much better, so when will we start? When will one or two Bills that the Government have in train be considered by a pre-legislative Committee, so that we can carry forward the suggestions made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the report?
I come now to paragraph 43. I am delighted that, as I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Member for South Norfolk—
Mr. MacGregor: I thought I was your friend.
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry—the right hon. Member is a close friend, if I may say so without being misinterpreted. The Special Standing Committee procedure has been in the Standing Orders for long enough and the report urges that it should be used more often. I am sorry to say that we have not yet seen it used by the Government.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Oh, come on.
Sir Peter Emery: I know that it is early days yet, but a lot of legislation is coming through now and I hope to receive an assurance that some of it will go to a Special Standing Committee.
Paragraphs 83 and 95 deal with Committee procedure and Committees on European and secondary legislation. Way back in June, we were told that the Government would consider and report on that subject, but we have seen nothing yet. May we put a rocket under the Government so that they express their view and allow that aspect of the report to be carried forward?
I hope that the very sensible suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk that Lords amendments could be sent back to the original Committee for consideration, so that they do not have to be galloped through on the Floor of the House, is accepted. Let us make certain that that comes about.
I have one slight worry. I was willing to go along with the proposal on enabling Bills to be carried over from one Session to the next, but it is imperative that, by agreeing to that, the Opposition do not let the Government off the hook and so allow the Government to play legislation any way they please for however long they want. Such practice is to the detriment both of good legislation and of the Opposition. I understand that if a Bill is introduced late in a Session, there might be an argument for carrying it over, but we must look carefully at such a recommendation, to ensure that it does not emasculate the power of the Opposition.
I now refer to points relating to the Chairmen's Panel. In common with the hon. Member for Burnley, other hon. Members might welcome powers being given to Chairmen to limit the length of speeches in Committees. It is interesting that the Chairmen's Panel went further than the Select Committee and suggested that
"the power to limit the length of speeches should apply to Ministers and other frontbench spokesmen"
1084
and not only to Back Benchers. That idea from the Chairmen's Panel is revolutionary, but it is nevertheless interesting and we should bear it in mind.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the reasons behind that suggestion, but I have always felt that the difficulty facing Ministers is that so many hon. Members want to intervene and probe the Minister on the legislation or whatever is being discussed that their speeches are inevitably lengthened. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind?
Sir Peter Emery: I entirely agree with my close and right hon. Friend. However, like the hon. Member for Burnley, I believe that if a time limit is applied, additional time should be allowed when interventions use up part of the allotted time.
We suggested that the Opposition should have access to advisers in Committees, but the Chairmen's Panel has said that that might be complicated and difficult. The Select Committee should look again at that suggestion—the idea behind it is correct, but I understand the Chairmen's point.
It is not my job, as a member of the Select Committee, to put forward new ideas, but I have one that has been a hobby-horse for some time. We have a large number of Select Committees whose members work immensely hard. The Leader of the House tells me that nearly 470 hon. Members sit on such Committees, but how many of their reports are debated on the Floor of the House? If we are lucky, we get about six debates on departmental Select Committee reports scattered throughout the Session, through what used to be called Supply day procedure, although we are now hoping to use some of the Wednesday morning slots. Have we not reached the point where we should set up a "Select Committee Grand Committee" in which every Select Committee report could be debated—a Grand Committee with perhaps 50 members with voting rights and every hon. Member having the right to attend and speak? Every recommendation or report from a Select Committee would go to that Grand Committee, thereby ensuring that the work of the few could be properly debated and considered on behalf of the whole House.
That is all I want to say for now. I hope that it will do nothing to detract from her popularity on the Government Benches, but I congratulate the Leader of the House on having conducted the chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee with charm, elegance and a great deal of efficiency. I am most grateful to her.
6.38 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I am aware that I have already spoken on several occasions during this Parliament; on at least one of those occasions I spoke at considerable length. I want to assure the House that those speeches were not exercises in self-indulgence: I spoke because I needed to and I spoke at length because I needed to cover the subject. On this occasion, once again, I shall speak not because I want to be in the Chamber but because I have a job to do. I must explain that I am speaking as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. I have consulted collectively with my colleagues—and individually, in and out of formal session—and it would be remiss of me if I did not draw attention to some of the points that cause us concern as Chairmen.

1085
I remind the House that members of the Chairmen's Panel commit themselves to sitting—as you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—throughout the proceedings of a Committee, unable to walk in or out of the Committee Room as they might wish. They must stay there whether they like it or not. They must stay awake and alert. They must exercise good humour, patience and diligence. They must do all that with the good grace that you, your colleagues and Madam Speaker exercise in the Chamber—not an inconsiderable responsibility.
Chairmen do so because they believe in the parliamentary process, not because they are committed to a party political alliance or line—they save that for other occasions. When they sit in the Chair, they exercise a stark level of clinical impartiality. I believe that, for the effort that they put in, they deserve the greatest attention. I pray for that attention now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) would berate me if I did not draw attention to the following points. We concern ourselves with the interests of the individual Back Bencher and the protection of those interests. There is a fear that concentration on the acceleration of business through the House and through its processes might to some extent damage and debilitate the interests of the individual Member when acting in an individual role.
Let me take an example. In paragraph 8 of our report, we plead for a Front-Bench spokesperson, when operating in Committee, to bear in mind the interests and views of the Members sitting behind him or her on the same side of the Committee. An unfortunate example of what can happen when that does not occur, which comes readily to mind, is what happened during the passage of the Bill that became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, when we were discussing changes in firearms legislation as a direct result of the tragedy that occurred at Hungerford.
I was acting as Opposition Whip. Both sides of the Committee were split on the requirements of the legislation as laid down, and the Government probably had more of their Committee members opposing the proposals than they had supporting them. I believe that it was the first time in history that the Government lost their sittings motion at the first sitting, because there was such diversity of opinion.
If such a situation were repeated, one would need an assurance that the Front-Bench spokesmen would be prepared to heed—not necessarily accommodate in full agreement, but accommodate with some kind of presentational skills—views that were at variance with those expressed by the Government or with the Front-Bench policy statement. That would certainly apply if a time limit were to be imposed.
I take on board the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) regarding time limits. We suggested that a similar limitation be placed on Ministers, because otherwise a Minister can take up almost the whole session. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, he spoke for four hours in Committee simply to take up time. Ministers can take four hours, whether or not they want to take up time. I believe that the record in Committee is 11 hours 25 minutes, during consideration of the Telecommunications Bill.
I believe, as do some of my colleagues, that if time limits are to be imposed on a Back-Bench Member, they should be imposed on the Minister—bearing in mind the
1086
fact that the Minister is able to speak more than once on any question. Indeed, one hopes that a similar privilege will be extended to Back-Bench Members, because points of clarification or points of explanation can come up in a debate. One cannot get up with a pat speech and give it and be sure that one has said everything, because one has not heard the response that will ensue in the flexible debate for which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley pleaded.
One of the virtues of the House is the give and take of debate. Parliaments throughout the world envy our ability to debate across the Chamber—to give way and come back at one another and to create a flowing argument. If we are to conduct the line-by-line scrutiny that the Committee stage demands, we must foster and protect such flexibility.
Mr. David Trimble: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of give and take in debate through interventions, but does he agree that introducing a time limit instantly kills debate? With a time limit of 10 minutes, which we sometimes have in the House, the Member who is speaking knows that he cannot afford to take interventions, because they would occupy too much of his time and might prevent him from making an important point. If we have time limits, we shall not have interventions and we shall not have the type of debate that the hon. Gentleman rightly wants. That is a serious problem.
Mr. Cook: Indeed it is. I have been a victim of that situation many times. If I were to express a personal view, which I will now, I would say that I do not believe in limitation of time. If one is to express a considered view, one must be given the time to express it clearly and understandably. Sadly, I am trying to represent the views of the Chairmen's Panel as they have been discussed in and out of session, so I am trying to do that authentically and with integrity, but on a personal note, I agree entirely.
Now you have made me lose my place—I do beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now the right hon. Gentleman has caused me to search again for my links.
Paragraph 4 of the Chairmen's report says:
"We … do not think it appropriate for us to express any collective view on the merits or demerits of the main procedural changes proposed; those are matters for the House as a whole to resolve".
However, the Chairmen then list a number of areas with which they take great issue.
The report pleads for an element of good will towards the Chairman. I say Chairman because it is called the Chairmen's Panel. It may be politically incorrect, but I think that it is the biblical sense of Chairman. We need good will anyway, do we not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Chairmen, sitting in that position of clinical impartiality? It is not always displayed, but it is always sought.
An important plea that we made, but which does not have total agreement in the panel, is for Standing Committees to be empowered to receive and publish written evidence. That is an important proposal, which could expedite the more careful and more comprehensive consideration of an issue under discussion and legislative consideration.
We are worried about what appears to be an attempt to limit probing amendments. Such an attempt would be understandable, because those who are experienced in

1087
Committee procedure know that sometimes amendments are tabled and discussed that appear to make no sense. However, such amendments facilitate discussion around facts that might not be elicited in any other way and often clarify the issue. We are concerned that that might become a concrete proposal and we believe that it would be difficult to adapt to that.
The Leader of the House referred to our suggestions that the proposals should be extended across the board and described us as wanting to be more adventurous. Perhaps we do, but there is a much more practical point. If we were to confine the exercise of the measures to any particular range of Committees, there is a chance that some hon. Members—whether experienced or inexperienced—would operate in ignorance of some of the practical consequences of applying those rules.
The report also suggests that the Opposition should have access to advisers. I am afraid that we strongly oppose that idea. There are other ways of dealing with the issue, and we do not believe that that suggestion should be accepted at this stage. I believe also that Select Committees, which are reactive at present, should be empowered to be proactive.
Paragraph 5 is the most important paragraph in the Chairmen's Panel report. The Leader of the House said that the report was useful and would be considered, but she did not refer to any specifics. I hope that my right hon. Friend will provide an assurance on paragraph 5, which states:
"A general acceptance that the changes now proposed will be subject to review, refinement or even rescission before being written into the permanent standing orders of the House will be welcome."
I hope to receive that acceptance tonight.
6.52 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I apologise to the Leader of the House for the fact that I was not present at the beginning of the debate, and consequently did not hear most of her speech. I had to deal with the consequences of a factory closure in my constituency and the loss of 500 jobs. That situation obviously merited my grave attention.
I wish to make several general points before dealing with some matters in detail. I welcome the fact that we have a Modernisation Committee and I welcome the reports. It is most encouraging that, at the beginning of the Parliament, the Government are prepared to look seriously at these issues and the way in which we do things. No matter what the procedures are, there is always scope for improvement.
Several hon. Members have said that the proposals build upon Jopling. I am sorry that they do not involve a more serious reconsideration of Jopling, as some hon. Members have serious reservations about how Jopling has operated in practice. Some aspects have worked well, but we believe that it has taken far too many important matters from the Floor of the House to be dealt with elsewhere. Several hon. Members complained that matters handled elsewhere—in Select Committees, Standing Committees, and so on—do not receive the attention that they deserve from hon. Members or from the wider community, and are not considered properly.
I cannot remember which hon. Member said, "If you want to keep something secret, say it in a Committee." I have never had the pleasure of serving on a Select
1088
Committee, but I have enjoyed my service on several Standing Committees. My pleasure was increased considerably when I discovered that only one Standing Committee Hansard goes to Northern Ireland—and it is not available to the general public. Therefore, I can say whatever I like in Standing Committee and no one will ever know. That gives me a great deal of freedom—particularly in the many Committees where I am the only floating voter.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at present—referred to Standing Committees, and I thoroughly enjoyed his contribution. He made some extremely telling points and demonstrated that some of the problems about which hon. Members complain derive not from long-standing tradition but from changes made in the past 20 to 25 years.
Far too many changes made in the past few decades have diminished the role of the House and of individual Members, both Government and Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that legislative programming would be necessary to remedy that problem. He suggested that the trade-off would be that the Government get their legislation and the Opposition get their time.
I must qualify that point: the official Opposition may get their time, but what about the minority parties? Their number has increased, and is likely to increase still more if the electoral changes favoured by Labour Members are introduced. Unless I am mistaken, the composition of the Modernisation Committee follows the usual pattern: Government and Conservative Members and two token Liberal Democrats—Liberal Democrats are usually tokens in such circumstances.
What about the other minority parties? They are regularly ignored when the House conducts business and when Committees are formed. The record shows that minority parties usually get a raw deal in the membership of Select and Standing Committees. It is about time that someone gave greater consideration to minority parties, particularly when some parties—such as ours—are the Opposition in the regions of the United Kingdom that they represent. Paragraph 14(b) of the report states:
"The Opposition in particular and Members in general must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance."
In Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionists are the largest Opposition party, and then there are the other Northern Ireland parties. The "Opposition" in the context of this place are not relevant to a lot of Northern Ireland business—although we do not exclude other parties. Unlike hon. Members from other regions, we do not object to the presence of other hon. Members in the Chamber for Northern Ireland debates or their involvement in Northern Ireland business. However, a proper approach in that area would be welcome.
I wish to raise several matters regarding the report on the legislative process, some of which will strike hon. Members as predictable—but they deserve to be made none the less. Paragraph 19 and the following paragraphs refer to pre-legislative scrutiny and attach that to the policy of publishing Bills in draft form. The Leader of the House referred to the publication of draft Bills, and the Government seem to think that the use of draft Bills will change legislative scrutiny significantly.
I wonder whether, in forming that view, any attention was paid to the experience in Northern Ireland, where we have had that practice for 20 years. Virtually all

1089
legislation has been published in draft for consultation, with periods that vary between a couple of months and more than a year between publication of the draft and enactment of the legislation.
The draft Bills published in Northern Ireland are not linked to any parliamentary procedure to provide scrutiny, so some of my comments must be qualified in that respect. If the Northern Ireland Office were honest and frank—it is difficult for it to admit this, and it runs against the culture of the Northern Ireland Office to do so—it would admit that the consultation procedures attached to draft legislation in Northern Ireland are a total failure. There is no significant response from society to draft Bills.
I speak not merely from my experience in the House, but from my experience before I came to the House, when I was concerned in my university and professional capacity with legislation in certain fields. Even with regard to legislation that was particularly relevant to the profession that I practised—legislation that might have directly affected the way in which members of the profession conducted their business and their livelihoods—it was enormously difficult to get people to look at draft legislation. It is only a draft. It might never happen and, if it does, who knows when—this week, next month or next year?
People would not look at draft legislation. Even if the legislation dealt with technical, legal matters that directly related to conveyancing—the source of income of most solicitors—one could not get them to look at drafts. The experience in Northern Ireland shows that society outside—I am not referring to what happens in the House—may not pay much attention to the publication of a draft.
It may be argued that the intention behind the proposal is to link the draft to some procedure in the House providing for scrutiny. That may make the process operate differently. I hope that it does. What is needed is a change in the way in which proposals for legislation evolve, not just before the publication of the legislation in draft or otherwise, but even beyond that point.
There is no reference in the report to what I consider to be the greatest problem: the passion that exists in the public service for secrecy—for not divulging to interested persons, whether in the House or outside, the way in which the thinking is evolving as legislative proposals are being drawn up.
In many respects, the enactment of a freedom of information Bill would be more significant in achieving the objectives of the report than any of the proposals contained in the report itself. An obligation on the Government to divulge more information and to let people see more clearly the Government's thinking and the reasons why they are developing particular proposals is more important than the parliamentary procedures.
I am not decrying the proposal for draft Bills. There must be a procedure linked to the legislation that gives adequate time for the examination not only of individual clauses, but of the thinking behind it. I regard as extremely important the suggestion that a Select Committee or a Special Standing Committee should examine legislation before the traditional Committee stage. That might be done in a First Reading Committee, or after Second Reading if a Special Standing Committee were used.
1090
It is important that such a procedure should provide an opportunity for the Committee to take evidence and to examine the thinking underlying the Bill, and that sufficient time should be allowed for that. Time is needed for members of the Committee to get to grips with the Bill, and for the Department to think.
If one tables amendments in a normal Standing Committee, the initial response from the Minister and the Department is to put up the shutters, not because they object to changes in the Bill, but because they need time to think. The Minister will never accept an amendment at first sight. He will need to take it back to his Department, and the Department may have to consult other Departments. There must be sufficient time for the Department to absorb the material and bring it back to the Committee. That is why we so often find that amendments tabled in this House are accepted in the other place. Between the two stages, the Government have had time to consider their response.
I strongly support the suggestions made in the report for procedures such as those that would follow from a Special Standing Committee or a Select Committee. They should be linked not to draft legislation, but to actual Bills, as that would concentrate the mind. There should be sufficient time between the hearings and the beginning of the usual Committee stage for hon. Members to study and absorb that material.
Paragraph 83 of the report, which relates to European legislation and UK delegated legislation, states:
"Of crucial and growing importance is the need to ensure proper scrutiny of the other forms of legislation with which the House has to deal, namely European legislation and United Kingdom secondary legislation."
I was disappointed to find that it omitted all reference to primary legislation relating to Northern Ireland. That is a scandal. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) said that it was a crying disgrace when major parts of legislation go through the House without the clauses being examined and debated. That crying disgrace has applied to all primary legislation dealing with Northern Ireland for two decades.
Acres of Northern Ireland legislation have passed through the House without being debated or examined. I refer to primary legislation—Northern Ireland Orders in Council. On the current Order Paper, among the remaining orders to be considered are five Northern Ireland Orders in Council.
I remind hon. Members that, despite the use of the term Orders in Council, that is not delegated legislation. Northern Ireland Orders in Council are primary legislation, yet they will be enacted without being considered. There might be a brief debate in Committee, along the lines of a Second Reading debate, but, with few exceptions, Northern Ireland legislation is never subjected to Committee examination. That is a crying disgrace.
I shall not labour the point, except to say that we know that this Government will not have any better answer to the problem than the previous Government had. They were never able to justify the practice or put up any argument worth listening to. Ministers in the previous Government came to the Dispatch Box and brazened it out, year after year. Sadly, I think that the Labour Government will prove to be no better.
There is no excuse for substandard legislation. The existence of a separate statute book for Northern Ireland makes no more difference with regard to Northern Ireland

1091
legislation than does the parallel situation with regard to Scottish legislation. A separate statute book in Scotland is maintained through normal legislation in the House. There is no excuse for what has happened for the past 20 years in respect of Northern Ireland legislation.
The problem must be dealt with. The report of the Hansard Society commission on the legislative process states in paragraph 363, which refers to the representations received from my colleagues and other parties:
"We hope that their special problems will be considered sympathetically—especially the case for returning to legislating for Northern Ireland by Acts rather than by Orders."
That report was published in 1992. Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to give sympathetic consideration to that crying disgrace, as the Hansard Society recommended. The Modernisation Committee refers to that report, so I hope that it will follow the recommendations of the Hansard Society report.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the Government credit for the assurance that he has been given that the Northern Ireland police Bill will be introduced in the House.
Mr. Trimble: Indeed. The assurance was given after considerable representations were made by myself and my colleagues and after the Northern Ireland Office first informed us that it was its intention to proceed by Order in Council. I agree, that after representations were made, there was a concession. 1 do not know how many Orders in Council are proposed for this year, but there are five on the Order Paper and up to 10 might come through during the Session.
Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree that if measures are to be introduced by means of primary legislation in the House rather than by Orders in Council, which is what he is requesting, there will be some delay. The right hon. Gentleman is saying, in part, that Bills must be discussed in a proper way. He will understand that slots must be found for many different pieces of proposed legislation. The right hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that there will be delays.
Mr. Trimble: That argument is not worthy of any attention. I am dealing with a matter of principle that turns on the enactment of primary legislation, and there is a proper procedure. Whatever the difficulties, there is no excuse for substandard procedure.
In any event, there is no substance in the right hon. Lady's argument, even in its own terms, because the bulk of Northern Ireland legislation is parity legislation. Only a handful of Northern Ireland primary Acts are unique to Northern Ireland, and the police Bill is one of them. Given the significance of the Bill, we made considerable representations to the Government for it to be enacted. I appreciate, of course, that the Bill will proceed in the proper way.
Most Orders in Council are what we call parity legislation. In substance, they are the same as legislation that is enacted in the House and they could be included in that process. That would not cause any difficulty.
1092
A significant number of Bills that pass through the House deal with Great Britain and not only England and Wales. Scotland is also included. Given the different statute book in Scotland, there are schedules attached to many Bills that modify the proposed legislation for application in Scotland. There would be no difficulty in principle in applying that process to Northern Ireland legislation, although it would mean a different way of going about things.
There will be some difficulty in making the transition, but it can be made. That would not involve a significant addition to the time that is taken in this place producing legislation. It would not involve the time implications to which the Leader of the House referred.
I shall conclude—[[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am tempted not to conclude, but I shall.
I wish to refer to something that the Leader of the House said when in opposition. It is a comment that I take from the helpful research paper that has been prepared by the Library. The right hon. Lady was talking of
"the main project of re-engaging the gears of the political process in a fundamental way so that ordinary voters feel genuinely connected with the people who represent them."
I put a gloss on that in terms of the need to feel connected with those in this place who enact legislation.
Society in Northern Ireland is disconnected from the political and legislative processes and from the way in which the House proceeds. My colleagues and I have made considerable efforts over the past decade and a half to try to ensure that society in Northern Ireland is connected, informed and plugged into proceedings in Westminster. That is why we attach so much importance to ensuring that there is a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and a Northern Ireland Grand Committee. It is why we have also attached so much importance to arguing that proper legislation is enacted and that people in Northern Ireland have the same opportunity as those in the rest of the United Kingdom to express a view about proposed legislation.
7.13 pm
Helen Jackson: I am happy to follow some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), because he has raised important issues about Northern Ireland legislation being properly considered, scrutinised and consulted on during our deliberations. I am sure that the Select Committee on Modernisation will wish to take his comments on board.
There is a narrow window of opportunity at the beginning of an historic new Parliament when a third of the Members are fresh and new. It is important to grasp the opportunity that is before us. With such a large influx of new Members, we are not necessarily talking about changing old habits; we are thinking about how best to deliver the legislative process. I congratulate the Chair of the Modernisation Committee on taking the initiative, pushing ahead with it and ensuring that a report was produced in July, thereby ensuring that the debate is taking place today.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who were not members of the Committee, but who, in my view, put their fingers on the nub of the report, which is that we shall make progress in a variety of ways if we recognise the need for legislation to be programmed.

1093
There must be a structure and a timetable, which could well involve rolling legislation over through more than one Session. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, we are elected for a Parliament, and a parliamentary term is five years. We should be able satisfactorily to span what any Government want to do in five years and ensure the best use of our time. The crux of the report is making the best use of our time in the Chamber and in Committee and as individual Members.
We should, of course, have pride in the past and in how Parliament has grown up. I still take visitors to the third step in Westminster Hall and point to the plaque which represents the place where Parliament took control over the monarchy. It is an important point and that represents the pride that we need to have, as well as pride in stimulating debate and winning debates by argument.
The best tradition of this place is when we win our arguments in debate because we have a good case. That being so, it is important properly to programme, by agreement through the usual channels, rather than to filibuster, to delay and to introduce guillotines, which means that we are cut short and parts of proposed legislation are not properly considered. That is the crux of the report.
There are three important reasons why we should see the report as one step on the way to moving our constitution forward. The first reason is that Parliament needs to come to terms with the micro chip, which is revolutionising our lives in many ways. It is not impossible to do that. I am pleased that the Committee has taken on board the need to move forward with voting arrangements. As I said in Committee, few of us gain access to our cash by taking a cheque book to a bank before 3.30 pm, signing our name and asking for £50. We all use our plastic cards, go to a slot in the wall and get the cash much more quickly. I accept the need for us to come together to vote, but it would be easier, speedier and more convenient if we used the microchip. That is a small step, but I am sure that it would lead to other ways of using our time better.
Secondly, we have a new gender balance in the House. That has not been mentioned yet this afternoon, but, to the public outside, it is one of the most striking results of 1 May. Wherever one goes, people say that Parliament must be very different now. I sometimes thinks that it would be nice if it were a little more different than it sometimes seems to be. We need to make even further progress with that gender balance and recognise that that will lead to a different, more consensual style of debate with more concentration on an issue.
I support a 10-minute limit on speeches, but I do not agree that that will kill interventions because injury time can be attached, as in football matches. However, debating behaviour has been influenced by the new make-up of the House, which I welcome. That is another reason why we need to take the modernisation process further.
Thirdly, the public expect a lot from this new Parliament and from us as Members of Parliament. Those who have been Members of Parliament for a while have been embarrassed by reports of the public's low—sometimes rock bottom—opinion of us and our work. That needs to change. We need the respect from the public that we believe Parliament should have. We will not have that respect unless we bring our parliamentary procedures and behaviour into the 21st century.
1094
In that regard, the most important issue is how to raise the status of all Committees—Standing Committees, Select Committees and scrutiny Committees. As many hon. Members have said, that is where the hard work is done and where many of the best debates take place. The answer is not to deal with everything on the Floor of House. The solution is within our grasp, and it is to raise the status of debates in Committees.
That may have an implication for the way in which the media views those Committees. Programmes such as "In Committee" will play their part in that. We may need more television cameras in all the Committee Rooms. If we are honest, it is what goes out on television and on the radio that people know about. I strongly support that. Many hon. Members have considered how to raise the status of scrutiny and I hope that the Committee will discuss that further.
The Modernisation Committee has been useful. We have had some interesting discussions. We cannot consider changing things without debate and that has sometimes led to philosophical discourse about what legislation is, what the House is for, what Government is, what the Opposition should be able to do to frustrate the Government, how minority parties should fit into a debating Chamber such as this, how the public should relate to the House and, finally but importantly, how Members of Parliament operate here while managing to keep for themselves a satisfactory existence, which is not always easy.
This is just the first of what I hope will be a useful series of reports from the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for treating the issue so seriously and with such urgency.
7.25 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am the 10th Member of the House to speak in the debate and the first of the new intake from 1 May, and it is from that one third of Members who are new to the House that much of the pressure for modernisation has come. However, it is encouraging to those new hon. Members on the Committee that hon. Members with much more experience than us share many of our concerns.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) criticised the choice of trustees for the parliamentary contributory pension fund. New Members were seriously under-represented on the Modernisation Committee, but those of us who were there hope that we punched our weight on behalf of other new colleagues; if we failed, I am sure that they will let us know.
New Members bring to the House a perception of what it looks like from the outside, because, until recently, we were on the outside. If something is not broken, there is no need to mend it. But the outside world has a clear perception that Parliament does have defects which need to be remedied.
The quality of the law making is criticised by professional bodies and the general public. There is example after example. It is not just partisan legislation that has gone wrong—the poll tax is an example of partisan discussion failing to deal adequately with

1095
technical defects—but legislation on which there has been consensus, of which the Child Support Act 1995 is an example. The quality of legislation is not determined by consensus or partisanship but by effectiveness. The Modernisation Committee was given figures showing the sheer number of Government amendments to their own legislation. When it comes to law making, there is a constant catching-up process.
The effectiveness of the monitoring of Departments and Ministers has also been criticised. That relates to the way in which Select Committees and the Chamber operate. The feeling that the accountability of Governments, Ministers and Departments, has declined in recent years was a driving force.
Before we consider too much the practical convenience of Members, we should remember that the House of Commons has a purpose, which is not necessarily the convenience of Members. I hope that those new Members on the Modernisation Committee were able to bring to it a sharper perception of what the outside world thinks as well as what hon. Members think.
That does not mean that the practical convenience of the House cannot be improved. I look forward to the discussions on the hours, the days and the calendar which lie ahead. I hope, too, that we can tackle some of the strange customs of the House which range from the trivial to the serious. One of my favourites is that when I tried to ask whether a Minister would or would not do something I was told that that parliamentary question was out of order because one cannot ask a Minister "whether", only "if'. Such trivial restrictions require some thought.
Much more serious than that are some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). It is inconceivable to outsiders that our national legislature does not have a seat for each Member of Parliament. Surely no other trade or profession fails to provide people with a seat in which to do the job.
Mr. Martin Salter: The London underground.
Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. The hours, if not the rates of pay, are comparable.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has left the Chamber, but I wanted to deal with his practical point. To the best of my knowledge, he did not ask to be a member of the Modernisation Committee, and neither he nor any member of his party wrote or submitted briefings to it, so I was sorry to hear what he had to say about the level of representation that he had been able to secure.
The report is good as far as it goes. I welcome what it says about pre-legislative inquiries and draft Bills being put before Select Committees. The idea that Committees can participate in post-legislative monitoring to discover what has happened and to comment on it has not been mentioned much in the debate, but it will be important.
The timetabling provisions are sensible. No doubt some practical difficulties will have to be overcome, but they cannot be greater than the practical difficulties of spending several hours talking about clauses 1 and 2, and a few minutes on clauses 3 to 99.
1096
I support the points that have been made about Select Committees, but I want to use my time wisely, so I shall move on to talk about the reform of our voting procedure. It is clear that there is scope for better procedures to be used. Not even my best friends would regard me as a friend of the silicon chip, but the House ought to make certain changes.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) referred to the criticisms of the Chairmen's Panel. As he was unable to participate in some of the Committee's discussions, he may have missed some of the important points that have been made. Any speaking limit should allow for injury time to take account of interventions. We should not reduce the capacity of hon. Members to participate in a flowing debate.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North was critical of the proposal for a preliminary debate on whether a clause should stand part of a Bill followed by a discussion of the amendments. We dealt extensively with that matter in the Committee, but it is worth having a debate on a wider platform. If I were not keen to limit my remarks, I would expand on that, but perhaps the Committee could prepare a more structured and complete note for hon. Members, so that they are more fully aware of the arguments in support of that proposal.
I add my thanks to the Leader of the House for the way in which she has conducted the Committee. Today, she has skilfully worn two different hats: as Chairman of the Committee and as the person responding to the debate on behalf of the Government. I was particularly pleased that she mentioned two Bills that the Government intend will go through the draft Bill procedure.
Before the recess, I asked the Library to supply me with a list of previous recommendations and reports on reform and to identify those that have not been implemented. The Library said, "Are you sure that you know what you are asking for? How far back do you want to go"? I decided that I would go back 10 years. The reports that have not been implemented in the past 10 years make a substantial pile on my desk. I say to the Leader of the House, in her role as a representative of the Government, that sweet words in this debate and a couple of draft Bills are fine, but we need evidence of serious and sustained implementation by the Government of the proposals over which they have control.
That brings me to the future work of the Committee. I would be failing in my duty as a Liberal Democrat Member if I did not mention again the seating and shape of the Chamber, and the way in which it operates. Most people do not find the Houses of Parliament visitor friendly or family friendly; nor do they think that it delivers legislation efficiently, effectively and well. The work of the Modernisation Committee and of other Committees should be directed at correcting those perceptions and ensuring that the House has secure procedures that operate well, protect minority and opposition interests and deliver good government. If we put our minds to it, surely 659 of us could achieve that.
Combined action is required. No one has yet dared mention the other place, but we know that within the next five years fundamental reforms will take place at the other end of this building. That will perhaps give us an opportunity to consider how procedures in both Houses could interact more effectively in the future. If the Government are prepared to deal with fundamental

1097
reforms at the other end of the building, I hope that they will not shy away from discussion and implementation of fundamental reforms at this end.
Action is required from a large number of hon. Members who serve on Committees. That effort should be made not only by the 15 members of the Modernisation Committee, who I hope will produce more reports in the future; there should also be a strong commitment from hon. Members who are not on the Committee.
All these good intentions could merely be added to that pile on my desk. We could come back in 10 years' time little further forward. I hope that the Government and all hon. Members will work together to avoid that happening.
7.37 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: I can reassure the House that I shall make only a few general remarks as quickly as I can. They flow nicely from the remarks that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has just made.
As a student too many years ago, I was made to read "The Reform of Parliament" by Bernard Crick, which was published in 1964. Those who do not have time to read the book should read the preface, which says:
"Parliamentary reform is one of those things, as Mark Twain remarked about the weather, which everybody talks about, but nobody does anything about. Seldom has there been so much public agreement that something should be done, but seldom so much private agreement that nothing is likely to be done."
I am afraid that that is the truth of the matter, and it explains the pile on the hon. Gentleman's desk.
It so happens that Bernard Crick—who I am glad to say is now my friend—is now devising the new procedures for the Scottish Parliament. It will be an interesting, innovative and modern place. This House will look extremely old-fashioned when the Scottish Parliament is established. It will be a challenge to this House to put its own procedures in order.
This may be the moment when we stop talking about reform and start doing something about it. That may be the importance of this debate. The House is full of new Members and is far more representative than ever before. It looks different, feels different and has a radical energy about it. If this House cannot do this job, no House ever will. That is the nature of the moment and the opportunity that we are discussing—at a time when we have a radical general programme of political and constitutional reform of which these proposals are a part. We said that we would reform the British political system, and we are doing so. We said that the reform of the House of Commons was an essential part of that, and it is. These proposals sit not as a separate item, but as part of a general reform programme.
Perhaps most remarkable of all—it helps to explain why nothing much has happened on this front before, and it is, perhaps, the greatest tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—is the fact that here are a Government who are helping along and engineering a series of measures that, if implemented, will make life more difficult for Ministers and for Governments. Here are a Government with the biggest majority in modern times, proposing a set of measures designed to make life—in some respects—more difficult for themselves. Why? I am afraid that the answer is that they believe in those measures. They believe that the time has come to
1098
modernise British political institutions, and to modernise this institution critically. They believe that the quality of legislation and the public interest demand that reform must be made. Surprising as it may seem that this is the moment, it turns out to be the moment when reforms seem finally and seriously to be happening.
We know about the problem. We know that the way in which the House considers legislation is a scandal and a disgrace. It is the bit of the system that we dare not expose to public view. It is a good job that people do not know in detail what happens. We tell stories among ourselves about the horrors of Standing Committees, but we are glad that that is not the general verdict that is delivered on our performance.
Example after example has been given. A definitive account of the poll tax has been written. The poll tax was the greatest policy disaster of modern times. It cost £1.5 billion: that is the cost of error, equivalent to about 2p on the standard rate of income tax. Hon. Members should read a book by David Butler and his colleagues called "Failure in British Government", which takes apart the way in which the House looked at—or did not look at—the poll tax. If there were more time, I would go into the details; I will give hon. Members the headlines.
"The Standing Committee was a futile marathon … the committee stage was mostly a matter of posturing … it was scrutiny by slogan and soundbite."
That can be replayed, Bill by Bill by Bill, Committee by Committee by Committee. That is why it is a scandal. That is why we are not discussing esoteric or internal issues. We are talking about the quality of legislation that affects the lives of all the people whom we represent. If we legislate badly, those people must live with the consequences—consequences that they will subsequently tell us about in our surgeries. That is why what we are talking about tonight matters; but it also forces us to ask why the change is not made. In essence, it is not made because of the way in which this place operates. Someone once described it as a permanent election campaign, and that is essentially what it is. There are good reasons why it should be that, but, if it is just that, it will not do what it has to do.
Yes, we all come here not because we carry wonderful individual virtues, but because we carry party labels; but, if we know only that, we shall never become Members of Parliament performing the functions that the textbooks say Members of Parliament should perform—functions that the House is supposed to perform. Enoch Powell once memorably said that there was no such thing as Parliament, only Government and Opposition. There is a terrible truth in that. What we have are Government and Opposition, locked into a permanent election campaign on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in every part of the system. The price that is paid for it just to be that is, I am afraid, the quality—or lack of quality—of the product that comes out.
We must reflect on the nature of the institution. We must ask why scrutiny is not rewarded—why there is no career structure in the House of Commons that rewards those who take scrutiny seriously; why the system is driven only by Whips and greasy poles; why there are not other avenues in which people of great talent and ability representing constituents can find a way of serving. I wish that the Modernisation Committee, to which I pay enormous tribute, had taken just a little time to say something rather more general about the importance of

1099
Parliament as Parliament, and what its central functions were. It could then have gone on to say things about legislative reform.
We know what the reform agenda is; we have always known. For me, the most telling sentence in the report is this, in paragraph 15:
"With one or two notable exceptions, such as the creation of "First Reading" Committees, the House could, if it so wished, do a great deal without a single amendment to Standing Orders."
The House has, over the years, invented ways of improving the process, but it has done nothing about them. The Special Standing Committee procedure is the best example of that.
We heard from the Opposition that they were against incorporating the European convention on human rights in our law. There was nothing to stop the House, over the years, from setting up a human rights committee. It could have scrutinised every piece of legislation to ensure that it was consistent with the convention, and with all our other human rights obligations. If it had done that, it would have more credibility in saying that we did not need to incorporate the convention because we had our own methods. But it did nothing of the kind: it showed no interest in such matters. That could have been done, but it was not done.
I have just two more things to say. First, I must express disappointment. I think that, on the question of constitutional Bills, the Committee sold the pass. I understand why: its members clearly could not agree. Those outside who have considered the matter seriously understand the need to ensure that constitutional Bills are not all caught by a doctrine casually invented in 1945—the doctrine involving Bills of first-class constitutional importance. No one can define them—no one knows what is a first-class, a second-class or a third-class Bill—but, simply for political reasons, it has been asserted that all such Bills must be taken on the Floor of the House.
I do not think that at all sensible. We have made great progress on the Finance Bill by taking some of its clauses in Standing Committee and some on the Floor of the House. Doing that improves the quality of scrutiny. Was not the Local Government Act 1985, which abolished the Greater London council and swept away metropolitan counties, a Bill of first-class constitutional importance? But it was not taken on the Floor of the House.
When I first came to the House, 1 sat on the Committee considering the Right to Know Bill of 1993, a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). It was an excellent Committee stage, in which hon. Members on both sides participated fully. We knew that the Government would kill the Bill at the end of the day, but, my goodness, it was a good Committee. No one could pretend that the process would have been improved if the Bill had been taken on the Floor of the House, but I suspect that we shall be told that such Bills are of first-class constitutional importance, and therefore cannot be treated in that way. We should look at the end that we want, which is improved scrutiny, and not play political games with the process.
Let me now come to the heart of what I wanted to say. The Committee has come up with a menu. It has said that there are a variety of devices whereby the legislative
1100
process could be improved: ad hoc Select Committees, Special Standing Committees, Second Reading Committees and First Reading Committees. That is the menu from which we can choose. The question is: will it happen?
Three things are required for it to happen: first, a Leader of the House who is radical, energetic, innovative and wants to lead, and I think that we have that; secondly—this is the crucial point—Ministers and civil servants with Ministers who are prepared to expose their Bills to the menu of scrutiny that the Committee is proposing. That is the most challenging point of all. Thirdly, the Opposition need to understand that scrutiny can be constructive and not merely oppositional. We shall find out soon whether those all conditions are in place. The public interest requires that they are.
In every other area of life, we search for common ground. We seek to arrive at decisions by going from positions of difference to a position of common ground. This institution is different because, laser-like, it searches for disagreement. That is what makes this place distinctive. That is why people have lost confidence in it and rumbled it. That is why we say that any talk of a new politics means doing politics differently in this place too.
7.50 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: During this interesting debate, several references have been made to the record number of new Members in this Parliament. I compliment many of them on having the fortitude to sit through this debate and I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing their comments on these important issues.
I am reminded of my feelings on being elected to the House 10 years ago. I felt that the whole procedure was archaic and that working methods, the conditions that we endured and the hours were unacceptable. Many a time, I would remonstrate with the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I now realise, however, that I was somewhat impetuous. As time progressed, I realised that evolution, rather than revolution, was important in the House of Commons and that we should, as far as possible, try to make existing systems work better.
In reaching an understanding of what we are about, it is important that we should remind ourselves of the exact role of the Back Bencher. It is not necessarily to support the Executive; indeed, it is the opposite. Our role is to control the Executive—to hold it to account. There is a distinction between the role of the Government in getting their business through and the role of Back Benchers in ensuring that the Government do not run roughshod over the rights of Back Benchers and of the people whom they represent.
Hon. Members are a vital component of our democracy. We are the people who are charged with the responsibility of balancing the aspirations of people whom we represent and the ambitions of the Executive, who may, from time to time, have an entirely different agenda.
We would all be wise to note the words of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who drew attention to the fact that the power of the Opposition was the time that they have historically enjoyed in the House. He said that that time had been severely curtailed

1101
and made the valid point that we all had a right to put our view and to be heard. It is a long-standing feature of our parliamentary democracy that opposition should be heard.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) rightly chided the Government for having ridden somewhat roughshod over Parliament in introducing various measures. The Labour party must realise, as any democrat would, that all hon. Members are elected and deserve to, and must, be heard. It would perhaps not be amiss for the new Government to realise that fewer people voted for them than for all the other parties represented in the House, so a majority of the electorate did not vote for the Government.
Indeed, it is unusual for a Government to command more than 50 per cent. of the votes cast at a general election, but that is not my point. Notwithstanding the fact that they have a huge majority, they have to allow time for hon. Members who represent the millions of people who voted differently to put their case, to argue with the Government in debate and to challenge features of their policies that we feel should be challenged.
Mr. Salter: I always find it bewildering when Conservative Members talk about the proportion of votes. Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman supports electoral reform and will back proportional representation?
Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point that I am trying to make, which is simple. The fact that the Labour Government have a majority of 179 in this Parliament does not mean that they can push through their legislation without regard to the legitimate views of other Members, who have been elected by a substantial number of votes. On 1 May, more people in the UK voted for parties other than the Labour party. The point at issue is that, if our system is to be in any way democratic, the representatives of the people have to have an opportunity to put their view and to be heard. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was right.
I welcome the report's conclusions in paragraph 91, although I note the comments by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on the experiences in Northern Ireland. I have been a long-term advocate of channelling legislation through Select Committees, because they could enormously improve legislation. I remind the House that the departmental Select Committees are relatively new. They were instituted in 1979, when the Conservative party had just formed a new Government, in much the same way as the Labour party has just taken the reins of office.
The advantage in referring draft legislation to Select Committees is that the legislation would be considered at an early stage by a group of people who would have built up expertise in the appropriate sector. More to the point—this may apply more to Labour than to Opposition Back Benchers—if draft legislation were channelled through departmental Select Committees, Committee members would have greater job satisfaction. They would feel that they were doing something worth while and contributing to something that had a future—legislation that would progress through the House and eventually be enacted. The benefits would be not just to Members of Parliament, but to the general public and the people whom we represent. I believe that that process would mean that we had a more transparent system of consultation.
1102
Government Departments currently assure us that consultation is carried out with appropriate bodies before legislation is brought to the House. However, we have no way of knowing how thorough that consultation has been and, without many searching questions, we cannot find out who has been consulted. One is wary of the fact that Departments and Ministers are busy and that consultation may not have taken place with all those who might wish to have some input into the legislation. Through the Select Committee procedure there is scope for following up any matters arising from the evidence taken. All that would give rise to better legislation and, more to the point, would save time, not just on the Floor of the House but in Standing Committees.
There has already been reference to the number of amendments being presented to much of the legislation that has come before the House. Sometimes, the number has been unacceptably high. That is a great indictment of the way in which the legislation reached that stage.
I am tempted to say that we have too much legislation. When it comes to ordering the business of the House, the Executive might consider bringing less legislation before us so that the legislation that they do present can be given more time and be considered in more detail. In that way, the legislation reaching the statute book would be better.
In advocating the role of departmental Select Committees in considering draft legislation, I do not want to detract in any way from their important work of scrutinising Government Departments. I commend the suggestion in the report that they should have a role in monitoring recent legislation; in other words, that there should be a follow-up procedure for legislation once it has been enacted. Nor do we want to lose sight of the vital role of Select Committees in investigating matters of public interest on an ad hoc basis.
The important matter of debating Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House has been mentioned. Too few of their reports come to the House and hon. Members, certainly those who serve on those Committees, would like to think that there will be a greater opportunity for the result of their labours to be discussed on the Floor of the House at some stage.
Different views have been expressed about the paragraph in the report which refers to carrying over legislation from one Session to the next. A former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, said that he thought that that was a good thing, but my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) disagreed with him. I find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon. If Governments have the scope to roll over legislation into the next Session, it would cut across the points made so ably by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Time is of the essence for the Opposition and we would be forfeiting one of the essential rights of the Opposition if we allowed the Government to roll over legislation.
8.3 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: As another newly elected Member who was a member of the Select Committee, I must say that that membership has been a fascinating experience and has given me a crash course at least in the theory of current parliamentary procedures. I am grateful to the more experienced members of the Committee who have been forbearing in

1103
explaining the complexity of the procedures to me. I hope that all my fellow new Members have read the report and that they keep by them the handy chart in the report, which is the clearest exposition of all the different options available to us to exploit the procedures of the House to try to make it more effective.
Members of the public watching Parliament on television must be forgiven for thinking that the most important parts of the work of the House of Commons are questions to the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Holding Ministers to account is crucial, but the major output of Parliament is legislation. If that legislation is faulty, it can have a highly significant effect on people's lives, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright).
I am not against referring to hon. Members by their constituency, but I would find it easier if the annunciator gave our constituency in brackets under our name. That would allow us to listen to the debate instead of having to scrabble around in text books trying to find out the constituencies of various hon. Members. That is an example of the way in which the traditions of the House interfere with debate rather than facilitate it.
I believe that the key aims of the recommendations made in the report are to improve the effectiveness of Parliament and Members of Parliament and to improve the quality of legislation. Those two things are interlinked. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), talked about the red heat of political debate and about this being a continuous election campaign. We have all been elected as party political people and we all have deeply held and passionate party political views. It would be naive to try to deny that.
We should accept that two different things take place within the legislative process. The first is the argument in principle about the aims of a Bill. That will always be party political and will sometimes involve debates between factions within individual parties. The second part of the legislative process is discussion of the detail of the legislation—the detail which is vital to make it work. The recognition of that split is crucial.
It is not helpful if any alteration to a Bill, however minor, is seen as a defeat for the Government. A defeat on the principle of a Bill would be a defeat for the Government, but improvements to the detail can be made by Opposition Members and by Government Back Benchers and following suggestions from outside organisations. We should not engender an atmosphere in which the Government try to defend everything. I believe that acceptance of constructive amendments is a sign of strength in a Government, not a sign of weakness.
The Opposition should be able to oppose a Bill in principle and then, having lost the vote on that—that will inevitably happen in this Parliament—they should make constructive suggestions about how to make the Bill work, even if they do not agree with it in the first place. That is why I believe that in Committee it should be possible first to take a vote on the principle of a clause, allowing the Opposition to make their point, and then to go on to discuss the detailed implementation of the Bill. The Opposition could then make positive and constructive comments without that being taken as support for the
1104
principle of the Bill. Those somewhat detailed proposals are incredibly important if we are to make this place work more effectively.
Another important aspect of making this place work more effectively is to ensure that we fully use the wide range of expertise of Members of Parliament and the external organisations that try to give advice to the House. That would all help to achieve better quality legislation. That is why I support the proposals on draft legislation and for a much more imaginative use of Committees, including pre-legislative Committees, and for a more deliberative and less confrontational style of debate in those Committees.
As I have said, Parliament now has a large number of Members with a huge range of expertise, and we must use that effectively. Like the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), my personal preference is for having ad hoc pre-legislative and Special Standing Committees rather than departmental Select Committees for pre-legislative work. That would diffuse work among Members, rather than concentrating it. Members with specialist knowledge, such as on pensions, sometimes do not serve on the relevant Select Committee.
My second point—it is very late and I have not eaten for hours, so perhaps I have lost track and it is my third point—is about programming. Programming of legislation is extremely important. It is important that it is tailored to each Bill. Some Bills do not require much detailed discussion and should be whipped through Committee. Others may need a lot of detailed discussion and should have many Committee sittings. Programming will allow time for the parts of each Bill that need full discussion to be fully discussed. It will stop the time wasting on relatively uncontentious parts of a Bill, which I am led to believe occurs under the present procedure.
Programming is also important because it helps individual Members to use their time most effectively. It brings a certain predictability to the legislative process, which not only is advantageous to individual Members but helps to achieve effective scrutiny. If Members can plan their time more effectively, they are likely to be better prepared when issues that they believe are important are debated and when they take part in such debates.
I refute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who seemed to think that programming was all about accelerating the progress of Bills. That is not necessarily so. Programming is about accelerating through parts that do not need much discussion and giving time to parts that do need it.
I accept that, to begin with, discussions on programming will have to take place through the usual channels, but I hope that, in future, that process becomes less opaque. I do not think that the usual channels are entirely consistent with the transparency that most of us espouse.
The Modernisation Committee will discuss the conduct of debate. I want to make two points. First, hon. Members with some experience tend to wax lyrical about the virtue of debate in the House and the importance of its cut and thrust. It really does not encourage Members from the 1997 intake to take part in debates when the custom of the House is to keep such Members waiting until everybody else has spoken—unless one is lucky enough to be a member of a party that has very few representatives, in which case one is advanced up the order. The House needs to take note of that. It is also a fact that most of my hon. Friends and I have been

1105
listening with patience to our more senior colleagues, yet few of them have had the courtesy to wait and listen to what we wish to say.
My second point arises from my experience in the Chamber yesterday during Prime Minister's Question Time. I really wondered whether any Opposition Members—none of those whom I particularly noticed and about whom I am about to complain is present—had any understanding of the way in which our behaviour is perceived by the public. Of course I understand that it is the role of Opposition Members—they are absolutely justified in that role—robustly to question Ministers and try to demonstrate what they perceive are Government errors, but the yelling, the gesturing and the frankly boorish behaviour which seems to have become traditional simply give the impression of a barrack room rather than a serious attempt to hold the Government to account. It brings the House into disrepute—and that is played back every weekend when I speak to people in my constituency.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Lady accept that such behaviour did not begin on 1 May?
Dr. Starkey: I accept that absolutely. Obviously, I was not in the House before 1 May. The fact that such behaviour may have gone on before is absolutely no excuse for it continuing. This is a new Parliament. The public have a new attitude to politicians; it is not one of much respect. All of us—both new and old Members—must live up to our responsibility to try to rehabilitate Parliament in the eyes of the public. I do not absolve some of my hon. Friends from some of the boorish behaviour.
I very much hope that the report's recommendations on the legislative process are accepted and rapidly put into effect. I very much hope that this is just the start of a modernisation of Parliament that will renew the public's interest and confidence in what we all do as Members of Parliament.
8.14 pm
Mr. Bob Laxton: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I say to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that it has not taken fortitude for me to remain in the Chamber throughout the debate. As a new Member of Parliament, I have found it interesting and informative. This debate has given me the opportunity to make my maiden speech.
I was proud and privileged to be elected to the House on 1 May for a number of reasons—one being that I hail from the city of Derby. I was born there and have lived and worked there all my life. Prior to being elected, I served for about 18 years—at times it seemed longer—as an elected member of Derby city council. I therefore believe that I bring to the House a great knowledge and considerable experience of the concerns, worries and aspirations of the electors of the city of Derby.
I also know some of the reasons why newcomers to the city of Derby grow to love the place. Derby has been described over the years as the biggest village in England. It has a population of about 250,000. On occasions, however, it takes me a couple of hours to travel a few hundred yards through the city centre. The people are very friendly, want to exchange views with me, seek my opinions and of course, on many occasions, bend my ear.
1106
The political history of Derby is quite interesting. The seat of Derby, North came into existence only in 1950. Prior to that, since—I am advised–1299, Derby sent two Members of Parliament from one constituency, the longest serving Member of Parliament being the late Lord Noel Baker, who had a most distinguished parliamentary and international career.
On a statistical note, over the past century Derby has returned 16 men to Westminster, which is perhaps a somewhat dubious tradition for me to continue. It is dubious because I am pleased to say that, as a result of the election, we have so many women in this Parliament.
One reassuring statistic, which enlivens me fairly considerably, is that the average age of the previous 16 Members of Parliament at their death was 80.5 years and five of them were nonagenarians. Representing Derby, North obviously prolongs life. Subject to the vagaries of the election process, I might be around for a while.
The election on 1 May was my second attempt to win the constituency of Derby, North for the Labour party. I also contested it in 1992. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Greg Knight, whom I always found a most friendly and approachable parliamentarian. He rose to a position of some influence in the Conservative Government, perhaps as a result of his almost total loyalty to the their policies. However, if he had been given the opportunity on 28 November to vote on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), I feel sure that he would have supported it, because he felt especially strongly about that issue and had voted accordingly on previous occasions.
One of the difficulties Greg experienced as the Deputy Chief Whip of the Conservative was being termed, affectionately, "silent Knight", because he could not contribute to debates. It was only during the later stages of his parliamentary career, from late 1996 onwards, when he became a Minister and started to spread his wings a little, that he became more well known in the city that he had ably served for the previous 14 years.
Greg took the seat 14 years ago from my friend and colleague Phillip Whitehead, who will be remembered by many hon. Members with affection. I am pleased to say that he continues to represent the interests of Derby's citizens in the new, redefined European constituency. He continues to do an excellent job on behalf of his constituents.
Derby has been supported by two industrial pillars—the aerospace and rail industries. Rolls-Royce Aerospace is enjoying a resurgence, and only today the Government announced that its bid for funds to develop its large engine range has been agreed. The total sum will amount to up to £200 million and I am delighted to have had the opportunity, since May, to play some small part in ensuring that that money has been made available. It will give Rolls-Royce the opportunity to develop large engines for the new range of larger jets produced by Boeing and British Aerospace. Rolls-Royce is at the leading edge of technology and the money will enable the company to seize a greater share of the world market with its Trent engine.
The rail industry, however, has a somewhat sadder history. Many of us were greatly concerned by the previous Government's rail privatisation proposals,

1107
mainly because while the legislation was being completed, the rail manufacturing industry suffered a complete vacuum of orders. As a result, the United Kingdom rail industry started to collapse and in York, for example, all rail manufacturing activity ceased. I pay tribute to the Swedish—not English—senior management of Asea Brown Boveri, now Adtranz, who stuck with Derby through a lean period when no orders came in for three years. The company has managed to stay in Derby and kept the core work force and design team together. Only a few days ago, I visited Wembley at the company's invitation to look at the new train it has designed and built for Chiltern Railways. Adtranz is on the way back, and not before time.
Derby, North is the commuter area of the city and, because of the two main pillars of aerospace and rail manufacturing, most people who live there have worked, work or will work—again, in some cases—for those industries. The city is doing reasonably well and has attracted many small and medium enterprises that are doing especially well. I have to say—and not only as a previous leader of Derby city council—that that success is due in no small measure to the combined efforts of the city council, Derbyshire county council, the private sector, Derby university, and many other agencies. All those bodies have worked together in close partnership to ensure that we sell Derby as a city of the future, through the Derby city partnership, which has proved to be a great success.
It would be remiss of me, and I would probably face justified criticism, not to refer to the role that Derby's sporting activities are now playing on the national and international stage. Some people would say that Derby County football club—the Rams—has perhaps the most international team in the land, and it is doing well in the premier league. I played some part in the club's move from the old Baseball ground to a new, state-of-the-art, 30,000-seat stadium at Pride park. I am delighted that the club is getting capacity audiences there. I also pay tribute to the foresight of the club's directors, who went out on a financial limb to fund the project, and I wish the club well in the future.
I shall now turn to the modernisation process that we are debating. After 18 years in local government, one learns to study legislation—and its legal interpretations—closely and I have always said that the devil is in the detail. For example, paragraph 4(iii)(a) of the Afghan light railway act 1726 will be the bit that causes endless confusion. It is the detail that stops people doing what they want to do. On my arrival in the House, I found it interesting to examine the Order Paper in some detail. Despite my extensive experience in interpreting legislation, again as a result of my time in local government, the Order Paper defeated me very early. Of course, a number of colleagues assured me that they understood it perfectly, but it took only a few nanoseconds of questions before they decided to terminate our conversation. I quickly concluded that they understood it little better than I did, although some of them had been Members of Parliament for many years. I am delighted that we have already ensured that the Order Paper is more readily understandable, because that is immense progress.
1108
The programming of legislation is also important. Even from my limited experience in the House, I have concluded that we need to try to ensure some certainty in the legislative process and its timing. I note from the report that the Modernisation Committee intends to consider the balance between the times when the House sits and the recesses, although it has not discussed that issue yet. That is long overdue. Many of us found it strange to work here for three months and then to leave for three months. When we came back, the learning process had to start again. Establishing a better balance between the periods when the House is in recess and when it is sitting would be to the advantage of us all.
I welcome the Modernisation Committee's report. From my limited experience, I have seen that we must be forward-looking and move from the 17th or 18th century at least some way towards the 21st. Many colleagues have made excellent points about the way in which we are perceived by the public, who find some of our customs archaic. I have no great difficulty with some of the customs and practices of the House—I am not someone who wants to come in and turn the applecart upside down. Some of our customs are amusing, some are interesting and some are a little quirky, but they do not get in the way of the legislative process. I am pleased that the Committee is looking at that process. We need to home in on that, and not the customs and practices, which are part of the tradition of the House and should be retained. We must home in on the legislative process and bring it up to a modern standard that befits the 21st century.
8.30 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech and commend him for his patience not only tonight, but for waiting for what must be a proud moment. I commend him also for his commitment to Derby, its people and its football club. I have spent many a sad hour at Reading football club watching Derby hammer my poor chaps into the ground. I hope for my hon. Friend's sake that Derby does not have to face Reading again and that Derby has a more succesful period in the premiership than Reading would have done had it beaten my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House's side, Bolton Wanderers—a fact of which she cruelly reminded me when she responded to my maiden speech.
It is good to see representatives from local government here in the House. One of the great features of the massive intake of new Labour Members—I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—is that it is good to see hon. Members who have had experience of running and delivering services. The confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North showed in delivering his maiden speech shows that he is not intimidated by this large council chamber. I wish him well for the future.
It is important that new Members contribute to this important debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons and of our democracy in general. We may not bring new ideas, but we do bring a fresh approach. A Government Whip said to me not long ago that the problem with this place is that once people get into a position where they are able to change things, they do not want to because they have become accustomed to the

1109
place and its quirks, traditions and crazy hours of working. Perhaps in five years' time I might not say what I wish to say now—which is why I want to say it now.
I am conscious that the Government Whips are anxious that we should not speak for too long as they want to go home. I have already made some points in my maiden speech. I commend the work of the Modernisation Committee, particularly on the revised Order Paper. It is wonderful to have an Order Paper that is written in English and can be understood by members of the press and the public. I am pleased that we are looking at the legislative process and I commend in particular page vi of the report, where the nine essential requirements of a reformed system are listed.
Members of the parliamentary Labour party need no reminder that, as far back as 1994, we formulated radical and definitive policies for reform of the House of Commons. It would be nice to see many of these reforms in place before the end of the Parliament. To build on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, as we approach the new millennium, it would be nice to think that we could drag ourselves kicking and screaming into the 20th century—that way we will be only 100 years behind the times, rather than 300.
Before senior Members misinterpret my comments, I must say that I believe that it is a tremendous privilege to serve as a Member of Parliament. We have much in our traditions of which we can be proud, but much of our procedure is ridiculous, arcane, irrelevant and disconnects us from the real world. I shall give some examples, although I do not wish to touch on points mentioned by other hon. Members. At present, large areas of the House of Commons are no-go areas for the elderly and the disabled. The current ridiculous rules prevent our having something simple like a cup of tea with constituents who come here unless we take them out on to the Terrace, where it is freezing in winter.
I welcome the fact that the Committee will look at the timetabling of business so that Members can plan their diaries more effectively. I welcome the fact that we now receive the provisional timetable for two weeks ahead, but I urge the Committee to look at planning legislation and the business of the House for three weeks ahead so we can plan constituency engagements and our time better.
I strongly support the case for a change in our working hours. I would, wouldn't I, because I am a Member from the home counties. I recognise that Members from the north, or those with business interests, may like the current system, but is it not possible for the core hours of the House of Commons to be from 11 am to 7 pm? Is it not possible for Select Committees to sit in the evening, making it easier for the public to attend and for us to plan a more sensible working day? Such an arrangement would make it possible for Members to have some element of family life, which seems taboo in this place—certainly to judge from the number of divorces.
I am at a loss to understand the value of the pairing system. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), a Government Whip, nodding; perhaps he is too. I fail to see how we can pair with an Opposition party whose numbers do not equal our majority. Perhaps the pairing system has had its day and we can look at a more radical system, such as proxy voting. If it is okay for my grandmother to have a proxy
1110
vote if she is unwell, I should have thought that it must be okay for Members of Parliament. I hope such suggestions are not heresy.
Sir Patrick Cormack: They are.
Mr. Salter: I am sure that they are to the hon. Gentleman.
In the context of a Government with a massive majority—the largest since 1832—there is a need to re-examine the role of Back Benchers. One thing I learned from my time in local government is that it is important for Administrations with large majorities to give the troops something to do. Would it be so harmful—would it threaten the Executive—if Back Benchers were allowed to gain time on the Floor of the House if, for example, they gained the support of 30 or 40 per cent. of Members of all parties for an early-day motion? I understand that that was a convention some years ago.
There should be a time limit on speeches. I am not sure that the delaying tactic used by the Opposition is particularly effective, and I am not sure what is achieved by a filibuster. I am not sure what we have to lose by time-limiting speeches and letting more Members get in. I certainly believe that Select Committees should be allowed to have at least one report of their choice debated on the Floor of the House in any 12-month period. My limited, recent experience has shown me that time should be available for private Members' legislation. Perhaps if that were the case, we would not have a problem with the forthcoming private Member's Bill to end the barbaric sport of hunting with hounds.
Since I was privileged to be elected a Member of Parliament, my opinion that the job of representing 70,000 people is a full-time job and that there is no excuse for Members to have paid employment outside has been confirmed. We are adequately paid.
I took the liberty of having a trawl through the Register of Members' Interests. The first Hamilton that I looked up is no longer a Member of Parliament, so I can mention him by name. His entry was not especially informative, but perhaps that is why he is no longer with us. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) lists seven remunerated directorships, has five remunerated employment opportunities and, like all of us, represents between 60,000 and 70,000 people. We do our constituents no service by being in thrall to two masters.
Various publications have been cited, as much that what we talk about is not new. I commend to the House a small pamphlet, "Reinventing Democracy", written about three years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). It is short and precise and encapsulates much of what we have said tonight and much of what the Select Committee already has in its work programme.
I believe that the Select Committee has made a tremendous start, but there is a long, long way to go before we make the changes necessary to re-establish the credibility of this mother of Parliaments in the eyes of the nation.
8.40 pm
Mr. John Cryer: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech, which was excellent, and I am glad that

1111
Derby County is doing so well in the league. I have supported Leeds all my life, so my life has been an echoing void in many ways.
The Select Committee's first report has dealt largely with the programming of legislation. In the Tea Room and the Lobbies I have heard the argument that the timetabling of legislation represents an attack on the rights and powers of Back Benchers. I have my doubts. Timetabling exists anyway: if memory serves, we have had two or three guillotines in this Parliament, and we had 50 or 60 in the previous Parliament. That is timetabling in a fairly haphazard way and the recommendations merely take it a few stages further.
I have grave doubts about timetabling on the Floor of the House, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, timetabling in Committee hands more power to Back Benchers, because there is more incentive for them to speak and the Government do not put pressure on them there not to speak or to keep their comments brief, which happens in the Chamber under Governments of whatever political complexion.
The real attacks on Back Benchers' power took place in the 12 or 14 years before 1 May 1997. That is when hours were cut and the ability of Opposition Back Benchers to keep the Government up all night was curtailed. I can think of one or two former and current Labour Back Benchers who were very good at that. People no longer speak on money resolutions, for example.
I suspect that the Conservatives, under whose aegis those powers were taken away, now regret it. Perhaps they thought that they would never be in opposition again. They certainly do not have the powers that we enjoyed for many years on the Opposition Back Benches.
The shadow Leader of the House mentioned policy pronouncements through press releases and newspaper columns. That is nothing new; policy pronouncements should be made on the Floor of the House, but there has been a slide in the other direction for the past 20 years, as I believe Madam Speaker pointed out on another occasion.
There was a great deal of talk in the previous Parliament—it has been coming back over the past few weeks—about cutting hours and making them more relevant. I do not see how we could do that, as hours have already been cut drastically. Twenty years ago, the House used to sit until 2 am or 3 am a couple of times a week. We may be glad that that does not happen any more, but it is hard to see how we could cut hours even more. How can we get 17 Bills through this Session if we cut hours? That will not work.
We must remember that in the real world people face longer hours, less pay, shorter holidays and less sick pay, yet Members of Parliament talk about working fewer hours, and last year they voted themselves a 30 per cent. pay increase. That does not go down brilliantly with people who face increasing difficulties at work.
I find it incredible that we cannot get the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill through, yet we have just been away for three months. There is a slight contradiction there. We should bear it in mind that at the
1112
most recent general election, 12 million people failed to vote, compared with 9 million at the previous one. There is increasing alienation from the democratic political process.
More and more people feel deeply cynical about what goes on here. Talk about cutting hours, lengthening holidays and raising pay will only make people feel even more that the House is irrelevant. People outside face problems that Members of Parliament, on £43,000 a year minimum, will never face, unless they are defeated, as quite a few were recently.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned alternative voting methods. I am glad to hear that there is unanimity on the Select Committee that voting will still take place here. The method of voting as it stands is pretty effective. As a new Member, I have found that it is possible to buttonhole Ministers in the Lobby, but nowhere else. Any encouragement to stay away, especially for Ministers, would be a bad thing.
Right now, the Chamber is almost empty; there is no danger of anyone getting killed in the crush to get in. When I had an Adjournment debate, the Conservative Benches were completely empty. Perhaps no Conservative Members were interested in what I had to say, although I thought that the subject, the funding and administration crisis in further education, was important. There were not many people on the Government Benches, either.
I remind hon. Members of one Colonel Sir Walter de Frece, a Conservative Member of Parliament in the 1920s and 1930s, who lived in some luxury in a palace in Monte Carlo and came to the House only twice a year, on Budget day and when Ascot was on. He had the reputation of being quite a good constituency Member, because he signed blank sheets of House of Commons notepaper and his secretary filled in the rest. Push-button voting would lead to such people raising their heads again.
I welcome some changes made since 1 May. For instance, the new Order Paper has made a great difference. It is now written in English, which is helpful. I also welcome the change in Prime Minister's Question Time. No Labour Member would accuse me of being a careerist, but I think that that has been a very beneficial change.
If the Prime Minister is under the spotlight for only a quarter of an hour, he can virtually bluff it, get out in a trice and think, "Thank Christ for that, I've got away with it." Of course, our Prime Minister never thinks that. Being under the spotlight for half an hour exposes him to far greater Opposition scrutiny, if the Opposition are up to providing it.
A radical innovation that would greatly help new Members would be the end of the Privy Council. I see no reason for prolonging its rights. Membership gives rights to some senior Back Benchers who were Ministers but not to others. New Members have to wait for hours to speak. The longest that I have waited to take part in a debate was seven hours, and I did not get called at the end of it.
I accept that there must be some process of seniority, but the Privy Council means that some senior Back Benchers who are Privy Counsellors can come in, make a quick speech and leave the Chamber, while other senior Back Benchers have to sit around with the rest of us for four, five or six hours before speaking. There is a certain inequality in that.

1113
Two previous speakers said that there should be more co-operation in the Chamber, that we should all cuddle up together. I am dubious about that. If I had sat on the Standing Committee that considered the poll tax legislation, which was mentioned earlier, I would have said that the tax was an evil attack on the poorest and most vulnerable in society and that we should sling it out. That was what the people did out there. It was not done in here, but it was done out in the country. They slung it out. I am not going to smile on cuddling up to Conservative Members whom I have spent my life trying to get out.
My final point concerns outside interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said, outside interests go down badly with people outside, who often face lower wages and longer hours. When the public see hon. Members with eight, nine or 10 directorships earning a fortune—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), if memory serves, picked up a job on £100,000 with Barclays de Zoete Wedd—they find it obscene. It must end. Fortunately, the result on 1 May has by itself made a difference to political culture. Labour Members want to be here because they believe in public service and in restoring honour and respect to the post of Member of Parliament. Too many Conservative Members came here to line their pockets with directorships, adviserships and consultancies.
8.51 pm
Ms Jenny Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech.
Like other new Members, I hope that my remarks will not be considered presumptuous. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and her Committee on their work so far and on producing the report, which I have read. I found the chart at the back helpful. I also find the new Order Paper helpful, as do other hon. Members.
The Leader of the House said that she was inviting us to state our priorities. I am going to take up her invitation, although I suspect that I shall add to the long list of demands and requests for the Committee to work its way through. I gather that the Committee will in the next few weeks consider the conduct of debates. Timed speeches have been mentioned several times. I wish to refer especially to timed speeches on the Floor.
I am at pains to emphasise that I am not asking the Committee to consider timed speeches in the interest of speed. I agree with other hon. Members that speeding up legislation can be bad. Scrutiny is important. There have been examples of bad legislation that was speeded through the House with disastrous effects. As has been said, it is our electorate who must live with bad legislation. I raise timed speeches in the interest of the quality of debate.
Like other hon. Members, I come from a local authority background. As in most council chambers, we had timed speeches. Timing can vary and be quite flexible. I am not arguing for five or 10-minute speeches but for a mechanism that encourages hon. Members to be succinct and concise. The most valuable thing about timed speeches is that they enable as many people as possible to get into the debate. The way things stand, hon. Members are called by order of seniority, which we all understand, and in the interest of getting the right cross-party political mix.
1114
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker work hard to try to fit us all in. I by no means I decry that, but in debates when many hon. Members want to speak, some cannot get in. By the nature of things, that tends to affect Back Benchers, especially newer Members. Apart from the frustration of hon. Members who have researched and prepared speeches that they cannot deliver, the House is the poorer for that, because it loses the practical knowledge and fresh approach that new Members in particular can bring to debates.
I had been in the House a week when a Conservative Member described me and other new Labour Members as Lobby fodder. New Members do not regard themselves as Lobby fodder. We are here to do a job of work. We are privileged to represent our constituencies. I am particularly privileged as the first Labour Member to represent my constituency. We come from a variety of backgrounds and have a lot to contribute to debates. We want to be active on the Floor as well as in Committee and in our constituencies.
The other reason why I should like the Committee to consider timed speeches is that several hon. Members have mentioned the public perception of the House and the way in which we debate. We must be sensitive to the fact that the public have a different perception of our conduct in the House and of our speeches. My constituents have told me that they perceive—I am being diplomatic—longer speeches of a meandering nature as reinforcing the unfortunate perception that Members of Parliament are merely in love with the sound of their own voices and opinions.
I said that I would be succinct and brief because I wished to raise only one point. I shall therefore end by saying that I do not decry my hon. Friends' ability to make long speeches and to stick to the point, but they must also be concise and succinct. The greatest contribution that can be made through timed speeches is to enable as many hon. Members as possible to participate in debates.
8.58 pm
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on being the second person in the debate, which began at 4.45 this afternoon, to take less than 10 minutes to speak. I shall not name the other person because it might be embarrassing.
I welcome the report and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for all the hard work that she and her Committee have put into it. I was reassured by her comment that this was only the beginning of a process. I am sure that she is aware of the great well of support, particularly from new Labour Members, for radical change in how Parliament is run. If we are to achieve the modern Britain that we talk about, we need a modern Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) made the strongest case for that in this debate.
When many new Members came here—we were prepared for it—this place struck us as a men's club. Our hours are extraordinary. I do not argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) suggests some of us might, for cutting our hours. We all realise that we are here to put in very long hours; otherwise, we would not have gone for this job. However, we have inherited

1115
our hours from an age when most Members of Parliament were not paid to work here or it was their second, third or fourth job. They came here in the afternoons.
I support my hon. Friends who have made the case for introducing a system of core hours in which we start at 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning and work until 7 o'clock in the evening. That does not mean that we could not have Committees in the evenings or outside those times. Previous speakers have already mentioned the effect that our existing hours have on family life. Many of us have no family life or loved ones within easy reach of the building, but many others do. I urge them to consider the fact that most businesses that operate effectively take into account people's basic human need to see their families. When the hours of the House were set, most of the men who inhabited these seats had few, if any, family responsibilities—that was all done by servants.
The length of speeches has already been mentioned by other hon. Members. Madam Speaker is already on record as expressing her concern that the BBC is thinking of getting rid of "Yesterday in Parliament". Over the past few years, many hon. Members have expressed concern about the decreasing interest, among not just the broadcast media but the printed media, in what happens in this Chamber. That is evidence, if any were needed, that we are, by and large, a turn-off. Most of the 15-minute speeches that I have heard since arriving here on 1 May could easily have been made in five minutes. We could then have fitted in more people. I whole-heartedly support the idea of restricting the length of speeches to 10 minutes. I do not understand why they could not be a little shorter.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his excellent maiden speech. The fact that he was here to make it reminded me of the problem that I had making mine. The problem is shared by many new Members, who sit through hours and hours of debate, having taken a long time preparing their maiden speech, and are then not called to speak. I heard of one hon. Member to whom that happened five times, so I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider the whole system of maiden speeches. Until a new Member makes a maiden speech, he or she is gagged. If that is not the strict rule, they at least feel gagged, because they cannot contribute to debates in the Chamber.
So far, no one has raised the issue of the dress code in the House. I do not mind wearing a suit every day, but I object to being told that I must do so. Others in the Chamber—please rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker if I am—have to sit here in diamante, buckled shoes, wearing swords and wigs. They may like that, but we should be aware of the image that we project to the world outside.
My next point is about applause. One of my abiding memories is of my first day in the Chamber for the re-election of Madam Speaker. I was sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). When the Prime Minister entered the Chamber, there was spontaneous applause from the Labour Benches. I shall not easily forget it because I received a sharp elbow in my ribs—I was one of those who were clapping—and it was made clear to me in no uncertain terms that applause was not allowed in the Chamber. Why not? Moments later, the most
1116
extraordinary animal noises were emanating from her mouth. Apparently, that was how we were supposed to express our appreciation. I do not know of any other modern Chamber in the world that does not allow polite applause.
Prayers are fine and I attend when I can, but I have to say as a high Anglican that I have not in years attended a church service where the prayers were as archaic as those we say in this Chamber at 2.30 pm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), whom I shall reveal as the other hon. Member who spoke for less than 10 minutes today, talked about the seating. I know that doing so would not be physically easy, but I do not see why we cannot change the Chamber seating into a horseshoe shape. We do not need to move the Benches: Labour Members could all sit at one end, with the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the other minority parties at the other. I know that that would not allow the confrontation across the Dispatch Boxes that we have now, but is that confrontation necessarily a good thing?
If we want to move to a new politics of a more collaborative or inquisitorial nature, why are we so hooked on the system of Front-Bench spokesmen—currently my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—facing each other at a distance of a few feet, often shouting at each other? Even if changing the seating meant that they sat further apart, they could still have a discourse, albeit one that was less confrontational.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley also mentioned that there is not room for us all in the Chamber. As a result, we have to stand, or sit in the Gangways, or sit in the Galleries or sit on Benches where we cannot contribute to the debate. I beg my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider changing the seating in that respect as well.
Finally, I want to emphasise a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made most eloquently. One of the reasons we won such a big majority on 1 May was that the British public were fed up with politics as usual. Politicians, after journalists—none of whom have bothered to stay for this debate—are held in the lowest esteem according to every opinion poll. That has much to do with the "yah-boo" nature of this place and if we do not change that, we will be unable to restore the people's confidence in the political process. The report makes a great start and I hope that we will go much further.
9.6 pm
Mr. John Gunnell: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say how delighted I am that your predecessor in the Chair did not call me at a time that would have meant that I spoke before new Members who have been present for longer than I, because I have enjoyed listening to their speeches. They have been extremely helpful to me and, although I cannot say that I have agreed with everything that has been said, they have been imaginative speakers.
I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech. I, too, was delighted by Derby County's play last Saturday when they appeared at Elland Road. I was not happy when they were 3-0 up, but I was very happy when, in the last

1117
minute, Leeds won the game. Nevertheless, Derby County contributed to the most entertaining game I have seen at Elland Road for a long time.
Turning to the subject of the debate, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. About a year ago, I heard her speak at a Charter 88 meeting in the House and many of the ideas that she talked about on that occasion are proposals that she is now seeking to put into practice through the Select Committee. I took particular note of her statement that there should be
"some kind of legislative consultation with a flexible range of options."
Although not everything that she said has come to pass, the Select Committee's report has at least been put before the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, we now have a Government who are committed to change. We also have a Leader of the House who knows how that change should be scrutinised, both in Committee and by the House. The report is a positive step and I wish my right hon. Friend every success in bringing about the changes that she envisaged a year ago. I shall comment briefly on them. I have decided to comment only on those matters that have not been done to death in the debate.
On pre-legislative scrutiny, I should say that the time that I have spent in Standing Committees has been pretty futile. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Railways Act 1993, relating to rail privatisation. That Bill, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, was very long. Its scrutiny was conducted before our current hours were introduced, but no view expressed by the Opposition received any credence, despite the fact that we were dealing with matters of importance. They were also matters of high political controversy, so that may have been understandable, were it not for the fact that there were many points at which the Minister responsible for the Bill, and for piloting it through Committee, agreed that there was uncertainty about the detail of the way in which the Government were proceeding on certain issues.
As a result of the 1993 Act, jobs in the constituency that I then represented were lost, and a company went out of existence. There had been 130 years of railway manufacturing in Hunslet. That tradition was lost directly as a result of the Bill; that point was raised at the time, but it received scant regard. That was a failure of our system, which I hope that we shall change.
The changes that are proposed for Standing Committees are all-important, and I very much hope that they will all be put into practice.
Further discussion is needed on whether to use departmental Select Committees or to set up a specific Standing Committee to carry out pre-legislative work. The report of the Modernisation Committee is inconsistent about Select Committees and the use of departmental Select Committees. It says, or implies, that a departmental Committee would be overloaded if it involved itself in the draft scrutiny of the Bill.
Although that is arguable, it is inconsistent then to suggest that the same Select Committee might consider the Bill after it has come into effect. If a Select Committee has certain expertise, it is better for that expertise to be put to use before the Bill is further considered and before it becomes law than for it to be used to monitor the effects of the Act.
1118
I acknowledge that we ask a great deal of our departmental Select Committees. There is a case for an ad hoc specific Standing Committee or pre-legislative Committee in which ideas can be explored.
Why is there no reference in the report to civil service back-up? Select Committees are served by Committee Clerks, not civil servants, but that is an issue which should be considered in connection with modernising the House. Traditionally, the legislative branch and the Executive branch of the Government are in the House.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) that if there is a system of push-button voting, all members of the Government—the Executive—would find that they had so many demands on their time that it would become the norm for them to push the button instead of turning up and meeting their colleagues. That voting system would isolate the Executive. Under our system, the Executive is drawn from Members of Parliament and must be involved in the normal parliamentary processes. I believe that there is value in members of the Government being physically present to vote.
Why do we not use the civil service during pre-legislative consideration of Bills? I think that the public would support that proposal. We refer to "civil servants" and "public servants", but not to "Government servants". Yet the civil service serves the Government. I believe that there is a case for introducing civil service back-up for Committees scrutinising Bills, particularly before they are sent to Standing Committees.
Two hon. Members have mentioned the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. I suggest to the Leader of the House that the Bill should be considered for rollover. I have received more constituency correspondence on that issue than any other—and I think that my experience is common to that of other hon. Members. Many people find it hard to accept the Government's explanation that Parliament does not have time to consider that legislation. I understand the Government's position: I understand the priorities involved when dealing with the other place and I understand the passage of constitutional matters through the House. However, I think that the people are right in failing to understand why Parliament does not have time to consider a measure that enjoys enormous public support.
The reasons cannot be explained away on the basis of the time that Parliament spent in recess. I am sure that, given time, the legislation would pass through the House. Therefore, I believe that the Government should consider the Bill for rollover. In those circumstances, we would have time to debate the legislation fully and to establish a special Select Committee—perhaps comprising Members from this and the other place—to consider the issues involved.
The report lists the issues in order of priority; the second is ministerial accountability. The House is not good with legislative processes, and the Committee is right to use that as a starting point. We are also not good at holding Ministers to account. Last year, the then shadow Leader of the House referred to the format of Prime Minister's Question Time. She suggested not how many times a week Prime Minister's questions should occur, but that we might have a more intelligent Prime Minister's Question Time if many questions were known in advance. Most of us—perhaps because it is the easiest

1119
thing to do or because we do not want to ask closed questions—just put "E" on the questions that we table. I believe that hon. Members' conservatism in tabling questions has put a stop to the idea of conducting Prime Minister's Question Time with advance notice of the questions.
Clearly, there is a place for spontaneous questions, but we seem to be reverting to the pattern as before. Some hon. Members table questions to the Prime Minister on subjects that greatly concern them—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) certainly does that—but, in general, we follow a pattern that has become traditional in the House. We should consider ways of ensuring that more questions are given serious thought before being answered.
The issue of parliamentary questioning should be raised by the Modernisation Committee. I commend to the Leader of the House the Public Service Select Committee report on ministerial accountability which was issued in 1996. It deals with serious issues that must be studied with great care. There was a difference between the Select Committee and the Government on whether Parliament should be able to demand the resignation of a Minister. Perhaps that question should be revisited.
The way forward for parliamentary accountability that was seen by that Select Committee has largely been accepted in principle, but we have yet to see how it works out, especially with regard to the style of parliamentary questions. We get more answers now than we got previously, but there are still times when it is easy for a Minister who does not wish to answer not to do so. I do not think that there have been any false answers, although the report suggest a procedure for dealing with answers that a Member believes are not correct.
On the issue of holding Ministers and the Executive to account, I hope that the Leader of the House will pay due attention to the work done in the previous Parliament by the Select Committee, which, by and large agreed on its findings. Where a minority view was expressed, it should be considered carefully.
I have spoken for a good deal more than 10 minutes. When the Whip spoke to me, he suggested that I finish within a quarter of an hour. I hope that I have not spoken for quite that long.
9.22 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech. He and I both represent Derbyshire constituencies. We fought the 1992 election together, and we were both in local government in Derbyshire, where we overlapped for four years. I am sure that we will have a partnership in the House which lasts much longer than that.
I am one of the newer Members. This week, we have heard some scepticism about the role of newer Members. In the early days, when my name was put forward for membership of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, there were some grumbles from Opposition Members about the fact that three new Members were involved. We have heard the same arguments this week about other new Members on Committees.
1120
I like to think that those of us who are new to this place have established ourselves, and that those of us who have served on Select Committees have acquitted ourselves well. I believe that we have demonstrated that on the Standards and Privileges Committee. From the report before us, it seems that members of the Modernisation Committee have done so. Given the opportunity, I am sure that new Members will demonstrate their worth.
Against that background, I shall tell the House a short story. I was summoned by means of a card through the post to attend a meeting of a Standing Committee. I received the card on the Friday, read that it referred to a meeting during the following week and proceeded to do nothing about it at that moment. On the Monday I realised that the Standing Committee clashed with the meeting of the Select Committee of which I was a member. In my ignorance I thought that the Select Committee must come first. I was told, however, that the Standing Committee must come first.
By talking to the Whips, an intricate arrangement was arrived at whereby I would attend the meeting of the Select Committee, in a room that was in the same corridor as the room used by the Standing Committee. I was told that if there was a Division in the Standing Committee, a policeman would shout out at one door that a vote was taking place, another policeman would run down the Committee Corridor and another policeman would knock on the door of the Select Committee, summon me and take me to the of the Standing Committee room so that I might vote.
After two and a half hours in the Select Committee, I had not been called to the Standing Committee, which meant that there had not been a Division. Subsequently, I learnt that the Standing Committee had reported in 20 minutes flat. I do not know to this day what that Committee was discussing. I do not know what was said in that Committee and I do not know what the outcome was. I am not sure about the purpose of that Committee. I obviously went to the right Committee because I knew what was going on in the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.
That story comes from my ignorance of the system, but I am still not sure what Standing Committees are for. It is clear that they can be all over in 20 minutes. They are not about the detailed inspection of legislation that is the potential of Select Committees. I am much in favour of having pre-legislative Select Committees to examine draft legislation as well as post-legislative Committees. There should be two different bodies of Committees so that Members who consider legislation that finds its way on to the statute book are not involved in considering that legislation in draft form. It is a good idea to have two different groups involved in scrutiny. In that way there would be a greater Back-Bench role.
As some hon. Members have said, the Child Support Agency is an example of legislation that was launched with the best of intentions. A major review took place during the previous Parliament and another review may yet take place. Despite that background, there is still unfairness in the system. There are inefficiencies and contradictions in the way in which the organisation operates. Those shortcomings could have been discovered by more thorough pre-legislative scrutiny, along with more effective and powerful post-legislative scrutiny. If that process had been followed, the system would have

1121
been better for our constituents and the reputation of the agency, and its effectiveness in carrying out the job that we thought we were giving it would have been enhanced.
I receive three or four new CSA cases in my postbag every week, and other hon. Members tell me that they receive more. The majority of those cases stem from legislation that seemed all right at the time, but did not receive proper scrutiny.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) talked about the usefulness of the Lobby for tapping people on the shoulder, for example. Surely we have new technology for recording votes more efficiently, which is the metallic stripe on the back of our identity cards. I do not know why that stripe cannot be used as a swipe card to register our attendance as we pass through the Lobby.
My constituency is on the straight line between Manchester and Sheffield. That means that I can spend a couple of hours in my office on Monday morning and return by late morning on the Friday. I have the entire Friday afternoon in the constituency while the House is sitting. That seems to be a pretty good arrangement. I appreciate that Members who have more difficult travel arrangements find it impossible to achieve the same balance between work in the House and work in the constituency. I would not like to see the start and end of our working week to change that much.
As one who does not have the opportunity for family life on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays while the House is sitting, I am happy to go along with what the Whips ask me to do between Monday and Thursday, but I would rather not have to sit through the night if we can avoid it.
It has been suggested that 10-minute speeches may be too long. The Labour party conference has just agreed that to decide policy on the basis of a series of three-minute speeches is not right either, because it does not allow the scrutiny and advancement of arguments that should take place when policy decisions are made. Therefore, 10 minutes is probably about the right length for speeches in the House, but there should be the opportunity for injury time, and so on.
One of the advantages of being a Member for Derbyshire is that if we have problems about procedure we can always go to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for an explanation. That is a useful asset. That is the thought, combined with the one that however good we think we are we can always do better, with which I shall leave the House.
9.30 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). It has been an interesting debate. I have been thinking a lot about Jopling this evening. I was one of those who were very much in favour of the Jopling report. I urged my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept it and I voted for it. But Thursdays were different before Jopling, and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) was right in much, although not all, of what he said. There is a lesson for us there. In seeking to reform the House, we must be careful that we do not reform the life out of it. That is crucial.
It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton). He paid a gracious tribute to his predecessor, Greg Knight, which
1122
was appreciated by Conservative Members. Greg Knight had a fine reputation here and, having spoken in the hon. Gentleman's constituency last week—I properly informed him that I would be so doing—I know that he had a great reputation in his constituency too. I know that the hon. Gentleman will seek to emulate him in that. I cannot wish him a long stay in the House, but I wish him an extremely happy one.
It was also good to hear the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to Phillip Whitehead, whom hon. Members from all parts of the House will remember with affection. He was a distinguished Member and is now a distinguished Member of the European Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman brings to the House a considerable experience of local government, and that was implicit in almost everything that he said. He had an essentially cautious and evolutionary approach, which I find attractive. It has much to commend it. He said that he was particularly concerned about legislation and its quality, and so should we all be. He also said that he had developed some affection for some of the traditions, even some of the more quaint ones, of the House of Commons. That, again, rather endeared him to me.
The hon. Gentleman also said that he thought the reforms to the Order Paper had been sensible, logical and helpful. No one who has spoken in the debate who has referred to the Order Paper—several hon. Members have—has had anything other than praise for it. We are very much in the debt of those Clerks who were particularly responsible for drawing up the new draft Order Papers. It is not customary to talk about the Clerks in this place, but it could not run without them. They give devoted service, many of them over many years, and the way in which they responded with alacrity to the Committee's request was commendable.
Alas, I am no longer a member of the Modernisation Committee, but I was a member throughout its discussion of this report and attended every session. I pay tribute to the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for the exemplary manner in which she chaired our proceedings. Her approach was exceptionally fair and balanced throughout and the report is sensible and sound. I have no hesitation in commending it most warmly to the House.
The report is concerned with the legislative process. Many hon. Members have taken the opportunity, legitimately, to refer to other changes that they would like made. That is fine, but I hope that the Committee will approach each subject with deliberation. I am not saying that it should not consider all the subjects to which hon. Members have referred, but it should do so with care, thoroughness and without time constraints.
There was a time constraint on this report. The right hon. Lady promised the House that the Committee would be established and would report before the end of July. She was anxious to deliver on her promise, and every member of the Committee was anxious to assist her. The report was all the more welcome for coming just before the House rose for the recess. Hon. Members were glad about the changes to the Order Paper, and were also glad that we had done something about the voting system.
I hope that the Committee will consider further matters, particularly the voting system, carefully and in a measured way. Several hon. Members said that they valued the

1123
present voting system, because it enables them to talk to Ministers and others in the Lobby. We would be much the poorer if we went electronic, especially if it cleared the Lobby.
We have heard many interesting speeches. As was to be expected, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a wise and perceptive speech. The House owes him a great deal for the selfless service that he has given in a variety of capacities. Since he ceased to be a Minister of the Crown, he has been a most distinguished Chairman of some key Committees. In his present role, he has massive responsibilities, and I can think of no one in whom I would have greater trust or confidence. He made some interesting comments, and he put it succinctly and perfectly when he said that the Government want to get their business through, but the Opposition need their time.
Hon. Members are realists, or ought to be. It is futile for us to suggest that we will deflect the Government from their legislative intentions. The Government have a massive majority, and unless there is the most extraordinary rebellion by Labour Members, they will get through every piece of legislation that they put before us. That places an extra responsibility on the Government to ensure that legislation is carefully thought out. The Government should be relaxed about the time that they give the House to consider legislation.
I hope that the Government will react positively to the report. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury has a double personality: she is the Chairman of the Committee and the Leader of the House, and in both of those capacities her first duty is to the House of Commons. She is also a senior member of the Executive, and wearing that hat she is as anxious as any of her ministerial colleagues to see that legislation is passed. The proof of the report will be in the right hon. Lady being able to ensure that the first part of her responsibilities at least equals the second, and it would be good if the first part could sometimes triumph over the second.
A number of hon. Members made perceptive comments about legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) apologised, because he had to attend a long-standing constituency engagement. He said that better legislation requires less legislation. He also made the important point that if Lords amendments are to be properly considered, the House must give them adequate time.
Now is not the time or the place to discuss the relationship between the two Houses, or to discuss what may happen in the future; but the House of Lords—the other place—currently has a very important legislative role. It scrutinises, and it has great expertise to bring to its scrutiny. Although it cannot throw out any legislation with which the elected House wishes to proceed—which is right—it can say to us, "Think again", and sometimes when it says, "Think again", it is wise for us to think again.
In the days when the Conservative party had a massive majority, after the 1983 general election, the House of Lords performed a signal service, several times seeking to amend legislation that certainly needed to be amended. Sometimes, its amendments were taken on board and its warnings were heeded; sometimes, they were not.
1124
I believe, however, that a system that does not give adequate time for consideration of what is said in the other place is a deficient system.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has also given a lifetime of parliamentary service, particularly in regard to procedure. His chairmanship of the Procedure Committee has been immensely distinguished: indeed, the report builds on much of what his Committee has done in the past. He made a powerful point about the disgrace of the fact that large chunks of legislation are not even debated. I have been moved to anger about that in the past. I remember walking out of one guillotine debate, although the motion had been moved by my own Government, because I was so angry about the fact that a large part of a particularly important Bill was receiving no attention. That must not happen in the future; if it does happen, we shall have wasted our time with the report. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the Chairmen's Panel—as did the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), in a very passionate speech.
Until I was reincarnated on the Front Bench, I was the longest-serving member of the Chairmen's Panel. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said—as, I am sure, would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very important for the Chairmen's Panel to be heeded, and for its caveats to be considered carefully. We should be grateful to both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
I am sorry that I missed the speeches by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) while I was having a brief snack. They were the only speeches that I did miss. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), however, gave me copious notes about what they had said. Both have played a constructive part in the Committee's deliberations, although they have been a little over-hasty in some respects.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—who is not present now—made a thoughtful speech. He is my constituency neighbour, and a very good neighbour he is too. He is anxious for Parliament to regain something of its prestige, and some public esteem. He expressed a number of constructive thoughts; I did not agree with all of them, but he made some interesting comments and suggestions.
Mr. Mike Hall: It was a good speech.
Sir Patrick Cormack: It was, and it would repay close study by all hon. Members, including those who are not present this evening.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—another active member of the Committee—made a particularly good point when she said that the Government must not regard improvements to legislation as defeat, and that, when amendments were being considered, the Government should be open-minded. The Government should consider whether an amendment would indeed improve the Bill involved, and, if it would, they should be prepared to concede and

1125
should not consider that a defeat. I hope that the present Government will heed what the hon. Lady said, and adopt that attitude.
Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman also say that it is up to the Opposition not to gloat and take it as a Government defeat when the Government accept their amendments in a constructive spirit?
Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a very good sentiment, but we are all human and we all love a bit of a gloat occasionally. It is the triumph of hope over experience if the hon. Lady thinks that she is going to banish gloating from the Palace of Westminster, but, of course, I take her point.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch is a worthy chip off the old block. Many of us in the House regard his late father with great affection. It was a terrible tragedy when he was killed and a great loss to Parliament. I disagreed with almost everything that he said, but I admired enormously his mastery of our procedures, his persistence and his use of every procedural device; he did it in a way of which Keir Hardie would have been proud. Bob Cryer was a distinguished parliamentarian and the hon. Gentleman seems cast in the same mould. He certainly does not seem to be a man who will be cowed by a Government Whip and I am delighted by that.
I agreed with everything that the hon. Gentleman said about hours, but I gently take issue with what he said about holidays. I am sure that he is as conscientious a constituency Member as his late father was. He never regarded recesses as holidays. He worked jolly hard throughout them and most of us do. That is an important point. In my 27 years in the House, I have never had more than 17 days' consecutive holiday and I do not think that I am unusual in that. It is important that we say that often.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones), who is a next-door neighbour of mine in constituency terms, made an admirably lucid and brief speech. She made some good points about timed speeches, but the essence of debate is and must be spontaneity. It is important that there should be opportunity for intervention. If one is always working against a timetable, it is impossible to have interventions. It is a great pity when Members come into the Chamber—she acknowledged this partly, but not sufficiently—read their speeches, sometimes gabbling through them, and are not prepared to give way. They plead in aid the fact that Madam Speaker has imposed a time limit and it stifles debate. I must sit down in a moment so that the Leader of the House gets her 10 minutes, but I add just this.
In the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and in all our other deliberations, we must try to bring life back into this Chamber, which should be the cockpit of the nation. I find it infinitely depressing when Members contribute to debates—this does not apply to the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, almost every one of whom has spoken and come back to his or her place—and then go off and do not return, as happens so often.
I wonder whether we should consider taking a leaf out of the book of the other place, so that Members can put in their names. In doing so, they know that they will be called, but are expected to be here throughout. Apart from leaving to take perhaps an urgent telephone call, to answer
1126
a call of nature or to take the briefest of snacks, they should be in this Chamber because it is absolutely destructive of proper debate if we have merely a series of spasmodic utterances, with hon. Members who have contributed then leaving. We need this Chamber to be full. The Select Committee, which is full of experienced members, should bend its collective mind to find out what it can do to encourage Members to be here more often, to take part in debates more vigorously and to stay to listen to what their colleagues have to say.
9.49 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say a few words in reply to the debate. I will not have as much time as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to deal with every contribution, but that is fine by me because, in many respects, he was replying on behalf of those of us who served on the Committee. As I said earlier, it was a constructive Committee which produced a unanimous report.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire was right to say that we have not had what he called "spasmodic utterances" during this debate. We have had a good example today of how Parliament can work and how hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber can listen to the contributions of others and make their own points in the context of an overall constructive debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) made an extremely competent maiden speech which I am sure will please his constituents. He showed extremely good knowledge of their problems and the issues that concern them most. He ventured on to the subject of football, which is a somewhat dangerous thing to do if I am in the Chamber. In that respect, all I have in common with him is the fact that in Bolton we, too, have a new stadium. I have not visited his yet and Derby County has not yet visited Bolton. Perhaps we will see each other later in the year when we can talk about the modernisation of Parliament for 90 minutes—or perhaps not.
Today's debate has shown that the whole House basically welcomes the thrust of the recommendations in the Committee's report. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have emphasised different parts of the report or have suggested modifications to certain elements of what we have proposed. Some have suggested ideas that we might wish to take further forward. Basically, almost everybody who has spoken has, in one way or another, supported the ideas in the report.
In many respects, that is not surprising, because we have heard from a mixture of experienced Members and new Members. It is sometimes said that it is only new Members who want to see change in this Chamber. We have seen today that, with one or two exceptions, that is not the case. There are many hon. Members who have spent many years in the House and who do not feel that the best use has always been made of the time they have spent here. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) is showing himself to be a true moderniser by pretending to applaud instead of saying, "Hear, hear." I do not think that we should provoke Mr. Deputy Speaker too much on this occasion.
As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was wise and

1127
perceptive. He took an overview of the changes that are needed and managed to throw in one or two practical changes which might be achieved quite quickly if we were to take them up. He gave us food for thought in that respect.
The same is true of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). As a former Leader of the House, he made a positive contribution to the debate and put the changes that we propose into context. He gave us hope that we could achieve a great deal in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), whom I have known for many years, is a member of the Committee. He showed his normal common sense in his approach to the debate and his usual honesty. He admitted that, on occasion, he had been party to some of the time-wasting deliberations that have had to take place in the past. After so many years in opposition, we both feel that the weapon of delay never really achieved anything. It might have caused some frustration to Ministers on a few occasions, but it never achieved anything. There was never anything constructive about it. We must try to find ways for everybody to be constructive critics, if that is what is needed. That requires a degree of willingness to listen on the part of the Government.
There will be matters on which there will be no meeting of minds, as the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) mentioned, but on other occasions—I return to debates on the Child Support Agency as an example—we do not have to be confrontational on every issue that comes up. We should not deny the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House can on occasions agree. We should not pretend that such occasions can never occur and gear all our procedures towards that.
The right hon. Member for East Devon, who has been a member of the Committee as well as having a distinguished record as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, proved that point when he talked of Bills being passed after only a quarter or a third of their contents had been discussed. That was why he was looking for a constructive way of using timetabling, as he had said before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) was less happy with some of the changes. Perhaps I can reassure him—not least because his last point, on which I was going to intervene, related to experiments. We are not trying to change Standing Orders in such a way that we never learn anything and lock ourselves into new procedures which may not work well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who has also contributed a great deal to the Committee, described the expectation of a changed atmosphere in the House due to more women Members of Parliament. We would all like behaviour to improve in the House, for whatever reason. I thought that the point of order that she raised yesterday about the attitude of hon. Members to the swearing in of a new Member was totally valid. I was very pleased that Madam Speaker reinforced my hon. Friend's point.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who is also a member of the Committee—a new member—said that he hoped that he had punched his weight. I can assure him that he did. We found his contributions
1128
extremely useful. He said that he hoped that the Government would deliver the report. I know that he understands that we do not deliver the report. The report and the changes can be brought about only through good will and co-operation on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who I understand has had to go back to his constituency, made some telling points, which put the debate into perspective. His contribution was extremely significant. It is important that we realise that, although our proposed changes are part of modernising our overall constitution, it should not be regarded as a threatening process. We should ensure that it is used constructively.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) told us that he was impetuous when he was young, but that now he had settled down to using the procedures. There may have been times when his Whips thought that he was still a little impetuous, but I shall leave him to sort that out with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who has also contributed to the Committee's work, brought out the necessary analysis. We must lay down the principles and get them right, but we need to get the practicalities right as well. It has been useful having new members of the Committee who have understood so quickly how Parliament works but not lost their enthusiasm for change. I hope that that helps to keep us on our toes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), who, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, is following in his father's footsteps to a certain extent—I must admit that I did not always agree with his father on procedural matters either—made some valuable points about timetabling, the changes that have already happened and what we should do now to ensure that any future change is practical. I agree with him—so did the Committee—about using voting time to buttonhole and lobby Ministers. That is one of the things that we hope we do not have to lose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) referred to shorter speeches. We should consider the basic point of flexibility. Indeed, we might be able to take up the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire about what happens in the other place, which was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw).
My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell), who is a near neighbour of mine, made some interesting points. I cannot guarantee that we are even thinking of rolling over the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, although I know that that will disappoint him. The point that he made about civil service support for Select Committees in appropriate circumstances is one which we must consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has had experience of a Select Committee, and he reminded me that we need to consider the names of the Committees, because that small practical step might help the House.
I am grateful for the approach that all hon. Members who have spoken have taken, and so is the Modernisation Committee. I thank everyone who has been involved in its work. That work is a process, not an event, and it will continue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: The Legislative Process (HC 190).

Modernisation of the House

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 17th November, the Speaker shall not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion on Standards and Privileges in the name of Mrs. Ann Taylor and such Questions shall include the Question on any amendment which has been selected and which may then be moved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Big Brothers and Big Sisters
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
10 pm
Mr. Martin Linton: I wish to thank Madam Speaker for selecting this subject for the Adjournment debate tonight. The subject is described in broad terms on the Order Paper as "Government support for young people from underprivileged families", but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be aware that I wish to focus on one organisation that supports young people from underprivileged families. It does not yet exist in this country, but is one of the biggest charities in north America, where it has become famous for one specific service—the provision of mentors for children from one-parent families.
The organisation is called Big Brothers and Big Sisters. It has been going for 96 years in the United States of America and for 84 years in Canada. It is the Canadian organisation that has franchised its former national director to try to repeat its success in this country. The organisation has a base in my constituency and I am proud to act as its big brother on this occasion.
The organisation has already won a grant from the national lottery to help it start up and has attracted big donations from the business world. However, it knows that it is in the nature of its business that it cannot get anywhere without the active support of the Government, starting with the Department of Health. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for family policy, will reply tonight. His Department is considering an application from Big Brothers and Big Sisters for a grant under section 64. I mention that only to make it clear that it is not the purpose of this Adjournment debate to lobby him about the grant, which must be decided on the same criteria as every other application. I am sure that it is not right for a Member of Parliament to try to influence the allocation of grants. My purpose is to draw attention to the work of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, which I am sure my hon. Friend will find fits in well with his approach to family policy. I also wish to ask his Department, and other Departments, to give every encouragement to the organisation.
When it is up and running, Big Brothers and Big Sisters will be able to provide mentors for children mainly, but not only, from single-parent families who approach it. The mentors will be expected to spend about five hours a week, on average, with their little brothers and sisters, but not to spend any money on them—just time.
A number of mentoring organisations already exist in this country. What is new about Big Brothers and Big Sisters is the scale of the operation. In the United States, it has had nearly 1 million volunteers and it operates through 800 affiliated agencies. When it launches in this country, it hopes to grow rapidly. The key to success is to have a sufficiently large reservoir of volunteers to provide ideal matches between big and little brothers and sisters, and to achieve economies of scale. To do that, it will need to reach a critical mass that will provide it with the advantages of scale so that it can operate cost effectively.

1131
Although the mentors will be volunteers, the organisation's franchise agreement requires it to employ professionally qualified and experienced personnel as local agents. It will not make any matches until and unless it has sufficient funds to do so.
We will also need a sophisticated system of screening volunteers. In the United States and Canada, there is a centralised screening system linked to police and other official records. They carry out their own local screening and home visits to all potential volunteers to create a triple lock of security. I am sure that I do not need to spell out why this is such a sensitive issue—suffice it to say that Big Brothers and Big Sisters is very aware of the importance of getting it right. Big Brothers and Big Sisters has enlisted the support of a large computer company which is willing to provide software for a screening system. It has been in touch with the Home Office, as I have, who have been helpful. We will meet the Home Office at an official level to discuss this matter.
The effectiveness of mentoring has been well demonstrated in the United States. A study by an independent research organisation, carried out at a cost of $2 million, compared 500 children placed with a big brother or a sister with 500 who were not. It showed that those placed with a mentor were 27 per cent. less likely to have used alcohol, one third less likely to have shown aggression, 46 per cent. less likely to have begun using drugs and 57 per cent. less likely to have played truant. They were more confident in their school performance and achieved better relations with their own families.
The parents who want big brothers and sisters are not necessarily underprivileged—not in an economic sense, as the title of the debate implies. They include families where the husband is absent for work reasons—including oil workers or service men. The organisation works on the premise that a parent absent for whatever reason presents problems for a child and the parent still at home. It is described as the lack of a suitable role model, but so many different functions are performed by parents and older brothers and sisters within a family, it is often difficult to predict what effect the lack of one of them will have on the children.
As an organisation, Big Brothers and Big Sisters has gone to great lengths to avoid patronising children and single parents. The image that it projects is one not of good works or charity, but of friendship and self-help. Although many of the children are from low-income families, it does not talk much about poverty. The organisation does not raise money by flag days—more likely, it raises money by Hollywood black tie events, as much of its support comes from some of the biggest names in Hollywood. President Clinton is the organisation's patron, and Hillary Clinton is its chairwoman. The organisation is required by its constitution to be totally non-religious and non-political.
Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Britain will not be a replica of the United States organisation. It is inspired by the Canadian example, but it intends to use the expertise and professionalism gained in 96 years in the United States to create a organisation in this country that is large enough to make an impact not just at a local level, but a national one.
An organisation such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters could play an important part in realising the Government's family policy in helping single parents, and
1132
in our youth justice policy. Many young offenders come from one-parent households and it is precisely the lack of role models and encouragement—an adult with whom one can talk things over—that is often the cause of young offending.
Once a young person commits an offence, he meets other young offenders and, in the absence of any alternative, those offenders become role models. Mentoring has a simple solution to the problem—give the young offenders role models who are not themselves offenders. This tackles the problem of youth crime at its very root, before it happens.
The idea of mentoring is as old as the hills. The word "mentor" comes from Greek mythology—it was the man who was a true friend to the child of Odysseus when he was away on his Odyssey. But it has equal relevance in the modern world—one could argue more relevance. Parents spend more and more time working, and sometimes more and more time watching television. The divorce rate is climbing, and fewer and fewer parents are staying at home with their children.
Mentoring provides a way of reconciling the conditions of modern life with what we all know about the importance of the family in a child's development. It depends on the dedication and selflessness of volunteers and will happen on the scale that we need only if we have a modern, cost-effective organisation such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the Government will give that organisation and others like it all the help that they can.
10.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) a debt of gratitude for raising this important issue: the future of our young people and the need to ensure that those who are underprivileged, for whatever reason, get the best possible start in life. We must mobilise the whole community to ensure that they do.
Young people are our future and we cannot afford to have them neglected. The Government put a premium on our youth. We recognise the role of voluntary organisations in partnership with the Government, both nationally and locally, in ensuring that young people get the best possible start.
My hon. Friend has drawn on his considerable experience in addressing the issue and mentioned the contribution of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, which has developed, through befriending and mentoring in the United States and Canada, what has proved to be a very effective model of harnessing and mobilising community resources in support of the young. The Government very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has drawn its success to the attention of the House. We believe that it has a role to play in advancing our national agenda on the matter.
Young people thrive best when raised by loving parents living in stable relationships. Indeed, when parents are together and have an effective partnership, they are most likely to be able to provide for young people a context in which it is possible for them to grow, thrive and prosper. We must recognise that for a variety of reasons it is not always possible for that to be the case. My hon. Friend, in his excellent speech, gave several examples of why that

1133
may be. He is right to point out that a child is not necessarily underprivileged simply through the lack of wealth or the absence of material benefits. A young person may be underprivileged as a result of the absence of a father out working anti-social hours, or the absence of a father from the domestic scene altogether.
Young men benefit especially from a male role model. Some of the worst examples of bad and anti-social behaviour by young people arise when they have been brought up without a stable and responsible male role model. We, as men, have a responsibility to be there for our children. We have an especial responsibility to be there for our sons. We would all want, as men, to be responsible fathers.
Where, for whatever reason, a stable and responsible figure is not present in a young person's life, there is certainly a role for mentoring and befriending projects such as those outlined by my hon. Friend and provided by Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
The organisation does not work solely with young men, but it has found, in developing its role in the United States and Canada, that it is young men to whom it has to devote most attention. All too often, it is the contribution of young men to anti-social behaviour that has to be addressed. In the United States, Big Brothers and Big Sisters and other such schemes have been subject to rigorous evaluation that has shown that educational outcomes are much better when such organisations are involved.
Mentoring and befriending organisations have an important role to play in the project that the Prime Minister has got under way with the establishment of a unit in No. 10 to tackle social exclusion. That is why we give this organisation a particularly warm welcome for its potential to contribute to the battle against social exclusion. Of course, we must recognise that if social exclusion is to be effectively addressed, it will require more than simple mentoring and befriending. As a society, we must tackle a range of issues, not least the inequalities that bedevil society. We must ensure that we are effectively moving our citizens from dependence and being without work into being self-sufficient and self-supporting, with all the self-respect that comes from getting back into the world of work.
It is important that we recognise that the battle against poverty, which is contained in the move towards the creation of jobs and training opportunities, is part of the project, as is the need to address inequalities in housing and education. In all those areas, there is an important role for voluntary effort. There is a need to ensure that the whole community is mobilised around the project. It is important to recognise across the Government the need to ensure that housing, education, employment and health services work effectively together. That has to be mirrored by partnerships between local authorities and the voluntary sector, and between health and local authorities, all focused on delivering to families and children and recognising the essential role of families and family life in building a nation.
At our party conference in Brighton this year, the Prime Minister said:
"we cannot say we want a strong community and secure society when we ignore its very foundation: family life."
Mentoring and befriending have a role to play in that contribution to building strong, successful families. We recognise that and are determined to ensure that
1134
mentoring and befriending play their proper part as we develop and take forward a programme of work designed to support and enhance family life and to combat social exclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly drew attention to the importance to Big Brothers and Big Sisters of the voluntary effort of citizens drawn to offer their services out of a desire to improve and enhance their community. He rightly drew attention to the importance of ensuring that those who volunteer do so out of the best of motives and have no ulterior motive. It is a sad reflection on the times in which we live that it is necessary, particularly in relation to children, to take the utmost care to ensure that those who volunteer to make such a contribution do so because they genuinely care about children, not because they want to abuse or exploit them in some way.
Mr. Linton: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Department of Health will work closely with the Home Office on screening, as envisaged in the Police Act 1964? The resources will then be found to enable organisations such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters to undertake the enormous job of screening the many thousands—potentially eventually tens or hundreds of thousands—of volunteers. They must be vigorously screened, not only through police records but through all available records, before such organisations can confidently use them for mentoring much younger children.
Mr. Boateng: We are working closely with the Home Office and other interested agencies to ensure that we develop a framework of appropriate protocols and legislation to put in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that young children's interests and welfare are protected. I am delighted to learn that Big Brothers and Big Sisters will seek advice and assistance from the Home Office in that regard.
When encouraging mentoring and befriending, we must ensure that organisations such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters which, through voluntary effort, have the potential to do much good, gain access to the pool of talent, expertise and wisdom that exists among our fellow citizens who are looking for ways to help. We are lucky to live in a time when people, once again, have discovered the will to care. As a result of the tragic events in the life of our nation in recent weeks and months surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, we have seen a great upsurge in the spirit of caring, concern and commitment to the well being of others. This is therefore a propitious time for an organisation such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters to begin its activities in this country.
Of course, the organisation is by no means alone: already we have throughout the country excellent examples of the tradition of volunteering in support of children and young people. One thinks of Home-Start, which mobilises the commitment and experience of successful older parents who are prepared to range themselves alongside others who, for one reason or another, feel in need of support in parenting.
These are excellent organisations doing good work, but there are other individuals and groups working through other organisations in support of young people. We all know those individuals in our constituencies and it is

1135
always good, as Members of Parliament, to be able to do what we can to support them in their work. Big Brothers and Big Sisters will provide yet another opportunity for people to give of their time and energy at a time in our nation's history when their work is much needed.
Studies suggest that mentoring, of itself, is not to be seen as a substitute for quality social services, education and employment programmes. That is why we as a Government see it as but one strand of an overall and overarching programme across Government designed to support and sustain children and young people. It is, nevertheless, an important part and, in welcoming my hon. Friend's initiation of tonight's debate, let me tell him that I am happy to be able to announce that the Department of Health is to second a member of staff to Big Brothers and Big Sisters and contribute up to £10,000 towards that person's salary to show our support for the work of Big Brothers and Big Sisters and to ensure that best practice is followed in the screening process my hon. Friend mentioned.
We also believe that it is vital that we learn from Big Brothers and Big Sisters to see how best the experience gained in the United States and Canada can be utilised, not only through that organisation's operation in this country, but throughout the voluntary sector. Big Brothers
1136
and Big Sisters has considerable experience not only of mobilising voluntary activity in the community, but of gaining access to funding and to expertise that would be of value to the voluntary sector generally.
Volunteering and the voluntary sector play an important part in the development of successful community-led initiatives. They are the cement of thriving civic societies. They enable us to make the early interventions in the life of children and young people that are the most cost-effective way of ensuring that they go on to prosper, grow and overcome the risks and problems that all too often threaten some of our most underprivileged young people in hard-pressed communities. We believe that that will pay huge dividends in the struggle to create safe and secure communities and that it will bolster up that which we are seeking to achieve in terms of the criminal justice system. We believe that it will make our families strong so that they may be successful and provide the building blocks of a strong and successful nation as we move into the new millennium.
The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea a debt of gratitude for raising this issue. We will work to carry forward the interests of children and young people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Director-General of Water Services
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that independent reporters used by the Director General of Water Services in his 1999 Review to challenge the cost and investment estimates of the water companies have no contractual arrangements with the water companies on which they are reporting. [14491]

  Angela Eagle
  The arrangements for reporters used by the Director General of Water Services in carrying out his statutory duties are a matter for him.

  The Director has consulted widely on the arrangements for reporters, firstly in his open letter ("MD126") issued on 20 March 1997 and more recently in his consultation paper about the business planning process for the 1999 Periodic Review. Both documents are in the Library. He has asked for comments on his proposals by Friday 14 November.

  Household Evictions
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many household evictions from(a) local authority and (b) housing association properties involved (i) children and (ii) one or more children who were statemented as having special needs in each of the last three years; [14821]

  (2) how many households were evicted from (a) local authority and (b) housing association properties in each of the last three years; [14823]

  (3) how many household evictions for (a) local authority and (b) housing association properties, were as a consequence of (i) rent arrears, (ii) anti-social behaviour, (iii) criminal activities and (iv) other causes in each of the last three years; [14820]

  (4) how many households were accepted for re-housing under the terms of the Children Act 1989 in each of the last three years; and how many such acceptances followed evictions from (a) local authority, (b) housing association and (c) private rented accommodation. [14817]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Town and Country Planning
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received about the(a) Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
  604
  Development) Order 1995 and (b) Town and Country Planning (Demolition-Description of Buildings) Direction 1995. [15157]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have received representations seeking amendments to both the General Permitted Development Order and the Demolition Direction so that a planning application can in future be required to demolish various types of sports facilities. The Government are concerned to prevent the unnecessary loss of sports facilities, particularly where there are no clear proposals for redevelopment, and we will review the need for amendments to the relevant legislation once the courts have reached their decision on Robert Coppen and others v. Edward Ram and another, 20 January 1997.

  A449
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the safety of the A449 between Worcester and Kidderminster. [15603]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 13 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question about plans to improve the safety of the A449 between Worcester and Kidderminster.
  The Highways Agency is very concerned about the continuing accident problem on this section of the A449. Earlier this year we commissioned our agents, Hereford and Worcester County Council, to undertake a study to identify ways in which we could prevent specific types of accident and improve safety generally.
  Their report should be available before the end of the year. As soon as the report is available, I will write to you again to inform you of its recommendations, our response to them and the next steps.

  Right-to-roam Legislation
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how often and on what dates he has met representatives of a(a) the Countryside Commission, (b) English Nature, (c) English Heritage, (d) the Ramblers Association, (e) the Country Landowners Association and (f) the National Farmers Union when the Government's proposals on right-to-roam legislation were discussed. [15324]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any meetings with these organisations to discuss the Government's proposals on right-to-roam legislation. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment discussed the Government's proposals with the Countryside Commission on 9 July and 30 October, with the Ramblers Association on 23 June and 12 September, and with the Country Landowners Association on 14 July. He and I discussed the proposals with the National Farmers Union on 22 July.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the impact of climate
  605
  change on (a) natural habitats and wildlife, (b) water resources and water management and (c) coastal and estuarial flooding and erosion; and if he will make a statement. [15591]

  Angela Eagle
  From time to time the Government receive representations on the impacts of climate change on a wide range of sectors.

  The Government are concerned to understand better the potential impacts of climate change on all sectors. In this regard, they draw on the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their own Climate Change Impacts Review Group. My Department has also established an office at the Environmental Change Unit at the University of Oxford to co-ordinate research on the impacts of climate change in the UK.

  All child pedestrians aged 0-14 killed

  All pedestrians killed

  Country

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Great Britain

  210

  170

  153

  147

  120

  1,496

  1,347

  1,241

  1,124

  1,038

  United Kingdom

  221

  177

  161

  162

  129

  1,541

  1,394

  1,283

  1,169

  1,085

  Austria

  18

  19

  20

  18

  19

  260

  240

  202

  225

  200

  Belgium

  31

  39

  14

  21

  —

  280

  233

  199

  197

  —

  Denmark

  17

  8

  8

  6

  11

  141

  111

  133

  94

  118

  Finland

  4

  16

  7

  9

  8

  130

  116

  86

  87

  72

  France

  164

  132

  108

  109

  96

  1,446

  1,270

  1,195

  1.190

  1,086

  Germany

  185

  154

  132

  138

  138

  1,918

  1,767

  1,580

  1,469

  1,336

  Greece

  28

  30

  28

  36

  23

  461

  452

  485

  467

  469

  Ireland

  23

  17

  17

  15

  —

  114

  115

  136

  121

  —

  Italy

  82

  60

  47

  69

  —

  1,241

  1,148

  997

  1,024

  —

  Netherlands

  26

  21

  16

  15

  24

  67

  56

  48

  41

  46

  Norway

  10

  3

  9

  8

  5

  144

  152

  146

  123

  142

  Portugal

  120

  87

  88

  59

  67

  797

  694

  699

  564

  598

  Spain

  105

  74

  93

  72

  77

  1,371

  1,208

  1,104

  1,008

  1,000

  Sweden

  7

  14

  6

  13

  6

  125

  138

  94

  86

  71

  Cycling
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he is making available for the promotion and improvement of cycling facilities(a) nationally, (b) in Staffordshire and (c) in Stoke-on-Trent. [15643]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the current financial year a sum of £4 million has been allocated to the London Cycling Network; £79 million has also been allocated to local authorities outside London in 1997–98 for their integrated transport packages. Virtually all the packages include measures to promote cycling, but it is not possible to say how much local authorities will spend on cycling-related matters from their package allocations.

  A total of £800,000 has been allocated to the North Staffordshire package in 1997–98. Staffordshire County Council has received £124,000 of this total and the City of Stoke-on-Trent £676,000.

  The Department will continue to support these initiatives in future, as far as resources allow. It is not possible at this stage to predict the levels of funding that will be available in 1998–99 or in later years.
  606
  The Government are playing a key role in working for a successful international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the forthcoming negotiations on climate change in Kyoto.

  Pedestrian Fatalities
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) child and (b) total pedestrian fatalities there were in the United Kingdom and in each EU member state in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [15652]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table. It shows the improvement in child pedestrian fatalities in 1995 in the United Kingdom relative to other EU Member States. in 1995 the rate of child pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 population in United Kingdom was similar to that for all EU Member States.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce orange badge parking permits for people temporarily disabled by accidents or operations. [15858]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mercury
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his letter of 8 October (MR/PSO/10894/97), what action is being taken in response to the call from Arctic countries for new international controls on mercury; and what progress is being made on a protocol concerning Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. [14469]

  Angela Eagle
  There are already a range of measures in place to reduce emissions of mercury in the UK. Because of these and the fact that wider international action is required to deal with the problem, no specific UK response to the call from the Arctic countries is envisaged. The UK is, however, actively participating in the negotiations to develop a protocol under the UNECE's Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution
  607
  to reduce European emissions of mercury and other heavy metals. Negotiations are at an advanced stage. It is expected that the protocol will be opened for signing at the Fourth Pan-European Conference of Environment Ministers on "Environment for Europe" in Aarhus, Denmark from 23 to 25 June 1998.

  Regions White Paper
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the White Paper on the Regions. [15830]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are aiming to publish a White Paper on the English Regions within the next few weeks.

  Household Growth
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is pursuing to reduce growth in the number of households in England and Wales.[15768]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Household growth reflects demographic factors, changes in age structure and deep-seated social trends. There is therefore little scope for the Government to influence the numbers even if they believed it was appropriate to do so.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received contesting his Department's projections for household growth set out in Command Paper 2901. [15770]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Command 2901, the last Administration's Housing White Paper, did not contain household projections. I assume that the question refers to my Department's document "Projections of Households in England to 2016", published in 1995. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on 3 November,Official Report, column 56.

  Zoos
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to update the British zoo licensing system; and if he will make a statement.[16049]

  Angela Eagle
  British zoos have a deservedly high reputation for their progressive approach; the way in which their animals are kept and cared for; and the contribution they make to the conservation of endangered species through scientific research and captive breeding programmes. They have also played an important part in increasing public awareness of, and interest in, species conservation issues. It is now more than 10 years since the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 came into operation, and we believe it is time to update the system to reflect the changes in the role management of zoos which have taken place during this time, and to ensure that consistently high standards are maintained in all British zoos.

  We have therefore undertaken a review of the Act. Having considered the views of a wide range of organisations concerned with zoos, we have concluded
  608
  that the system is fundamentally sound and generally working well. However, we believe that there are some areas in which improvements can be made.

  We propose to make a number of changes to modernise the system. The main elements are:
  a review of the Secretary of State's standards of modern zoo practice, with a view to encouraging greater efforts by zoos to promote conservation;
  closer monitoring of local authorities' performance and strengthened advice from central government to local councils and zoo operators;
  the establishment of a broadly-based Zoos Forum to oversee the zoo licensing system and advise Ministers. We propose that the Forum should comprise representatives of local authorities, voluntary bodies, and independent animal welfare and public safety experts;
  more flexible zoo inspection teams (though we believe that the requirement for teams to include a veterinary expert and one other inspector appointed by the Secretary of State should remain, and there would be no change to the frequency of inspections);
  tightening the inspection arrangements by encouraging local authorities to use their existing powers to undertake informal, unannounced inspections at least annually,
  supporting measures to improve the zoo standards throughout the European Community.

  This is balanced package which will improve the level and consistency of standards throughout British zoos, strengthen their role in wildlife conservation, and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. They will enable us to make a system which is already good even better, and by promoting greater openness and wider consultation, should help to increase public confidence in the zoo licensing system as a whole.

  We now want to seek the views of those directly involved with or interested in zoos before finalising our package of improvements, and we have today issued a consultation paper setting out our proposals in more detail.

  I would hope that all those with a concern for standards in our zoos will feel able to contribute, and we will certainly consider carefully all comments and proposals which we receive.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the House of Commons and House of Lords libraries.

  Highway Code
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to consult appropriate organisations on the text of the draft revision of the Highway Code. [16170]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have today in accordance with section 38(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 sent copies of the draft revision of the Highway Code for consultation to representative organisations, requesting responses by 31 January 1988. We shall welcome constructive comments on the style and the content of the draft. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  New Housing
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has set targets for the proportion of new housing to be built on brown land within existing conurbations and settlements; and if he will make a statement. [15769]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The current target for England is for 50 per cent. of new housing to be built on previously used sites, most of which will be in existing settlements.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Council pursuant to the answer of 10 November from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,Official Report, column 441, if she will list the e-mail addresses of herself and her senior officials. [15870]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Director of the Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit is able to receive e-mail at the following address: cdcu@gtnet.gov.uk. No other of my officials has an external e-mail facility, nor do I have one myself.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Environmental Audit Committee
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Council when she plans to move to establish an Environmental Audit Committee; and if she will make a statement. [15565]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that this was moved on Monday 10 November.

  In addition the Members were announced yesterday.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee pursuant to the answer of 10 November from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,Official Report, column 441, if he will arrange for all ministers' e-mail addresses to be included in the House of Commons telephone directory or made available to Right hon. and hon. Members in some other form. [15846]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The question of whether or not Ministers' e-mail addresses are made publicly available is not a matter for the Committee.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, how much has been spent so far on(a) consultants and (b) advertisers in relation to the Millennium Dome at Greenwich; and if he will make a statement. [13278]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: The New Millennium Experience Company has employed, and continues to employ, a range of consultants in a number of specialist fields appropriate to a project of this scale and nature, including engineering, planning and transport. In all cases the procedures adopted
  610
  with such companies, including advertising agents, meet the requirements which apply to all non-departmental public bodies for the purchase of goods, services and equipment. Details of individual contracts are commercially confidential but the NMEC has been involved in 51 (completed and current) contracts with third parties to date.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will estimate how much has been spent on policing the Millennium Dome site in each month since the start of construction; what is the projected expenditure for the remaining months prior to completion; and if he will make a statement. [14235]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: In June 1997, and after open competition, the New Millennium Experience Company contracted with a local Greenwich company to provide security on the Millennium Experience site. The terms of the contract are commercial in confidence. The site security work has recently been the subject of a new competitive tender exercise following normal procedures for contract renewal. NMEC is now completing its consideration of the bids. English Partnerships have separate contract arrangements to fulfil their responsibilities for security to the whole peninsula site during the construction stage.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Railway Museum
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many locomotives at the National Railway Museum in York are still capable of running; and if he will encourage the exhibition of them in use. [15486]

  Mr. Fisher
  There are seven locomotives at the National Railway Museum in York still in full running order and two under repair, and twelve other locomotives from the national collection currently operating elsewhere. It is for the Trustees of the Museum to decide how best to display these engines, but it is their policy to retain a proportion of the National Railway Collection in full running order for public demonstration.

  Opera and Ballet (London)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he made of the total number of performances in London by English National Opera, English National Ballet, the Royal Ballet and the Royal Opera before making his proposal that all these companies should share one venue. [15607]

  Mr. Fisher
  In the 1996–97 financial year the total number of performances in London by the English National Opera, English National Ballet, the Royal Ballet and the Royal Opera was as follows:

  Company

  Performances in London 1996–97

  English National Opera

  185

  English National Ballet

  62

  Royal Opera

  143

  Royal Ballet

  111

DEFENCE

  Army Storage
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the rationalisation of the Army's storage estate. [16281]

  Dr. Reid
  Work has now been completed on a study, initiated by the previous Administration, on the potential for further rationalisation of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency's storage estate. The analysis has show that there are likely to be some increases in aspects of the Army storage task, for example some equipment and stores return from Bosnia, but the overall balance of factors, including the likely impact of the new Government's Strategic Defence Review, indicates that there will be significant reductions in ABSDA's future storage requirement. This reflects the need to drive down the overall size of the Army storage inventory to reflect changes in Defence planning assumptions and to reduce the costs of our storeholdings. Obtaining greater efficiency from Defence spending is a central part of the Strategic Defence Review. All support activities are being rigorously scrutinised against the benchmark of value for money and the need to ensure that we retain only those assets that are essential for Defence needs.

  I have, therefore, decided to accept, as the basis for consultation with the Trades Unions and other interested parties, the recommendation that the ABSDA sub-depots at Thatcham in Berkshire, and Old Dalby in Leicestershire, should close. This would realise savings of some £35 million in net present value terms over a ten-year period. I also intend to suspend the ABSDA stores division CFQ study for the time being.

  Final decisions will be taken in the light of representations made during the consultation period. A copy of the Consultation Document is being placed in the library of the House.

  Pay and Pensions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are being made for the future delivery of pay, pensions and personnel administration services for the armed forces. [16282]

  Dr. Reid
  My predecessor announced on 20 February this year,Official Report, column 720 that the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency was to be launched as a tri-Service organisation on 1 April, and that plans were in hand to appoint a commercial partner to deliver most of the Agency's services on its behalf. AFPAA was launched on the due date, and the necessary evaluation and approval processes for its partnering contract have now been completed. I have agreed that the contract should be awarded to Electronic Data Systems (Defence) Ltd.

  As part of the modernisation of our Armed Forces for the 21st Century, this public-private partnering contract is the beginning of a comprehensive programme of improvement and redevelopment in the delivery of pay, pensions and personnel administrative services. It will bring new skills and technology to this area of work, and, importantly, it will provide the necessary capital, under private finance arrangements, at a level which could not be expected from the Defence budget. The contract will
  612
  run for up to 12 years at an estimated cost of over £30 million. The effective date for transfer of responsibility to EDS, including staff and capital assets, is planned for 1 January next year. About 900 civilian staff will move permanently to EDS, with 100 military personnel being placed with the company in the first instance.

  In about three years' time, elements of the Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow will come under AFPAA's responsibility. This will mean the transfer of a further 500 civilian staff to EDS. There are no plans to relocate these jobs from Glasgow and any proposals would need Ministerial approval.

  Contingency and Operational Procurement Exhibition
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if his Department plans to send inspectors to COPEX events which are eligible for Government joint venture support; [14369]

  (2) if he will list the visits to the visits to the 1997 Contingency and Operational Procurement Exhibition by Ministry of Defence inspectors; and what criteria were used to assess the types of equipment and services. [14368]

  Mr. Spellar
  Because COPEX 1997 was held on Ministry of Defence land, two MOD inspectors visited the exhibition while it was being set up and during the first open day to assess the suitability for export of the equipment and services on offer. The criteria used were those announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29.

  The MOD plays no part in the organisation of COPEX exhibitions and has no plans at the present time to send inspectors to future COPEX events.

  Military Exhibitions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the support provided by his Department and DESO to private military, security and police exhibitions in the last year.[14364]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has provided the following support for defence equipment exhibitions organised by private companies during the past year, all of which attracted host Government support:

  Exhibition

  Dates

  Type of support

  IMDEX Asia 97, Singapore

  6 to 9 May 1997

  Attended by the Military Deputy to the Head of Defence Export Services. HM Ships Richmond and Illustrious also visited, and DESO had its own exhibition stand.

  Paris Air Show

  10 to 18 June 1997

  Attended by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the Chief of Defence Procurement, and the Head of Defence Export Services. DESO also had its own exhibition stand.

  613

  Exhibition

  Dates

  Type of support

  IDEF 97, Turkey

  23 to 26 September 1997

  Attended by the Head of Defence Export Services. DESO also had its own exhibition stand.

  IMDEX 97, Greenwich

  7 to 10 October 1997

  Opened by the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff. Keynote address given by the Chief of Defence Procurement. HMS Lancaster also visited.

  Discrimination
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the list of names of employers who have been found to have breached the anti-discrimination legislation at an industrial tribunal and the amount of compensation awarded. [15014]

  Dr. Reid
  Figures for industrial tribunal applications are held centrally only for those brought by members of the Armed Forces. Figures for cases brought by civilian employees of the Department are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  All cases brought before an industrial tribunal name the Ministry of Defence as the main respondent but separate figures for each of the Armed forces can be identified. The cost of awards made by industrial tribunals against the Armed Forces for discrimination, excluding those made to women who received compensation arising out of their unlawful dismissal on grounds of pregnancy, are as follows:

  £

  Royal Navy

  65,000

  Army

  Nil

  Royal Air Force

  10,000

  In addition, the Ministry of Defence has settled a number of claims either prior to or during industrial tribunal hearings as follows:

  £

  Royal Navy

  191,000

  Army

  777,300

  Royal Air Force

  31,944

  In the case of those women unlawfully dismissed from the Services on grounds of pregnancy the average award was £11,445. The overall figures were as follows:

  £

  Royal Navy

  13,898,746.38

  Army

  21,760,119.65

  Royal Air Force

  21,612,724.84

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library the background note that accompanied the draft answer to the question by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, 11 July,Official Report, column 436, on organophosphate pesticide use; [14764]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the fax dated 18 July 1994, sent by the Department of Entomology at the Royal Medical College, London to the Department of Health concerning insecticides used in the Gulf war cited in his Department's recent memorandum relating to provision of advice to Ministers between 1994 and 1996 on organophsphate pesticide use during the Gulf War. [14708]

  Dr. Reid
  No. The information contained within these documents is advice to Ministers and as such is covered by exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. On an exceptional basis, the information from these documents relating to organophosphate pesticides has already been made available in the Further Memorandum on the provision of advice to Ministers on the use of OP pesticides during the Gulf War, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Offset Exhibition
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance the Ministry of Defence and its agencies gave to the organisers of the Offset exhibition at the North Wales Centre, Aberconwy; and what was the cost to public funds. [15295]

  Mr. Spellar
  Officials attended this exhibition in the course of their normal duties, but the Ministry of Defence gave no financial support to the organisers.

  Defence Exports (Ethical Code)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence companies have sought his Department's assistance over the Government's ethical code on defence exports.[15543]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of their normal daily business, officials in the Defence Export Services Organisation provide advice to defence companies on the criteria used by the Government in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. It is not practical to identify every company that has sought this advice.

  Information Warfare
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the defence budget in(a) cash and (b) percentage terms is allocated to information warfare. [15335]

  Dr. Reid
  Information warfare is a broad term which covers all aspects of the security of information and communications systems from front line weapons to office IT equipment. Measures to counter information warfare are integral features of most systems and it is not therefore possible to identify their costs separately.

  Non-lethal Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce non-lethal disabling weapons for peacekeeping and battlefield use.[14415]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: Research is conducted into non-lethal weapon technologies to assess technical options to meet endorsed military capability requirements, but we have no present plans for the procurement of further NLWs.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the cost of the Eurofighter programme to the United Kingdom and to the participating states as a whole; and how many aircraft are due to be ordered by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) participating states. [14679]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 November 1997]: The latest estimated procurement cost of the Eurofighter programme is £42.8 billion, £15.9 billion of which is the estimated cost to the UK. The participating nations have declared a total requirement for 620 Eurofighter aircraft, 232 of which are for the UK.

  US Defence Trade Report
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the medium-term implications of US Commerce Department report "Offsets in Defense Trade 1997".[15294]

  Mr. Spellar
  The US Department of Commerce report "Offsets in Defense Trade 1997" is still under consideration by the Ministry of Defence. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a current list of all(a) paid and (b) unpaid special advisers to Ministers. [14837]

  The Prime Minister
  The following are employed as paid Special Advisers:

  Appointing Minister

  Name of appointee

  The Prime Minister

  Jonathan Powell

  Alastair Campbell

  Anji Hunter

  Kate Garvey

  Tim Allan

  Hilary Coffman

  David Miliband

  Roger Liddle

  James Purnell

  Derek Scott

  Robert Hill

  Geoff Mulgan

  Geoffrey Norris

  Pat Macfadden

  616

  Appointing Minister

  Name of appointee

  Peter Hyman

  Liz Lloyd

  Roz Preston (part-time)

  Fiona Miller (part-time)

  Chief Whip

  Tom Greatrex

  Kieran Simpson

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Cathy McGlynn Tim Walker

  Tim Walker

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Julian Eccles

  (Part-time)

  John Newbiggin

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Bernard Gray

  Alasdair McGowan

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment 1

  Conor Ryan

  Hilary Benn

  Sophie Linden

  (part-time)

  Lisa Barclay (part-time)

  Deputy Prime Minister

  Joe Irvin

  Paul Hackett (part-time)

  Joan Hammell

  Darren Murphy

  (Part-time)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  David Clark

  Andrew Hood

  Secretary of State for Health

  Joe McCrea

  Simon Stevens

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Ed Owen

  Norman Warner

  Ruth Allen (part-time)2

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Jessica Crowe

  Daniel Harris

  Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords

  Marianne Morris

  Damien Welfare

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Anna Healy

  Nigel Warner

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Andrew Lappin

  James Cornford

  President of the Council3

  Ian McKenzie

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Wendy Alexander

  Murray Elder

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Juhn McTernan

  Liz Kendall

  President of the Board of Trade

  Dan Corry

  Sheila Watson

  Minister of Transport

  Kate Davies

  Tony Grayling

  Chancellor of the Exchequer4

  Ed Balls

  Charles Whelan

  Chief Secretary

  Andrew Maugham

  Edward Miliband

  Secretary of State for Wales

  John Adams

  Huw Roberts

  617

  Appointing Minister

  Name of appointee

  The following have been appointed as unpaid Advisers:

  Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Dennis Stevenson

  Deputy Prime Minister

  David Taylor

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord Hollick

  Minister without Portfolio

  Benjamin Wegg-Prosser

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  David Mathieson

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Sue Nye

  1In addition, Professor Michael Barber has been appointed as Standards and Effectiveness Adviser to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  2Appointment is time limited to the life of the Task Force on Youth Justice.

  3In addition, the President of the Council has appointed Keith Hellawell as the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator (from 5 January 1998) and Michael Trace as the Deputy UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator on special adviser terms.

  4In addition the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Chris Wales and Paul Gregg as members of the Council of Economic Advisers on special adviser terms.

  Monitor Consultancy
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the nature and value of contracts his office has entered into and (b) discussions Ministers or officials have held with the Monitor Consultancy since 1990. [14944]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: For this purpose my Department is the Cabinet Office. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 11 November 1997, Official Report, columns 463–64.

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development,Official Report, 5 November, column 332, if he will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in his Office. [15487]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire, taking into account the Government's policy of seeking value for money for the benefit of the taxpayer. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made clear, the Government are also committed to promoting and supporting ethical trading wherever possible.

  Anglo-French Summit
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost, including incidental expenses, of preparing and furnishing the rooms in Canary Wharf used for the Anglo-French Summit; and if he will break this down into the main items of expenditure. [15658]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: Canary Wharf was provided for the Summit free of charge. Final figures for the cost of other items are not yet available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has collated on the number of live animals exported since 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [13964]

  Mr. Rooker
  The most up-to-date information available to the Department is recorded on the Animal Movement electronic data system. From May to October 1997 inclusive, approximately 263,00 sheep/goats and 93,900 pigs were exported from Great Britain to other EU Member States. This information is provisional and subject to change. There was a significant increase in the number of sheep exported from August to October. This is consistent with normal trade patterns.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live sheep were exported in each of the five years up to 1997; how many have been exported so far this year; what was their final destination; and if he will make a statement. [13968]

  Mr. Rooker
  Official Overseas Trade Statistics show that the following number of sheep were exported from the United Kingdom:

  Number

  1992

  1,422,000

  1993

  830,000

  1994

  989,000

  1995

  756,000

  1996

  547,000

  January-July 1997

  53,000

  These figures are provisional and subject to amendment. Certified destinations were principally France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and the Republic of Ireland.

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral statement by the Secretary of State for International Development,Official Report, 5 November, column 332, if he will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in his Department. [15502]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which the Prime Minister has given today. All procurement decisions in the Department are based on the Government's policy of value for money.

  Rothamsted Experimental Station
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to continue the long-term experiments at Rothamsted Experimental station. [15854]

  Mr. Rooker
  Rothamsted is one of the three research sites making up the Institute of Arable Crops Research. MAFF is a major customer for research at IACR and will spend over —7 million in the current year. Rothamsted runs several long-term experiments, some of which have contributed information to the main MAFF research
  619
  programmes at the site dealing with nutrient loss, soil organic matter and biodiversity. However, this core long-term work is funded by BBSRC and other funders and is not the direct responsibility of MAFF.

  Farmland Birds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter of 8 October concerning the agri-environment programme and farmland birds (108634), when he expects to respond to the three-year BTO project interim report. [14468]

  Mr. Rooker
  I expect to respond when final results of the British Trust for Ornithology project, due in October 1998, are available and have been assessed.

  Meanwhile, steps taken to help reserve the decline in farmland birds were outlined by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 27 October, Official Report, column 715.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans for the incineration of meat and bone meal produced from the cull of animals under the over 30-months-scheme. [15766]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are considering a number of options for the disposal of meat and bone meal arising from the over 30-months-scheme. Revelant elements of the Intervention Board's on-going tender exercise have been suspended to allow time for reflection on the full range of options presenting themselves. While some MBM is being burnt in a high temperature waste incinerator at Fawley, no decision has yet been taken on any other disposal option, or options, for the stored material, including burning MBM for energy recovery in power stations. In reaching a decision, full weight will be given to the protection of human health and the environment.

WALES

  Military Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met representatives of Welsh business to explain the Government's policy on the sale and supply of military, security and police equipment to oppressive regimes. [15298]

  Mr. Hain
  No. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, which sets out the Government's policy on this subject.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the significance to the Welsh economy of the manufacture, sale and supply of military, security and police equipment; and if he will place a copy of his assessment in the Library. [15292]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department of Trade and Industry has been studying the value of the defence industry to the UK but its emphasis has been national and has not included production of detailed figures on a regional basis.
  620
  A copy of "The Study of the Value of the Defence Industry to the UK Economy" of December 1995 was placed in the Library of the House.

  US Defence Trade Report
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the medium-term implications of US Commerce Department report, "Offsets in Defence Trade 1997". [15293]

  Mr. Hain
  The US Department of Commerce report "Offsets in Defence Trade 1997" is under consideration by the Ministry of Defence.

  Cycling
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative to cars in Welsh cities and towns; and if he will make a statement.[15304]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are considering the role of cycling, alongside that of all transport modes, as part of their development of an integrated transport policy to be set out in a White Paper next year. I intend to publish a Welsh Transport Policy Statement at around the same time.

  I have already taken one practical step to give local authorities more scope to promote cycling through the changes to the Welsh Transport Grant regime which I announced in June. These will allow support to be given in future to "integrated transport packages" which can, among other things, include measures to promote cycling.

TREASURY

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate in cash terms in 1995–96 prices the changes for 1997–98 and 1998–99 in NHS expenditure between(a) the 1996 budget plans and (b) the Government's latest plans. [13189]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: In the July Budget an additional £1.2 billion was allocated for the NHS in 1998–99, and on 14 October a further package of £300 million was announced for patient care in 1997£98. These figures can be converted into 1995–;96 prices using the current forecasts for the GDP deflator which are 2.76 per cent. for 1996–97, 2.75 per cent. for 1997–98 and 2.75 per cent. for 1998–99.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the number of people of working age who face combined marginal rates of withdrawal of tax, national insurance contributions and means-tested benefits of(a) under 50 per cent., (b) 50–59 per cent., (c) 60–69 per cent., (d) 70–79 per cent., (e) 80–89 per cent. and (f) 90 per cent. or above of introducing a lop starting rate of income tax on (i) the first £1,000, (ii) the first £1,500 or (iii) the first £2,000 of taxable income. [14016]
  621
  Dawn Primarolo
  The effect of introducing a 10p tax rate on marginal deduction rates, and on disposable income, would depend on what other changes were made to the tax and benefit system at the time of its introduction.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Departments overspent their allocated budget in financial year 1996–97; by how much each overspent its allocated budget; which Departments have had to reduce their budgets in financial year 1997–98 as a consequence; which Departments were allowed a claim on the reserve for all or part of their overspend; and how much each Department was allowed to claim from the reserve. [14026]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The Ministry of Defence breached its overall cash limit for 1996–97 by £246 million. It was the only Department to do so. No claim on the Reserve was agreed in respect of the overspend in 1996–97, but the overspend did increase the control total outturn for 1996–97. Following an investigation into the causes of the breach it was decided that the Ministry of Defence should reduce its overall cash limit for 1997–98 by £168 million.

  The reduction in 1997–98 is less than the overspend for two reasons. The first is that the Ministry of Defence received £40 million of extra receipts in 1996–97 which could not be appropriated in aid of the Ministry's Votes, because no provision had been made for them in the Estimates presented to Parliament. These receipts had to be surrendered by the Ministry directly to the Consolidated Fund, and so they could not be included in calculating the Ministry's overspend against the cash limit on its votes. Allowance was made for this in determining the size of the reduction in the cash limit in 1997–98. Secondly, allowance was also made for certain technical adjustments made during the course of 1996–97 in connection with the sale of the married quarters estate. These amounted to £38 million.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement; [13562]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [13563]

  Mr. Liddell
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: The majority of my Departments and agencies have submitted their costed plans to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency on schedule. Those that have not will be doing so shortly.
  622
  The plans will be analysed by the Central Information Technology Unit and the CCTA and the conclusions reported to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament. The Plans will be exempted from disclosure under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which permits non-disclosure prior to an announcement. However, once the announcement has been made the plans will be available to the public.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13565]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: Year 2000 system audits and inventories were completed by my departments and agencies as follows:

  Date

  Treasury

  September 1996

  Inland Revenue

  November 1996 (January 1997 for Valuation Office agency)

  Customs and Excise

  December 1996

  Royal Mint1

  September 1997

  National Savings

  July 1997

  Office for National Statistics

  September 1997

  1Systems are regularly reviewed. Date given is for last review.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13566]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: In view of the importance we are giving to the Year 2000 issue, I will be taking overall responsibility for ensuring that my departments' and agencies' IT systems are compliant. At official level, those with overall responsibility are as follows:

  Responsibility

  Treasury

  Head of IT services

  Inland Revenue1

  Deputy Director for the Business and Management Services division

  Customs and Excise

  Head of Corporate Development group

  Royal Mint

  Head of IT

  National Savings

  Director of Operations

  Office for National Statistics

  Director of Survey and Statistical Services division

  1Includes Valuation Office.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy for 1997–98 and 1998–99 that savings achieved in one Department can be switched to another Department; and if he will make a statement. [13645]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: The Government are committed to holding to the Control Totals for 1997–98 and 1998–99. Within that it may be appropriate on occasions to find savings from one

  623
  Department to cover increases in another as was done with the NHS this year. Minor transfers will continue in the normal course of business-for example, to meet the costs of new policy initiatives which fall outside the originating Department.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make further allocations of expenditure to the National Health Service in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13292]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has no plans to make further allocations of expenditure to the National Health Service in 1997–98. An extra £300 million for patient care this winter was announced on 14 October 1997, which has been made available by a reallocation of £270 million from other Department's budgets, plus £30 million in new administrative savings identified within the NHS in England.

  Departmental Spending Totals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that the existing departmental spending totals for 1998–99 will be adhered to; what is his policy on the transfer of expenditure savings from one Department to another for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement.[13286]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: The Government are committed to holding to the Control Total for 1998–99. Departments known their baselines for 1998–99 and are planning spending accordingly. There are no current plans to reallocate spending between Departments but it may be appropriate on occasion to find savings from one Department to cover increases in another as was done with the NHS this year. Minor transfers will continue in the normal course of business—for example, to meet the cost of new policy initiatives which fall outside the originating Departments.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional annual revenue which would accrue to the Treasury if the inheritance tax threshold was returned to the former rate of £150,000. [14704]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year effect in 1997–98 of lowering the inheritance tax threshold from £215,000 to £150,00 is estimated to be an increase of £575 million in inheritance tax liability.

  Casinos
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what differences in taxation methods apply between bets placed in(a) casinos and (b) betting shops; and if he will make a statement. [14911]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The gross gaming yield duty of a casino is liable to gaming duty. The gross gaming yield consists of the total value of stakes, minus players' winnings, on games in which the house is banker and participation charges on games in which the bank is shared by players.
  624
  Gaming duty is a tiered duty which ranges from 2½ per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. It is charged on each set of premises at which dutiable gaming takes place. The present charging structure for each set of premises is shown below.

  Part of gross gaming yield

  Rate (per cent.)

  The first £450,000

  2½

  The next £2,250,000

  12½

  The next £2,700,000

  25

  The remainder

  33⅓

  Bets placed with a bookmaker in a betting shop are liable to general betting duty. Duty is due on the total amount staked by betters on all off-course bets. The rate of general betting duty is currently 6;¾ per cent.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the system of taxation of casinos. [14912]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Gaming duty replaced gaming licence duty on 1 October 1997. A post-implementation review will be conducted after 12 months to evaluate the impact of the changes.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current licence fee paid by casinos; and if he will make a statement. [14913]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The requirement for a revenue gaming licence for casinos was removed when gaming duty replaced gaming licence duty on 1 October 1997.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was, in each of the last three years(a) the total amount taken by the casino industry across gaming tables and (b) the total amount paid by the casino industry by way of gaming licence duty in (i) Greater London and (ii) the United Kingdom excluding Greater London. [14914]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs do not record gaming licence duty receipts in a manner which allows for regional analysis. The annual receipts for the last three years are shown below.

  Gaming licence duty receipts

  (£'000s)

  Number

  1994–95

  72,263

  1995–96

  84,087

  1996–97

  79,407

  Unemployment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of people becoming unemployed cease to be unemployed within a year(a) in total and (b) broken down into (i) under-25s, (ii) those aged 25 to 44 and (iii) those over 44 years. [14939]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  625
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Willetts, dated 13 November 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 proportion of people who become unemployed that cease to be unemployed within one year, broken down by age groups.
  The ONS measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey, is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant court, which is based on the administrative system which records all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance 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.
  The information requested can only be derived from the claimant count, as the Labour Force Survey is unable to track individuals over time. The results are shown in the attached table.

  Proportion of joiners to the claimant count in the 12 months to October 1996 who left the count within 12 months, by age

  Age of claimant at start of claim

  Proportion of joiners that left within 12 months Per cent.

  Under 25

  90.5

  25 to 44

  87.3

  Over 44

  86.8

  All ages

  88.4

  Source:

  JUVOS 5 per cent. cohort file (October 1997).

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development,Official Report, 5 November, column 332, if he will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in his Department. [15499]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I refer to the answer which the Prime Minister has given today. All procurement decisions in the Treasury are based on the Government's policy of value for money.

  VAT (Energy-saving Materials)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury review on reducing VAT on energy-saving materials will be published. [15620]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs have completed their review and are now preparing their report.

  Exchange Rates
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measurements of currency of invoice he makes in assessing the short-run impact of exchange rates changes on the economy; and if he will publish the data for the last five years. [15457]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Publication of regular data on currency of invoice ceased in 1988. Data for 1984–88 were provided to the
  626
  hon. Member on 4 November 1997, Official Report, columns 101-02 in response to previous questions and the available evidence suggests that use of foreign currency is fairly stable over time.

  These data are used to inform the Treasury's assessment of the short-run impact of exchange rate changes on the economy.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he has made for receiving observations on the document "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests"; and if he will publish a document containing the comments and conclusions of her Majesty's Government to any material received by them in relation to potential advantages and disadvantages of economic and monetary union. [15747]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Observations on the document in question can be addressed to Treasury Ministers. The Treasury has already published a report on the pros and cons of EMU by David Currie. There are no plans to publish a further document containing comments and conclusions on that report or on the assessment of the five economic tests. The Chancellor has said that a period of preparation is needed now, to address the practical steps that government and business will need to take before a final decision to join the single currency.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trent Engine
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made on Rolls-Royce's application for launch aid for the new Trent engine. [16392]

  Mr. Battle
  I am pleased to announce that the Government have agreed to provide a long-term investment of up to £200 million over the next four years to Rolls-Royce plc. towards the design and development of its important new range of Trent engines. This will extend the Trent family to enable it to power all the world's new large aircraft. For example, the Trent 500 has been selected by Airbus Industrie as the powerplant for the new A340-500/600, in a privileged partnership announced at the Paris Air Show in June 1997.

  The Government's support reflects the importance of this project to the UK economy and the clearly established need for public funds to enable it to go ahead. The agreement with Rolls-Royce embodies the Government's commitment to public-private partnerships and is a marked departure from the previous administration's approach to the civil aviation industry.

  The investment is genuinely commercial, and reflects the risk that the taxpayer has been asked to share. The Government and Rolls-Royce will share, as partners, in the future rewards from this engine programme. The Government intend that this approach will inform the consideration of any future applications for support from the civil aviation industry.
  627
  Rolls-Royce is the 10th largest UK investor in research and development and much of its technology is diffused to other sectors of the Uk economy. The Trent engine has already demonstrated its technical excellence and these new developments will help to ensure that Rolls-Royce remains a world leader in aero-engine technology and continues to provide a centre of excellence in the United Kingdom. Success in this new Trent range will bring wider benefits to the many companies which supply Rolls-Royce, and increase competition for worldwide sales of aero-engines to the advantage of UK airlines and airline passengers.

  My Department will be discussing this investment with the European Commission.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Government Departments have now reported on their preparedness for the year 2000 problem; and when the results will be published. [14994]

  Mr. David Clark
  I have been asked to reply.

  Within Government itself, Departments and Agencies are responsible for their own systems. The Central Information Technology Unit, through its agent the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency supports the public sector. As part of that support CITU and CCTA have identified a programme of action to ensure that Government's response to the year 2000 problem is co-ordinated and coherent. This involves each Government Department providing me with detailed and costed plans for dealing with the year 2000 date change problem as soon as possible after 1 October 1997.

  I am awaiting an analysis and report on these plans from the CITU and the CCTA so that I can form an overall picture of progress, costs and future plans. Once I have done so I will inform Parliament.

  US Defence Trade Report
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the medium-term implications of US Commerce Department report "Offsets in Defence Trade 1997 [15290]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply as responsibility for the subject matter falls to the Ministry of Defence.

  The US Department of Commerce report "Offsets in Defence Trade 1997" is still under consideration by the Ministry of Defence. I will write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the expenditure by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if she will make a statement.[13263]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: Expenditure on external tax advice is undertaken in accordance with Treasury guidance. Information relating
  628
  to expenditure on specific external advice is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Chief Executives of the Department's Executive Agencies have been asked to respond separately.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 13 November 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about expenditure on tax consultants and other external tax advice.
  This Agency has not made any use of such consultants during the years in question and our expenditure has therefore been nil.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 13 November 1997:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade, for named day reply on 5 November, about expenditure by her Department, its agencies and non departmental bodies on tax consultants and other external tax advice. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service.
  The Employment Tribunals Service has not incurred any expenditure in either of the areas you asked about.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 13 November 1997:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the cost of tax consultants and external tax advice.
  The Patent Office has made no payments in this respect in 1995/96, 1996/97 and 1997/98 to date. No such transactions are expected in the remainder of 1997/98.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 13 November 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure by The Insolvency Service on tax consultants and other external advice in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.
  Its expenditure has been as follows:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Tax Consultants

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  External tax advice

  Nil

  £800

  Nil

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 13 November 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade concerning i) tax consultants and ii) tax advice and comment as follows:
  (i) Companies House has expended the following amounts on tax consultants:

  1995–96: £282

  1996–97: £141

  1997–98: Nil

  ii) No other external tax advice has been engaged.
  629
  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 13 November 1997:
  Mrs. Roche, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Question about Agency expenditure on tax consultants and other external tax advice.
  The Agency has been advised on PAYE matters by Fraser Russell during the relevant period and the actual and estimated expenditure details are as follows:

  (1) 1995–96: £3,150.00

  (2) 1996–97: £2,800.00

  (3) 1997–98: £2,852.00 (estimated).

  All figures exclude VAT, which is recoverable by the Agency.

  Investment (Multilateral Agreement)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in pressing for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment to include a legal requirement for parties not to lower environmental or labour standards in order to attract foreign investment.[15474]

  Mrs. Roche
  Draft text on this issue has been discussed at the negotiations of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in Paris. The UK is at the forefront of widespread but not universal support for such a legal requirement. We will continue to press the case up to the conclusion of the negotiations in April 1998.

  Animal Testing (Product Labelling)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to make the use of animal testing a criterion for product labelling; and if she will make a statement. [13688]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: The only animal testing issues for which my Department is responsible arise from regulations governing the supply of cosmetic products. This legislation, the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996, requires that where claims are made about the animal testing status of cosmetic products they should state clearly whether the tests carried out involved the product itself or its ingredients.

  The Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), which the Regulations implement, is unsatisfactory in its treatment of animal testing issues. In particular, the ban on using ingredients which have been tested on animals (currently deferred until 30 June 2000) does not in any case apply to finished products which may have been tested on animals. I intend to press the Commission to bring forward proposals to amend the Directive and would expect other related issues, such as compulsory labelling of animal testing, to be raised by animal welfare groups at the same time. I shall, of course, consult the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and other interested parties.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the number of export licences refused in respect of defence exports in each of the years 1979 to 1996. [15181]
  630
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 10 November 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 3 September to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) pursuant to my answer to him of 31 July, Official Report, column 627. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  This answer should be read in the context of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Nuclear Safety (Former Soviet Union)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the safeguards training assistance currently being conducted by British Nuclear Fuels in the former Soviet Union. [14716]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has in recent years funded a range of collaborative activities designed to help improve nuclear safeguards and nuclear materials accountancy and control arrangements in the former Soviet Union. Details have been provided in papers presented at a number of international safeguards symposia, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Work involving safeguards experts from BNFL and their counterparts from the Mayak reprocessing plant in Russia has been a particularly important aspect of these activities. This has yielded improvements in nuclear materials accountancy practices at Mayak and also recommendations on further work necessary to bring these practices into line with those at more modern reprocessing plants. The substantial funding necessary to implement fully the recommended programme of nuclear materials accountancy improvements at Mayak is being sought from the European Union's TACIS programme.

  China
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current level of trade between Britain and China. [14692]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest information on the level of trade between the UK and China is given in the table.

  UK trade with China—current prices, balance of payments basis

  £ million

  Goods

  Services

  Exports

  Imports

  Total trade

  Exports

  Imports

  Total trade

  1990

  451

  539

  990

  197

  67

  264

  1991

  311

  651

  962

  187

  74

  261

  1992

  420

  883

  1,303

  142

  82

  224

  1993

  748

  1,272

  2,020

  163

  126

  289

  1994

  861

  1,582

  2,443

  180

  152

  332

  1995

  826

  1,829

  2,655

  200

  160

  360

  1996

  740

  2,087

  2.827

  225

  150

  375

  Source:

  United Kingdom Balance of Payments, The Pink Book, 1997, ONS. Information on UK trade in services is only available for our major trading partners.
  631
  More up to date figures, for trade in goods only, are available on an Overseas Trade Statistics basis (the main difference between these and the figures on a Balance of Payments basis is that imports, on an OTS basis, include the costs of freight and insurance.

  UK trade in goods—current prices, overseas trade statistics basis

  £ million

  Janaury to September

  Exports

  Imports

  Total trade

  1996

  645

  1,611

  2,257

  1997

  523

  1,787

  2,309

  Source:

  Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, ONS.

  The main commodities traded in 1996 were as follows:

  £ million

  Top 5 UK exports to China

  Specialised industrial machinery

  112.4

  General industrial machinery

  98.0

  Telecommunications and sound equipment

  91.5

  Power generating machinery

  73.2

  Electrical machinery nes1

  38.5

  Top 5 UK imports from India

  Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  341.4

  Electrical machinery nes1

  154.4

  Telecommunications and sound equipment

  130.8

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles, nes1

  115.6

  Manufactures of metal nes1

  112.1

  Office machines and automatic data processing equipment

  99.3

  1 Not elsewhere specified within the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Information on UK trade in services with individual countries is only available annually.

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current level of trade between Britain and Yemen. [14973]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest information on the level of trade between the UK and Yemen is given in the table.

  UK trade in goods with Yemen—current prices, overseas trade statistics basis

  £ million

  Goods

  Exports

  Imports

  Total

  1990

  70·8

  36·2

  107·1

  1991

  65·2

  16·8

  82·0

  1992

  78·4

  56·9

  135·3

  1993

  85·5

  16·1

  101·5

  1994

  74·6

  5·1

  79·6

  1995

  66·8

  4·1

  70·9

  1996

  74·2

  8·4

  82·6

  Source:

  United Kingdom Balance of Payments, the Pink Book, 1997, ONS. Information on UK trade in services is only available for our major trading partners.
  632
  More up-to-date figures, for trade in goods only, are available on an Overseas Trade Statistics basis (the main difference between these and figures on a Balance of Payments basis is that imports, on an OTS basis, include the costs of freight and insurance):

  UK trade in goods—current prices, overseas trade statistics basis

  £ million

  January to September

  Exports

  Imports

  Total

  1996

  52·7

  6·8

  59·4

  1997

  54·5

  4·6

  59·1

  Source:

  Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, ONS.

  The main commodities traded in 1996 were as follows:

  £ million

  Top five UK exports to Yemen

  Paper, paperboard and articles of paper pulp

  7.5

  Power generating machinery and equipment

  4.5

  Chemical materials and products nes1

  4.4

  Professional, scientific and controlling instruments

  3.4

  General industrial machinery

  3.0

  Top five UK imports from Yemen

  Professional, scientific and controlling instruments

  4.5

  Power generating machinery and equipment

  2.4

  Telecommunications and sound recording equipment

  0.6

  Specialised industrial machinery

  0.3

  Transport equipment excluding road vehicles

  0.2

  1 Not elsewhere specified within the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of claims for disability living allowance have been(a) refused and (b) granted after appeal in each month since April 1996 in (i) Great Britain and (ii) each region. [14737]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Disability Living Allowance statistics do not distinguish between reviews and appeals relating to first claims, and reviews and appeals relating to existing awards. A claim may be successful on review or appeal for a variety of reasons, for example because additional information has been received or the claimant's condition has deteriorated.
  633

  Disability living allowance: claims reviews and appeals1,2

  Initial claims decided

  Reviews decided

  Appeals decided

  total

  refusals

  Total

  successful

  total

  successful

  April 1996

  41,533

  22,255

  22,461

  9,224

  2,542

  1,648

  May 1996

  45,576

  24,234

  27,253

  11,352

  2,769

  1,744

  June 1996

  41,969

  22,360

  29,381

  12,109

  2,964

  1,784

  July 1996

  46,049

  24,949

  34,119

  14,036

  3,013

  1,811

  August 1996

  41,791

  21,937

  31,781

  12,700

  2,900

  1,731

  September 1996

  43,219

  22,869

  26,231

  10,578

  2,899

  1,720

  October 1996

  50,536

  26,930

  32,078

  12,923

  3,766

  2,227

  November 1996

  45,754

  24,302

  32,429

  12,786

  3,366

  1,946

  December 1996

  34,822

  18,515

  24,151

  9,461

  2,660

  1,595

  January 1997

  43,750

  23,235

  37,924

  14,871

  3,558

  1,979

  February 1997

  40,603

  22,317

  32,603

  12,521

  2,746

  1,521

  March 1997

  40,193

  22,223

  28,923

  11,194

  2,368

  1,358

  April 1997

  43,133

  24,121

  32,757

  12,712

  3,200

  1,761

  May 1997

  36,489

  19,706

  27,895

  10,533

  2,620

  1,465

  June 1997

  41,696

  23,139

  21,458

  8,022

  3,054

  1,705

  July 1997

  46,259

  25,756

  33,513

  12,854

  3,300

  1,898

  August 1997

  37,621

  20,610

  32,152

  11,976

  2,724

  1,503

  September 1997

  41,453

  22,489

  33,354

  12,454

  3,201

  1,605

  October 1997

  43,697

  23,945

  37,095

  12,972

  3,183

  1,560

  1Reviews were made by adjudication officers in the Benefits Agency. Claimants dissatisfied with reviews can appeal to the Independent Tribunal Service.

  2Both the reviews and appeals figures for a given month will feature initial claims decided in an earlier month.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the timetable for extending the Government's new deal for lone parents to the west midlands. [15478]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Phase 1 of the New Deal for Lone Parents is already available in parts of the West Midlands, offering a comprehensive package of back-to-work help for lone parents—including advice with jobsearch, training, childcare and benefits. In the West Midlands the New Deal for Lone Parents is available in Atherstone, Bedworth, Halesowen, Dudley, Kenilworth, Kidderminster, Leamington Spa, Nuneaton, Rugby, Stourbridge, Stourport on Severn and Stratford on Avon.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents will be extended to all remaining parts of the West Midlands when it is rolled out across the country from October 1998.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what investment is being made to ensure that there are satisfactory levels of child care support under the new deal for lone parents. [15479]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government recognise the importance of good quality affordable child care for all working parents, particularly for lone parents who have to cope with bringing up children alone. That is why, when we launched the New Deal for Lone Parents in July this year, additional funds were made available to meet the child care expenses of lone parents who are undertaking jobsearch activities.

  New Deal advisers can offer up to £60 per week to each lone parent to help them pay for child care while they attend job interviews or training. New Deal advisers also have access to information on local child care services so that they can help lone parents find the most suitable child care for their children while they are at work.
  634
  The first phase of the Government's New Deal for Lone Parents, operating in eight areas, has allocated £314,000 for child care during jobsearch in the current financial year 1997–98. Half of this sum has been put aside for these items for the remainder of the first phase, from 1 April to 30 September 1998. For the national programme, estimated costs being used for planning purposes are in the region of £2.5 million for child care during jobsearch for 1998–99, with increased sums for following years. In addition a further £50 million during the lifetime of the Parliament will be set aside to extend help with child care costs through the in-work benefits.

  Lone parents in phase one of the New Deal for Lone Parents—including in the West Midlands—are already benefiting from this measure.

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will calculate what the standard rate for mortgage interest payments for people on benefits would be on the basis of including bank mortgage rates equally with main building society rates. [15078]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The standard rate for mortgage interest payments for people on benefits would currently be 7.66 per cent. if bank rates had been included equally with the main building society rates.

  Note:
  The revised Financial Statistics Table 7.1L gives the composite building society and bank rate produced by the Building Societies Commission and the Bank of England. The rate of 7.66 per cent. is for the same point in time as the current Standard Interest Rate (7.57 per cent.).

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if former building societies are included in the weighted average basic rates for calculating the standard rate for mortgage interest payments for people on benefits; and if she will make a statement. [15079]
  635
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The standard rate for mortgage interest payments for people on benefits does not take account of basic mortgage rates of the Halifax or Alliance and Leicester, but currently does take account of basic mortgage rates of the Woolwich and Northern Rock.

  Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the planned timetable for the development of stakeholder pensions. [15480]

  Mr. Denham
  We will be making an announcement about the publication of a consultation document on Stakeholder Pensions shortly.

  Following consultation we plan to publish more detailed proposals for Stakeholder Pensions alongside our proposals for the long-term framework for pension reform, in the first half of 1998.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the names, qualifications and experience of the members of the panel reviewing war pensions for noise-induced hearing loss. [13115]

  Mr. Denham
  The Chairman and members of the review team are:

  Chairman:

  Sir Kenneth Calman KCB, MD, FRCS, FRSE

  Chief Medical Officer

  Members:

  Professor Adrian Davis BSc, MSc, PhD

  Head of Epidemiology, Public Health and Clinical Section

  Medical Research Council, Institute of Hearing Research

  Nottingham.

  Professor Linda Luxon BSc, FRCP

  Professor of Audiological Medicine

  University College London Medical School.

  Professor Mark Lutman BSc, MSc, PhD

  Professor of Audiology

  Institute of Sound and Vibration Research

  University of Southampton.

  Dr. Guy Lightfoot BSc, MSc, PhD

  Senior Audiological Scientist

  Department of Clinical Engineering

  Royal Liverpool Hospital.

  Member and Secretary:

  Dr. Elizabeth Braidwood BSc, MBChB, MRCP(UK), MRCGP

  War Pensions Medical Policy Adviser.

  Earnings Disregards
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate what the level of all earnings disregards under income support, family credit and housing benefit would be had they been uprated in line with earnings since 1988. [12779]
  636
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Benefit

  Rate when introduced

  Date of introduction

  Current rate

  Value if increased in line with earnings since date introduced

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Income support

  5

  April 1988

  5

  8·50

  10

  October 1996

  10

  10·40

  15

  April 1988

  15

  25·60

  Family credit

  51·45

  April 1988

  77·15

  87·70

  Family credit

  40

  October 1994

  60

  44·75

  child care

  disregard

  Housing benefit

  5

  April 1988

  5

  8·50

  10

  April 1988

  10

  17·10

  15

  April 1988

  15

  25·60

  15

  April 1988

  25

  25·60

  Housing benefit child care disregard

  40

  October 1994

  60

  44·75

  child care

  disregard

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Secretary State for International Development,Official Report, 5 November, column 332, if she will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in her Department. [15498]

  Mr. Field
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Prime Minister has given today. All procurement decisions in this Department are based on the Government's policy of value for money.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of his Deparmtent on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement. [13260]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: A non-departmental public body sponsored by this Department sought external advice in 1995–96,1996–97 and 1997–98 to enable it to comply with its statutory tax obligations. This Department has in 1997–98 sought limited external advice on issues arising under another country's tax laws. In neither case was this advice sought for tax avoidance purposes.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement.[13259]
  637
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: Spending by this Department, its executive agency, and non-departmental public bodies on tax consultants and other external tax advice was as follows:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (a) FCO

  (i) Consultants

  0

  0

  0

  (ii) Other

  0

  0

  1£7,000

  (b) Agency

  (i) Consultants

  0

  0

  0

  (ii) Other

  0

  0

  0

  (c) NDPBs

  (i) Consultants

  0

  £5,827

  £2,702

  (ii) Other

  0

  0

  0

  1 Estimate.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the resolution to be considered by the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. [14721]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament and continue to hold the International Court of Justice in high regard. We have said that we will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons and, when satisfied with progress, will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations. We will, however, vote against the resolution because of its selective quotation of the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the threat or use of nuclear weapons, and its unrealistic call for time-bound multilateral negotiations.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) his Department's policies and initiatives designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and (b) the departmental policies and initiatives designed to reduce other greenhouse gases; if he will estimate for each the annual reduction in tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions achieved in the most recent year for which figures are available compared to those for 1990; and what estimate he has made of further reductions, or increases, predicted for 2000 and 2010, assuming continuation of current policies. [15543]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the United Kingdom's Second Report under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which was published in February 1997. It reports the UK's progress in implementing its programme for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and gives a projection of what the programme is expected to deliver by 2000. The report projects forward what the current programme is expected to achieve to 2020.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Belarus
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the support the United Kingdom is giving to the Republic of Belarus in respect of the effects of the Chernobyl disaster on Belarussian children. [15824]

  Clare Short
  The Untied Kingdom is providing support through the European Commission and other international agencies such as the World Health Organisation for a range of programmes in Belarus designed to ameliorate the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. We have previously provided support directly through our own Environmental Know How Fund for post-Chernobyl programmes, including food screening for radioactive contamination.

  Southern Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will extend short-term emergency aid to the people of the Western Equatorial region in Southern Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [14830]

  Clare Short
  We are ready to consider proposals put to us to help alleviate the suffering of victims of short-time emergencies in the Western Equatorial region in Southern Sudan. We have already supported three non-governmental Organisation projects in the region this year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gender Awareness Training (Judiciary)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will establish gender awareness training for all the judiciary. [15022]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which is a non-departmental governmental body. It has held a number of sessions in both induction and continuation training on equal treatment, including gender awareness, and is considering how training in this area might be developed.

  Lay Magistrate training is delivered by Magistrates' Courts' Committees but the JSB has a role is setting the syllabus. Lay Magistrates already address the issue of equal treatment for all in the light of their judicial oath and the JSB has recently begun a study to identify the skills and knowledge required by Lay Magistrates to ensure equality of treatment for all who appear in their courts.

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development,Official Report, 5 November, column 332, if he will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in his Department. [15494]
  639
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer to the answer which the Prime Minister has given today. All procurement decisions in my Department are based on the Government's policy of value for money.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Annual Report and Accounts for the Prison Service. [16411]

  Mr. Straw
  I am pleased to report that I have today published the Prison Service Report and Accounts for 1996–97, along with those for 1995–96. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  In future, we will aim to publish Prison Service Annual Reports and Accounts within six months of the end of the financial year.

  Lottery Draws
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to prevent frequent lottery draws in pubs and other premises. [16435]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government have given careful consideration to the issues raised by frequent lottery draws in premises.

  The Gaming Board has expressed serious concern to the Government about plans by a company which runs lotteries on behalf of charities under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 to run frequent on-line lotteries in a range of outlets, including pubs and clubs.

  The 1976 Act did not contemplate on-line lotteries, and therefore does nothing to prevent them. The use of on-line technology would allow the promotion of successive large scale lottery draws, in a series running through the day, simultaneously in a large number of different outlets.

  Such rapid draw lotteries would thus have many of the characteristics of hard gambling. Their unrestricted availability to the public in high streets and neighbourhoods raises serious issues of gambling control.

  Such a development in pubs where, of course, alcohol is available, and other public places, would undermine the long-standing policy which this Government fully support, that the harder forms of gambling should be confined to premises specially licensed for gambling, and with appropriate controls.

  Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the then Secretary of State for National Heritage used his powers to direct the Director General of the National Lottery not to license games which encourage excessive participation. The Director General himself has made it clear that he does not consider that rapid play lotteries are an appropriate development for the National Lottery.

  However, the 1976 Act needs to be strengthened to give sufficient protection in the case of other lotteries.

  We therefore propose to introduce legislation to amend the 1976 Act to restrict frequent lottery draws. The measures, which will be introduced in Parliament as soon
  640
  as possible, will not interfere with existing conventional lotteries run for charitable or other purposes. It will only restrict new forms of rapid draw lottery.

  The Government recognise that these lotteries could raise additional money for charities but, given the social risks, we do not consider that the new type of lottery would be an acceptable development. Since this will be primary legislation, those with an interest will have every opportunity to put their points of view in Parliament on the principle and the detail. I am also proposing to publish the legislation in draft form to allow interested parties a few weeks in which to make any representations.

  I have placed in the Library an explanatory document which sets out the position in more detail.

  Winson Green Prison
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the detention of visitors to Winson Green Prison on 14 October; and how many children were detained. [15191]

  Ms Quin
  On the morning of 14 October 1997, the movement of all traffic and persons into and out of Birmingham prison was suspended for approximately two and a half hours to forestall a suspected escape attempt. This is in line with security procedures. As a result, 15 adult visitors to prisoners were required to remain in the prison until normal operational procedures could be resumed. There were no children among this number.

  Refreshment and toilet facilities were made available and the visitors were kept informed. The prison has apologised to the visitors who were inconvenienced.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on official hospitality for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997. [15234]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is provided in the following table.

  Year

  Department £

  Agencies£

  Non-departmental public bodies £

  1990–91

  30,080

  —

  1,268

  1991–92

  28,094

  —

  1,122

  1992–93

  19,122

  36,529

  6,270

  1993–94

  15,233

  33,784

  4,427

  1994–95

  15,990

  11,478

  6,523

  1995–96

  22,060

  16,544

  11,959

  1996–97

  35,412

  26,358

  23,289

  1 May to 30 September 19971

  9,351

  17,296

  3,232

  1Provisional.

  Unfortunately, information on expenditure on official hospitality in 1980–81 and 1987–88 is no longer available. In addition, the figures for expenditure by the

  641
  Department's non-departmental public bodies prior to 1994–95 are incomplete because some of the bodies no longer retain the necessary information.

  The figures for expenditure by non-departmental public bodies exclude the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Horserace Totaliser Board because they are not funded by central Government.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98, year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15237]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The costs for publicity, including advertising, for my Department from 1993–94 to 1998–99 are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  14,152,549

  1994–95

  14,102,358

  1995–96

  10,869,563

  1996–97

  8,327,916

  1997–98 (year to date)

  1,665,176

  1997–98 (forecast)

  4,923,000

  1998–99 (planned)

  4,447,000

  Expenditure on publicity including advertising by my Department's Agencies was as follows:

  Year

  £

  Prison Service

  1993–94

  206,900

  1994–95

  200,00

  1995–96

  565,014

  1996–97

  299,778

  1997–98 (year to date)

  136,828

  Minister

  Dates

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost £

  Right hon. Jack Straw MP and Joyce Quin MP

  26-27 May 1997

  Brussel

  To attend Justice and Home Affairs Council

  5,350

  Joyce Quin MP

  9-11 June 1997

  Prague

  To attend meeting of Council of Europe Justice Ministers

  2,200

  Michael O'Brien MP

  28-30 June 1997

  Berlin

  To attend Oxford Forum tripartite conference with US and Germany on immigration and integration

  1,200

  Lord Williams of Mostyn QC

  15-19 September 1997

  Paris, Bonn, Dusseldorf and Oslo

  To assess investigation of suspicious deaths procedures, human rights issues and community sentences

  3,850

  Alun Michael MP

  16-19 September 1997

  New York

  To research voluntary sector issues

  10,000

  Joyce Quin MP

  17-18 September 1997

  Paris

  To attend meeting with French Minister of Justice

  1—

  Joyce Quin MP

  26-28 September

  Siena

  To address Anglo-Italian Conference

  300

  Right hon. Jack Straw MP and Joyce Quin MP

  9-10 October 1997

  Luxembourg

  To attend informal Justice and Home Affairs Council

  1,900

  642

  Year

  £

  1997–98 (forecast)

  200,000

  1998–99 (planned)

  not finalised—50,000+

  Fire Service College

  1993–94

  56,000

  1994–95

  35,000

  1995–96

  33,000

  1996–97

  29,000

  1997–98 (year to date)

  16,000

  1997–98 (forecast)

  28,000

  1998–99 (planned)

  not yet allocated

  Passport Agency

  1993–94

  79,945

  1994–95

  127,040

  1995–96

  94,814

  1996–97

  143,899

  1997–98 (year to date)

  12,500

  1997–98 (forecast)

  33,000

  1998–99 (planned)

  not yet allocated

  Forensic Science Service

  1997–98 (year to date)

  280,000

  1997–98 (forecast)

  387,000

  1998–99 (planned)

  not yet allocated

  Prior to 1997–98, under the Forensic Science Service Agency's framework document, publicity was provided by the Home Office and is included in the departmental spend.

  I shall write to the hon. Member, as happened when he last asked a similar question, with regard to expenditure on publicity by my Department's Non-Departmental Public Bodies. This information is not held centrally and will take some time to collate.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team since 2 May, specifying in each case(a) the participating Minister or Ministers, (b) the destination of the trip, (c) the purpose of the trip and (d) the cost of the trip; and if he will make a statement. [15236]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The table gives the information requested including costs for the Ministerial delegation.
  643

  Minister

  Dates

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost£

  Right hon. Jack Straw MP

  20-21 October 1997

  Paris

  To attend meetings with French Interior Minister and Minister of Justice

  2,800

  Joyce Quin MP

  20-21 October 1997

  Strasbourg

  To attend European Plenary Meeting

  2,000

  Joyce Quin MP

  4-6 November 1997

  Stockholm

  To assess prison and probation system

  2,900

  1 No expense incurred by Department.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–l91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96,

  (a)Department Related

  (b)Agencies Related

  (c)Non-departmental public bodies Related

  Year

  Travel £

  costs £

  Total £

  Travel £

  costs £

  Total £

  Travel £

  costs £

  Total £

  1994–95

  658,802

  823,914

  1,482,716

  168,372

  98,659

  267,031

  6,766

  2,179

  8,945

  1995–96

  993,768

  1,455,842

  2,449,610

  227,762

  122,312

  350,074

  17,067

  16,831

  33,898

  1996–97

  1,098,892

  1,495,522

  2,594,414

  128,018

  122,665

  250,683

  13,105

  6,298

  19,403

  1997–981

  363,919

  465,194

  829,113

  68,649

  42,582

  111,231

  4,872

  5,250

  10,122

  1 May to September.

  Information relating to 1980–81 is no longer held. That relating to 1987 to 1994, and a separate breakdown relating to air fares, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Parenting Classes
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has to introduce minimum standards or qualifications for persons offering parenting classes; and if he will make a statement; [15278]

  (2) what proposals he has to set down minimum requirements for the content and duration of training and guidance sessions for parents as described in the consultation paper "Tackling Youth Crime"; and if he will make a statement. [15279]

  Mr. Michael
  Reform of the youth justice system is one of the Government's key priorities. At the heart of our approach to youth crime are a determination to reassert the importance of personal and social responsibility with more emphasis placed on making young offenders and their parents take more responsibility for their actions. Up to now, insufficient help or attention has been given to parents to change offending behaviour by their children. Action will include the introduction of a new parenting order which will help parents to accept their responsibilities for the behaviour of their children.

  The parenting order will contain two elements. There will be an element which allows the court to direct that parents exercise control over their children and an element which allows the court to impose a requirement on parents to attend training and guidance sessions. This latter element of the order can last up to three months and require the parent to attend for no more than one session in any one week. The order will be supervised by a responsible officer who will, in the short term, probably be a member of the Social Services Department. In the longer term, it is envisaged that following the
  644
  (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if he will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15235]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The available information on overseas travel and related expenditure is as follows:

  establishment of Youth Offender Teams it will be a member from those teams. We intend to include proposals for the parenting order and the establishment of Youth Offender Teams in the forthcoming Crime and Disorder Bill.

  It is envisaged that a Responsible Officer will arrange for the provision of guidance sessions for parents. The introduction of Parenting Orders will be piloted. No decision has yet been made on how we will conduct the pilot exercise. The pilots will allow us to consider appropriate guidance on the best use of the Parenting Order and on standards to be met.

  Race Relations
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for section 11 funding; and what assessment he has made of their impact on education funding in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. [15694]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have made it clear that the previous plans which would have meant a reduction in the level of funding from £83 million this year to £43 million next year will not stand. This will be of special significance for Tower Hamlets, which is the largest single recipient of section 11 grant.

  We shall shortly let local authorities have more precise information about arrangements after August 1998, when current funding approvals are due to run out.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration detainees were held in immigration detention centres and HM prisons or other places of detention on the latest date for which figures are available, setting out the number of detainees at each named establishment and their national origin. [14584]
  645
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information on person held in detention under immigration powers as at 30 September 1997 by place of detention and nationality is given in tables 1 to 3.

  Table 1: Persons recorded as being in detention1 solely under Immigration Act powers, by immigration detention centre, as at 30 September 1997

  Establishment

  Total detainees

  Campsfield

  110

  Dover Harbour

  8

  Harmondsworth

  91

  Harwich

  0

  Heathrow's Queen's Building

  15

  Manchester Airport

  9

  Tinsley House

  149

  Total

  382

  1 Excluding persons detained in police cells.

  Table 2: Persons recorded as being in detention1 solely under Immigration Act powers, by prison establishment, as at 30 September 1997

  Establishment

  Total Detainees

  Aberdeen

  4

  Belmarsh

  9

  Birmingham

  7

  Blakenhurst

  2

  Bristol

  2

  Brixton

  14

  Bullingdom

  12

  Canterbury

  12

  Chelmsford

  3

  Doncaster

  3

  Durham

  3

  Elmley

  2

  Greenock

  5

  Haslar

  138

  High Down

  35

  Holloway

  21

  Leeds

  8

  Lewes

  3

  Liverpool

  5

  Longriggend

  2

  Manchester

  3

  Norwich

  3

  Pentonville

  5

  Reading

  2

  Rochester

  185

  Wandsworth

  10

  Winchester

  4

  Wormwood Scrubs

  14

  Others

  12

  Total

  528

  Table 3: Person recorded as being in detention1Solely under Immigration Act power, by nationality, as at 30 Septemper 1997

  Nationality

  Total Detainees

  Albania

  7

  Algeria

  69

  Angola

  9

  Bangladesh

  24

  Bulgaria

  8

  China

  41

  Columbia

  13

  646

  Table 3: Persons recorded as being in detention1 solely under Immigration Act powers, by nationality, as at 30 September 1997

  Nationality

  Total Detainees

  Cyprus

  14

  Ecuador

  7

  Egypt

  4

  France

  4

  Gambia

  14

  Ghana

  51

  Greece

  3

  India

  144

  Iran

  7

  Israel

  3

  Ivory Coast

  2

  Jamaica

  33

  Kenya

  14

  Lebanon

  6

  Liberia

  7

  Libya

  3

  Malaysia

  2

  Morocco

  6

  Netherlands

  3

  Nigeria

  129

  Pakistan

  70

  Poland

  9

  Romania

  9

  Sierra Leone

  2

  Slovakia

  4

  Somalia

  7

  South Africa

  6

  Spain

  2

  Sri Lanka

  17

  St. Lucia

  2

  Sudan

  4

  Tanzania

  5

  Tunisia

  3

  Turkey

  32

  Uganda

  3

  USA

  3

  Former USSR

  14

  Venezuela

  2

  Former Yugoslavia

  10

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  10

  Zimbabwe

  2

  Stateless2 and Nationality Doubtful

  8

  Other

  59

  Total

  910

  1 Excluding persons detained in police cells.

  2 Excluding Palestine and Hong Kong stateless persons.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department When he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne dated 19 August relating to immigration issues raised by Mr.L.J.Pope of Shepperton. [15635]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I shall be writing to the hon. Member shortly, further to the reply sent on 30 October by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withihgton (Mr. Bradley)

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will give a substantive reply to the hon. Member's letters of 8 August 1997 and 17 October 1997 concerning the case of Shaukat Hayat, ref. DO 14448. [15862]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have written to my hon. Friend.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences Laboratory
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date Huntingdon Life Sciences Laboratory is due to have its Animal Procedures Licence reviewed; if he will list the improvements required to prevent the licence form being revoked; and if he will make a statement. [15303]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The 16 conditions which the establishment had to meet before an application for a new Certificate of Designation could be considered were listed on 27 October in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock),Official Report, column 744. These conditions have been met and a new Certificate of Designation was granted on 29 September. The previous Certificate has been revoked.

  Polling Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to ensure that polling stations are accessible to a disabled person wishing to vote independently. [15477]

  Mr. George Howarth
  District and London Borough Councils are statutorily required to designate as polling places, so far as is reasonable and practicable, only places which are accessible to the disabled. Acting returning officers may apply to the Home Office and Scottish Office for grants towards the cost of providing temporary ramps and specially adapted polling screens to make polling stations accessible for those disabled voters who wish to vote in person. There is no limit on the number of applications which they may make for grant assistance. The Government are also considering the report "Polls Apart 2" published by SCOPE to see what further advice might be provided to acting returning officers.

  Group 4
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Home Office Ministers, officials and Prison Service staff have taken paid employment with Group 4 Securitas after leaving his Department; how many of those employees were formerly responsible for overseeing, managing or inspecting contracts for private prisons; and if he will make a statement. [14466]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: Group 4 Prison and Court Services Limited have employed 20 former Prison Service employees. All were previously governor grades. Two had worked on private sector contracts whilst in the Prison Service.

  Two governor grades are currently awaiting clearance from the Cabinet Office to commence employment with Group 4.

  Information in respect of the employment of other officials and former Home Office Ministers is not available.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) his Department's policies and initiatives designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and (b)s the departmental policies and initiatives designed to reduce other greenhouse gases; if he will
  648
  estimate for each the annual reduction in tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions achieved in the most recent year for which figures are available compared to those for 1990; and what estimate he has made of further reductions, or increases, predicted for 2000 and 2010, assuming continuation of current policies. [15537]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the United Kingdom's Second Report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which was published in February 1997. It reports the United Kingdom's progress in implementing its programmes for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and gives a projection of what the programme is expected to deliver by 2000. The report projects forward to 2020 what the current programme is expected to achieve.

  Emergency Communications Working Party
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the purpose of the ad hoc working party on emergency communications; who attends its meetings; how often it meets; on what dates it has met since 1993; when it was established; and if the papers of the working party are made available to the public. [15533]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The ad hoc working party on emergency communications (AWPEC) first met in 1985. It provides a forum for the exchange of information on emergency communications between the Home Office, other home departments and local authorities. It has met in March and September 1993, April and October 1994, April and December 1995, July 1996 and February 1997. The working party proceedings have not been made available to the public.

  EU Conventions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 74–6, relating to two conventions of the European Community concerning extradition between its member states additional to those extant, by what means and on what dates each convention received parliamentary scrutiny; what consultation Ministers held with other bodies and persons affected by each convention; what notice was given to the public of the drafts of each convention; by what means the conventions will be ratified; when he expects to introduce legislation to amend the Extradition Act 1989; and what plans he has to publish explanatory memoranda prior to that date. [15566]

  Mr. Michael
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the previous Home Secretary, wrote to the Chairmen of the Scrutiny Committees on 3 March 1995 about the Convention on Simplified Extradition Procedure, enclosing a copy of the draft Council Act, a copy of the draft Convention and an Explanatory Note. He wrote to the Chairmen of the Scrutiny Committees on 3 April 1996 about the Convention Relating to Extradition Between Member States of the European Union enclosing a copy of the draft Convention, the draft Council Act and an Explanatory Note. He wrote again to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities on 7 May 1996. A further letter was sent to the Chairman of
  649
  Sub-Committee E, House of Lords, on 25 June 1996 in response to comments received by that Committee from Liberty, Justice and Fair Trials Abroad.

  Government consultation was carried out at official level with interested Whitehall Departments. During the course of negotiations, European Union conventions remain confidential between member states. Each member state is required to complete its own internal procedures to provide for ratification. In the case of the United Kingdom, this will require primary legislation to amend the Extradition Act 1989. I am not in a position to announce when this legislation might be introduced.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those Private Finance Initiative contracts entered into by his Department which transfer(a) volume risk, (b) risk of a return lower than one tied to movements in the retail prices index and (c) risk associated with ownership of the capital asset after the contract period; and if he will make a statement. [15593]

  Mr. Straw
  The following Private Finance Initiative contracts entered into by my Department transfer:

  (a) volume risk:

  Police National (telecommunications) Network

  Prison PABX system

  Immigration Caseworking project

  United Kingdom Passport Agency passport processing contracts

  Secure Training Centre, Cookham Wood

  Coldingley Prison Industries Workshop

  (b) risk of a return lower than one tied to movements in the retail
  price index:

  Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse

  Her Majesty's Prison Parc

  Her Majesty's Prison Lowcham Grange

  Secure Training Centre, Cookham Wood

  Police National (telecommunications) Network

  Immigration Caseworking project

  United Kingdom Passport Agency passport processing contracts

  Prison PABX system

  Gatwick Immigration Detention facilities

  Coldingley Prison Industries Workshop

  (c) risk associated with ownership of the capital asset after the
  contract period:

  Police National (telecommunications) Network

  Immigration Caseworking project

  United Kingdom Passport Agency passport processing contracts

  Prison PABX system

  Gatwick Immigration Detention facilities

  Coldingley Prison Industries Workshop

  All Home Office contracts are signed with value for money in mind.

  Transfer of volume risk is impractical for contracts for prison facilities, as the client has control over the level of business. In such cases, risk is transferred by payment in relation to the contractor's liability to ensure that contractually specified facilities are made available to the demanding contractual timetable and that the availability of the service is maintained at a high level thereafter.
  650
  Payments to contractors may fall below movements in retail price levels if service quality is below specified standards.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital assets his Department will acquire under signed Private Finance Initiative contracts; what is the value of those assets; if, in each case, his auditors have provided an opinion that the asset will be recognised by the private sector contractor for accounting purposes; and if he will make a statement. [15601]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department will obtain services, not assets, under the duration of signed Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts. Design, Construct, Manage and Finance prisons (Altcourse, Parc and Lowdham Grange) and the Secure Training Centre for young offenders (Cookham Wood) will automatically become the Department's assets at no capital cost at the end of the PFI contracts in 25 and 15 years respectively. The Home Office has an option to acquire assets of the Immigration Caseworking project, and of the United Kingdom Passport Agency's passport processing contracts, at the end of the initial contract, on terms specified in the contracts. Any decision by the Home Office on whether to take up the options will depend on circumstances at the time.

  It is not for the Department's auditors, the National Audit Office, to provide an opinion on whether assets will be recognised by the private sector for accounting purposes.

  Telephones
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the access overload control scheme was established; what is its aim; how many categories there are in the scheme; how many mobile phone companies are subject to the scheme; which agencies or Government Departments are authorised to put the scheme into practice; and how many times the scheme has been put into practice since it was established. [15535]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The access overload scheme was first established in November 1989. Its aim is to ensure that in an emergency, essential users at the scene of an incident will have priority access to cellular radio networks which might otherwise be congested by non-essential users.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the purpose of the Government telephone preference scheme; when it was established; how many categories there are in the scheme; how these categories are defined; and how many times the scheme has been put into practice since 1967. [15534]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The purpose of the Government telephone preference scheme (GTPS) is to provide assured access for essential users in an emergency, when there may be a heavy load placed on the public telephone network, or the network itself may have been damaged. It was established in the late 1950s when there was a threat of massive nuclear war destroying significant parts of the national infrastructure.
  651
  There are three categories in the scheme, the first category being that of essential users such as the emergency services or government response teams. The second category is public call boxes and some payphones, and the third is the general public.

  Records prior to 1987 are no longer available.

  Since 1987, the preference scheme was activated by British Telecom as follows:

  August 1987: Hungerford

  October 1987: South-east England

  January 1890: Southern England

  December 1990: Midlands

  February 1993: Welford upon Avon

  June 1993: Chadford.

  There are two categories in the scheme. First, public access in ten classes of equal status and, secondly, essential user access in three classes.

  The Police Incident Commander has the authority to request the invocation of the scheme or exceptionally, the Cabinet Office, in consultation with the lead Government Department for the incident.

  The scheme has been invoked on three occasions at Aintree, Crewe and Gatwick, all in April 1997.

  Prisons (Health Care)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison establishments in England and Wales have one or more trained health care managers on their staff; and what plans he has to increase the number of staff trained in health care management. [13196]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: Information is not collected centrally on the management qualifications of staff with managerial responsibility for the delivery of health care. All nurse qualified health care staff and doctors will have received some training in health care management, as part of their professional training.

  The Prison Service has an active education and training policy for health care staff, supported through central funds. Governors are encouraged to give priority to management training, particularly in relation to management National Vocational Qualifications for nurses and health care staff in managerial posts.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many health care managers working within the Prison Service have National Health Service experience; and what proportion of health care managers within the service this figure represents. [14508]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: Information is not collected centrally in the form requested. However, data from 122 establishments indicate that on 31 March 1997, 42 health care managers were registered nurses and, therefore, would have had National Health Service experience. This figure represents 34 per cent. of health care managers in those establishments.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the provision of false information to the immigration authorities with a view to obtaining political asylum or British citizenship; and if deportation orders against people providing such information carry rights of appeal. [14289]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  If false information were supplied in support of an application for asylum, this might have a bearing on the credibility of the applicant but would need to be considered as part of the totality of the evidence in determining whether the criteria in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees were met. If it came to light after a grant of asylum that information relevant to the grant had been given falsely, the decision would need to be re-assessed in the light of the totality of the evidence taking account of the new facts.

  Under legislation, all refused asylum seekers have a right of appeal before any removal to a country where they claim to fear persecution.

  As to British citizenship, it is an offence, contrary to section 46 of the British Nationality Act 1981, to make any false statement for the purpose of procuring anything to be done or not to be done under that Act. Where the Secretary of State is misled as to the applicant's identity, the grant of citizenship may be treated as a nullity.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 1996(a) what was the total cost to the Government of supporting political asylum seekers, (b) how many of them were held in detention and how many subsequently deported and (c) how many illegal immigrants were deported; and what are the figures for the current year to date. [14231]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information regarding the direct cost to Central Government of supporting asylum seekers is given below. This relates to persons seeking asylum on political or other grounds of persecution. I regret that information about the other indirect costs to Central or Local Government is not available, such as the costs involved in providing medical treatment, education, housing and social work for asylum seekers.

  The estimated cost to the Department of Social Security of support for asylum seekers in 1996 was £300 million.

  This information is based on the February, May, August and November 1996 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, and the May 1996 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System. Information on the receipt of other Social Security benefits is based solely on those asylum seekers also claiming Income Support, as asylum seekers cannot be identified from other data sources.
  653
  The Department of Health has contributed to the costs of supporting those asylum seekers not eligible for Department for Social Security benefits, by providing three special grants to local authorities, which totalled £12.7 million in 1996–97. These grants were:
  The Persons from Abroad with Children grant (PFACG) for asylum seeking families— £4.1 million;
  The Asylum Seekers Accommodation grant (ASAG) for adults without children— £5.6 million;
  The Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children grant (UASC)— £3 million.

  Reliable information on the historical flow of persons placed into detention, and of those who were subsequently deported, can be obtained only through examination of individual case records. I regret that the information requested is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost. However, as at 11 December 1996, the number of asylum seekers held in detention, solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, was 754; the equivalent figure as at 30 September 1997 was 772.

  The provisional figure for the number of persons subject to enforcement action (i.e. served with illegal entry notices or where deportation proceedings had been initiated) removed from the United Kingdom between 1 January 1997 and 30 September 1997 is 4,949. This includes voluntary/supervised departures made after enforcement action had been initiated. The figure covers asylum and non-asylum enforcement cases but excludes persons removed as a result of port refusal procedures. Equivalent information for 1996 can be found in table 7.1

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other ethnic origin

  Not provided

  Total

  Number of ethnic staff as percentage

  Male

  2,066

  81

  147

  37

  441

  2,772

  9·56

  Female

  2,017

  168

  355

  31

  314

  2,885

  19·20

  Total

  4,083

  249

  502

  68

  755

  5,657

  14·48

SCOTLAND

  Health Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by health care provider, for each of the last four years, the number of contracts each health authority had in place, indicating how many of these had been referred for arbitration within the NHS region; and how many were left unsigned by(a) the provider and (b) the purchaser at the end of the year to which they applied, and, for 1997–98, by the end of October 1997. [14612]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the numbers and status of contracts in place in the NHS in Scotland in the level of detail requested is not collected centrally. No contract disputes have been referred to The Scottish Office for formal arbitration in the last four years.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of per capita spending on health services in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available. [14920]
  654
  of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1996", (Cm 3737). Copies of this publication are available in the Library.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners on remand who are mentally ill; and if he will make a statement. [13721]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: Research published last year by the Institute of Psychiatry following a survey of the prevalence of mental disorder among the remand prison population of England and Wales for the Prison Service considered that 66 per cent. of the adult males, 53 per cent. of the young men and 77 per cent. of the women could be diagnosed as suffering from some form of mental disorder, including harmful or dependent substance misuse.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of(a) the numbers and (b) the percentages of employees in the Immigration and Nationality Department according to (i) gender and (ii) ethnic origin. [14978]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) collects data on the ethnic origin of its staff on a confidential, self declaration and voluntary basis. Details of the breakdown of the ethnic origin and gender of staff in the Directorate is as follows:

  Mr. Galbraith
  Provisional figures indicate that in 1996–97, the level of per capita spending on health services in Scotland was £860.

  Sleep Laboratory
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the funding of the Scottish National Sleep Laboratory in Edinburgh. [14418]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: I understand that Health Boards and The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust are in discussion about funding for the Sleep Laboratory in Edinburgh which is a matter primarily for them.

  Monitor Consultancy
  Mr. MacShane
  to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the nature and value of contracts his Department has entered into and (b) discussions Ministers or officials have held with the Monitor Consultancy since 1990. [14949]
  655
  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: The Scottish Office and associated agencies have no record of any contracts or discussions with the Monitor consultancy since 1990.

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development,Official Report, 5 November, column 332, if he will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in his Department. [15497]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer to the answer which the Prime Minister has given today. All procurement decisions in my Department are based on the Government's policy of value for money.

  Community Councils
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to encourage local authorities to increase the level of grant to community councils; [15440]

  (2) what has been the level of funding for the Association of Scottish Community Councils for the years 1993 to 1997; what is the projected funding for the year 1997–98; and how many community councils in Scotland are members of the association; [15439]

  (3) what plans he has to encourage the provision of training for community councillors, with special reference to planning and licensing issues. [15441]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Level of grant and other assistance to individual community councils is a matter for local authorities' discretion under Section 55 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. While the Government recognise the value of effective, adequately resourced community councils, they also recognise that local authorities have many competing calls on their available resources and are accountable to their local electorate for their decisions on spending. My right hon. Friend therefore has no plans to intervene in local authorities' consideration of spending priorities involving community councils.

  At a national level, the Scottish Office first awarded grant to the Association of Scottish Community Councils in 1996–97, to the sum of £36,000. Grant proposed for 1997–98 is £37,000. The purpose of the grant is to help the Association develop staff support, run a national office base, and produce a quarterly newsletter. Grant was initially envisaged for three years; grant each year depends on the association meeting relevant targets agreed with the Scottish Office. I understand that 470 community councils are members of the association, although its newsletter is sent to member and non-member community councils alike.

  I understand that training is one of the services that the association aims to facilitate. Local authorities also have the discretion to provide training services to community councils under Section 55 of the 1973 Act. In addition, the Scottish Office has granted £27,000 to Planning Aid Scotland over the last three years to train community councillors.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) his Department's policies and initiatives designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and (b) the departmental policies and initiatives designed to reduce other greenhouse gases; if he will estimate for each the annual reduction in tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions achieved inthe most recent year for which figures are available compared to those for 1990; and what estimate he has made of further reductions, or increases, predicted for 2000 and 2010, assuming continuation of current policies. [15541]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I refer the hon. Member to the United Kingdom's Second Report under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which was published in February 1997. It reports the UK's progress in implementing its programme for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and gives a projection of what the programme is expected to deliver by 2000. The report projects forward what the current programme is expected to achieve to 2020.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (iv) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if he will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15247]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Information on overseas travel in the Scottish Office and its agencies is not held separately. Air fares and other expenditure relating to overseas travel cannot be disaggregated from total expenditure on travel and accommodation in the Scottish Office and its agencies without disproportionate costs in staff time.

  Information on non-departmental bodies is not held centrally.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Office will make a decision on whether to license the drugs cypermethrin and ivermectin for the general treatment of sea lice in farmed salmon. [14897]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: Authorisation of veterinary medicines such as cypermethrin and ivermectin is a matter for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  Requisite discharge consents enabling the use of ivermectin have been issued by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in a number of cases. Further use of this substance has been requested and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering whether to exercise his power of call-in under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
  657
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the financial impact of the lack of a suitable treatment for sea lice on the Scottish salmon farming industry; and what assessment he has made of the welfare implications of sea lice eating farmed salmon. [14803]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: The cost to the industry of dealing with the problem of sea lice has been estimated to be of the order of £20 million to £30 million per annum. It is a major issue and one which, for welfare as well as economic reasons, requires a variety of solutions, not just medicinal ones. My officials continue to discuss the matter with industry representatives.

  England

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  A. Total number of leg amputation (OPCS4R:X09)

  6,403

  6,504

  6,813

  6,842

  6,890

  6,679

  B. Leg amputation with a primary diagnosis of gangrene (ICD9:785.5) (include in A above)

  761

  714

  667

  738

  684

  553

  C. Leg amputations with gangrence mentioned as a secontary diagnosis (ICD9:785.5) include in A above)

  1,268

  1,141

  1,260

  1,249

  1,286

  1,265

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Currently the cost of this Procedure is not collected centrally and therefore an average cost is unavailable.

  Question relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, For Wales and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health what research he has(a) Commissioned and (b)evaluted into safe paracetamol. [14281]

  Ms Jowell
  We have not commissioned any research into Paracetamol. Paracetamol taken at the recommended dosage is safe. However. Paracetamol is available in combination with the antidote methionine where there is a danger of overdose. Data on the safety of products containing Paracetamol with methionine have been evaluated by the Lincensing Authority and its expert advisory bodies when considering applications for marketing authorisations submitted to the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). Following grant of a marketing authorisation, the MCA continues to monitor safety for all authorised medicinal Product, including those containing Paracetamol and Paracetamol with methionine.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the secretary for Health, Pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) of 20 May, official Report, column 498, on the subject of multiple Sclerosis, when the report on the way in which health authorities are implementing his Department's Guidelines will be completed; and what consultation his Department undertook with the Multiple Sclerosis Society relating to the implementation of the guidelines. [14471]

HEALTH

  Leg Amputation
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health how many leg amputations caused by gangrene there were in the United Kingdom between 1977 and 1997; and what is the average cost of such operations to the National Health Service. [12740]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information available on the number of leg amputations carried out in National Health Service hospitals in England where gangrene is mentioned as a primary or secondary cause, is set out in the table.

  Mr.Boateng
  Official have collected details about how health authorities are implementing the guidance. The Department has kept in touch with the Multiple Sclerosis Society about the implementation of the guidance the past year.

  Social Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the report, "Removing Barriers", Published by the Local Government Association; and if he will make a statement. [14585]

  Mr. Boateng
  We welcome the Local Government Association report, "Removing Barriers: the case for a New Deal for Social Service and Social security". Both my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Social Security are ensuring that it is taken into account in looking at the interface between the social security and social service systems as part of our comprehensive spending reviews.

  Myodil
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health for what reasons Glaxo was granted a lincence for Myodil; and what assessment he has made of overseas evidence that the drug is unsafe. [14608]

  Ms Jowell
  Myodil has been in use since the 1940s and was granted a Product Licence of Right (PLR), when the Medicines Act 1968 came into force . PLRs were reviewed by the Committee on Review of Medicines, which issued advice to the Licensing Authority. Applications for reviewed PLRs were assessed on the basis of the safety, quality for Myodil was granted in 1987 . However, Myodil was taken off the market by Glaxo for commercial reasons later in 1987. The safety of all licensed medicines is kept under continuous review by the committee on safety of Medicines and Medicines Control Agency. Safety data from all sources, including overseas, are included in this process.

  Press Releases (Internet)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health within what time Period his Department's press releases are placed on the Central Office of Information Internet services; and for what reasons press releases are not Placed on the Internet at the same time as they are issued to the media. [14593]

  Ms Jowell
  All the Department's Press releases, other than operational notes solely for the attention of the media, are placed on the central Office of Information's (COI) government press release Internet site at approximately 10.30 am one working day after their issue to the media. COI will shortly be improving their Internet site, as a consequence of which press releases will be available to the public on the same day that they are issued to the media. At present, all Government press releases are updated on the Internet the next working day, in large batches manually. The individual tasked with this then, has other duties to perform at COI. If press releases were placed on the Internet immediately at the time of issue, one dedicated person would have to be deployed for this task. COI have commissioned software specifically designed for them to enable press Releases to be updated and placed on the Internet at regular intervals during the day. This will achieve the same day service.

  Cannabis
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has Commissioned on the use of cannabis and its safety; what the cost of this research was; and where and when it will be Published. [14992]

  Mr. Boateng
  Department of Health officials, including Professionals, are Keeping the available research into the risks and medical use of Cannabis under review. Since 1996, expenditure on this activity through the Policy Research Programme has amounted to £10,705. The Department has not recently commissioned basic research in this area. Misuse of drugs legislation allows for research involving cannabis under Home Office licence. Any Proposed clinical trial would have to be submitted to the Medicines Control Agency in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968. Any application for a licence or a certificate, or both, would be considered in the normal way.

  Meningitis (Southampton)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the extent of the outbreak of meningitis in Southampton; how many persons(a) have died and (b) are under observation; if vaccine is available for all student at (i) Southampton Institute and (ii) Southampton University; and if he will make a statement. [14729]

  Ms Jowell
  There have been six confirmed cases of meningitis in the Southampton area since 1 October. Three Patients have died;three have recovered, and been discharged From hospital. One Patient is under observation for suspected meningitis.

  At Southampton University vaccine has been given to all first year students, all staff and all those resident or working in the halls of residence. The University has now made vaccine available to all students. A programme of vaccination for all first year students and all students
  660
  living in halls of residence at Southampton Institute started on 10 November and is expected to be completed by 14 November.

  Renal Services (Lancashire and Cumbria)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the provision of renal services in the Lancashire and Cumbria health districts. [14766]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans at this time to review renal services in the Lancashire and Cumbria health districts. However, my hon. Friend may wish to refer to the National Renal Services Review, completed and published in 1996, which reported on reconfigurations of renal services throughout England.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of accident and emergency services in Gloucestershire. [14906]

  Mr. Boateng
  The future pattern of accident and emergency services in Gloucestershire is a matter for Gloucestershire Health Authority. The health authority is currently undertaking public consultation on "Health Gloucestershire: A five year strategy for health and health services"; the strategy does not propose any changes to the current pattern of accident and emergency services in the health authority area at this stage.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued on the average size of population in the catchment area of a general hospital needed to sustain a full accident and emergency service. [15503]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health authorities and National Health Service trusts should provide an accident and emergency service which meets the needs of local people. The size of the population served by accident and emergency departments will therefore vary according to local circumstances.

  There is evidence that seriously ill and injured patients do better in larger departments where a high proportion of care is offered by consultant staff, with access to backup from a range of specialist departments. In May 1995 the Department of Health published the "Review of Literature on Accident and Emergency Departments and Clinical Outcomes copies of which have been placed in the Library."

  Advocacy Services (Children)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advocacy services are available to children on a national basis; What support they receive From public Funds; what national standards of operation apply to such services. [15039]

  Mr. Boateng
  Many local authorities and voluntary organisations Provide advocacy and voluntary organisations Provide advocacy services to children. This year the Department of Health has contributed a total of £93, 163 to help some voluntary organisations provide information and advocates for them. This includes recent Funding to assist the development of national standards of advocacy.
  661
  These are unlikely to be implemented fully for a further two years. Advocacy services are not required to be inspected by local authority Inspection units; and the Department of Health has not undertaken any monitoring via its Social Services Inspectorate.

  NHS Purchasing
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to market-test the central purchasing function of the NHS. [15083]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are no plans to market test the central purchasing function of the National Health Service Supplies Authority.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the care and services available for cystic fibrosis sufferers and their families. [15053]

  Ms Jowell
  Over the past 20 years or more there has been progressive improvement in the care of people with cystic fibrosis, reflected in the increasing numbers who survive into adulthood. A follow up study by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group of access to, and availability of, specialist services, completed in 1996, found that access to such services for patients with cystic fibrosis had been improved in most regions since the original study three years earlier. The follow-up report was sent to health authorities and trusts in December 1996 with a request that they consider carefully the suggestions for action, and in particular the need for continuing innovation in contracting. We shall continue to work with health professionals and all those with an interest to improve the care of people with cystic fibrosis and their quality of life.

  Chiropody and Podiatry
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the guidelines that are issued and health needs assessments that health authorities undertake to ensure the availability of chiropody and podiatry services to meet the needs of the local population. [15364]

  Mr. Boateng
  A joint Department of Health/National Health Service task force conducted a review of NHS chiropody services in 1994. Its report, "Feet First", provides guidance to the NHS on planning and delivering chiropody services. As with other health care services, local health authorities determine the quantity and scope of the chiropody services they are able to provide for their residents. They have to take into account the total resources available to them and bear in mind local priorities and circumstances.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to safeguard the provision of chiropody on the NHS. [15431]

  Mr. Boateng
  Chiropody is one of the range of National Health Service services provided to meet the needs of the population. The quantity and scope of chiropody services is determined by individual health authorities and general practitioner fundholders in the light of local priorities and resources.
  662
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the number of(a) face-to-face contacts and (b) initial contacts, with chiropody and podiatry staff for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1994–95. [15363]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information for 1996–97 is not yet available. The numbers of reported patient contacts with the chiropody service in the last three years in England are as follows.

  Thousands

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total face-to-face contacts1

  8,005

  8,270

  8,328

  Initial face-to-face contacts2

  1,006

  975

  951

  1 A contact is any face-to-face meeting between a member of chiropody staff and an individual patient or patient's proxy, where treatment or advice is given.

  2 An initial contact is the first in an episode of care with a service provider. An episode of care may he initiated by a referral to the chiropody staff from a hospital, general practitioner or other health service professional.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the NHS expenditure on NHS chiropody and podiatry in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95. [15370]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Total expenditure on community chiropody services England— 1994–95 to 1996–97

  Chiropody £000s

  1994–95

  90,122

  1995–96

  96,674

  1996–97

  99,647

  Note:

  Figures for 1996–97 are provisional.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the budget for each health authority or health board allocated for chiropody and podiatry services in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1995–96. [15369]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health authorities are not normally allocated budgets for particular services or individual client groups. Information on local spending decisions or particular services is not collected centrally. It is for authorities to make their own decisions about the level of resources required in each case on the basis of an assessment of local needs and priorities, and taking into account the national priorities set by Government.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities which have notified his Department of(a) reductions or increases in chiropody services in 1996–97 relative to 1995–96 and (b) planned reductions or increases in chiropody services in 1998–99. [15371]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health authorities are not required to notify the Department of changes in activity in particular services. Although the Department wishes to see health authorities and general practitioner fundholders provide the full range of National Health Service services including chiropody, detailed planning decisions on levels of provision are taken locally according to the needs of the population served.

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors were taken into account by the Malaria Advisory Committee when recently recommending that travellers to any part of the world for two weeks or less should not take Mefloquine (Lariam); and what assessment he had made of the need for guidance for those travelling for more than two weeks but less than six months. [15450]

  Ms Jowell
  The "Guidelines for the prevention of malaria in travellers from the United Kingdom", which were published in September this year, give full details of the issues considered and references used by the group of experts who compiled them. The guidelines are comprehensive and cover periods of travel of varying lengths, including advice for travel more than two weeks but less than six months. The guidelines advise that the prophylactic regimen of choice will depend on a variety of factors such as the level of risk from malaria which exists in the country to be visited, the length of stay, the activities the traveller will be engaging in, the traveller's medical history, the effectiveness of each prophylactic regimen and the potential adverse effects of the regimen. The guidelines do recommend mefloquine for trips shorter than two weeks if the risk of highly chloroquine resistant malaria is high.

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the letter of 7 October from the Minister of State (POH/6/5437/13), what was the outcome of the meeting with Robert Johnson and Dr. N. J. Evans, about opt-out organ donation. [14470]

  Mr. Boateng
  Ministers have met with a number of organisations in the transplant field, including Mr. Robert Johnson, transplant surgeon and President of the British Transplantation Society, and Dr. N. J. Evans, Chairman of the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority about opt-out organ donation. These meetings have been most helpful and have contributed to our current consideration of options for the way forward in transplantation.

  Thalidomide
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) evaluated into the use of thalidomide in the treatment of (i) leprosy, (ii) tuberculosis and (iii) AIDS-related wasting and mouth ulcers; and if he will make a statement. [15009]

  Ms Jowell
  Thalidomide is not used in the United Kingdom in the treatment of tuberculosis. It has an important place in the management of some patients with leprosy as set out in the Departments "Memorandum on Leprosy". The Department has considered studies carried out on the use of thalidomide in the treatment of leprosy but has not undertaken research in this area. Copies of the latest edition of the Memorandum, issued in August of this year, are available in the Library. Thalidomide has been used for treating AIDS related wasting and mouth ulcers but the Department has not undertaken or evaluated any research on this topic. As thalidomide is not licensed for such treatments it is only available on a "named 664
  patient basis" and the use of the drug is a matter for clinicians and patients to discuss and agree according to individual circumstances.

  Antioxidants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) evaluated into the risk posed to cancer patients by the consumption of antioxidants; and if he will make a statement. [15010]

  Mr. Boateng
  No research has been undertaken or evaluated by this Department into the risk posed to cancer patients by the consumption of antioxidants. The Medical Research Council, the main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research, provided support in 1995–96 for the following projects in the general area of antioxidants and the development of cancer, although these projects addressed the question of the anticarcinogenic effect of antioxidants rather than the effect of antioxidants on cancer once established:Mechanisms of modulation of carincogenesis by antioxidants: genetic control of the anticarcinogenic response in mice (MRC Toxicology Unit, Leicester);
  Prospective markers of antioxidant status in relation to future cardiovascular disease, lung and stomach cancer (MRC Dunn Nutrition Unit in Cambridge). This study was funded by the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme;
  the European Prospective investigation of Cancer (EPIC) which is a prospective study to identify dietary factors and dietary profiles which modify the risk for a range of chronic diseases including cancer. This takes the form of both direct support to the MRC Biostatistics Unit and grant support to participants;
  a human study at the MRC Dunn Nutrition Unit of an individual's lifetime nutritional habits and their relative risk of developing cancers of the breast and bowel.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a National Standing Committee to oversee the development of xenotransplantation; and if he will make a statement. [15011]

  Mr. Boateng
  The establishment of the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority was announced on 16 January 1997 in response to the recommendations of the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. Its membership was announced on 14 March 1997. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 27 October at columns 764–65.

  Gene Therapy and Artificial Organs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase investment in research into the development and application of gene therapy and artificial organs; and if he will make a statement. [15012]

  Ms Jowell
  Research into these areas is being conducted internationally. In some cases industry is in the lead. Within the United Kingdom, the Government will continue to encourage research relevant to these areas according to the scientific quality of proposals and to competing priorities. Much of this research will continue to be taken forward by the Research Councils.

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what conditions or restrictions are placed on the Clinical Director of the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust in relation to his contract with the Nuffield Hospital; [15832]

  (2) when the existing contract for the holder of Clinical Director of the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS trust expires. [15831]

  Mr. Milburn
  Trusts are free to set terms and conditions of employment as they think fit. Those of Basildon and Thurrock Hospitals Trust (B&THT) are in line with the Whitley Council. We are advised that the Medical Director of the B&THT has no contract with the Nuffield Hospital.

  Each of the executive directors of the B&THT, including the medical director, are employed on rolling 18-month contracts; they have as such no termination date. The executive directors' contracts are subject to regular review by the trust's remuneration committee.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for tuition fees for higher education. [14339]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to require most new entrants to full-time undergraduate courses from autumn 1998 to contribute up to a maximum of £ 1,000 a year to tuition fees, depending on their parents', spouses' or own income. Tuition will continue to be free for students from low-income families.

  Examination Assessors
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what checks are made on the competence of assessors of A-level and GCSE scripts in England and Wales. [14340]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Responsibility for ensuring that A-level and GCSE examiners maintain standards from year to year and across syllabuses lies with the GCE and GCSE Examining Boards, in collaboration with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. The Boards follow detailed Codes of Practice, agreed annually with the QCA and ACCAC. New examiners are appointed only if they have the relevant qualifications and experience, and the performance of existing examiners is closely monitored.

  Out-of-School Learning and Homework Centers
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made on the development of out-of-school learning and homework centres. [14341]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have made significant progress. last summer Literacy School ran as a Pilot Scheme last summer and 500 will be Supported next year. Study support centres will open shortly at a number of 666
  Premier League football clubs. We will consult shortly on a National Framework for Motivating Pupils outside the Classroom and will continue to work with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on proposals for Lottery funding to be available for out-of-school hours activities.

  Further and Higher Education (Enrolment)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the number of students entering further and higher education. [14343]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are setting a target for an extra 500,000 people to enter further and higher education by the year 2002.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the numbers of students entering higher education from neighbourhoods currently with the lowest participation rates; and if he will make a statement. [14344]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to increasing and widening access to higher education. We will want to follow up the Dearing Report's recommendations for widening access and we are currently analysing the responses to the consultation on the Report. We will make an announcement in due course.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects that every child aged between five and seven years will be taught in a class of 30 pupils or fewer. [14346]

  Mr.Byers
  We shall honour the pledge given before the election and shall have reduced class sizes to 30 pupils or fewer for every five, six and seven-year-old by the end of this Parliament.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new plans he has for the inspection service for establishments caring for the under fives. [14347]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department, jointly with the Department of Health, will be consulting early in the new year on establishing a more uniform regulatory and inspection regime for early years settings providing day care and nursery education.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding he plans to allocate to environmental education. [14348]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Decisions as to what funds to allocate to environmental eduction are for individual schools. Schools manage their own budgets under Local Management of Schools. Also, they can use the funds we have made available under the School Effectiveness Grant, which totals £130.1 million in 1997–98.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations his Department has received about problems created by the admission policies of grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement. [14349]

  Mr. Byers
  Responses to our White Paper "Excellence in Schools" demonstrated very strong support for our aim of ensuring that all admission authorities in an area work together effectively, for the benefit of all parents. The new Code of Practice will set out national guidelines to apply to all LEA and school admission authorities.

  New Deal
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the response of employers to the new deal for young unemployed people. [14350]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate).

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if young people entering the Gateway phase of the new deal will be able to gain some work experience without losing benefits entitlement. [14351]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  People claiming the Jobseeker's Allowance are able to benefit from work experience as part of an employment or training programme without losing benefit entitlement. This includes young people in the Gateway phase of the New Deal.

  Literacy
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's literacy strategy. [14352]

  Mr. Byers
  Our National Literacy Strategy is an ambitious programme for achieving our target of 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds reaching the expected standard for their age in English by 2002. The strategy will guarantee every primary schools teach the opportunity to learn about the most effective methods of teaching literacy, so that all pupils can achieve their full potential. We shall be investing £50 million next year in training for teachers and in providing books for schools.

  School Applications
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the subject of improving the organisation of applications to schools in England. [14353]

  Mr. Byers
  Our proposals for school admissions have stressed the importance of the development, through local admissions forums, of helpful and timely information for parents and of common timetables for applications. This has been widely welcomed.

  "Excellence in Schools"
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has responded to the consultation on the White Paper "Excellence in Schools". [14354]

  Mr. Byers
  We received approximately 8,000 responses to the full and summary versions of the White Paper and are considering them all carefully. In response, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced a strengthening of the proposed new framework for the organisation of schools, designed to enable schools to remain firmly focused on raising standards. These changes illustrate this Government's commitment to genuine consultation. Further policy announcements in response to the White Paper will be made as appropriate.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for the national grid for learning. [14355]

  Dr. Howells
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the consultation paper "Connecting the Learning Society" which was launched by the Prime Minister on Tuesday 7 October. This document is available in the Library.

  Early Years Education
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of his new formula for resource allocation for early years education. [14356]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A copy of the guidance recently issued to local education authorities setting out the arrangements for early years education has been placed in the Library. Funds will be provided to support the Government's policy of providing an education place for all four-year-olds whose parents want it. Details of the funding formula and its impact for individual local authorities will be announced in due course as part of the local government finance settlement.

  School Governors
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to promote a greater awareness of the contribution of school governors. [14357]

  Mr. Byers
  Our White Paper "Excellence in Schools" makes it clear that school governors have a special role as partners in the education service. They provide a vital link between the school and the community, and we propose to strengthen that link by increasing the number of parent governors. We are most grateful to the 300,000 school governors in England who give their time so generously. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has personally written twice to every governing body emphasising the vital role we hope they will play in improving school performance. We are also making available specific training support to help governing bodies in their main task of raising standards in our schools.

  Tennis
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduation and Employment (1) if he will estimate the number of tennis courts which have been sold off during the last 10 years by schools and sixth form colleges for housing re-development schemes; [15152]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of (a) schools and (b) sixth form colleges with tennis courts within their grounds, indicating the total number of such courts in (i) 1987 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [15153]

  Mr. Byers
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amount each educational institution funded by the Higher Education Funding Council received from(a) the HEFC, (b) the research councils and British Academy and (c) sources other than the pubic sector for the last year figures are available specifying the amount under (d) received from the institutions endowment. [14626]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the funding allocated to institutions by the Higher Education Funding Council for England for the academic year 1997–98 is contained in a circular (reference HEFCE Circular 6/97), a copy of which is in the Library. Higher education institutions also receive fees paid via LEAs for students holding mandatory awards.

  The latest information on the funding allocated to institutions by the research councils is contained in a number of tables, copies of which have today been placed in the Library. Comparable information on the funding allocated by the British Academy is not available.

  We do not collect information on income received by institutions from sources other than public funds. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 specifically debars Government, through the Higher Education Funding Council for England, form having regard to private income in distributing public funds.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the average level of grant per child received by each authority for the provision of primary and secondary school education. [15028]

  Mr. Byers
  Revenue Support Grant for local authorities is provided through the standard spending assessment formula, but it is up to each authority to decide how to fund primary and secondary school education. The following table sets out for 1997–98 the primary and secondary SSA per pupil figures for each local education authority.

  LEA

  1997–98 primary SSA per pupil £

  1997–98 secondary SSA per pupil £

  City of London

  3,017

  7,245

  Camden

  2,975

  3,740

  Greenwich

  2,810

  3,679

  Hackney

  3,179

  4,330

  670

  LEA

  1997–98 primary SSA per pupil£

  1997–98 secondary SSA per pupil£

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,955

  3,827

  Islington

  2,999

  4,026

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,711

  3,630

  Lambeth

  3,107

  4,403

  Lewisham

  2,936

  3,889

  Southwark

  3,029

  4,029

  Tower Hamlets

  3,217

  4,261

  Wandsworth

  2,779

  3,670

  Westminster

  2,789

  3,578

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,429

  3,213

  Barnet

  2,300

  2,975

  Bexley

  2,206

  2,888

  Brent

  2,648

  3,578

  Bromley

  2,180

  2,839

  Croydon

  2,361

  3,125

  Ealing

  2,480

  3,330

  Enfield

  2,399

  3,131

  Haringey

  2,762

  3,721

  Harrow

  2,267

  3,000

  Havering

  2,176

  2,853

  Hillingdon

  2,262

  2,968

  Hounslow

  2,440

  3,154

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,168

  2,825

  Merton

  2,314

  3,030

  Newham

  2,752

  3,618

  Redbridge

  2,323

  3,036

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,126

  2,728

  Sutton

  2,219

  2,866

  Waltham Forst

  2,563

  3,399

  Birmingham

  2,240

  2,960

  Coventry

  2,123

  2,786

  Dudley

  1,954

  2,559

  Sandwell

  2,139

  2,808

  Solihull

  1,961

  2,540

  Walsall

  2,071

  2,701

  Wolverhampton

  2,150

  2,848

  Knowsley

  2,381

  3,177

  Liverpool

  2,295

  3,022

  St. Helens

  2,045

  2,695

  Sefton

  2,038

  2,662

  Wirral

  2,100

  2,763

  Bolton

  2,042

  2,674

  Bury

  1,972

  2,558

  Manchester

  2,359

  3,138

  Oldham

  2,102

  2,732

  Rochdale

  2,114

  2,806

  Salford

  2,139

  2,814

  Stockport

  1,939

  2,547

  Tameside

  2,025

  2,648

  Trafford

  1,993

  2,603

  Wigan

  1,969

  2,572

  Barnsley

  2,038

  2,687

  Doncaster

  2,116

  2,782

  Rotherham

  2,037

  2,655

  Sheffield

  2,068

  2,725

  Bradford

  2,151

  2,845

  Calderdale

  2,050

  2,689

  Kirklees

  2,066

  2,718

  Leeds

  2,041

  2,680

  Wakefield

  1,988

  2,603

  Gateshead

  2,074

  2,736

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,171

  2,846

  North Tyneside

  2,015

  2,664

  South Tyneside

  2,121

  2,780

  671

  LEA

  1997–98 primary SSA per pupil £

  1997–98 secondary SSA per pupil £

  Sunderland

  2,089

  2,744

  Isles of Scilly

  3,576

  4,701

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,933

  2,483

  Bristol

  2,093

  2,784

  North Somerset

  1,942

  2,552

  South Gloucestershire

  1,902

  2,496

  Hartlepool

  2,098

  2,754

  Middlesbrough

  2,199

  2,935

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,105

  2,739

  Stockton on Tees

  2,066

  2,707

  Kingston upon Hull

  2,159

  2,834

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,961

  2,561

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,077

  2,728

  North Lincolnshire

  2,039

  2,673

  North Yorkshire

  2,006

  2,602

  York

  1,946

  2,565

  Bedfordshire

  2,055

  2,696

  Luton

  2,244

  2,958

  Buckinghamshire

  2,064

  2,712

  Milton Keynes

  2,133

  2,813

  Derbyshire

  1,952

  2,564

  Derby

  2,085

  2,747

  Dorset

  1,963

  2,565

  Poole

  1,943

  2,539

  Bournemouth

  2,033

  2,650

  Durham

  2,043

  2,685

  Darlington

  2,037

  2,683

  East Sussex

  2,094

  2,753

  Brighton and Hove

  2,173

  2,847

  Hampshire

  2,007

  2,630

  Portsmouth

  2,163

  2,831

  Southampton

  2,179

  2,888

  Leicestershire

  1,905

  2,504

  Leicester

  2,208

  2,898

  Rutland

  1,942

  2,466

  Staffordshire

  1,935

  2,533

  Stoke on Trent

  2,043

  2,692

  Wiltshire

  1,988

  2,602

  Thamesdown

  1,979

  2,600

  Berkshire

  2,103

  2,759

  Cambridgeshire

  2,019

  2,650

  Cheshire

  1,976

  2,581

  Cornwall

  2,057

  2,698

  Cumbria

  2,022

  2,644

  Devon

  2,031

  2,663

  Essex

  2,119

  2,781

  Gloucestershire

  1,977

  2,584

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,978

  2,591

  Hertfordshire

  2,135

  2,788

  Isle of Wight Council

  2,166

  2,840

  Kent

  2,103

  2,758

  Lancashire

  2,046

  2,686

  Lincolnshire

  2,041

  2,675

  Norfolk

  2,042

  2,675

  Northamptonshire

  1,999

  2,620

  Northumberland

  2,016

  2,638

  Nottinghamshire

  2,052

  2,695

  Oxfordshire

  2,047

  2,669

  Shropshire

  2,027

  2,650

  Somerset

  1,996

  2,620

  Suffolk

  1,983

  2,599

  Surrey

  2,109

  2,763

  Warwickshire

  1,960

  2,572

  West Sussex

  2,043

  2,674

  England

  2,130

  2,782

  Dance and Drama
  Mr.Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to respond to the Dearing Committee recommendations on the funding of students of dance and drama; and if he will make a statement. [15835]

  Dr. Howells
  Our response of 23 July to the Dearing Inquiry report made it clear that we would review what arrangements might be put in place for providing financial support for dance and drama students when the current scheme expires. This work is being taken forward by officials from this Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department has lead responsibility for the funding of students of dance and drama. [15836]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Education and Employment funds dance and drama courses in public further and higher education institutions through grants to the FEFC and HEFCE. Some students on these courses will be eligible for support through mandatory and discretionary awards and student loans. In addition, the Department will be contribution a minimum of £9 million of new funds to the interim bursary scheme over the four academic years the scheme will run.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the funding of training for dance and drama; and if he will make a statement. [15834]

  Dr. Howells
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has received a number of representations on the subject from various interested bodies.

  Church Schools
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church on the relationship between church schools and local education authorities; and if he will make a statement. [14332]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).

  Performing Arts Students (Grants)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the discretionary grant system for higher and further education with particular reference to students of the performing arts; and if he will make a statement. [15833]

  Dr. Howells
  We intend to abolish discretionary awards under section 1(6) and section 2 of the Education Act 1962, amended. We are now considering with LEAs and others what new arrangements for post-16 discretionary support might be put in place, including arrangements for students of the performing arts.

  National Curriculum Tests
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve results in the National Curriculum tests for seven, 11 and 14-year-olds in the coming year. [14319]
  674
  Mr. Byers
  On 7 July we published a White Paper, "Excellence in Schools", which set out our agenda for raising standards in schools. A copy of the White Paper is available in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Earl Cadogan—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Plunket—Took the Oath.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to provide secure funding for areas of outstanding natural beauty that are not national parks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Countryside Commission is currently reviewing the funding and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs) generally, and the arrangements for the South Downs in particular through two separate consultations. The commission proposes to bring together the results of that work next spring. The report to Ministers will include advice on the funding implications for AONBs and will be considered carefully before decisions are taken.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and declare an interest as the new chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. May I remind the Minister—
Noble Lords: Ask!
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister know—I assumed that she did—that most of the countryside proposals which we are now studying pre-suppose a large element of central government funding? Will she assure us that at the end of the day somedegree of central government funding will be available? Otherwise I fear that we face two years of discussion, inquiry, sound and fury and, in the end, no central government money.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot, as the noble Lord will understand, anticipate the results of the review. Obviously the reviews are looking into the funding issues. Recommendations will be made about them. Those recommendations will have to be considered in the light of general public expenditure plans at the time.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to consider the views and information—I have valid
246
information—of the local authorities involved? They could be of great assistance. Is she prepared to accept that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am prepared to hear the views of the local authorities involved, both on the general consultation which is already under way, and on the specific consultation about the South Downs AONB, which is to be launched at a conference on 26th November.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as a system of national parks has never existed in Scotland, and conservation, amenity and recreational opportunities have been provided by othermeans, and as there has been a lively, continuing debate in Scotland on possible changes—long before a Scottish parliament could get around to considering that—have the Government any proposals on this subject for Scotland?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I defer to the noble Lord and his knowledge of Scottish concerns surrounding AONBs, although I recognise that they are not designated in the same way in Scotland. I hope that he will forgive me if I undertake to write to him on the issue.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend encourage her colleagues in government to promote adequate co-operation between the Countryside Commission and local authorities with a view to protecting areas which are attractive but vulnerable, and which have been imperilled, largely because of the inadequate arrangements for local authority funding which have affected many parts of the country?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, those are the types of concerns that have given rise to the Countryside Commission's investigations, and which will be considered when we have the results of those consultations next spring.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, we welcome the news that the Countryside Commission is looking into this matter, and that a report will be sent to the Minister. Will she tell us when the report will become publicly available so that we can all know what advice has been given? Secondly, will she confirm that while we all recognise the importance of AONBs being funded, there will be no question of attacking the funding of national parks which are already under pressure?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we will be receiving the advice from the Countryside Commission next spring. Then we can look at how we take forward ministerial decisions on that advice, and what will be the most effective and appropriate solutions, both in terms of designation and ways of future funding.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that since those excellent reforms of the Attlee government which introduced AONBs and national parks, pressures on those areas have grown

247
immeasurably? There is a real danger now of them deteriorating to a wholly unacceptable extent. Something will need to be done fairly urgently. They need not necessarily be national parks.The Norfolk Broads is an excellent example of a tailor-made authority which solved a real problem.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that a range of solutions might be appropriate in differing areas. One particular solution may not necessarily be appropriate for all the areas that we need to protect and conserve.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, the Minister referred to the South Downs, not to the Sussex Downs which is at the moment a separately administered area from the Hampshire Downs. Does she anticipate amalgamation of the two bodies?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that that is one of the issues that will be addressed during the consultation, and upon which people on both sides of the question, I know, have strong views.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that the present funding of national parks, which is poor—she may not know, for example, that the Lake District now receives £100,000 less than it did four years ago—will be at least maintained, and, if possible, enhanced?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said earlier, I cannot at the moment give assurances about public expenditure while the comprehensive spending reviews are going on. However, I can give the assurance that the value and importance of those areas of outstanding natural beauty that we need to protect are well understood in the department.

All Work Test
3.10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to alter the all work test for incapacity benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, as your Lordships would expect, we are looking at all aspects of provision for sick and disabled people as part of our wider review of social security. Naturally, this also means that we are reviewing the appropriateness of the all work test as we develop our welfare to work programmes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. While I understand that, like her noble friend, she cannot anticipate the results of a review, is she aware that there is considerable scepticism about the possibility of medical diagnosis by filling in a form? Would she agree that asking people to answer "yes" or
248
"no" when they suffer from a fluctuating condition causes considerable problems if the only honest answer is "sometimes"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes. I take on board the point made by the noble Earl. It is one of the reasons for reconsidering the all work test. As part of our welfare to work strategy, we wish to focus on what disabled people have the capacity to do and not on their incapacities. A test which scores for lifting a bag of potatoes or putting a hat on yourhead is not the best indicator of whether you can work at a word processor. As the noble Earl and I argued when the Bill was going through your Lordships' House, the test defines what people cannot do rather than what they can.
The all work test was reconsidered in the spring in order to take greater account of fluctuating conditions. We need to assess whether it is fully appropriate in the situation described by the noble Earl and we would welcome feedback on its use and appropriateness. Therefore,I am happy to assure the noble Earl that the all work test will be reviewed.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend know of a single disabled person who regards the test as fair, because I do not? However, I do know some decent disabled people who are anxious to work but feel guilty about applying for benefits because of the test. Is she aware that the test may be working well as a cost-cutting exercise at the expense of disabled people. but that it is not working well as a fair and equitable test?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I share my noble friend's anxiety. Approximately 80 per cent. of all disabled people who take the test go on to receive incapacity benefit. Of the 20 per cent. who fail the test, if I may use that expression, and do not receive incapacity benefit about half appeal and of those about half succeed. One of the more worrying aspects is that of the people who go on to receive the jobseeker's allowance, having lost incapacity benefit, only about 7,000 ever find a job. That is why the Government are determined to press ahead with the welfare to work strategy, as disabled people wish.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why we no longer have a Minister for disabled people specifically to look after their interests? In relation to the review, does she recall the Government's response to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the disabled, which stated that there were too few to bother about and the issue was too complicated? What is the position of a lone parent receiving incapacity benefit who fails to meetthe all work test?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are Ministers for disabled people in the Department for Education and Employment. However, the Government are determined that there should be a Minister within the Department of Social Security who has the responsibility for disability benefits. That happens to be me, and I am privileged to be asked to do so. Therefore,

249
at the core of two important departments are Ministers working together in order to ensure that the rights, opportunities and benefits of disabled people are properly regarded.
As regards the position of lone parents receiving disability benefit, if I have understood the noble Lord's question correctly, we estimate that only 15 per cent. of lone parents sufferfrom a disability and they are entitled to income support with a disability premium if they soqualify.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that any new test will be driven by individual needs and not by overall spending constraints? Only if individual needs are the primary concern will many of the problems that have been pointed out today be overcome.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the problem with the all work test was not that it was designed to cut spending. Indeed, 80 per cent. of people went on to receive incapacity benefit. My belief—and it has been reinforced by all the research that I have seen since crossing the Floor—is that the problem with the test was that it defined people by what they could not do in terms of manual dexterity and functional ability and not in terms of their capacity to enter the labour market and be employed. In today's world, disabled people tell us that they want help to enter the world of work, part-time or full-time, and we are determined to be able to offer them that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is difficult to devise a substitute all work test since there is not a single activity known as work?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am confident that the noble Earl would be one of the first to submit feedback on how he would define work, including unwaged work in this House.

Church Schools
3.16 p.m
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on Church schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government believe that schools with a religious character are an essential part of our education system, enriching its diversity and quality. We are therefore committed tosafeguarding the character of these schools. We recently announced developments to the new school framework which will strengthen these safeguards. The Churches have welcomed these developments.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that the important document dealing with the framework for the organisation of schools has not been available in the Printed Paper
250
Office and certainly was not available today? Those of us who try to follow these matters depend on such documents for our information. What arrangements have been agreed with the Churchesas regards the critical question of the number of foundation governors in aided schools? That is one of many issues which causes concern to such schools which have had a long tradition in our education system and which are highly regarded by parents for their excellent results.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I did not know that the foundation document was not in the Printed Paper Office. I apologise and will ensure that it is there as soon as possible. As regards the number of governors in aided schools, on 27th October my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced that the majority of foundation governors on the governing bodies of aided schools will be increased to two at primary schools and three at larger secondary schools, reflecting the current position at voluntary aided schools. The commitment to strengthening representation for parents on governing bodies will bemet by ensuring that the additional foundation governors are parents.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister remember the conversation that we had two days ago when I reminded her that the document was not available in the Printed Paper Office? It still was not available this morning.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I regret to say that in the past two days, as a result of being busy with a number of other issues, I failed to take up the matter. I apologise to the noble Lord and will do so immediately.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said about the Government's commitment to the place of voluntary schools within the maintained sector. I should welcome a categorical assurance that it is the Government's policy that Churches should continue to have an effective and decisive majority on the governing bodies of Church schools. Do the Government accept that if it is right that within the voluntary sector there should be provision for the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and the Jewish community to have schools for their children it is, in principle, a matter of justice that there should also be the provision for schools of other faith communities? That is an acute question in particular for Moslems.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as regards the right reverend Prelate's first question, I repeat what I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The Government are absolutely committed to having a majority of Church governors in voluntary-aided schools.
As regards his second question about the establishment of state-funded schools for other religions, it will continue to be the case that there will be opportunities for voluntary bodiesor groups of persons

251
of any religious persuasion to seek to establish state-funded schools. The Secretary of State currently makes decisions on those proposals. In future we propose that decisions will be taken at local level.
There have been five applications for voluntary-aided or grant-maintained schools from the Moslem community. Two were rejected by previous Secretaries of State and one was withdrawn. Two applications for Moslem grant-maintained schools are currently under consideration. Of course, each must be considered on its merits and the right reverend Prelate will understand that it would be wrong for me to comment on individual cases.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the dangerous result of single-religion schools in Ireland and the attempts to mix children up at an early age, is it not rather dangerous to encourage too many single-religion schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the current situation is that if people wish to promote state-funded schools, they are able to put forward proposals. But they must meet certain criteria, including that they are able to offer the national curriculum. It is not a matter of encouragement, but of enabling people who wish to make the case for such schools to be able to do so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the standard of education in Church schools equal to that in state schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the standards of education in Church schools are veryoften extremely high but Church schools will vary just as schools maintained by local education authorities vary.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept not only that the document was not in the Printed Paper Office during the course of this week but that throughout the consultation period it has not been available to Members of this House or shadow Members at all? In fact, I received my copy this morning, which I passed on to my noble friend Lord Pilkington, with the results of the consultation. I find that very disturbing. In future, we should like to be able to obtain copies. Not only was it not in the Printed Paper Office but that office was not aware of the document itself. Although I knew the document existed, it took five telephone calls to the DfEE before I received confirmation that it did exist and that I would be receiving a copy.
Secondly, what are the distinguishing features, under the new arrangements, between a Church school and a foundation school, which will be the option for grant-maintained schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, once again, I should say that I was not aware that the document was not in the Printed Paper Office until the day before yesterday. I shall take up that matter with the Department for Education and Employment and its officials. It is important that we should ensure that such
252
documents are available not only to Members of the Opposition but to all Members of your Lordships' House.
As regards the noble Baroness's second question, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced at the end of October that there will be three categories of school: a community category; a voluntary category, which will consist of the existing voluntary-aided schools and any voluntary-controlled schools which wish to be members of that category; and foundation schools which will be most of the existing grant-maintained schools which choose to be members of that category, and any voluntary-controlled schools which wish to be members of that category.

Party Political Donations
3.24 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What guidelines exist regarding access to Ministers by large donors to party political funds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there never have been any guidelines other than those in the Ministerial Code which reminds Ministers of the Government's commitment to conduct all their business in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety and stresses that they should always be alert to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has also asked the committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Patrick Neill, to undertake a wide-ranging review of party funding.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that the Government obviously started with the best of intentions and have made a terrible mess of implementing those intentions? Is it not now time for the Labour Party to set an example to all political parties by opening its books so that the public and Parliament can be fully assured that there is no linkage between large political donations, access to Ministers, influence on policy or, indeed, on patronage?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly the reason for the reference given to Sir Patrick Neill and his committee and why it is in such broad terms. As the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday, Sir Patrick has been asked to cover all aspects of party funding, including all the matters to which the noble Lord refers. Both the Labour Party and the Government will respond to Sir Patrick's recommendations when they arrive. They will do that as a government by incorporating any recommendations in legislation proposed by the Home Office.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that minutes were kept of the meeting which took place between Mr. Ecclestone, Mr. Max Mosley and the Prime Minister? In view of accusations about special treatment being given to the motor racing industry, expressed particularly by other sports which in

253
the past have benefited from the sponsorship of tobacco companies, would it not be reassuring if the Prime Minister were able to make available those minutes to Sir Patrick Neill's committee in order that they should facilitate his examination of the question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards the minutes, it was not a ministerial meeting. The Prime Minister was the only Minister present at the meeting and my understanding is that it is not the normal custom for minutes of such a non-ministerial meeting to be made public.
On the issue of whether it is right for the Prime Minister to provide access to those who have particular points to make, I remind the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that a wide range of his Back-Benchers and a Front Bench spokesman only on 21st October were urging me very forcibly to take account of the concerns of the motor sport industry and to ensure that Ministers gave proper consideration to those concerns.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, would it not be a good idea, as a beginning, if all political parties were to publish in their annual reports a list, by name, of all those who have donated sums over £5,000. That is done already by the Labour Party and the list is published at its annual conference. At least one would know who those donors were. The next step might be to send the list to the Cabinet Office so that it was aware of the people who had given those sums of money. However, as I say, the list is available; it was available in Brighton recently.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that the established practice of the Labour Party already is to make an announcement of the names of those who have donated more than £5,000. The Labour Party and the Government are determined that the issue of how far that should be extended shall be pursued. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he could confirm that we are asking Sir Patrick to consider the whole area of party funding: whether donors should be disclosed; whether the size of a donation should be disclosed; whether there should be a limit on individual donations; whether there should be a limit on overall spending; and whether there should be different arrangements altogether, such as increased state funding. I must ask the Opposition whether they agree with those increased terms of reference and whether they agree that there should be the further disclosure for which my noble friend rightly asks.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be rather surprising if the Conservative Party were to be in favour of the inquiry by Sir Patrick Neill and his colleagues, given the fact that the Conservatives voted against just such a proposition on 5th February this year? Indeed, in his speech, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, specifically declined to support a Motion tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
254
I welcome the fact that the contribution which has received so much publicity in the past few days has been repaid. Does the noble Lord agree that it would be an extremely good idea if the noble Viscount and his friends were now to agree to repay the £365,000 of stolen money from Polly Peck International, as the administrators specifically asked Conservative Central Office to do? Would that not be very desirable, given the interest of the Opposition in this matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer on behalf of the Conservative Party; nor am I in a position to arrange for circumstances in which such an answer might be given. The Conservative Party is strangely reticent about all such matters. Conservatives have not expressed any views, other than critical views about other people, as to what they think the right thing should be. However, as the noble Lord said, I can certainly confirm not only that the Conservative Party has resisted—and, indeed, did so on 5th February—any suggestion that there should be further disclosure of party political funding, but also that it resisted any suggestion that it should support the ban on tobacco advertising as proposed by the European Commission.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the real problem is that far too many millions are being spent on national campaigning and that, as a result, our general elections are being fought on the basis of a sort of presidential contest? Therefore, is it not time to impose a very strong restriction on the total amount of money spent on electioneering? Is it not also time that electioneering should be returned to the constituencies so that ordinary people can be involved in the election, with their candidates, and not be dependent upon television and radio broadcasts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I believe I just said, the issues raised by my noble friend are those which we specifically asked Sir Patrick Neill to address. I have some personal sympathy with what my noble friend says about constituency and national funding. However, those are matters for Sir Patrick in the first instance. The Government will take account of that fact.
Although there may have been some confusion in the past week, I take a very upbeat view of what is happening. I believe that the result of the events of the past week or so have encouraged—and, indeed, made essential—a proper review of party funding. That will be taken by an independent organisation. I hope that we shall make real progress as a result of that review.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
With your Lordships' permission I shall move all the amendments together. They raise no matters of substance and result chiefly from changes in the designation of a number of government departments and agencies.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
Amendment
No.
Standing Order 27
1. Line 74, at end insert ", Transport and the Regions" Standing Order 27A
2. Line 23, leave out "three" and insert "four"
3. Line 24, after "Environment" insert ", Transport and the Regions"Standing Order 29
4. Line 8, leave out "Transport" and insert "the Environment, Transport and the Regions"Standing Order 30
5. Line 6, leave out "Energy" and insert "Trade and Industry"Standing Order 30A
6. Line 5, after "Environment" insert ", Transport and the Regions Standing Order 31
7. Line 7, leave out "Transport and insert "the Environment, Transport and the Regions"Standing Order 32
8. Line 13, leave out "National Rivers Authority" and insert "Environment Agency"Standing Order 33
9. Line 10, leave out "National Rivers Authority" and insert "Environment Agency"Standing Order 34
10. Line 10, leave out "Transport" and insert "the Environment, Transport and the Regions"Standing Order 37
11. Line 10, at end insert ", Transport and the Regions"
12. Line 17, at end insert ", Transport and the Regions"Standing Order 39
13. Line 3. after "bill", insert "four at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions"
14. Line 3, leave out "at the Department of the Environment and"
15. Line 9, leave out "of National Heritage" and insert "for Culture, Media and Sport"
16. Line 9, leave out "the Department of Transport"
17. Line 35, leave out "Great George Street" and insert "Whitehall"Standing Order 42
18. Line 8, leave out "National Rivers Authority" and insert "Environment Agency"Standing Order 43
19. Line 8, leave out "National Rivers Authority" and insert "Environment Agency"Standing Order 45
20. Line 17, leave out "Transport" and insert "the Environment, Transport and the Regions'Standing Order 47
21. Line 11, after "Environment" insert ", Transport and the Regions"Standing Order 139
22. Line 12, leave out "Transport" and insert "the Environment. Transport and the Regions"
23. Line 26, leave out "Transport" and insert "the Environment, Transport and the Regions".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Competition Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Agreements etc. preventing, restricting or distorting competition]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (1) applies only if the agreement, decision or practice has, or is likely to have, a significant effect on competition within the United Kingdom.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I must tell Members of the Committee immediately that this is not just a probing amendment. It is our view that the wording of the prohibition should be explicitly confined to those arrangements which have a "significant" effect on competition. It is not just a matter of improvement of the wording for the sake of drafting; there is a real value involved.
The prohibition in the 1996 draft Competition Bill specifically applied only where there was a "significant" effect on competition. Under the law of the European Union, the scope of Article 85 is limited to arrangements which have an "appreciable" effect on competition. Therefore, in our view, it is entirely consistent with Clause 58 for the United Kingdom prohibition, modified as we suggest, to be worded in that way. We do not believe that that wording would hinder the overall aim of consistency with EU jurisprudence. The noble Lord, Lord Simon, will be aware from what was said on Second Reading of the Bill that, if we have one broad intention in putting forward amendments, it will be that so far as possible we shall attempt to secure the aim of consistency. We believe that the insertion of the word "significant" will be of particular benefit—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I have to say that I am absolutely astonished to find him speaking from the Dispatch Box today. Am I not right in assuming that the noble and learned Lord has, in the past few days, been appointed non-executive chairman of an oil company? For a party that made so much so-called "capital" out of the shareholding in BP of my noble friend Lord Simon, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is entitled, first, not to declare an interest and, secondly, to speak from the Front Bench.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I certainly will be declaring that interest. As I understand it. there is

257
nothing in the rules of the House which restricts me from speaking from this position. If the noble Lord wishes to make a further point, I shall allow him to do so. However, I certainly did not understand that there was any such restriction. As the noble Lord indicated, I have been invited to become a non-executive chairman of an oil company. I should make it absolutely clear now, as I was intending to do in the register—which, I believe, is to be republished before the end of the month—that I shall certainly not be speaking on any matters relating to energy policy or, indeed, any matters relating to energy affairs.
As I was seeking to say, if the requirement of significance were attached to the wording, it would be of value to business and also to the OFT in that it would help to ensure that unnecessary notifications are not made. Those who are familiar with the problems that the European Union has encountered will be aware that, because of the wide interpretation that has been given to Article 85. a vast number of unnecessary notifications have been made. In those circumstances, the Commission has been unable to cope. We would not wish to see such an experience repeated within the United Kingdom. I should also point out that this matter is of concern not only to business broadly; there are legal interests who have brought the same point to our attention. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: Amendment No. 4 in my name has been grouped with the amendment just moved by the noble and learned Lord. I wish to reinforce what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, had to say. It seems to me—this arises from points made by several noble Lords in the Second Reading debate—that we need, as far as possible, while accepting the general purpose of this Bill, to limit the amount of uncertainty and to limit the number of unnecessary notifications. I should have thought that the inclusion of the single word "significant" in the amendments standing in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and myself would help in that direction. I very much hope, therefore, that the Government will find it possible to introduce that word which was in the original draft Bill which accompanied the Green Paper on this subject.
Lord Borrie: I thought I should raise an issue which is not only relevant to this amendment but also to others which I have noticed have been tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Under the present jurisprudence of the European Union, as I understand it, Article 85 applies only where the effect on competition is appreciable. If the word "appreciable" and the word "significant" are more or less the same, is the amendment that is proposed otiose?
I also have a more general point to make. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, suggested that it was desirable to incorporate into our UK legislation the point at which European jurisprudence has reached in terms of the prohibition applying only if there is an appreciable effect on competition. That point can, of course, be applied to many, many matters in this Bill. I wonder whether the amendment is also unnecessary because, as I understand Clause 58 of the Bill, it
258
incorporates into this UK legislation the current state of European jurisprudence, at any rate most clearly at the level of the European Court of Justice.
If we are to accept the point that is being made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I wonder whether we shall set a train in motion where we shall want to amend all sorts of clauses in order to ensure that we are brought up to date with European law. I know that will save lawyers from having to check their reference books as to what the state of European law is, but I do not think that is particularly the job of this Chamber or indeed the other Chamber.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As the noble Lord has said, this measure represents the perceived jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court of Justice today. However, that was not the case originally. In the very early days—I know this as I used to appear in these cases before the Commission and the court—before the jurisprudence developed, one had to register in order to obtain block exemption or exemption. No one really quite knew in those days where they were. I can see every advantage in this. This is not the thin edge of incorporating the jurisprudence of the court and the Commission into this Bill. This is an essential, practical and precautionary measure so that right at the outset everyone understands that, put another way, a de minimis situation is simply not relevant. What is the objection to that kind of clarity? One can put in a de minimis provision. That is the way we would draft it. That is the way our restrictive practices court looks at the matter. However, the Commission and the Court of Justice look at it in the terms of this amendment, so why not use it? Why not clarify the position?
The Earl of Balfour: Before the Minister replies, I wish to ask a question. I was interested to note that Amendment No. 1 standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser states,
"Subsection (1) applies only if the agreement …has, or is likely to have, a significant effect on competition within the United Kingdom".
Almost exactly the same words appear in Amendment No. 4 which contains the words,
"has, or is likely to have".
Clause 2(3) of the Bill states,
"Subsection (I) applies only if the agreement, decision or practice is, or is intended to be, implemented in the United Kingdom".
I wonder whether this should be "was" or "was intended to be" because I cannot see how the Government can take action over something that has not yet been decided. This may be a technical point but I think it is worth raising. I was interested in the difference in sense as regards the amendments which have been tabled.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I, too, think this is an important amendment. I note the points that have been made by my noble friend which I believe are apposite. Those points illustrate perfectly that throughout the whole of this Committee stage we must not forget that

259
after the passage of this Bill there will be an entirely new playing field with goalposts in some cases having been moved radically in relation to some of the monopoly legislation that we already have, and particularly with regard to definitions. What will the new definitions be? How will we be responsible for implementing them? Are they better, or likely to be better than the ones we already have?
Lord Simon of Highbury: I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the competition regime should concern itself only with a situation where the anti-competitive effects of an agreement are significant or appreciable. That is the intention of the Bill as drafted. I accept that it will have the effect of reducing administrative overload if those points are clear. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, EC jurisprudence states that Article 85 applies only where an agreement has an appreciable effect on trade and competition. "Appreciability" is already part of EC jurisprudence. We consider therefore that the chapter 1 prohibition will apply only if an agreement has an appreciable effect on competition.
On that basis an explicit significance test written into this clause is unnecessary, and, moreover, we believe could be harmful in indicating a departure from the established European principles where this is not the intention. An explicit appreciability test does not fit well with our approach of reliance on European case law except in areas where it is clear a different approach is required. Worse, there is a risk that in apparently departing from established European principles, we might inadvertently create so high a threshold for action that we could impede the effective tackling of anti-competitive agreements.
As we stated at Second Reading, the reason for bringing in the changes is that, as we all agreed, the current system is not working well as an approach to competition. I believe, therefore, that it is better to stick with the established principles in the jurisprudence in this area.
I will nevertheless reflect most carefully on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. I hope that at this stage they are prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can immediately tell the noble Lord that I intend to withdraw this amendment. I am grateful for the approach that he took, and in particular his remarks about the intent on the part of the Government in promoting this legislation, that it is only those arrangements that have either appreciable or significant effect that will be caught.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to Clause 58. It is a very important provision. We shall need to examine it very carefully—not today, I regret to say, but perhaps in a week or two when we reach it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Simon, for his recognition that there is a risk of administrative overload if business is uncertain whether or not the arrangement into which it has entered is of such a nature that it needs
260
to be notified. I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge through that recognition that that is a problem which has confronted the Commission in the past. The inclusion of the word "significant" would at least provide business with a clear appreciation as to what is required of it and seems desirable. The noble Lord indicated that he would reflect on the amendment, and I am grateful for that. We may return to the matter at a later stage. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("implemented") and insert ("acted upon").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 3. Unlike my first amendment, which I consider to be important, this one is simply a matter of drafting.
The amendment relates not only to undertakings or decisions. In those circumstances the use of the word "implemented" in the United Kingdom would seem a perfectly natural piece of drafting. However, the noble Lord will notice, in line 2 of Clause 2, that "concerted practices" is the third activity that is covered. In our view the words "acted upon" would be preferable to "implemented". It is purely a drafting matter but would seem to us to be an improvement.
The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that if agreements have effects on competition in the United Kingdom, and a party to that agreement is located in the United Kingdom, the agreement should be within the scope of Clause 2, even if the decisions or concerted practices are not to be implemented or acted upon within the United Kingdom itself. It is a short point. It would seem to us to have the effect of widening the scope of the prohibition; however, the circumstances are such that in our view it would be desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the third amendment—with respect to my noble and learned friend, the second is neither here nor there. The third, if it goes to jurisdiction, could avoid certain disputes, certain difficult administrative problems and arguments over jurisdiction. It is a good safeguard and a useful amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will keep an open mind before rejecting it out of hand.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I thank the Committee again for the way in which the debate is being conducted at this stage. Questions of administrative overload, to which we referred previously, are matters for discussion as the Bill proceeds. It is well understood, and the point is well taken. That theme will continue through our discussions.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, it is perhaps best if I refer to the third and then comment on the drafting implication of the second. It may be helpful to set out the Government's thinking behind the territorial limitation provision in Clause 2(3). The prohibition is

261
cast in terms of effects. Therefore, its territorial scope is extremely wide-ranging, even with the limitation that the effects on trade and competition actually be in the UK. It does not follow that we should depart from the normal UK policy of territoriality and follow the so-called "effects doctrine", where jurisdiction is claimed on the basis of the economic effects felt within a state resulting from behaviour outside that state, however indirect that link might be. I am advised that that could be the result of the second amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. The Government believe that to be too wide a basis for jurisdiction for the prohibition.
However, it is recognised that the place where an agreement having an anti-competitive effect is made is not always a determinate factor. We would not want to create a loophole whereby parties could avoid the prohibition by simply executing their agreements outside the UK.
We therefore decided that the best approach was to follow the current jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice based on the term "implementation" as set out in the case known as Woodpulp. That test requires that the agreement be implemented in the EC for the prohibition to apply. Similarly, the UK prohibition will apply only if the agreement is implemented in the UK.
Following the test set out in the Woodpulp case, there is also the advantage of allowing business to tap into European jurisprudence on the meaning of the term. I am advised that adopting the first amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, would lead to uncertainty as to its meaning and therefore create an additional doubt in the mind of business.
By, in effect, copying out the test in Woodpulp on the face of the Bill, we are also ensuring that in the event that EC jurisprudence develops and creates a pure effects-based doctrine, the application of the UK prohibitions will not follow suit. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord if he is prepared to withdraw his amendment, given the implications of the word "implementation" and the existing jurisprudence.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question on the point about extra-territorial jurisdiction to which the noble Lord referred. I am fully conversant with the nature of our concept of claim and the American concept of such claim. But with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that is not quite what is involved in this amendment. We are not claiming extra-territorial jurisdiction:
"a party …is located within the United Kingdom".
The concept of this dispute as to territorial claim is very interesting but, with the greatest respect, as far as I can see, it is not relevant as an objection to the amendment. The noble Lord may wholly disagree with me but perhaps he will consider that point?
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The point I am trying to make is that we want to be absolutely clear of the relationship between the European jurisprudence and our own. The linkage with the United Kingdom as the
262
location for the effect in this instance is the most important issue. We do not wish to put ourselves into a position where we have linkage in the extra-territorial effect and thus throw doubts into the mind of the business concerned. That may be a drafting point to which we shall wish to return. I am clear in my own mind as to what we are trying to achieve; but, if we need to discuss the matter further, so be it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Once again, I shall withdraw the amendments. As I indicated, they are drafting points. There was a recognition that Amendment No. 2 would have the effect of marginally widening the scope of the prohibition. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord said but I am surprised that the view is taken that it introduces an unacceptable degree of extra-territoriality. In speaking to the amendment I hope I indicated that it was important, as we too recognise, that it had to be in relation to an agreement which had an effect on competition within the United Kingdom. The only extension—if that is the right way to describe it—is that the agreement to achieve that effect might be implemented beyond our shores. I shall withdraw the amendment but we might return to it, together with the following amendment, at a later stage.
I am relieved to say that I shall not be batting on the next few groups of amendments. However, perhaps I may take this opportunity to signal a point in relation to Amendments Nos. 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 28. I should like to have a broad debate on predatory pricing. I understand that within that group of amendments a number of noble Lords wish to address the issue of predatory pricing in relation to the newspaper industry in particular. Before we reach that point perhaps we might reflect on whether it would be desirable to separate the two debates. It is of no great consequence to me but such a separation might be helpful for a more coherent debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) An agreement, decision or practice to which subsection (1) applies shall not, for the purposes of this Part, be within the scope of—

(a) section 18(1);

(b) the Fair Trading Act 1973; or

(c) the provisions of, or any licence granted under,—

(i) the Telecommunications Act 1984;

(ii) the Gas Act 1986;

(iii) the Electricity Act 1989;

(iv) the Water Industry Act 1991;

(v) the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992; or

(vi) the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996,

and any question whether such an agreement, decision or practice is to be prohibited on competition grounds shall be determined in accordance with this Chapter and not in accordance with the conditions of any such licence irrespective of whether such conditions are expressed in similar terms to subsection (I).").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to invite the Minister to accept that implementing a single prohibition through two different regimes operated by two different sets of individuals is a recipe for both excessive cost and immense confusion. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: For the benefit of those—of whom I am one—who do not know quite what the noble Lord is getting at, would it not be appropriate for him to say just a few more sentences?
Lord Kingsland: I have already moved the amendment.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The noble Lord has moved the amendment. The point raised is the relationship between two prohibitions, the Fair Trading Act and the legislation regulating the utility sectors. It may be helpful if I explain how the Bill is intended to operate in this respect. I shall deal with each of the relationships in turn.
The two prohibitions introduced by the Bill will operate hand in hand. Essentially they will have the same relationship to one another as do Articles 85 and 86 of the treaty. That relationship is well established and works satisfactorily in practice. Accordingly, for example, in considering whether to give an individual exemption for the Chapter I prohibition, the Director General of Fair Trading will have to take account of the Chapter II prohibition. He should not grant an exemption if in doing so he would be exempting under that prohibition something that appears to him to be prohibited under the Chapter II prohibition.
These matters must necessarily be considered in tandem as an agreement may constitute an abuse of the dominant position. Similarly, it would be wrong for a firm to be allowed to abuse a dominant position because an agreement benefited from a block exemption. Enjoyment of the benefit of a block exemption under the Chapter I prohibition should not bring immunity from action under the Chapter II prohibition. The inter-relationship between the two prohibitions ensures that that will not be the case.
More generally, a jurisdictional dividing line between the two prohibitions would conflict with the Government's desire to see the prohibitions applied consistently with Articles 85 and 86. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, noted, and as I have already said, consistency in interpretation will bring significant administrative benefits to business.
The relationship between prohibitions and the Fair Trading Act monopoly provisions is the subject of a separate amendment which we shall debate in due course. However, the Fair Trading Act provisions enable wider market investigations than are possible under the prohibitions. Essentially they enable investigations where competition issues arise fundamentally from structure of the market rather than from restrictive agreements or the specific abuses which we discussed with regard to the alignment of Articles 85 and 86. We
264
do not think it right or practical to circumscribe the monopoly references and investigations under the Fair Trading Act. That may be a point to which we shall return. We do not believe that a strict jurisdictional separation would work well.
It is important to say that, before framing a reference, the director general might have to examine every aspect of the behaviour of, and relationships between, the players in a market in order to decide what could be examined by the competition commission on a reference; or the competition commission would have to determine what fell within the prohibition regime in order to exclude it from its considerations. The prohibitions will be the primary tools for dealing with anti-competitive behaviour in the market place. The Fair Trading Act provisions will be reserve powers to deal with certain limited market circumstances.
As regards the relationship between the prohibitions and the Fair Trading Act merger provisions, Schedule I to the Bill provides for a clear demarcation between the two. We can debate that demarcation when we reach the relevant parts of the Bill.
I think that at this stage I am along the road to addressing the noble Lord's point.
Lord Kingsland: Does the Minister feel that he has addressed the final part of the amendment with sufficient clarity and detail to respond to my own amendment?
Lord Simon of Highbury: Of course, the noble Lord spoke but briefly and his clarity was magnificent. I spoke at some length and I hope that I clarified the position.
Lord Kingsland: I would like to thank the Minister for his extremely full reply to my brief question. As to the question of the Fair Trading Act, the Minister will recall from our exchanges at Second Reading that he can expect at some later stage in the proceedings an amendment proposing that the activities of the competition commission, in so far as they refer to complex monopolies and monopolies of scale, ought to be transferred to the Office of Fair Trading. I accept that this is not the moment to go into detail on that point.
As far as the individual public utility regimes are concerned, and considering that there is so little in the Bill so far to show how costs will be saved in respect of the application of these regimes and that certainty will be guaranteed, does he think that the maintenance of a dual regime will redound to the benefit of competitiveness in the United Kingdom? There is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that the operation of two separate regimes in relation to the single prohibition will not lead to lengthy procedures and problems of double jeopardy. I would like him to deal with that matter in a little more detail.
Lord Simon of Highbury: That fuller question deserves a fuller answer. Perhaps I can now turn to the relationship between the prohibitions and the utility legislation because that will be helpful and we can talk about the implications subsequently.

265
The two prohibitions introduced by the Bill are general prohibitions appropriate to the whole economy, and we believe that it is right that they should apply equally to the utility sector. Indeed, the amendments that we are discussing do not challenge that presumption.
It is important that competition is developing in the utility sectors. I believe that when we talked about it previously we talked of the dynamism of these particular market places being different from the general market place because we are creating markets in the utility sector. However, for that reason, there is still a strong case for retaining more detailed sector specific regulation of such matters as pricing, including the price caps. The access to networks is a crucial issue, as the dynamics of that marketplace develop, if we are talking about some of the energy sectors, the electricity sector and the gas sector.
We think it is right in the utility areas that the prohibitions apply and this seems to be part of the purpose behind the noble Lord's amendments. However, it is already the effect of the Bill. In other words, if one or other of the prohibitions is breached, action to be taken under the Bill would be possible, irrespective of the licence regime, so the general prohibition would apply. If the company is required to do something by law—and by this I include by a licence condition—then it is right that it should not be prohibited from complying with that requirement. The Bill achieves this result as well.
I hope in some way that much of what is sought in the amendments is achieved by the Bill. However, where the amendments seek to impose strict jurisdiction barriers, the changes, in my view, are unnecessary and probably undesirable. In practice, we believe that the Bill will ensure that the different regimes that we have discussed—the utility regime and the general regime—will apply in a complementary and common sense way.
The point in common-sense terms is the differing nature of the market places and the particular dynamism of the utility markets as they develop. Therefore, we need to see special capacities developed to understand those markets. Double-banking within the system would cause another kind of overload and would perhaps not be the best use of the valuable and scarce resources available for making the important judgments about the issues we have just discussed.
If that was a full enough answer to the second, rather fuller question, I ask whether the noble Lords is prepared to withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, answers that point, perhaps I can say that I am a little confused because it seems to me that that section of the amendment dealing with the privatised utilities legislation does provide the opportunity for the enterprises to act under licenses under the law. I would have thought that it was perfectly straightforward to say that so far as they do so they would not be subject to
266
the impact of the prohibitions under this Bill. I am not absolutely clear why the Government seem to have any doubts about that.
Lord Simon of Highbury: As I tried to say in answer to the previous line of questioning, I think that that is the intention where a licence applies. Complying with the licence would, in general terms, not be outside the law. However, as I mentioned when we discussed a particular detail of a price cap which might be implicit in a licence arrangement, you could have a position where someone cut prices significantly in a price cap regime and, in fact, undercut the market to such an extent that they would be in an abusive position in terms of their market dominance in the relevant market. Therefore, what we are saying is that the overlap with the general prohibition, the two prohibitions, must stay in place despite the regime of licence being in general terms appropriate for the definition of good behaviour, if I can so put it, for a utility. There will be occasions when the prohibition will enter into effect; I have just mentioned one. I do not believe therefore that we can be absolute in drawing, if that is the appropriate phrase, the jurisdictional boundary.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Before the noble Lord sits down, as he originally said that there is now increased competition among the utilities, I wonder if he will acknowledge that it is no thanks to the party opposite that this position has occurred and that its claim to be a great supporter of competition has a few legs to grow before it can be taken seriously.
Can the noble Lord, on this important matter, tell the Committee whether he was referring to the possibility of discriminatory discounting practices, which are not at present subject to regulation in this country, except possibly under competition legislation, or was he speaking of different types of price cutting?
Lord Simon of Highbury: First, may I assure the noble Baroness that, as one whose title in my new career is half based on competitiveness, I can only applaud any progress made under any government to increase the competitiveness of our industry and of our people to do the things we know that we must do to create value in the world. I acknowledge that whoever has achieved that has served us proud.
As to the issue of pricing, it is important to note, as the noble Baroness rightly said, that discriminatory pricing is something which can be caught under the existing practice, but equally it is caught under both the prohibitions in the EC law. At the moment it can apply in both. When we discuss later, as I am sure we shall, the issue of pricing, we shall find that it is already covered in the general instance by the EC provisions. We have a separate law on that, as the Committee will be aware as we are about to discuss the impact of the Resale Prices Act, which applies to one sector currently but is generally being repealed. The answer is yes, I was talking about discriminatory pricing and it is currently covered by both regimes.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we do not intend to press the amendment at

267
this time. However, I hope he will accept that there is more to be said about it. In particular, we have taken note of his remarks about how sector specific these prohibitions are. If we are to accept that remark, perhaps we ought to be looking at this problem from the standpoint of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which is to leave the prohibitions in place in the individual sectors but to remove the prohibition from the Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 24, after ("any") insert ("provision of an").
The noble Baroness said: I propose to return to a more conventional way of moving an amendment. In moving Amendment No. 6, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 7. I should perhaps first declare an interest in that I am chairman of the All Party Retail Group. I hasten to say that it is not a pecuniary interest.
The Bill as drafted provides that an agreement which contains provisions which infringe the Section 2 prohibition is void in its entirety. The proposed amendment, which follows the clause in the draft Bill published in August 1997, has the effect of rendering the offending provisions in an agreement void, but not striking down the agreement in its entirety. In such cases, if the offending provisions can be severed from the lawful part of the contract, the relationship between the parties can be preserved. Parties to commercial agreements frequently insert an express provision in their agreements providing that the unenforceability or illegality of one clause will not affect the enforceability of the remainder of the agreement.
The provisions in the Bill reflect those in the Treaty of Rome, but the Committee will recall that that particular European provision has been subject to criticism. In particular, the provision has been used by parties seeking to avoid obligations they willingly entered into, arguing that one of the provisions in the agreement is unlawful and therefore the entire agreement fails, and they are excused from all their obligations. The amendment would remove that opportunity in English law in circumstances where the offending provision can be severed from the agreement.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the doctrine of severance in English common law provides that where you cannot sever the illegal from the legal part of a covenant, the contract is altogether void, but where you can sever them, whether the illegality be created by statute or by the common law, you may reject the bad part and retain the good. It seems sensible to recognise that in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I agree with my noble friend Lady Nicol that the application of the prohibition to a contract should not always lead to the entire contract being void. I am advised that the best way to avoid such a possibility is to mirror the language of Article 85(2) of the European treaty, which deals with the consequences of an agreement being caught by the EC prohibition. That is what we have done in Clause 2(4).
268
The European Court of Justice has held that it is only those elements of an agreement which are prohibited under Article 85 that are void. This principle of European Community law will apply to the interpretation of the Chapter I prohibition as a result of Clause 58 of the Bill, the clause relating the treaties to our own law base. Whether those elements are severable from the agreement as a whole is a matter for the normal rules of national law. Indeed, we consulted on the basis of the language set out in the amendment and we received comments from legal practitioners that it would displace normal UK rules of severance and prevent the possibility of severing offending parts of whole provisions. Moreover, it would risk divergence from EC law and therefore would create more burdens on business.
Advice has been taken. If my noble friend understands the legal construct we are putting—from her question it was clear that she did—I would ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I declare an interest as secretary of the all party group, an interest properly registered in Part 3 of the Declaration of Interests. Is the Minister saying that the case made out by my noble friend is already covered and that, despite what we consider to be a blunderbuss or scattergun approach, the advice that has been given is to the effect that what we have proposed is not only undesirable but not possible? If what we have here is a sledge-hammer to crack a nut, which sometimes can be used to avoid obligations, and can lead to the calamity of the whole contract being declared null and void, that is not acceptable.
I note that the Minister relies heavily on Article 85(2) of the European treaty in this respect. However, given the circumstances pointed out by my noble friend Lady Nicol, where it is possible to make a clean break between an offending part and the whole, I wonder whether the Minister would care to look again at this point. If the wording we are using is not quite right perhaps the Minister can come up with another form of words to take care of the points that have been made.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I thank my noble friend Lord Graham for giving me the opportunity to comment again. The way in which the Bill has been redrafted, following the consultation process and the August document, has the effect that the noble Lord wishes. The reason for the change was to meet the circumstances which the noble Lord was saying might cause a large number of problems.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Graham for adding to the arguments. I was convinced by the Minister's first answer and I certainly do not intend to press the amendment. However, I should like to read carefully what he said and to take advice on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
MEDICINAL PRODUCTS ETC
(" . The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to any agreement, decision or practice relating to the price to be charged on the retail sale of any medicinal product, or any food comprising vitamins or minerals or both, which is at any time commonly sold in pharmacies without prescription:).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I raise what I believe is a burning issue in a great many cases. I do so with considerable support outside the House. The Minister is aware, but I shall remind him, that there is a body called the Community Pharmacy Action Group (CPAG). When I look at the names of the bodies behind this group I am enormously impressed. They are the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the National Pharmaceutical Association, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, the Scottish Pharmaceutical General Council, the Company Chemists Association, the Proprietary Articles Trade Association, the British Association of Pharmaceutical Wholesalers, the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, and last but not least, the Co-operative Pharmacy Technical Panel. That last body impresses me greatly. I declare an interest as chairman of a body called the United Kingdom Co-operative Council.
There is a two-edged argument: there is the philosophy of competition—I am not arguing against that—but in this amendment we are arguing against the application of this particular Bill and its effects on the consumer and the high street besides a great many other places. No one here has less experience than anyone else as regards observing what has happened in the high street over the years. We have all had the same experience.
I shall use as a general illustration a village or a small town which, many years ago, boasted a number of bakers, butchers, greengrocers, hardware shops and chemists. With the advent of the car-borne shopper and affluence, together with freedom and time and competition, the greengrocers have gone and in their place there is one big supermarket. I do not make a case against them because I believe in supermarkets which provide a very efficient form of retailing. Then one shrugs one's shoulders and says, "There used to be three very good butchers and now there is one which is struggling. There is now a very good supermarket which provides the meat". The same thing has happened to the baker. At the end of a period, say, 20 years, one finds that in the village high street there may very well be good overall provision of an efficient service, but the heart and nature of the village has declined. As a result of competition and people's choice—I do not argue about them—the village is the poorer and the life of the people in the village is the poorer.
The case made out in this amendment is that at the present time there is a modest attempt to keep in existence the agreements that have been made, but which this Bill will remove. That will inevitably lead to a diminution in choice for the consumer. By creating choice—I mean the ability to shop in the supermarket—
270
the consumer may very well say that that is a better use of his or her time and opportunity. I have been told that out of 12,000 community chemists we may very well lose 3,000. That is not a guess, but the result of a properly carried out survey. I say to the Minister that we should reflect and we should stop.
What will be the effect of RPM on OTC? It is retail price maintenance on over-the-counter supplies. The effect of that is that there is a range of people who have relied for a long period of their lives on going to the same little chemist and getting service. They are not only comfortable in doing that, but they also have a rapport with, and sympathy, confidence and belief in the integrity of the chemist. Sometimes they are almost surrogate doctors. The customer asks for advice, he or she gets it and it is taken.
Therefore, I ask the Minister and his ministerial friends to reflect very seriously on the fact that there are large groups of people who will find that their access to an essential primary healthcare service will be restricted; namely, the elderly, infirm, carers, mothers with young children and the like.
I use my own town of Loughton as an example. I have lived their happily for seven years. When my wife and I decided to move there it was because there was a choice. It was not just the choice of a big supermarket at each end of the high street, but there was also a choice of little shops. Over the period of time that I have lived in Loughton there has been a steady diminution in the number of small shops. I almost do not argue against the general good, but far too often, after the event, people regret the fact that by being slothful and careless they have allowed something to happen which will result in a facility never returning. People might say, "You can start up another chemist or another bakers or butchers". But that is not the way it is. I hope very much that the Minister will recognise that this is a situation that can be stopped or deflected.
The Office of Fair Trading has carried out research. It found that 36 per cent. of those asked would switch to buying from supermarkets rather than pharmacies if RPM and OTC medicines were removed. That is consumer choice, but in exercising it one is also staring at the fact that one diminishes the number of smaller units that can provide the service.
I believe that this Government and others have had enough experience of wanting to see hypermarkets and large stores on the edge of towns, and good luck to them. Theyalso do not want town centres to disappear, but they have become the poorer. I say to the Minister that there is a case for re-examining the intentions of the Bill.
I mentioned my interest in the Co-op which I declare. It has over 400 pharmacies and they go back a very long way. Originally they were part of a network with the philosophy and belief of providing for the needs of ordinary people as near to them as possible. We are as interested as anybody else in establishing larger stores, supermarkets, hypermarkets and stores of that kind. I believe that the Minister and his colleagues might have missed a trick. Although the removal of RPM

271
per se and philosophically may be a good thing, in social terms and in this instance, the removal of that modest protection will have enormous consequences.
I should not like to stand up in this House in 10 years' time when the impact has been felt and have either to make or defend a case in the knowledge that we might have done something to ameliorate the effects in 1997, and not to have to bemoan the fact in 2007 that we did not. I very much hope that the Minister is in a listening and giving mood and can say something of comfort to those outside who believe that my amendment is worth supporting. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in what he so ably said about the advantages of competition and the loss to the consumer of our independent pharmacists. Perhaps I may mention one matter which the noble Lord did not. Medicines should not be thought of in the same way as the products which consumers ordinarily buy. They should not be bought in bulk, stored, discounted and sold as loss leaders. Medicines are very important items. From my previous experience as a chairman of an FHSA, I believe that the best way to purchase medicines, whether over the counter or with a prescription, is by visiting a pharmacist.
Perhaps I may add another point for the benefit of the Minister. I very much hope that he will take this on board. When I was chairman of the Barnet FHSA, in line with the previous government's philosophy—I believe that it is also the philosophy of the present Government—we regarded as paramount the concept of bringing health care out into the community. We began an experiment in Barnet, known as "high street health". The idea was to enhance the benefits which independent pharmacists can bring to consumers by giving them extra training and by encouraging consumers who were suffering from, say, a cold or a sore throat to visit their pharmacist rather than blocking up their GP's surgery. That happened in the past when people used to visit their local chemist rather than rush immediately to the GP. That system in Barnet worked so well that it was used as a model by FHSAs across the country. In the areas where that system was adopted independent pharmacists became people of real value, not only to consumers but also to GPs. I stress that pharmacists in Barnet and elsewhere where the scheme was adopted worked in harmony with, and with the support of, their local GPs.
I grieve for the fact that if the Bill's provisions remain unamended we shall lose so many independent pharmacists that the benefits of competition, as we now know it, will be lost in this important area. I urge the Minister to look carefully at his noble friend's amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Graham. The Minister and most of your Lordships may not be particularly well acquainted with the little country town of Llandysul, which nestles in a very agreeable part of west Wales. Your Lordships would not be out of kilter with many other citizens of both Wales and England in
272
not being able to recognise Llandysul because it is a very small place and is not easily found either on a map or on the ground.
I mention Llandysul because last week I received a very closely argued, very detailed and very carefully researched plea from the pharmacist—the only one—in Llandysul pointing out in great detail the dangers which attended upon his particular business, which has been there for many years, if something like this amendment is not accepted by this Committee. In that area it is not easy for people to exercise any sort of choice. The area will support the work of only one pharmacist. May I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister when he goes home tonight to spare a moment or so to look on a map for the town of Llandysul and, before he goes to bed, to consider the very real problems which affect people in that area? I hope that the result will be that my noble friend's amendment will be accepted.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: I rise to speak against the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. In doing so, I should mention that I know Llandysul very well, but I am not sure whether it is the same Llandysul because I did not recognise it from what the noble Lord said. Llandysul certainly has a pharmacy, but the people I know in Llandysul have as their objective catching the free bus down to the local Tesco where they can buy their pharmaceutical products. I can discuss this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, because I happen to know Llandysul.
I heard from both the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and from my noble friend Lady Miller about the benefits of competition. Of course, it is lovely to have five pharmacists in one street in a small town, but the real benefit of competition is the fact that prices can come down. I have in my hand a list of comparative prices for the ordinary medicines that we all buy. You do not need to go to your local GP to get a prescription if you want aspirin or Nurofen—at least, I believe that that is the case.
A 24-pack of soluble aspirin costs 39 pence in a supermarket while a 24-pack of Disprin—exactly the same product—costs £1.50 in a pharmacy. There is a big difference between 39 pence and £1.50. In a pharmacy 24 Nurofen tablets cost £4.69 while in a supermarket they cost £.1.99.
I should declare an interest. Most Members of this Committee realise that I am a non-executive director of Tesco—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Keep taking the tablets!
Baroness O'Cathain: I am sorry; I had been intending to declare that interest when we reached my amendments. I have it properly registered, according to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in Section 3 of the Register of Interests. I have done that all along, but I repeat it for the benefit of the newer Members of your Lordships' House who may not know. Those who were here during our arguments on Sunday trading know perfectly well where I stand on this.

273
We must recognise that all governments in this country have wanted to battle non-stop for low inflation. The mark-ups on some ordinary products are significant. Although such high mark-ups support the local pharmacies—I do not disagree with that strong point—it is the self-same people who use those local pharmacies who are the least able to pay those extremely high mark-ups on highly priced goods. I am afraid that by restricting supply and maintaining the retail price mechanism on such products we are not doing what the Bill sets out to do, which is to lower the cost of living for a lot of people.
Baroness Ludford: I am extremely sympathetic about the concerns which have motivated the amendment because I can appreciate the conflict between achieving lower prices through competition and the maintenance of essential local services, particularly (although not exclusively) in rural areas. In the very metropolitan area from which I come, the London Borough of Islington—the Minister is not unfamiliar with it—our local pharmacies are relied on particularly by those who are not mobile. As I said, although I am sympathetic to the motivation behind the amendment, I can see difficulties with the maintenance of the retail price mechanism on this basis.
Can the Minister assure us that he and his department will look carefully at other ways in which small shops can be helped either through the planning mechanism or the uniform business rate? The powers of local authorities are extremely limited in this regard. Even in urban areas we face ongoing problems in trying to maintain essential local shops. Can the Minister give us such an assurance, even if he cannot accept the amendment?
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I rise to speak briefly and apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for not being present when he moved the amendment. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain has provoked me—
Baroness O'Cathain: Good!
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Obviously, I respect my noble friend's knowledge of these matters given that she is a non-executive director on the board of Tesco, but I was a non-executive director on the board of Boots for 1 1 years and I must express this caution to my noble friend. She says that exactly the same aspirins are sold in different places. Many cut-price drugs have been manufactured in the third world where quality control is nowhere near as good as that which is applied to more reputable brands. Whereas in some cases the mark-ups may be exceedingly high—probably too high—I believe that to go for cheapness is not the greatest economy.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I very much look forward to hearing the response of the Minister. If I have one disappointment about the Government Front Bench it is that for a debate as potentially important as this on the first day of the Committee stage there is no Minister from the
274
Department of Health. There is here a risk of conflict between clear Government policies. As I understand it, the health policy of the Government continues the policy of the previous government; namely, that general practitioners are to be at the forefront of the National Health Service but every effort should be made and every encouragement given to ensure that they do not have an unnecessary workload. Accordingly, the approach promoted by my noble friend Lady Miller when she, among others, had responsibility for the National Health Service was that community pharmacies should be a valuable point at which people with a range of minor ailments could get the requisite advice. Therefore, instead of taking up the time of their GPs and wasting their own time sitting for hours in waiting rooms, they would be able to go along to a pharmacy and see whether their ailments could be quickly dealt with by over-the-counter drugs. Alternatively, if the chemist felt that there was a worry about the individual's health he would be properly referred to his GP. That seems to me to be a good policy. If it remains the policy that we on this side pursued when in government we warmly support it and will give every encouragement to its achievement.
A specific question was asked about this issue at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, indicated then that the Department of Health was neutral on the point. Frankly, I found that astonishing. In moving this amendment the noble Lord referred to research which indicated that approximately 37 per cent. of those who currently went to pharmacies would go to Asda, Safeway and so on.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The figure I gave was 36 per cent.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that precision. The effect of such a shift in buying patterns means that the economic viability of up to about 3,000 pharmacies throughout the length and breadth of the country will be affected. If those 3,000 pharmacies disappear it follows as night follows day that the policy of this Government on the vital matter of health will suffer serious detriment. If that is the policy—it should be the policy—we should look very carefully at anything that affects the viability of these pharmacies. It is not simply a case of special pleading for one sector; there is a sound public policy reason for maintaining their independent position.
It is of interest to note that prior to the last general election Labour Members of Parliament in another place were extremely supportive of RPM on over-the-counter medicines. Indeed, the consumer affairs spokesman, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, now the Minister, who is a colleague of the noble Lords, Lord Simon and Lord Haskel, in the Department of Trade and Industry, organised a petition in support of RPM on over-the-counter medicines. He urged his fellow election candidates and Members of Parliament to support it. While I know that Mr. Griffiths has signed just about every petition that there has ever been, this one was a soundly-based petition. It is regrettable that there should be even a hint of inconsistency over a matter of such important public policy.

275
Sometimes the counter-argument is advanced that these pharmacies should not be dealt with by the device of maintaining RPM in respect of over-the-counter medicines; instead, there should be support through public funding under the essential small pharmacies scheme. There is some support provided in that way, but that is in respect of pharmacies which, even with the existence of RPM on over-the-counter drugs, are in such a perilous position that they need to be supported. They are pharmacies located perhaps in the more remote parts of Wales and Scotland. They simply could not exist if they did not receive some kind of payment. But the fact of the matter is that it is not a particularly effective subsidy and it barely covers the annual costs of a single pharmacist, let alone other overhead costs.
There is a very strong case to be advanced in support of these pharmacies. We wish to ensure that as this Bill proceeds nothing is done to damage their interests. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some comfort that in the Government's view, if regard is had to Clauses 6 to 11 which provide block exemptions, the criteria in Clause 9 to allow for individual or block exemptions are sufficient to enable this group of pharmacies to be brought within the exemption.
I believe that I understand the argument advanced, but I am not wholly persuaded that it is as explicitly set out as it might be. If the noble Lord could provide us with some comfort on that matter we would be very pleased to hear it. That would enable us to consider constructively how at later stages of this Bill we can take forward the campaign on behalf of pharmacists to ensure that their position is protected. I should be grateful to receive any indication that the noble Lord is able to give at this stage that that is the Government's approach in seeking to protect these pharmacies.
There are other provisions in the Bill which affect these pharmacies and need to be addressed. The position is slightly complicated. My understanding is that at the moment the Office of Fair Trading is looking at the exemption which was provided as long ago as 1970. It has been considering the matter for about a year. A preliminary indication is that the matter may be taken back to the courts with a view to securing the removal of that exemption. My understanding is that there must be a first step taken to secure an indication that prima face there has been a material change in circumstances which means that the exemption should no longer remain in place. I do not believe that any such first step has yet been taken, notwithstanding the fact that this matter has been considered for at least a year without any clear outcome.
I invite the noble Lord to look carefully at one matter as a matter of procedure, not just drafting. I believe that it is unsatisfactory. The transitional arrangements which would affect the continuation of this RPM arrangement are to be found in Part III of Schedule 13. It could not be found in a more remote part of the Bill. Paragraph 8 provides:
"(I) The Chapter 1 prohibition does not apply to an agreement, decision or practice—
"(a) at any time when it is the subject of continuing proceedings".
276
Can the noble Lord hazard a guess as to when the Bill will receive Royal Assent and when it will commence to operate? It is far from obvious when or if the requisite proceedings will begin.
It is extremely important, if we cannot resolve this in the way I hope it can be resolved by securing an exemption under the provisions to which I have referred, that we in any event have clearly set out what exactly will be the transitional arrangements for these pharmacies. We would at least wish to see the five year period maintained for it. More importantly, we would like to see in principle a continuing exemption provided for pharmacies.
I have spelt out in a constructive fashion the line that we would like to take forward, and we will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. It is an issue that is causing real concern in the country and I am grateful for the contributions from all sides of the House.
I seldom part company with my noble friend Lady O'Cathain but I regret I very much do so on this occasion. We do believe that medicines are different. I will give one example of one respect in which medicines are different from other products. In the past two weeks the Department of Health has required that paracetamol be sold in small quantities. The reason behind that requirement is, in our view, a sound one. Regrettably, far too many people—young people in particular—take overdoses of paracetamol. Even if they have repented or relented of it subsequently, such has been the damage to them that their position is irrecoverable. That is a perfectly sound reason for the Government to make that requirement.
That is an example that we could find across a broad range and indicates that the sale of medicines—even if they are over-the-counter drugs such as paracetamol—is not in quite the same category as many other products which are now sold in supermarkets.
I hope that the Minister will give as clear an indication as possible of the way forward on this vexed issue.
5 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I have an interest to declare. I live in the village of Comrie in Perthshire in Scotland. In the village there is a pharmacy; the pharmacist is my daughter. I am the non-executive chairman of the company which owns the business. Having declared that, I will take no further part in the proceedings on this Bill, on any amendments—either voting for it or against it; I will abstain—but I think I have some information which will be useful.
I am the non-executive chairman but, because it is a family concern, I know a great deal of what goes on. I know the extent to which the chemist in a village plays a very important part in the life of the community. The village of Comrie is a very pleasant place in which to live. There are many people who retire to it and it has a very much larger proportion of elderly people than other villages. I am quite sure there are a number of villages up and down the country, both north and south of the border, which are in the same position.

277
I know the extent to which my daughter plays a part in the life of the village. She is not just the pharmacist; she is called on for many things. She is involved in organisations, where people rely on the sort of advice that she can give them. As has been stated, the Government's policy now is to switch work from the doctor to the chemist—although there is no indication that the chemists are going to get any more money for doing it—and it would be a pity if they lost the important over-the-counter part of the business. Having said that, I hope that I will not be accused of seeking to influence the debate, but it is of interest that I am able to speak about this part of the life of a village.
Incidentally, when the register of interests was raised in this House, I informed the clerk who was dealing with it, Mr. Vallance White, and he informed me that I did not need to declare that as an interest. So if anybody looks, my name is not on the register.
Earl Howe: I rise, briefly, in support of what my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and others have said regarding the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on this important matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, set out with great clarity and persuasiveness the threat that this Bill poses to community pharmacies. There is a critical difference between, for example, the village shop and the village pharmacy because of the heavy reliance that is placed on local pharmacies by those who are in real need—by virtue of illness, infirmity or whatever—and who are dependent on quick and easy access to medicaments and advice. That has been emphasised by a number of noble Lords. The situation is exactly the same regarding their dependency on community healthcare services of other kinds.
At the very least I hope the Government understand that there is an issue here and that the Minister will acknowledge its importance to very many people. The public interest takes many forms, but I put it to the Minister that there are one or two areas of our national life where the public interest is not necessarily served by unfettered competition—and access to the community pharmacy is surely one of those.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I was enjoined a while ago by my noble friend Lord Graham to listen—and indeed I have. I have learned something rather important: that Llandysnl is a place that more than one person knows well in this House. I am also sure of another thing: whilst now knowing of it, I cannot spell it.
The discussion that we were all privileged to hear on the difficulties of balancing competition and value and service to the community at a cost—which is the real nub of this question—were excellently debated from both sides on the other side of the Committee. That of course makes the position a little more complex for me but it is interesting in terms of balance of advice. I do not wish to open a debate on our views on health policy when I am debating the Competition Bill, I could forebear perhaps to make a glancing reference to the
278
point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, made about one of my colleagues taking a neutral position. Perhaps "neutral" was used in the sense of "balance".
I will not go further on health policy but I will take the opportunity of welcoming him to the fraternity of the oilers. I miss that. I wish him great good fortune and as much happiness as I had in my brief period in the business—brief to the extent of 36 long years.
I came to the crucial question of the balance that we are thinking of very carefully and trying to strike. First—and I do not mean this in any way as a pun—I have to issue a health warning. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, mentioned and made clear that the Director General has announced his intention to refer retail price maintenance of over-the-counter medicines back to the restrictive practices court.
I am sure the Committee is aware that the Government have no role in decisions of the court or in the Director General's decision to refer. However, despite the intention to refer, we have thought it right that agreements which have been approved by the court should gain, on a transitional basis, exclusion from the relevant provisions of the Bill. That would be achieved by the cross referencing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, mentioned, in Schedule 13. That would avoid repeating the scrutiny at too early a stage.
The period would start from the time the prohibition came into force, or, in the case of continuing proceedings, when the proceedings come to an end. The Bill sets that transitional period at five years. I refer here to the issue which the noble and learned Lord raised with me, which is the time issue relative to a reference. I hope that I have given you a clear answer on how that would follow. Members of the Committee will no doubt note that I have the extraordinary weakness of saying "you" on occasions. It is, I am afraid, my version of "urn", as I think, but is in no way meant to show disrespect.
Similarly, decisions under the Bill will be a matter for the Director General, subject to appeal to the new competition commission and, on points of law and the amount of penalties imposed, to the courts. I am now taking us back to the relationship under the new agreements. I am sure that the Committee will understand that it is not right for Ministers to comment upon the position under the Bill of any particular agreement on an arrangement such as resale price maintenance for medicines.
My noble friend Lord Graham's amendment, and his speech to which I listened carefully, raised important issues as to how the framework set down in the Bill—and, in particular, the criteria for exemption which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, mentioned—will operate generally. That is a matter which should properly concern us and which we need to get right.
By virtue of Clause 58 the interpretation of the exemption criteria by the Director General is to be along the same lines as the interpretation made by the EC Commission. Although the exemption criteria may seem narrow, the Bill requires them to be interpreted in the light of the general principles (Clause 58). I shall

279
mention that clause frequently. It is the linking clause between EC law and our own in our new prohibition in the Bill.
In practice—this is important—the Commission has taken into account a wide range of countervailing benefits when making decisions under Article 85. In particular, the Commission has taken into account the public health benefits of agreements when reaching decisions. However, the issue goes wider, as we have discussed, than public health. The Commission has, for example, taken into account environmental benefits of agreements. Many have spoken of the environmental importance, in the broadest sense of the words, of the chemist's shop.
It is clear that under the Bill the Director General and competition commission can be expected to do likewise: to form the same judgments against the body of law that I have mentioned which have existed in the interpretation by the Commission under Article 85. Because we recognise that that is an important issue the department has commissioned a study on the case law of the ECJ and the Court of First Instance, and the practice of the European Commission in respect of Article 85(3). That was carried out by Professor Whish of King's College, London, who is a distinguished authority on competition law, and it confirms the analysis which I have given the Committee. I shall send a copy to my noble friend and will place a copy in the Libraries of this House and another place.
With regard to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, in his preamble on the exemption and how it would be seen. in the light of that, if an assessment is to be made by the Director General of the case for an exemption in respect of agreements for resale price maintenance in over-the-counter medicines, I would expect any public health benefits, the ready availability of over-the-counter medicines to consumers, and the benefits of local distribution, to feature in the assessment. I therefore believe that the Bill will provide the right, balanced framework for the Director General and the competition commission to deal properly with the complex issue that we have been discussing.
In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will accept that special provisions for over-the-counter medicines would be neither necessary in special terms nor desirable, given the legal framework that I have outlined. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I do not see how the nuances of interpretation avail the Minister when Clause 9, which is the governing one on exclusions, provides—if I may paraphrase it—that the clause applies to any agreement which does not,
"afford the undertakings concerned the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of substantial part of the products in question".
280
In the case about which we are talking that clause is clearly breached. Therefore there can be no exemption under the Bill, whatever nuance of interpretation is applied.
Lord Simon of Highbury: This is a swift interpretation and I take note of it. My case rests as it is; that we believe that the legal framework here allows us to strike a correct balance. If we need to discuss this matter further perhaps we can do so at a later stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister because he has clearly listened. He has put up a good defence to show that the fears and worries of those whom I seek to represent are misplaced. That may or may not be the case. We shall have to wait to see. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for having linked what might be the defence, the outcome. or the manner in which those whom I seek to represent might have their fears allayed. That remains to be seen.
I had seen on a piece of paper the various points made by the noble and learned Lord. The Committee is indebted to him for putting the matter carefully and cogently. I understood what he said much better than what I read. That is an advantage in a debate such as this.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on the Liberal Benches to a debate like this. It is refreshing to have a new face and a new voice. The case she was making was that she did not like special exemptions. If the only way to protect a business or a sector of the community is to give a special exemption, I am all for it. It may not be necessary in this case. For the past 30 years the public have believed it to be necessary and we want the present position to continue.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, in summary, that the criterion was price, price, price—not location, location, location!
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Of course it is not the overwhelming criterion. I merely said that it should be brought into the equation. We were talking about location, location, location, but there is another element. We must strike a balance between the high mark-ups and availability. I genuinely worry about those who are less able to pay high prices for over-the-counter drugs and I simply wished to add another spoke, so to speak.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I agree that we are talking about the people who, on the one hand, say "I want to be able to shop in a smaller shop, even though the price may be higher", and the 36 per cent. of people who say, "Even though the distance is further, if the price is cheaper I am prepared to go there". I know that this is not an empirical study and that interpretations must be made.
I was most taken with the case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that when the Minister and. more importantly, those outside the House look at the explanation they may well take the view that there is no need to proceed down this route.

281
I wish to draw one issue to the Minister's attention and to follow on from what was said about it by Labour Party spokesmen before the election. Nigel Griffiths, who is a good friend of mine, spoke honestly and sincerely in repeating what had been said by Chris Smith, now a Minister. Chris Smith said:
"the question of RPM on non-prescriptive medicines is important and Labour believes that RPM plays a valuable role in safeguarding the position of local pharmacies.".
If that is not the road down which we are going I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. But we need assurances from others, the Minister having served us well at this stage. I advise him to keep taking the tablets, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
("Non-excluded cases
NON-EXCLUDED SUPPLIERS: THE CHAPTER I PROHIBITION
(" . Any case which would be excluded by virtue of section 3, but in which a supplier without any published and justifiable reason—

(a) refuses to supply goods to a reseller or categories of resellers who cannot obtain those goods elsewhere on suitable terms, or applies to them differing prices or conditions of sale, or

(b) applies less favourable prices to resellers in one territory as compared with prices applied to resellers in any other territory,

shall not be treated as excluded for the purposes of section 2.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 31 and 32. First, I wish to declare an interest; I am a director of Tesco. I apologise for not doing so during my intervention on Amendment No. 9.
We all know that the objective of the Bill is to strengthen competition law, in effect allowing greater competition by removing barriers to competition. My noble friend Lord MacLaurin, who regrets that he is unable to be here today to reinforce the views that he expressed on Second Reading, stated during that debate that he agreed with the right honourable lady the President of the Board of Trade who,
"spoke of the importance of using competition policy to ease the pressures on family budgets".—[Official Report, 30/10/97; col. 1179.]
The purpose of the amendment is to achieve just that by virtue of dismantling selective distribution agreements. I am aware that such agreements are not at the forefront of most people's minds, but they are what they describe. Some manufacturers, for their own reasons, say, "We will not distribute our products to retail outlet X or supermarket A". They restrict the number of outlets allowed to sell a product.
I suggest that the public interest is not generally served by such action. Some suppliers refuse to supply certain outlets because they fear that those outlets will discount the goods. The self-same suppliers—and they are mainly from overseas—see this market as an opportunity for high margins if they restrict the outlets in which their goods are sold. Some companies refuse
282
to negotiate price with the retailers, which results in consumers being disadvantaged. In respect of some goods, the mark-up is as high as 300 per cent.
Perhaps I may give the Committee some hard examples, although Members may not be in the market for Levi's 501s, which are jeans. The US selling price of those jeans is the equivalent of £25, while the price in the United Kingdom is £52. In the US, Calvin Klein's men's jeans cost the equivalent of £28, while in the United Kingdom they cost £59.95. The problem is that the suppliers of such jeans suggest that selling them in supermarkets ruins "the allure" of the product.
Perhaps not all your Lordships identify with jeans, but many will identify with champagne. Is the allure of Moët & Chandon ruined by being universally available in supermarkets and other outlets? Perfumes or fine fragrances, as they are known in the trade—they are reasonably dear to my heart—present another case. I suggest that people should be allowed to buy their jeans and fine fragrances wherever they live or normally shop, irrespective of their economic classification of A, B, and C 1 s, C2s or D3s. Surely it is the Government's view that access and availability should not be restricted.
When debating Amendment No. 9 we discussed the small pharmacy in Llandysul but this amendment does not deal with such small pharmacies. The manufacturers who are restricting the distribution of their goods are huge international and multi-national businesses. Unilever, for example, which is one of the biggest companies in the world, owns the European rights to Calvin Klein perfumes.
The point was clearly made at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord MacLaurin. He said:
"The more goods you allow to be sold by a diverse and large number of retailers the more you will improve the quality and standard of living of the population as a whole. You will also hear down on inflation—a goal shared by every government I can recall".—[Official Report, 30/10/97; col. 1180.]
Furthermore, the National Consumer Council has expressed concern about selective distribution and its impact on the customer.
I am not launching an attack on branded and luxury goods; after all, they are the spice of life and I want more people to have them. However, I am anxious that consumers in London or Leeds pay prices for the goods they wish to buy that are comparable to the prices paid by consumers in Seattle or Atlanta. Retail price maintenance was abolished in 1964 save that certain classes of goods are exempt from that prohibition on public interest grounds. I suggest that this Bill is an ideal vehicle by which we can stop that apparent discrimination caused by selective distribution agreements. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has made a very plausible case. Indeed, it is more than plausible. It is extremely accurate in relation to many types of selective distribution agreements and goods because they have involved what one might call covert retail price practices. They have involved the refusal to

283
supply those retailers who are known to reduce margins, perhaps through their efficiency, so enabling customers to buy goods at a cheaper price than elsewhere. However, the noble Baroness's speech was just a little one-sided. It was as if all goods must be supplied to Tesco, or all branded goods made available to the mass distributor without restraint.
The noble Baroness mentioned some products. I am perhaps more familiar with champagne and perfume than I am with Levi 501s. However, there is evidence that the success of some goods—of many perfumes, I am sure—is due in part at least to the fact that they are available only in a particular kind of environment or shop. There is mutual benefit to the manufacturer, the retailer and of course to the consumer who feels that he has something special. Let us take the gift shop at the House of Lords. If those chocolates and other items with the appropriate brand markings upon them were available freely in Tesco, it might be that there would be some diminution of value, excitement and enjoyment to the customers.
However, I have a more serious point to make. There are a number of distribution agreements which are beneficial to manufacturer, retailer and customer because particular kinds of retail outlet are freely chosen by the manufacturer on the basis that they offer a certain kind of service or repair service; or they have certain kinds of skilled employees; or they wish to promote those goods through marketing arrangements which involve the retailer's agreement to take certain steps in relation to, for example, product display and so on. Those retailers would not be prepared to do that if the goods were available freely everywhere because they would be incurring a great deal of expense in marketing those goods and would achieve very little return because the goods would be available in all sorts of other places.
I am saying to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the Committee that you can make generalisations but there is merit in those cases being dealt with on a case-by-case basis. After all, that is fundamental to this Bill which enables the director general and the competition commission on appeal to determine whether agreements which appear to be prohibited should be specially exempted or not. I should not like to see a generalised provision of the kind which the noble Baroness suggests.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My noble friend Lord Borne has approached the problem, in a sense, from the end of the jeans back to the general. I should like to stay with the general in trying to respond to the noble Baroness's amendments.
I put this matter in the context of what is the scope of the prohibition. I emphasise that the Government's intention in reforming competition law is to set up an effective framework for investigating anti-competitive practices; for assessing in individual cases whether a practice is anti-competitive; and to take action to stop anti-competitive practices where identified. The Bill is not designed to deal explicitly with every conceivable anti-competitive practice. We could not do that.
284
Very shortly we shall be debating specific amendments in relation to the exclusion of vertical agreements from the Chapter I prohibition, which will be relevant in general terms. If introduced, any such exclusion must of course allow anti-competitive practices to be tackled. A refusal by a dominant supplier to supply certain outlets, a problem sometimes associated with selective distribution agreements, would, if found to be abusive, remain subject to the Chapter II prohibition. Equally, I am advised that there is EC jurisprudence that differential pricing by dominant firms which is abusive may be tackled under Article 86. Therefore, both those approaches exist. As I shall continue to say because it is such a pivotal point, such jurisprudence will apply in the interpretation of a Chapter II prohibition as a result of Clause 58. Therefore, we are covered in general terms for the particular set of circumstances which the noble Baroness put before the Committee.
Finally, the safety net, as it were, is that anti-competitive practices resulting from networks of vertical agreements will remain subject to an examination under the Fair Trading Act. Therefore, with those three statements of the way in which we can generally approach the particular problem that the noble Baroness put, I am confident that we have a regime which will work, and work effectively, in tackling anti-competitive behaviour however it expresses itself and in particular in the sense explained by the noble Baroness explained. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I should be grateful, if not now then later, if the Minister will enlighten me as to how this Bill works in with copyright law. A similar difficulty to that raised by the noble Baroness exists in relation to buying US books in this country. People set much higher prices for the same book in the UK than would be paid in the US, even counting the cost of postage. I should be grateful for the noble Lord's advice as to whether this Bill overrules that sort of practice under copyright law.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I take note of that question. It sounds to me as though we are into extraterritoriality, which was a word that I knew if I tried to say it twice, I would get wrong. I take note of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I shall return to it if necessary.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on my amendment. I was slightly concerned when he referred to the fact that the Bill would set up an effective framework against anti-competitive actions, assessing whether the actions are anti-competitive and taking action against those anti-competitive actions. All of that made me return quickly to the Official Report and the Second Reading where I registered one major concern at col. 1166 about the hidden costs of the Bill. I hope that by having a three-pronged attack or approach to the problem, we are not building in huge costs. I have thought long and hard about my amendment and it seemed to me an easy way

285
to tackle the problem. However, I shall read most carefully what the Minister said. I shall think again on the matter. I shall go back to Article 86 and its jurisprudence, and do my homework. If I am not satisfied, I shall return to the matter at later stages of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Excluded agreements]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2. leave out line 42.
The noble Baroness said: I have been asked by the Whips' Office to apologise on its behalf for the fact that there is a mistake in the way that Schedule 4 has been placed on the Marshalled List. It shows the schedule as standing part in isolation when it should be grouped with Amendments Nos. 12, 51 and 52. Therefore, I am speaking to Amendment No. 12 under Clause 3, and I shall also oppose the question that Schedule 4 be the fourth schedule to the Bill.
It is important for us to have a debate about the way in which the reformed competition system, and this Bill in particular, will deal with professional rules. Perhaps I may make some general points about professional services. They have been a growing area of our economy over recent years. Many more of us now have contact with professional services than we did 20 years ago, whether it be accountants helping us to wrestle with self-assessment or lawyers helping us to enforce our rights. It is therefore important that we, as consumers of those services, are adequately protected from any anti-competitive practices. Although I would not agree with Bernard Shaw that,
"all professions are conspiracies against the laity",
there has been concern that some of the professions have operated rules over the years which have been anti-competitive. They might relate to advertising or to the setting of fees, or the range of services that can be offered in one firm. Of course, after prodding by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, many of the professions have improved to some extent.
The Office of Fair Trading has published a number of reports about the professions, many of which were produced when the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—and I am extremely glad to see him in the Chamber today—was Director General of the OFT. For example, in 1986 Members of the Committee may remember looking at restrictions on multi-disciplinary practices among architects, accountants, barristers and solicitors; and, indeed, supporting the idea of mixed partnerships. In 1989, the National Consumer Council published a document called, Ordinary Justice in which, under the doughty leadership of my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who is sitting here beside me, it supported the concept of multi-disciplinary practices. I believe that consumers could be provided with more choice in professional services on offer. For example, when buying and selling houses, should not people have
286
the option of obtaining a mortgage, a survey, help with the selling of a house and also conveyancing services all in one place?
The legal restrictions on solicitors as regards multi-disciplinary practices were removed by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. However, as pointed out by the Director of Competition Policy at the OFT, Margaret Bloom, in July of this year, the Law Society's practice rules do not reflect the legal position. I know that the situation is being monitored by the OFT. It has been pressing the Law Society to change its rules. Despite the improvements that we have seen in recent years, it is important that we do not now start to go backwards. The way professions behave should be monitored carefully and action taken when necessary. That is why we need to debate the way in which this Bill deals with professional rules.
As the Bill is currently drafted, the professional rules will be excluded from the prohibition on agreements which prevent, restrict and distort competition. In considering that, perhaps the Minister could answer the following questions. Under the reformed competition policy, how could the OFT deal with the situation that I have just outlined with regard to the Law Society and multi-disciplinary practices? More generally, why should the professions listed in Schedule 4 be treated any differently from any other service sector of the economy? Should the competitive aspects of the professional rules of surveyors be treated any differently from those of an estate agent? Will we have the ludicrous situation where the Director General of Fair Trading could force estate agents to change their rules, but not force surveyors to change theirs?
Why not keep the professional rules within the prohibition in Chapter I so that the OFT has the power to investigate and take action over any of those rules which are anti-competitive? I ask the Minister: how did the Government arrive at the particular professional services which are listed in Part II of Schedule 4? Why are not licensed conveyancing services or osteopaths, for example, included? I should like to suggest that it would be a much simpler process if those rules were included within the scope of the prohibition so that the Director General of the OFT could scrutinise the rule books. He could then exempt those parts of the rule books which guarantee genuine consumer protection.
I should like to hear what the arguments are for excluding professional rules listed in Schedule 4 from the prohibition in Chapter I. I must say that I will need some persuading that they should be treated differently from equally important and valuable consumer services. 1 beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: I rise to express my support for the noble Baroness in her amendments. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 which are tabled in my name. I should, first, declare an interest as a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I believe that we shall find ourselves in a situation where we shall be talking about sheep and goats—that is to say, those who are included and those who are not.

287
My view on this particular aspect of the Bill is that, if we support the principles of the legislation, we have to consider any exclusion extremely carefully. This Chamber has a right to hear the reasons which the Government may put forward regarding any exclusions which are to remain in the Bill. The noble Baroness gave us a clear explanation of why she believes that Schedule 4 should be excluded. My amendments were tabled with a view to something which is perhaps a little easier to accept; in other words, leaving the exclusions in if there are proper legal reasons for them but, nevertheless, excluding anything which affects competition between members of that profession. I do not believe that I have drafted them particularly well, but perhaps I may explain the reasons behind my amendments. That will at least enable the Minister to consider them.
I have taken on board what my noble friend the Minister said about the role of the director general and of the competition commission and the powers that they will have to consider exemptions and exclusions. One has to ask why we should exclude them specifically now. I cannot speak about Schedules 1 and 3, but Schedule 4 has the effect of excluding only Chapter I prohibitions and not those under Chapter II, though I suppose we should be grateful for that fact. But why are the professions any different?
I can only speak for engineers, but we have a long list in Schedule 4. One engineering company that I know well is a big firm of civil engineering consultants. It is owned by a company which used to be called Welsh Water and is now called Hyder. I believe that it is now a publicly-quoted company and, indeed, there are many others like it. Why is that company any different from estate agents or window cleaners? Why are accountants included along with lawyers? I am sure that there are very good reasons for that, but surely they have a duty to compete among themselves and with others in the same way as any other company or organisation in this country is required to compete for services. Surely they should be prohibited from engaging in restrictive practices which are obviously against public interests.
I am not convinced about this long list of,
"civil engineering: mechanical, aeronautical … agronomy … metallurgy, chemistry".
and
"(f) any other form of engineering or technology analogous to those mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e)".
There must have been a reason for that incredible drafting. Perhaps it is to be found in the reasons for which these organisations were set up in the previous century; namely, to protect the interests of their members. We could debate whether they do protect the interests of their members now. However, I strongly believe that this whole schedule, or certainly the anti-competitive element, has no part in this Bill. I shall be pleased to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on this matter.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I speak briefly but with the credentials of someone who was created in
288
effigy by architects so that they could stick pins into me as a result of the dealings which I had with them—as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will recall—in trying to dragoon them into at least adopting a posture where their restrictive practices were not pursued. I do not think I was as successful as I would have liked. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will also recall that at one time he wanted me to attack veterinarians. I told him that I could not possibly do that as they were folk heroes and under no circumstances was I about to incur their wrath. On a serious note, it seems that in an age when everyone, including the party opposite, has now accepted the value of competition with the bottom line being the consumer and what he or she obtains in terms of value, or safety in many cases, there should not be the kind of exemptions from this Bill which have existed in the past which have not benefited consumers.
Lord Howie of Troon: As older Members of the Committee will know, I have a long-standing connection with the construction industry and with consulting engineers and architects. I would never dream of putting a pin in the noble Baroness who has just spoken—although I may in a moment!
I oppose these amendments on the ground that professions are not the same as businesses. I shall not discuss estate agents and people of that kind; I shall stick to those I know; namely, consulting engineers and architects. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, quoted a well known maxim of Bernard Shaw, a man whom I greatly admire. However, she quoted one of his more foolish remarks. If she wishes to understand the difference between professions and businesses she should read the debates that took place in the previous Parliament on compulsory competitive tendering for local authority professional services. That whole matter was discussed at great length by myself and others. I shall not speak of that at great length tonight. The noble Baroness should also turn her mind to a well known philosophical work on the acquisitive society by R.H. Tawney. In that work the difference between professional services and businesses is clearly explained. I admit that the situation now is not as clear as it was in Tawney's day. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has referred to Welsh Water in this connection.
We opposed competition at the design stage—I emphasise I am talking about design here—because a cheap design is not necessarily the design that you want. This is the weakness of CCT. A good design, whether of architecture or structural engineering, is a design in which the life cost of the commodity, be it a building or a structure, is the cheapest. We all know that a cheap initial cost leads to increased maintenance costs later, making the long life cost of the structure dearer than it might otherwise have been. That is the difference between buying and selling things across a counter—that is, business—and the buying and selling of what is essentially intellectual property. That is a different matter entirely. To confuse the two is merely to become a fanatic of competition. I have no doubt that competition has some merits here and there, but they should be closely examined.

289
I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, indicated earlier in the debate on pharmaceuticals how a distinction could be made in competition terms. I draw her attention and the attention of my noble friend the Minister to a distinction which should be made here. 1 now have to do something extremely uncivil in that I must apologise to the Minister because I must leave the Chamber almost immediately for what we normally describe as a pressing engagement. I apologise as I know that is rude. If I miss my noble friend's reply, I shall certainly read what he has said.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the Minister replies and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rises to speak, I have two questions which have been prompted by this short debate. I understand that we are also discussing Schedule 4 in this grouping of amendments. Given that my noble friend Lady Wilcox said that the legal restrictions on multi-disciplinary practices were removed for solicitors by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, one wonders why solicitors are mentioned in line 8 of page 50 of the Bill in Schedule 4. Is it not legal tautology to refer to solicitors in both places?
The other question which sprang to my mind while I was listening to this short debate was that under Clause 3 the excluded agreements mentioned in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 are grouped together in that the Secretary of State can add to or subtract from them, by order, at any point—I believe those are the words used in the Bill—whereas in Schedule 4 he has no such permission. Again, one is bound to wonder why. For example, chiropracting is gradually being accepted in this country. Indeed there is a register these days of chiropractors and another one of osteopaths. As many of the professional services listed in Schedule 4 are medical services, one wonders whether at some stage the Secretary of State might well want to include either of those professions in such a list, or at another point remove something else so that, for example, nurses and midwives come together. That may well happen in the fairly near future. Surely there should be a way to add to or subtract from Schedule 4 not using primary legislation.
Lord Lucas: I, too, wish to support my noble friend Lady Wilcox. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is present. I remember the debates we had in the course of the housing and construction Bill on a particularly daft definition clause. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, demolished that at great length and in the end managed to make considerable changes to it. I think we have a similar situation here. I am a chartered accountant and speaking of my own profession I can understand why auditing might have some special part in the Bill. Auditing is governed by statute and the Government may wish to exercise greater control than normal over the way in which the rules that are applied to associations of auditors are established. The way in which this Bill allows changes to be made by the Minister rather than by the Director General of Fair Trading seems to me to be reasonable. But why govern accounting? Anyone can do accounts. There is
290
absolutely no reason why rules governing accounting should be subject to special pleading. It is a perfectly ordinary activity.
Anyone can do any number of the things that are mentioned in this list. I myself have been a midwife, although I have not offered professional services in that regard. There are some services in the list that seem to have a special place; but there are any number of others which are just ordinary trades, trading in information rather than goods, and should be in the Bill along with everything else. I hope that the Government will very seriously reconsider this part of the Bill, especially Part II of Schedule 4.
The Earl of Balfour: Will the Minister dealing with the Bill consider the pilotage functions of pilots taking ships in and out of ports and around this coast? Recently their circumstances were changed quite dramatically. If this list is to be part of the Bill, pilots working around the coast should be considered.
Viscount Bledisloe: I must declare an interest as a practising barrister—which I believe is still a profession! Without going into the detail of the professions listed or seeking to interfere with the desires of those who abandon unprofessional accountancy and take up equally unprofessional midwifery, surely the whole concept of a profession is that it restricts competition. The concept of a profession is that certain activities shall be limited to those who have acquired certain qualifications and who behave in the ways laid down by their professions. That is the distinction between a profession and a business. A profession which has no rules and is wholly open to competition is not a profession. If anybody could appear in court and address an argument to the court on behalf of a client whether or not he has passed an exam, behaved appallingly or whatever it may be, it would no longer be a profession. To talk about professions without restrictive rules regulating the degree of competition and degrees of behaviour is to abolish professions.
6 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: In responding to the noble Baroness, I find myself in a certain confusion. I am never quite clear as to whether it is a problem or a benefit if one is on the list. That is my quandary at the start-point. I shall return to the question of who might be on the list at the end of a statement I wish to make as to why there is a list and to what extent it offers differential treatment from a list that might start with candlestick-makers or whatever that wonderful rhyme might be.
In looking at what special treatment, if any, should be afforded to the professions under the Bill, it is helpful to begin by recalling what their present treatment is under competition law. In the past it has been accepted that competition law should not be applied to them willy-nilly, and we need to consider the arguments.
At present, agreements in respect of the provision of many professional services are excluded from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act by virtue of Schedule 1 to the Act. That means that not only are professional

291
rules excluded, but also other agreements that members of professions might enter into, including agreements they may reach to fix prices or share markets. So those agreements do exist. No doubt that was of some comfort to members of the professions concerned, including some Members of this House.
The Government do not consider that replicating an exclusion as wide as that contained in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act would be justified. We see no reason why the normal run of agreements between members of a profession in the carrying out of their professional services should not be subject to competition law just like those of any other business. Despite what I said earlier about members of the professions, I am sure that that view is widely supported.
I do not, however, accept that professional rules are necessarily the same as the normal run of agreements into which businesses may enter, as my noble friend pointed out. Their purpose is to protect the public. They have attached to them disciplinary arrangements which often involve some judicial process and under which penalties can be severe. Enforcement of them may be reviewed judicially. They are often subject to approval by Ministers or members of the judiciary. In those ways they are a form of quasi-public law. Indeed, many professional rules have the force of statute and would not, anyway, be covered by the Chapter 1 provision. So there seems no good reason to have markedly different arrangements for members of different, even if related, professions—for example, solicitors and barristers—depending on the arrangements by which their rules are made. For those reasons, we believe it would be sensible if the Chapter 1 prohibition did not cut across the existing arrangements for making and enforcing professional rules.
Noble Lords have commented that it is all well and good but have not professional rules in the past served the purpose of protecting members of the profession and not the public? That is the point of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I wholly accept that professional rules can give rise to competition concerns. The question then is whether we can enable professional bodies to draw up rules and regulate the professions as they do now, while at the same time enabling competition considerations to be brought to bear where necessary in a focused and targeted way.
I submit that that is what the Bill does, for it requires the Director General of Fair Trading to keep the list of designated professional rules under review and to report to the Secretary of State if he considers that any of them should no longer be designated and hence be excluded from the list. The Committee will note that I said "requires". The Bill places duties upon the director to do those things.
The Secretary of State will then wish to consult—and indeed under the Bill must consult—any other Minister who has functions in relation to the profession. It is to be hoped that a professional body will have regard to any criticisms that the director may make and consider whether its rules should be amended. But it is clear that,
292
as well as being targeted on professional rules which may give rise to competition concerns, the Bill must provide a way of enforcing proper competition scrutiny. The Bill therefore enables, subject to affirmative resolution by your Lordships and in another place, the designation of a professional rule to be revoked and subjected to the Chapter 1 prohibition.
I stated at the start the need to bear in mind the present position of the professions under competition law and to consider the arguments for any special treatment. The Government do not accept that there should be a blanket exclusion from the Chapter 1 prohibition for the professions. The Government believe that, viewed as a whole, it would be unwarranted to apply prohibitions designed primarily for the private sector business to the quasi-public law processes of drawing up and enforcing professional rules. The Government accept that there needs to be appropriate competition scrutiny to prevent consumers being damaged by any anti-competitive professional rules, and believe that that needs to be done in a targeted way.
I said that in responding to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I would come back to the list. I am not sure whether this is the answer she wants. Non-mention of licensed conveyancers, osteopaths and other people on the list means that they are subject to the ordinary rules of competition. The prohibition therefore applies to all anti-competitive agreements, and the director general is free to look at them. Members have asked about the nature of the list. It is a fixed list and reflects the position under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, though adjustment to the list would be a function for those carrying out the tasks allotted to them in drawing up the new framework and applying the prohibitions.
I hope that on reflection Members of the Committee will agree that the Bill now strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the consumer by appropriate frameworks for people working in professions in order to guarantee standards and allowing the prohibitions to take their effect in those areas where we wish to see competition apply. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will withdraw her amendment and not press her opposition to Schedule 4 and that my noble friend Lord Berkeley will not move his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: The Minister has given us a full explanation and proved that I was wrong—or half-wrong—in what I asserted earlier. My attention has been drawn to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 on page 49, particularly to the end of sub-paragraph (3). That shows quite clearly that I was wrong and that the Secretary of State may by order revoke the designation if certain acts have taken place. However, the Minister has still not explained whether the Bill contains a procedure for adding to the list should that be necessary in the future. Surely one does not want primary legislation?
Lord Simon of Highbury: I think the appropriate answer is that one must always have the list under review. The appropriate balance will have to be struck

293
between what is required within a designated profession to protect the consumer and the requirement for competition to ensure that the marketplace is protected and not abused. There is currently no procedure for adding to the list. The issue is whether we should review it. I think that we can consider and review procedure.
Lord Berkeley: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, rises to speak to her amendment, perhaps I could say that I very much welcome the Minister's comments on these amendments, which I shall read very carefully. I believe that we should restrict our comments to the restrictive practices, if any, between members of the same profession. This is not about other, unqualified people joining the profession but about whether there is opportunity for fair competition between members of the profession. be they public limited companies, professionals or whatever. We should consider carefully whether the professions can and do regulate themselves in the interests of consumers.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank Members of the Committee for the debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, felt unable to take part. I have great respect for him and the work that he did at the Office of Fair Trading. Perhaps it was sufficient for me to refer to his achievements.
I am very grateful for the points that have been made, some of which I had missed. When I made enquiries to find out why there was a problem I was given all sorts of fudges, such as that under European law there is no ruling that professional rules constitute an agreement and that professional rules are part of public law or quasi public law. It was all pretty unsatisfactory and it does not sound much better now.
I will admit to an interest. I am the mother of a barrister, so I understand what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said. However, I find it odd that people who make rules for themselves would be admonished by someone else and would then consider whether they should change their rules. In the meantime, a member of the general public who has been hurt, maimed, done-badly-to, has to sit back while the professionals consult themselves on their own rules. It is like putting children in a sweet shop and telling them to make up the rules as to how many sweets they should eat. I do not accept that argument.
I hope I am right in believing that the Minister said that he would consider the procedure following the request of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I welcome that. I was pleased to see the amount of work being done in the corner following my questions. It was gratifying to see civil servants, and indeed some Ministers, on their hands and knees with bits of paper. I can only assume that some of the questions were interesting and exciting, though some of the answers that I received were not very satisfactory.
I do not understand why we cannot keep professional rules within the Chapter 1 prohibition so that the OFT has power to investigate and take action over rules that are anti-competitive. I do not understand why the
294
Government, who are so keen on being in Europe, which is very much against any form of self-regulation, intend to continue with the rules as they are now. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this point. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment at this time but reserve the right to speak again on the subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("or)
(e) Schedule (Exclusion for vertical agreements)").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 seeks to add to Clause 3(1) a fifth category of exclusion for vertical agreements. Amendment 53 sets out an appropriate definition of "vertical agreements", which will form the new schedule. Essentially it proposes that all vertical agreements be excluded save for two categories: those which have the character of price-fixing agreements and those made in contemplation of a parallel agreement between competitors.
I believe it was accepted by the Minister during the debate on Second Reading that the Government were contemplating the possibility of that approach but felt themselves in difficulties about how to put it into execution. The alternative approach would be to include vertical agreements and then have a raft of parallel exemptions and home-grown block exemptions, which—if the experience of the European Community is anything to go by—would be numerous and complex and would have to be renewed at frequent intervals.
I am aware that the European Community is currently looking at the question of vertical agreements. We do not know what conclusions it will reach, but it is highly likely that what will emerge will be, if not a new regime based on the one proposed in these amendments, an extremely light regime. In those circumstances, and given that we are talking about smaller enterprises than those that will be subject to the Community regime, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 14 which is along the same lines, but drafted differently to incorporate my concerns that, first, the Government should be able to draw in general classes of these agreements which are seen at the time to be anti-competitive and, secondly, that the director general should have that power with regard to specific agreements when they are brought to his attention, but, if so, that there should be no retrospection in the penalty which he imposes.
I have one particular concern which I suspect arises from the drafting of Amendment No. 53, where the concept of "connected" is introduced. Perhaps it goes back to a lack of understanding of the definition of "undertaking". Is "undertaking" defined in this Bill in such a way that it is necessary to introduce this concept of connection? I cannot find a definition, so perhaps the Minister could elucidate on that.
Baroness O'Cathain: Generally, I support the proposition that vertical agreements are largely benign.
I have one particular concern which I suspect arises from the drafting of Amendment No. 53, where the concept of "connected" is introduced. Perhaps it goes back to a lack of understanding of the definition of "undertaking". Is "undertaking" defined in this Bill in such a way that it is necessary to introduce this concept of connection? I cannot find a definition, so perhaps the Minister could elucidate on that.
Baroness O'Cathain: Generally, I support the proposition that vertical agreements are largely benign.
I have one particular concern which I suspect arises from the drafting of Amendment No. 53, where the concept of "connected" is introduced. Perhaps it goes back to a lack of understanding of the definition of "undertaking". Is "undertaking" defined in this Bill in such a way that it is necessary to introduce this concept of connection? I cannot find a definition, so perhaps the Minister could elucidate on that.
Baroness O'Cathain: Generally, I support the proposition that vertical agreements are largely benign.

295
Amendment No. 53 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 and I am worried because Amendment No. 53 excludes all vertical agreements other than price fixing, and price fixing is not always transparent. A lot of people know exactly what is going on and this came out at Second Reading of the Bill.
Some vertical agreements can act against the interests of the consumer. I would draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that, as I read it, a blanket exclusion would prevent the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading from investigating cases where there are clear abuses.
I should like to see some amendment whereby the effect of this exclusion of vertical agreements could be judged by the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading; in other words, to give him some power to make an economic assessment, to investigate the real effect of the exclusion of vertical agreements, rather than looking at these vertical agreements themselves. I hope I have made myself clear.
Lord Borrie: I have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has just said. We did have a consensus around the Chamber earlier on and the noble Lord the Minister, if I do not understate what he said, indicated that the prohibition in Chapter I of this Bill is a prohibition of agreements which have meaningful and appreciable adverse effect on competition. If that is so, and if there are vertical agreements apart from price fixing agreements that might have an appreciable adverse affect on competition, then why should they not be within the prohibition? For reasons similar to those of the noble Baroness I am not keen on a blanket exclusion.
The other point which I should like to make is that if at some point in the near future there is a greater definition given by the European authorities to what vertical agreements should be exempt, then it seems rather odd if we devise or agree in this Bill to have a definition of vertical agreements, which are excluded from the prohibition, which may be out of line with that forthcoming exemption that the European authorities may devise.
At this stage, I feel it may be unwise to agree an exemption of this sort.
Lord Simon of Highbury: A great deal has been said in this debate with which I can agree. I accept that if we can adequately exclude vertical agreements, the new competition regime will operate with more certainty, and the administrative burden on the Office of Fair Trading, caused by people seeking clearance of their agreements for safety's sake, is going to be reduced. We have all agreed that that is devoutly to be desired.
It will enable the director general to concentrate his resources on the kinds of agreements and conduct which are a real source of competition concern. We all know, and it has been mentioned, that many vertical agreements are benign and only become a source of concern when the party has market power, in which case they can be dealt with under the Fair Trading Act or under Chapter II prohibition. So that follows.
296
That being said, it would be as well not to overstate, as I fear some noble Lords may be at risk of doing, the impact of the Bill on vertical agreements, such as an agreement between an undertaking and its customer or supplier. Many such agreements are in no sense anti-competitive and a Chapter I prohibition in the Bill, therefore, would not apply to them.
Furthermore, many of those agreements that may have an effect on competition should be perfectly capable of individual or block exemption. Indeed, many will, without further ado, be exempted under the Bill since they will have been exempted under Article 85 and provisions in Clause 10 on parallel exemptions. That will ensure that they are automatically exempt from the Chapter I prohibition.
As many noble Lords will know, the treatment of vertical agreements under Article 85 is currently under review in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, mentioned that fact. If, for example, the Commission were to provide for wider exemptions for vertical agreements, agreements to which those exemptions applied likewise should automatically be exempt from Chapter I prohibition under the terms of the Bill.
Nevertheless, as I have said, I can see that there would certainly be an advantage in excluding vertical agreements from Chapter I prohibition. That is why the Bill provides the power to make exclusions from the Chapter I prohibition, in certain circumstances, by order. The Bill also provides for an exclusion, once made, to be varied. This is to help ensure that any exclusion remains appropriate in the light of developing experience.
The difficulty is, of course, how to frame a definition which is of real practical benefit in giving comfort to businesses that their agreements are not at risk from the prohibition, without at the same time allowing seriously anti-competitive agreements to avoid the application of the Chapter I prohibition. We cannot claim to have cracked the conundrum yet although the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, encouraged me to crack it as fast as I could. I do regret that. However, we have made progress in discussions with business in identifying the considerations that will need to be taken into account in the drafting. In accordance with our approach of close and detailed consultation in order to bring forward this Bill, we shall be continuing the dialogue so that we draw up a suitable definition.
I will certainly reflect carefully on the points which have been made by the noble Lords. Unfortunately, the process of consultation will necessarily take time. I believe that it is right that it should because we know the difficulty of what we are attempting here. I would hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment to allow that process to continue. In summary, I would say that as an ex-businessman, and after listening to noble Lords' arguments, I attach considerable importance to finding a solution and a suitable definition regarding this problem.
In turning to definitions—this may not encourage the noble Lord as much—I should like to respond to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the definition of an undertaking. The definition of an

297
undertaking is the definition standing in Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. I understand that an undertaking is an undertaking.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps the noble Lord will undertake to crack this conundrum before the Report stage of the Bill. It would make such a difference to business if there were real certainty in this area. It is not so much the fear that if there is not an exclusion a great many firms will be caught by the rules—I do not think they will—but the uncertainty that will continue if there is not an exclusion, which will lead to compliance costs being needlessly expended by those firms. However, in the spirit of the Minister's answer, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3. line 6. leave out ("or removing").
The noble Lord said: I simply wish to inquire of the Minister which bits he is thinking of removing; and if he is not thinking of removing any bits, why he needs this power. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The powers in Clauses 3 and 19 of the Bill are important and extensive. Their broad purpose is to ensure that the prohibitions remain targeted efficiently and effectively on areas of real concern in the light of changing economic circumstances and practical experience of the operation of the prohibitions.
In the case of the exclusions provided in respect of Schedule 1, their more specific purpose is to ensure that the exclusion for certain mergers and concentrations dealt with elsewhere under the competition law, which, as we shall doubtless see in our discussion on a later group of amendments, is a very difficult line to draw, can be refined if their operation shows that there are gaps or overlaps.
The ability to amend or remove a case in Schedule 1 with respect to the Chapter I prohibition at present extends only to new cases added under the power in Clause 3 and to the planning obligations case. This is because that is the only specific exclusion of particular agreements as opposed to exclusions based on general propositions or on powers to exclude which the rest of Schedule 3 provides. If, during the course of our deliberations, we were to add further specific exclusions to the schedule—and, as I shall explain in the debate on a later group of amendments, I am continuing to receive representations for them—the Government may propose that the Clause 3 power to amend or remove should apply to them.
The Government have no proposals in mind to exercise the powers to remove exclusion cases, but we believe that the ability to refine the exclusion for the purposes I have mentioned must include the ability to remove a case. As the noble Lord will be aware, your Lordships' Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers has specifically reported that these
298
powers are acceptable. If the Secretary of State were, however, to propose to remove a case under Clauses 3 or 19, or otherwise exercise her powers under those clauses, the Bill contains a significant safeguard. By virtue of Clause 67, the order cannot be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House. Your Lordships would therefore have the opportunity to debate, and if necessary divide, should noble Lords be concerned about the exercise of the power to remove an exclusion case which we are incorporating in the Bill.
In the light of that safeguard, I hope the noble Lord is able to see the case for the withdrawal of the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for that extensive explanation. It satisfies my every desire and indeed goes further in confirming the right of this House to divide on affirmative resolutions. I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Enactments replaced]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 16. after ("practices)") insert ("and those sections of the Fair Trading Act 1973 relating to monopoly investigations").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment sets out to ensure that the provisions relating to complex and scale monopoly investigations will cease to have effect. The effect of the present proposals in the Bill for a wide-ranging general prohibition on the abuse of market power combined with the retention of both the complex and scale monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act will be to impose a more extensive regime for regulating the competitive behaviour of firms than presently exists in the United Kingdom. Indeed, as we understand it, it would provide for the imposition of a more extensive regime than anywhere else in Europe or North America, and, for all we know, anywhere else in the world.
We see no pressing need for such heavy regulation. The Minister knows of our agreement with the approach that has been taken on matters of ensuring competition, but we really must do what we can to avoid an unnecessary degree of regulation. This may be the most important area where that seems likely to be imposed. What is of particular concern to us is that this combination of powers seems to have been undertaken without any real research into its potential effects on the United Kingdom economy. If I am wrong about that, and the Government have undertaken a careful assessment of how these sets of powers will interplay and can come to the conclusion that, contrary to what I am saying, there is not an unnecessary degree of heavy regulation, I hope the Minister will spell that out.
The concern I express has been put to us from a wide range of business interests. Even if the Minister cannot indicate immediately that he will look again at the way

299
these provisions interplay, I hope he will at least leave the Committee with an undertaking that before we return to the matter at Report stage he will have looked at it.
Lord Borrie: I should like quite strongly to oppose the amendment. I have wrestled with my conscience in case this was in part due to some long-standing affection for parts of the Fair Trading Act which, as Director General of Fair Trading, I, from time to time, employed in asking the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to make studies of particular industries under the scale monopoly or complex monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act. But I do not think it is just that view, which might be personal to myself.
The Chapter I prohibition, as stated several times when we were dealing with that part of the Bill, concerns agreements and concerted practices. Agreements have to be established in order to suggest that they should be prohibited. I suggest that there has to be evidence of concerted practices before one can say that there are such between two or more firms. Sometimes there is similarity of conduct of a fairly remarkable kind between firms in the same industry but no evidence of agreement, of meetings in hotel back rooms, or of anything to show that they have concerted deliberately in the activity of, let us say, keeping up prices. Nevertheless there is a parallel activity between the companies concerned which inhibits competition and is damaging to customers. At the present time and, indeed, for the past 40 years, it has been possible for that kind of parallel conduct between firms to be examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on a reference of complex monopoly provisions from the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading.
It would be a pity to get rid of those provisions when there is a gap between what can be proved as an agreement or concerted practice under Chapter I and what can be regarded as an abuse of a dominant position of a single company under Chapter II.That is my case for suggesting that we should retain the possibility of complex monopoly references being made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which in future will be called the competition commission.
As regards scale monopolies, the case is less strong: nonetheless I make it because if one examines the remedies in the Bill where an abuse of a dominant position is established and proved one does not find among those remedies the possibility of a structural remedy such as a demerger or the separation of certain activities of one firm from another in order to create a more competitive situation. While being a remedy which, in this and other countries, has been very rare indeed, it is one which is available in our law at the moment. It would be a pity if it were lost in order to deal with the more extreme kind of abuse of monopoly power. What is wanted is not the simple imposition of a penalty for conduct but a much more sophisticated structural remedy imposed by the competition authority.
My final point is that this is a new Bill. I know that we are following the method of dealing with anti-competitive practices in the European Community. There is a great deal of experience there from the
300
European authorities. But this is a new Bill for the United Kingdom. It seems to me undesirable that we should throw overboard the possibility of references under the Fair Trading Act in order to rely solely on what is for United Kingdom law something entirely new; namely, the prohibitions and their particular wording in Chapters I and H.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for the voice of experience in what is quite a complicated and important part of the debate, as we recognised at Second Reading. There is no doubt that the new prohibition will be the principal weapon against abuse of dominance. It is also clear that the current regime under the Fair Trading Act and the Competition Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has pointed out, based on his experience, has very significant failings and badly needs strengthening. I do not believe that we would wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, says, this is a new Bill and at this stage we believe there is a very strong case for retaining the Fair Trading Act monopoly provisions to enable investigations to be conducted into markets in cases where competition issues arise from the structure of the market rather than from anti-competitive agreements or specific abuses by a dominant company. The current regime under the Fair Trading Act enables wide-ranging and impartial investigation of such situations by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It also provides scope for a wide range of remedies—and that is important—to be imposed if matters are found to be contrary to the public interest. With that sort of approach it is right that the imposition of remedies should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and that the responsibility should rest with Ministers.
I believe that it is widely recognised that the complex monopoly provisions fill a gap between the two prohibitions. The Chapter I prohibition will deal very effectively with anti-competitive agreements and the Chapter II prohibition with abuses by single dominant companies. But the complex monopoly provisions will continue to be a more effective tool for dealing with anti-competitive parallel behaviour by companies where there is no agreement between them.
We also believe that the scale monopoly provisions will continue to have value although we do not intend that their use should be limited with the introduction of the new prohibitions. In future we do not expect references to be made of scale monopolies except in circumstances where there has already been proven abuse under the prohibition and where the DGFT believes that there is a real prospect of future abuses by the same firm. In these circumstances the structural remedies available under the Fair Trading Act may provide a more effective means of preventing further abuses.
The final point I need to make to the Committee is that it should be aware that the use of the scale monopoly provisions as regards the regulated utility sectors is the subject of separate consideration in the context of the current utility review. As Members of the Committee will know, that is due for report and

301
consultation at the beginning of the new year so we need to take into account the timetable for that review in considering the progress of our discussions on this Bill.
In summary, the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act will essentially become reserve powers to deal with situations where the problem is market structure rather than abuse. It is for that reason that 1 mention to the Committee the issue of the utility review and the issues which surround it specifically in terms of those scale provisions. We believe that the provisions will continue to have value in such limited circumstances. I have listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser—
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall respond more fully to what the noble Lord has said, but there is one matter I am interested in in relation to the utility review. When does he anticipate the reporting? Is it likely that that will happen before the Report stage of the Bill? Is there a prospect of seeing it before then?
Lord Simon of Highbury: I think it is unlikely, but I shall confirm that point later. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has noted our thought processes with regard to the issue of scale monopolies. I have tried to explain why I believe that it would be unwise of the Committee to throw out the baby with the bath water at this stage. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made and shall certainly reflect on them, but for the present I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which reveals a rather surprising lack of confidence in the efficacy of the two prohibitions which are at the core of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, seemed to be promoting not so much a belt-and-braces approach to the problems, but rather an approach based on handcuffs, manacles, shackles and leg-irons.
Although I listened to what the Minister said and we certainly do not intend to press the amendment this evening, we remain to be convinced that there is anything like the gap or the risk at which both the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, with his great experience, and the Minister hinted. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, correctly, he was getting pretty close to conceding that, at least as far as scale monopolies are concerned, it is more difficult for him to advance any particularly obvious gap. If that is the case, we shall want to consider this more carefully. It will be unfortunate if we do not have the utilities review by the time that we return to this amendment at a later stage. We shall certainly want to examine whether there are any gaps to be filled, because if there are any gaps we want them to be filled.
For the sake of UK business we should not have unnecessarily heavy regulations and any duplication must be kept to the bare minimum. In our view, it is probably highly unnecessary to retain this set of complicated legislative provisions at the same time as
302
introducing the two prohibitions. We shall want to return to this but, for this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Abuse of dominant position]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, 1 cannot call Amendments Nos. 18 and 24.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) Predatory pricing or price discrimination by a dominant firm, which is carried out with the intention and has the effect of eliminating a competitor or of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market, shall be prohibited.").
The noble and learned Lord said: As I said earlier, although we now come to a fairly extensive grouping it seems more desirable if I speak to my Amendments Nos. 17 and 24, leaving the other amendments for debate in another grouping. I hope that the reasoning behind my suggestion will emerge from what I am about to say.
Our concern is that the present basis of the introduction of a prohibition into the United Kingdom of abuse of a dominant position, if it is directly based on the wording of Article 86, means that there will be insufficient clarification and inadequate precision with regard to the type of conduct being prohibited. We are concerned that uncertainty as to the reach of the prohibition will not have the intended effect of deterring anti-competitive behaviour. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, appreciates that we share his objective of deterring anti-competitive behaviour.
A further concern which I expressed on Second Reading is that where there is uncertainty there is a risk of a "chilling effect"—if I may use again the language of the CBI—on competition and commercial responses in the market place. If that were to be the case, it would be very unsatisfactory and ultimately damaging for the UK economy.
Our next concern is that business should be clear about exactly what type of behaviour will give rise to the use of the powers of investigation, including the potential for criminal penalties, and which will potentially be subject to large fines.
I could provide the Committee with a number of examples to demonstrate our concerns, but at this stage it may be sufficient for me to limit myself to the case of Tetra Pak II, with which I believe a number of your Lordships are familiar. It was concluded that if a company is dominant in one market it can infringe Article 86 by its conduct in other, separate markets which are linked to the first, but where the company is not dominant.
Following that through, let us take as an example a company which is dominant in one market and makes vehicles which rely on the internal combustion engine. Would there be a real risk of the company being

303
severely constrained if it wished to innovate and enter a new market—again, providing vehicles, but where the movement was powered by electricity? In such a new market, the company will have to act from day one as if it were dominant. It would not, for example, be able to select its customers freely, establish prices freely or target discounts at particular sectors.
On the basis of what I understand to be a correct interpretation of the Tetra Pak II case, that would have the effect of reducing such a company's incentive to innovate and invest in the other market. Accordingly, we would suggest that a better way to achieve deterrence of anti-competitive behaviour would be to rely instead on the definition in my Amendment No. 17.
Perhaps I may turn now to my next amendment in the grouping, Amendment No. 24. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that for the purposes of a Chapter II prohibition abuse cannot be found unless dominance is used to achieve it. It requires that dominance must be the cause of the abuse. We had some exchanges at Second Reading on this with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. In our view, there is nothing wrong with a company being big. That should not make it subject to penalty or prohibition. The problem occurs when a company has dominance in a market place and abuses that dominance. We believe that the amendment would spell that out more clearly and thus improve the Bill. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: Perhaps I may weigh in on these issues. What guides me is the underlying principle of there being a social duty to pay a fair value for a product and so, by extension, a general duty to prevent producers or providers of services going bankrupt or facing undue financial hardship through any particular buying or anti-competition strategy.
I have two principal areas of concern. I deal with one of them in a substantive way and touch on the other, not least to register a potential problem area. My first point stems from a circumstance that arose in 1995 with Asda supermarkets. I mention Asda simply to give relevance to my short case study. One of Asda's operations totally undermined the political efforts of the government of the day to defend the European Union banana import regime which honoured the Lome commitment to provide an accessible and viable market for traditional ACP producers. That policy has been confirmed by both the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on a number of occasions when I have raised this issue in your Lordships' House.
Asda took a marketing decision to offer certain heavily discounted merchandise to draw customers into their stores. Its rationale in taking that policy decision was to use bananas as a loss leader in an attempt to improve overall store revenues. My involvement arose when it became clear that Caribbean banana growers were suffering acutely as that policy placed immense downward pressure on retail and wholesale prices, and ultimately on the returns to those producers; in other words, ultimately the growers paid for this marketing
304
strategy. I believe that Asda could have been charged with manipulating the banana market in a cavalier fashion without due regard to the consequences. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, while in opposition, put the matter in the following way in a Question to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, asking if the Minister was aware,
"that the situation involves apparent predatory pricing by powerful supermarkets?".—[0fficial Report, 2/11/95: col. 1501.]
The previous Administration felt that it would be difficult for them formally to intervene as technically Asda was not operating outside the rules. A suggestion had been made that the Office of Fair Trading's rules on predatory pricing had been broken either by a breach of the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Competition Act 1980. To test that would have meant taking initiating action in the courts similar to that initiated by the leading manufacturers of over-the-counter drugs. All of those major multinational pharmaceutical companies were able to secure an injunction which prevented Asda from selling over-the-counter drugs at reduced prices. It was with regret that the high cost of litigation dissuaded the Caribbean interested parties. I should like to be assured that that does not happen again. I should be grateful if the Government—and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, if he were able—could assure me that my concerns will be appropriately addressed.
From a recent editorial it has come to the attention of many that British Airways is considering setting up its own low-cost carrier, with the fear that it is prepared to lose money to eliminate small competitors. Once they have been eliminated fares will be raised again. The European Commission has stated that it wishes to operate an open skies policy with free and fair competition within Europe. Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome already outlaws predatory pricing, with the effect that a dominant player in a market may not sell its products below cost price with the intention of eliminating a smaller competitor.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. I should declare an interest as a director of British Airways. I do not believe that the noble Viscount is fair in his comment about British Airways giving consideration to setting up a low-cost no-frills airline. I assure the noble Viscount that the last thing British Airways would do is to set up a no-frills low-cost airline with the absolute certainty that it would lose money in order to maintain its competitive position. That is certainly no part of the thinking of British Airways, and I believe that it is quite wrong for the noble Viscount to make that comment.
Viscount Waverley: I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I hope in turn that British Airways will not set up a low-cost airline that will have the effect of preventing other low-cost carriers from offering low prices within the European Union.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Viscount for again giving way. In no way can the noble Viscount say that British Airways should not set up a low-cost no-frills airline. British Airways is not necessarily going

305
to set it up, but it is thinking about it, and that is generally agreed. Why should British Airways be prevented from setting up a low-cost no-frills airline if it will lose money? It is in an open and competitive business. Certainly, it will not set up such a business necessarily to put someone else out of business, but it is an open market. The purpose of this Bill is to make sure that in the end the customer has greater choice and is not penalised by agreements.
Viscount Waverley: This has been a useful exchange. I look forward to seeing tomorrow in greater detail the comments of the noble Baroness. I should draw to her attention that such issues are covered by Article 86. Let us see how the whole gameplan unfolds. The Minister may wish to comment on a number of the points that the noble Baroness has made in relation to British Airways.
Lord Borrie: I have some difficulty in understanding the extreme width of Amendment No. 17 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. If I understand it correctly, the amendment would remove altogether the Chapter II prohibition on the abuse of a dominant position. Among all of the abuses of monopoly power that can exist, including forcing people to take goods that they do not want in order to get goods that they do want, the noble and learned Lord has inserted merely one kind of abuse which is predatory pricing and given it a definition. If I am correct in what I say, I wonder about the definition of predatory pricing in Amendment No. 17. The noble and learned Lord will recall that the Chapter I prohibition concerns agreements which have the intention or effect of restricting competition. In the amendment the definition of predatory pricing or price discrimination by a dominant firm is that it must be both with that intention and effect. It appears to me that that is a much more difficult proposition to establish and that it removes a great deal of the mischief with which the Chapter II prohibition is intended to deal.
Lord Haskel: I believe that we are considering Amendments Nos. 17 and 24. It is not for me to enter into the argument between the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount. However, I believe that both should welcome the Bill since it sets up a mechanism for settling their dispute. I hope that those are words of comfort.
Clause 18 prohibits the use of dominant market position. That prohibition is closely modelled on Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome. By virtue of Clause 58 of the Bill the prohibition will be applied so as to avoid inconsistency with the interpretation of Article 86. As a result, the principles applied in interpreting what may constitute an abuse of a dominant position under European law will be applied in the same way under the domestic prohibition. This is of crucial importance because it will ensure that business can look to European Community jurisprudence as a guide to the interpretation of abuse under the domestic prohibition and that business will not have to deal with differing prohibitions at European and domestic level. I hope that that deals with the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser.
306
For that reason the illustrative list in Clause 18(2) is drawn directly from Article 86. It would be wrong to tinker with the list. To have a different list would seriously risk creating a divergence between the domestic and European prohibitions. For the reasons I have explained, that would be highly undesirable. As to the specific changes proposed they add nothing in practice to the prohibition.
Turning to Amendment No. 17, this removes the general prohibition from the Bill and replaces it with a narrow prohibition directed solely at predatory pricing and price discrimination, as my noble friend Lord Borrie said. This undermines the objective of the Bill to introduce a general prohibition of abuse of dominance in line with European jurisprudence.
Amendment No. 24 relates to abuses based on economic strength in another market. Again, EC case law shows that in certain circumstances Article 86 may apply where an undertaking that is dominant in one market commits an abuse in a different, neighbouring market.
The list in Clause 18(2), like the one in Article 86, is illustrative and not exhaustive. Depending on the circumstances, different types of behaviour might constitute an abuse. However, behaviour of the type set out in the list would not necessarily be an abuse because each case will turn on the structure of the market and the effect of the conduct in question. This will deal with the noble Viscount's question regarding the bananas, about which he was so obviously concerned. It is, after all, the effect that is important to customers and to other firms.
In short, the prohibition introduced by Clause 18 fulfils the Government's commitment to bringing forward stronger legislation to prohibit abuse of dominance in the economy as a whole. In view of this explanation, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It will be clear that at this time of night on a Thursday we do not intend to press amendments to a Division. But the night is still young. Certainly, just before dinner, I do not propose to press this amendment to a Division.
This amendment seeks to achieve a clear separation or distinction between the Article 86 provisions in the treaty and what is in this Bill. It may be that it could be expanded to cover another set of clearly identified types of abuse, but what it is intended to do is to highlight two matters; one of which is, as I said at Second Reading, that there is a clear concern expressed by British industry that the effect may be to have a chilling effect on innovation in the market place. I am sure that the noble Lord agrees that such a consequence would be undesirable.
We are disappointed that there seems to be little acknowledgement from the Government that any such risk might exist. If it does exist, I hope that there will not be a shrug of indifferent shoulders from the Government on such an important matter.

307
The second matter is this. In my example I highlighted the case of Tetra Pak II. I hoped to tease out from the Government whether they had any concerns about the way the jurisprudence of the ECJ had developed; that it was going too far to say that if you are dominant in one market it has far greater significance on how you have to act in another market. That seems to be the consequence of Tetra Pak II and it is undesirable and going too far. What we and organisations such as the CBI wish to highlight is that that might have an effect on the innovation expected in the market place and introduce a greater degree of uncertainty than is desirable.
I am not going to press these amendments but before this Bill leaves this House we want to be satisfied that the concerns that I and organisations such as the CBI have expressed are unfounded. We also want to be satisfied that there is a clearer and greater confidence about the way that the jurisprudence of the ECJ is developing and that the Government believe, at this time and at this stage, that none of it is prejudicial or undesirable in the development of the United Kingdom market.
We shall undoubtedly return at a later stage in an attempt to obtain answers to those two issues. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 17.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 10, line 19, after ("position") insert ("in a market").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 18 and 27 is to ensure that Clause 18(3) is not read as limiting the relevant geographic market for assessing dominance to the United Kingdom. It has never been our intention that it should do so, but it is important that the drafting of the legislation is not ambiguous on this point.
In order to assess whether an undertaking holds a dominant market position it is necessary to establish what the relevant market is. Clause 18 is modelled closely on Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome. There is considerable EC case law concerning the principles for defining the relevant market. By virtue of Clause 58 of the Bill these principles will also apply in determining whether an undertaking is dominant for the purposes of the UK prohibition.
In addition, the director general is required under the Bill to issue guidelines as to how he intends to apply the prohibitions. The definitions of the market and the interpretation of dominance is a key issue which we would expect to be covered in the guidelines. That, I hope, will go some way to removing the chill of the chilling effect; although it does not seem to have chilled our competition on the Continent, which has been operating under these conditions for some time and competing very strongly.
308
As currently drafted, Clause 18(3) defines a dominant position as,
"a dominant position in the market within the United Kingdom".
It is necessary to specify that there must be dominance within the United Kingdom to ensure that the legislation does not catch firms which are dominant in markets wholly outside the UK. However, Clause 18(3) is not intended to limit the relevant market to the UK.
As a person who has practised business, and with particular responsibilities for single market issues, I am very well aware of the challenges and opportunities presented by increasingly global markets. Indeed, we wish to encourage our companies into them and many of them compete in those markets which extend considerably beyond the UK.
The competition that these companies face in these markets, both at home and abroad, must be fully recognised in assessing whether or not these companies are dominant. In the interests of clarity, therefore, Amendment No. 27 deletes the reference to the market within the UK in Clause 18(3). Here we are interested only in market dominance, not any other sort of dominance which one might conceivably think of. That is why we originally included the reference to the market in Clause 18(3). Because Amendment No. 27 would delete this reference, Amendment No. 18 inserts "in a market" in Clause 18(1). The amendments are to define dominance in the wider market place, and separate that out as a test issue, and then to refer to the UK as a specific instance outside that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 10, line 23, at end insert ("or deliberately accepting losses in order to reduce competition").
The noble Lord said: The most hostile audience I ever addressed when I was a Member of Parliament for Stockport was when I was introduced with the memorable words:
"Before we start the bingo, we will have some words from our Member of Parliament".
The last mover of amendments before the dinner hour faces an equally hostile audience. So perhaps I can calm the Committee by saying that I intend to move only Amendment No. 19, and to use the opportunity to speak to Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 28 which I shall not move.
As was indicated earlier, my intention in moving the amendment is to deal with issues within a particular industry—the newspaper industry. The amendments are couched in general terms. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, some of the issues raised may relate to other sectors and other industries. In short, the purpose of Amendment No. 19 is to prevent a firm from purposely making a loss to damage weaker competition.
Amendment No. 21 replicates the wording used in the US Sherman anti-trust laws. Amendment No. 22 addresses the problem of predatory pricing which, as currently defined, requires the predator to be the dominant undertaking in the same market in which the abuse is carried out. Amendment No. 28 is similar

309
to Amendment No. 22 in that it would redefine the use of "market" to refer to a firm being dominant in just one particular sector of the market.
My clear intention in moving the amendment is to deal with the particular problems of the newspaper industry. We in this country are proud of the diversity of our press and of the high level of readership. We see such diversity as underpinning our democracy. The relationship between a free Parliament and a free Press should never be comfortable but they should be mutually supportive. That is why I want to use the opportunity of the Competition Bill to enable us to consider what I believe to be a deep malaise in the newspaper industry, which stems from weaknesses in our competition law and which threaten its diversity and choice.
It is only to be expected that the amendments may be seen in terms of being anti-Murdoch or anti-News International. Indeed, yesterday in his own paper, The Times, Mr. Murdoch is quoted as saying:
"No way will I call a truce. No one else wants to call a truce. They insult me everyday. so they can go to hell. People do not much seem to like competition in this country".
Mr. Murdoch is an aggressive competitor. He steps on a lot of toes, but I am not in the business of protecting anyone from fair competition from the Murdoch press. What I am concerned about is that we have allowed to grow up in the newspaper industry a competition regime more lax than anywhere in the world. That laxity is based upon the definition of "dominant position", which takes no account of the ability of major media conglomerates to cross-subsidise, loss-lead, and predatory price in a way which would not be tolerated in any other industry.
I hope sincerely that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendments. In opposition, the Labour Party showed itself to be most robust in these matters. I could delay the Committee by giving some long quotes from Mr. Nigel Griffiths. I would recommend to the Minister that he looks hard and long at his speeches, because I fear that he will have them quoted at him ad nauseam over the next few months and years. I think I would ask to move to the Foreign Office in the next reshuffle.
The problem is that in the newspaper industry it seems that it is not enough for a victim to be bleeding. Apparently our present legislation requires a corpse before the OFT will act. Such a response is just not good enough if we are not to see irreparable damage done to the newspaper industry. Let us look around. The Independent is no longer independent, but needs the support and protection of larger groups. The idea of a similar venture being attempted against the background of present day newspaper economics is unthinkable.
Not one of our major broadsheets operates on anything like a commercial basis. Yet The Times sells regularly on Mondays at a price which is blatantly below cost. Media analysts believe that that aggressive price cutting is aimed at undermining the Daily Telegraph. It certainly seems to be working, with Daily Telegraph profits down from over £60 million to under £1 million. It is estimated that The Times itself is losing
310
£30 million a year, financed through cross-subsidy by other parts of News International. That is a publication which has, over the past four years, regularly sold at less than half its true costs on Mondays.
There is something rotten at the heart of our newspaper financing. What other industry, which generates revenue of over £700 million, produces overall losses of £50 million, and is still supposed to be operating commercially? Big issues and powerful forces are at work here. They go to the heart not just of the economics of our newspaper industry but the functioning of our parliamentary democracy. This is a government who came to office with a powerful mandate to improve our system of government in all its aspects. Included in that programme of reform must be a healthy and truly competitive press. I urge Ministers to accept the amendments, not just as good competition law, but as a fulfilment of that wider mandate to reform. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: Amendment No. 23 is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. My amendment has a similar purpose, but is slightly different. If I may describe it as such, it is the vertical approach rather than the horizontal one. With great respect to the noble Lord, my amendment may be preferable as it would clearly not reach other sectors of business. The horizontal approach could apply to other businesses, and so it could be argued that that could produce unacceptable curbs on price competition in other industries.
I do not believe that the law can prohibit the acceptance of losses, deliberate or otherwise. Market conditions can sometimes force all the participants in an industry into loss and give them no alternative but to accept the result. If a market is overcrowded, prices are likely to fall until the surplus is eliminated. In such conditions it will be hard to set prices that did not have the result of possible losses.
It could be argued that my approach is contrary to the statement made by the Secretary of State in her White Paper in August, that there was a good case for excluding most vertical agreements. It is important to stress the word "most" with regard to vertical agreements. I agree with the sentiments. That is why my amendment, unashamedly, signals that the press is different. I make no apologies for making an exception of it. It is different. Competition, plurality, and diversity in the press are even more important than they are in other industries. They are part of the fabric of democracy, and the Government should recognise that.
That is, of course, not a new concept. There is a precedent to accept that the press is a special case in competition legislation. The Fair Trading Act 1973 has different monopoly and merger conditions for the press and for other sectors of industry. Predatory pricing is accepted as an abuse, whether or not financed by cross-subsidy, but there are differing ideas of what it is. Dominance can be in one sector, and abuse can be in another. It is unlawful only if a company prices its goods below cost in the market in which it has dominance, not in other markets. That is the nub of the problem which is not addressed by the Bill.

311
If one is dominant in an industry there may be no need to embark on a predatory price war. Perhaps the only companies which do so wish to become dominant. I believe that in those cases such action should infer a presumption of dominance, whether in the same market or a separate one.
A recent editorial in the Evening Standard put the case well when it stated that newspapers, like other businesses, have competed by persuading the consumers that their product was better or better value for money. Bad competition is where those who distort the market while trying to eliminate competition entirely force their rivals to fight dirty to stay in the business, a problem that has recently been much in evidence in the press.
Interestingly, News International, despite having such a large share of the newspaper market, is reported to be sceptical that this type of amendment to the Bill, if it were accepted, would make any difference to its company's pricing policy. It denies that its pricing policy is predatory, but claims that it is market promotion and not a permanent feature. If that is its view it has nothing to fear from the amendment. However, I find its defence of its pricing policy difficult to accept. It is true that by lowering prices it has increased readership, but at a huge cost. This promotion looks pretty permanent to me!
I am not anti-Rupert Murdoch—I admire him. He sorted out the problems which afflicted Fleet Street when I worked in that industry 20 years ago. He created BSkyB, which is a huge success. News International is rightly exploiting a gap in the competition law. Murdoch likes to be successful and who can blame him? We all accept that plurality is beneficial to industry and to consumers. For this industry and for this country, it is vital.
I hesitate to bring a note of politics into the debate, but I ought to point out to Ministers opposite that Robin Cooke, when shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said in another place that Murdoch was able to cut prices only because of his profits from other interests and that we were now faced with blatant predatory pricing. That line was echoed by Mo Mowlem, when shadow Heritage spokeswoman, who said that unless action is taken Murdoch will weaken his British competitors to the point where he will dominate the market.
The noble Lord, Lord Simon, opening for the Government on Second Reading, said:
"The Bill shows our commitment to ensuring effective and fair competition. It would benefit both consumers and business".—[Official Report, 30/10/97; col. 1144.]
If the Minister really believes that, then he ought to be able to consider my amendment favourably, or will this be the case of another government U-turn?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: In taking part in this debate I must declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of Newspaper Publishing plc, which is the publisher of the Independent and the Independent on Sunday.
312
One of the most important areas of competition law which the Bill leaves untouched is the law relating to mergers between companies in general and newspapers in particular. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, rightly said, the Fair Trading Act 1973 makes special provision for newspaper mergers. Then the swallowing up of a major newspaper by another newspaper or newspaper group was properly considered to be of particular significance in a democratic society beyond mergers and takeovers in general because newspaper mergers could seriously reduce the availability of a diversity of opinion. Under the Fair Trading Act it is mandatory for reference to be made of a major newspaper merger. The Monopolies Commission is specifically required to take account,
"of the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion".
Over the years, the Monopolies Commission in a variety of reports on newspaper mergers has frequently emphasised the importance it attaches to choice of newspaper and diversity of views. All that is existing law, but I suggest that the continued availability of diverse organs of news and opinion can be ended not just by merger and takeover but by a persistent campaign of below-cost price cutting on the part of one newspaper group which is well able to cross-subsidise from other businesses to the detriment of certain newspaper groups.
The pricing policy of The Times newspaper, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, regularly to sell at 10p on Mondays, has repeatedly threatened the continued existence of the Independent. That distorts competition with the Daily Telegraph and other broadsheet newspapers and, I have no doubt, has a serious exclusionary effect because it is likely to deter those who might otherwise think of entering the market. Who today, I ask, would dare to start a new broadsheet newspaper, as was done by Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith and others when the Independent was started in 1986? It seems to me that such persistent conduct should be regarded as seriously damaging to the competitive process and as an abuse of dominant position. Therefore, I feel favourably disposed—and I hope that the Minister will feel favourably disposed—towards either or both of the amendments that have been proposed today.
Lord Ackner: I support everything said by the noble Lord. Lord Borrie. It must be a fundamental purpose behind Clause 18 that abuses of power should be prevented. What has been described seems to me to be a most blatant indication of power being abused. As has been stated, competition has been distorted and the diversity of opinion among the press is threatened. There is a threat to the very freedom and variety of expression. I should have thought that it would be remarkable if this Government were not prepared to see such a situation properly catered for. That is not the case as Clause 18 now stands.
Lord Haskel: The concern of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for predatory pricing in the newspaper industry has been well documented and I have a great deal of sympathy. He has conducted the campaign well

313
and with a great deal of ability. However, it would be quite wrong of me to comment on the specific complaints relating to the newspaper industry as discussed. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a legal framework under which the Director General of Fair Trading, the Competition Commission and the courts can assess whether individual agreements and conduct are anti-competitive. I shall therefore restrict my comments to the issues of principle raised by the amendments. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that when Sir Bryan Carsberg was Director General of Fair Trading he rejected previous complaints, taking the view that the decision of The Times to reduce its prices was a reasonable commercial strategy.
The amendments relate to predatory pricing tactics; that is, price cutting designed to force competitors out of the market or to discourage new competitors from entering the market. However, it is perfectly clear that such practices carried out by a dominant undertaking may constitute an abuse under Article 86 of the treaty, depending on the particular circumstances of the case. This Bill introduces stronger legislation on abuse of dominance and that, depending on the circumstances, also covers predatory pricing.
As well as referring specifically to the newspaper industry, the noble Viscount spoke also about vertical agreements. That is proper territory for the Director General of Fair Trading, the tribunal and the courts. This amendment carries the same risk as other amendments which seek to depart from the illustrative list in Article 86. Over and above that, it would be especially undesirable to refer in the list to any particular sector of the economy. Clause 18 is a general prohibition on abuse of dominance modelled on Article 86 and it provides a clear legal framework against which to assess whether any particular conduct is abusive and likely to restrict competition.
In view of the fact that this Bill introduces stronger legislation on abuse of dominance and covers predatory pricing, I should have thought that the noble Lord would support the Bill as drafted and withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor: Will the noble Lord confirm that if a company is dominant in one market but the abuse is in an entirely different market, that will be covered by this Bill when in the past, it has slipped through the gap?
Lord Haskel: As I said on the previous amendment on abuse of economic strength in another market, EC case law shows that in certain circumstances Article 86 may apply where an undertaking that is dominant in one market commits an abuse in a different market.
Lord McNally: I thank the Minister for his kind comments. I ask him to observe that in a fairly lightly attended Chamber, speeches of support have been made from Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Cross Bench Members of the Committee. Therefore, I hope that Ministers do not underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue. There is some disappointment that there has been such a spectacular U-turn from what the party spokesman was saying in opposition.
314
I shall not press the amendment this evening. However, I shall consult the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to see which of us can come up with the best course for the next stage of the Bill. We shall probably seek the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and even of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, if he is not too expensive.
Lord Ackner: There will be cut prices on this occasion only!
Lord McNally: I am even more encouraged. However, I warn Ministers that we may well test the opinion of the House on this matter on Report. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1997
7.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 5th August be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as frequently happens when the House debates fisheries issues, the immediately topical questions are not always those covered by the substantive motion. This is likely to be the case today when the scheme we are considering relates essentially to clearing up unfinished business while noble Lords and the fishing industry will be anxious to hear about our plans for tackling the new obligations to which the Government are committed under the terms of MAGP IV.
It may therefore be helpful if I make clear at the outset that the 1997 decommissioning scheme is aimed at reducing the shortfalls against MAGP III targets, which will otherwise carry over into MAGP IV, and does not pre-empt, prejudge or otherwise anticipate the measures which we are still considering, in consultation with the fishing industry, for the implementation of MAGP IV. The final MAGP IV figures have only just been considered by the EU's Fisheries Management Committee and remain to be formally adopted by the Commission as decisions addressed to each of the 13 maritime member states. It would therefore be premature for me to attempt any analysis of them at this stage.
It is, however, relevant that, in making its proposals for these MAGP IV decisions, we finally succeeded in persuading the Commission to reflect the various adjustments to the UK's MAGP III figures which

315
correct the long-standing impression that matters were actually worse than they really are. I understand that the corrections were extremely technical and officials are to be congratulated on the way in which the corrections were made.
The detailed position is a little complicated but is set out in full by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Elliot Morley, in a recent Written Answer to the honourable Member for Boston and Skegness. In brief this confirms that the UK has met its overall MAGP III target for power and is within 3 per cent. of the total tonnage figure in gross registered tonnage. Within that the main shortfalls are in the pelagic and beam trawl segments where there have been few candidates for decommissioning in previous rounds. There are also shortfalls in the demersal trawl and distant water segments. However, as it is proposed that the definitions of these segments should be modified in MAGP IV, the read-across in terms of carry-over is not. so direct. Nevertheless any further progress we make now—in any or all of the areas of shortfall—will help to reduce the task ahead in MAGP IV. It may again help to clarify matters later if I emphasise now that there is no objective need to decommission any more nephrops vessels to meet MAGP III targets, which were over-subscribed in this segment by some 40 per cent.
My last general observation, before turning to the details of the scheme, concerns financial provision. As the House will know, the previous administration made provision for expenditure on decommissioning totalling £53 million over five years. In the four rounds which they operated, some 8.2 per cent. of fleet capacity was removed at a cost of £36.4 million. However, their public expenditure plans for this final year of the programme contained only £12 million. By re-ordering priorities, I am pleased to be able to announce that we have been able to increase this to a maximum of £14.5 million, subject, of course, to the value for money of the bids received. But, as I said, that is entirely without prejudice to our response to the industry's calls for further decommissioning expenditure in MAGP IV. We are still consulting on the means of achieving the new UK objectives and will need to take account of the outcome of our current spending review as well as the position resulting from the success or otherwise of the 1997 scheme itself.
I turn now to the details of the 1997 scheme. That is closely based on previous schemes but excludes vessels belonging to segments which have met their MAGP III targets. Applications are therefore restricted to vessels holding a valid Category A licence, excluding nephrops vessels. Provision is also made for the exclusion of vessels in other segments which have met or are close to meeting their MAGP III targets. To improve value for money and permit vessel owners to secure the value of their track record, successful applicants will, on a pilot basis, be permitted to retain or transfer their vessels' track records. Detailed arrangements for that have been drawn up in consultation with the industry and given appropriate publicity.
The scheme provides, as before, flexibility for Ministers to set deadlines for the scheme. My honourable friend has already announced that applications had to be received by 24th October and that successful applicants will be expected to have decommissioned their vessels and surrendered all licences and entitlements before 27th February 1998.
As the deadline for applications has already passed, we will be notifying applicants of the outcome of their bids within a short period of time. Save for the changes that I have already highlighted, the scheme is similar to its predecessors. The key points are that vessels must be over 10 years old, be seaworthy and hold a valid Category A fishing licence; that, if accepted. vessels must proceed to decommission or be excluded from any future scheme; and that the tendering system, which is again used, is fair and well understood by fishermen and gives good value for money.
Finally, noble Lords will wish to note that my honourable friend has recently made available an independent report on the economic evaluation of the decommissioning schemes to date. That supports the changes that we are making this year and confirms that the tendering system has indeed offered good value for money. It also notes that the scheme has facilitated the renewal and modernisation of the fleet and concludes that there is a case for seeking an industry contribution to any future expenditure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 5th August be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, enjoys the sympathy of the House for the unpleasant task that he has just performed. After all, we know that he is no lover of the common fisheries policy because in the last Session of Parliament the noble Lord opined to the House that if there was one European policy more crazy than the common agricultural policy it was the common fisheries policy. Indeed, only a week ago, the noble Lord confirmed that view (in col. 1479 of Hansard) when he said:
"The CFP makes the CAP look like a beacon of sweet reason and light".
So I. for one, can understand the noble Lord's discomfort at having to perpetuate this evening one of the most damaging aspects of the common fisheries policy; that being the decommissioning of vessels.
Nor is the Minister alone in holding such beliefs within his party. In 1995, two years ago, Mr. Gavin Strang (who was then the Labour spokesman on agriculture and fisheries) put one of the problems rather well. He said:
"Surely the Secretary of State for Scotland and his ministerial colleagues understand that it is unacceptable that we should be decommissioning vessels to facilitate additional fishing opportunities in waters around the United Kingdom for the fishing industry of one of our European partners, in this case Spain".
The figures which Mr. Strang may have had in mind are that Spain is to receive some £721.32 million between 1994 and 1998, under Objectives 1 and 5a of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. In addition, an unknown sum from the structural and

317
cohesion funds may be finding its way towards the upgrading and upkeep of the Spanish fleet. The UK generally pays some 14 per cent. of these figures, so we are looking at at least £100.98 million of our money going to Spain under these headings.
Then there is the money which the EU pays for the right to fish in other countries' waters outside the EU. For the four years from 1996 a total of £637.89 million has been spent in this way, of which the UK's share again comes to 14 per cent., or about £90 million. Here again, Spain is the principal European beneficiary. Most of the recipients of that money from the EU are poor third world countries, whose boats cannot compete with the highly efficient EU fleets. So I suppose one can also be forgiven for wondering how much of this money actually gets through to the fishing communities in question.
All this leads me to put a question to the Minister, which I put fairly regularly to the previous government without the benefit of a clear reply. It is quite simply this: is the UK paying more money to Spain to build and maintain boats to come and take fish from what used to be our waters than we are paying to our own fishermen to destroy their boats and, I might say, their livelihoods?
Further, can the Minister say whether it is true that this scheme splits licences from track records? In other words, when we destroy a boat, is the quota of fish that it used to catch cancelled or is it shared out among the remaining boats, a large number of which will be Spanish and highly sophisticated and powerful? If this is so, does the Minister agree that fishermen go out of business but the stock of fish is unlikely to be conserved? I believe that the Minister said something about track records possibly being, under some pilot scheme, shared out in future. Can the noble Lord confirm that point in greater detail in his response?
I suppose the noble Lord may be tempted to answer my criticisms by saying that a Conservative Government under Sir Edward Heath took us into the common fisheries policy in 1972. That is of course quite true, and for one, make no excuse for such an act of treachery, nor have I ever attempted to do so. But we now have New Labour in power and, during the election campaign, we were promised that the CFP would be reformed if New Labour won the election, thanks to its new ingratiating stance in Brussels. Can the Minister tell us how the Government are progressing on this one? To be precise, what is the latest state of play in the voting system required to reform the CFP? Are we any nearer to adequate reform now than we were under the Conservative Government? Or is the only way to get what we want and need for our fishermen in fact to leave the Treaty of Rome, which in any case seems increasingly redundant nowadays? I look forward to the Government's reply, and apologise again if these questions cause the Minister any personal embarrassment.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am breaking new ground in speaking in the debate this evening. It is a long-held Liberal Democrat policy that the only people who are allowed to speak on fisheries policy are Cornishmen and
318
Scotsmen. However, I make no apologies to my colleagues in the party for speaking on the matter. My experience of the fishing ports is not as great as that of some of my Cornish colleagues in particular, but having spent 20 years of my life regularly visiting the east Yorkshire ports of Bridlington, Scarborough and Whitby, I am only too well aware of the importance of the fishing fleet to those communities. I am also very well aware of the effect that that experience has had on my thinking about fisheries; namely, the greater importance that fisheries play in our national life than the simple figures of the number of fishermen employed or the number of fishing boats at sea imply.
Decommissioning is a necessary evil. There will be no long-term future for the fishing industry unless fishing stocks are given the chance to recover and. having recovered, the fish are then harvested at a sustainable level. No one who cares about the long-term future of the fishing stocks and of the fishing industry can, in my view, legitimately argue with the principle of the regulations. Indeed, despite the criticisms that might be made about the policy, one should be aware that in some areas at least fishing stocks are now increasing. Without a fishing policy and without a common fisheries policy, I suspect that that would not be the case.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether it is in order to ask the noble Lord a question. Is he aware of the examples of Norway and Namibia both of which have taken back control of their waters. and the fishing industries are doing very well as a result?
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am aware of the example of Norway, but I cannot claim to be aware of the Namibian example. Anyone who believes that a common resource such as fish, any more than many other aspect of common resources of the environment, can be dealt with purely on a national basis will be mistaken in the long term.
I was about to say that the background to the issue is, in my view, the depressing failure of the previous government to grasp the nettle and introduce a decommissioning scheme at an earlier stage. That played a major part in the development of the abuse of quota-hopping and the sad spectacle, as the last election approached, of fishing Ministers going to Brussels making ever-more blood-curdling threats and coming away having achieved nothing. It is perhaps not surprising that, as a result, many fishermen found it difficult to support their traditional party.
I turn now to the details of the scheme. There are some aspects of the changes in the new scheme over those in previous schemes which we welcome. For example, we welcome the decision to allow vessel owners to secure the value of their track record. We also obviously welcome the fact that there will be more money available, although in doing so we note that the expenditure in this country is considerably less than that which has been made available over a number of years in some other member states.
However, some things in the scheme have not changed and we wish that they had. We know, for example, that there is still the policy of scrapping

319
vessels as being virtually the only way of dealing with their decommissioning. In our view that is a classic case of a gold plated regulation and a more rigid application of it than applies elsewhere. I note that the only exemption from that rule is for fishing vessels that find their way to museums. I would love to know how many decommissioned fishing vessels have found their way to museums. I hope the Minister can tell me that. I suspect that is hardly an important aspect of the scheme.
If one looks more generally at the common fisheries policy, I think anyone must accept that there is one aspect which is simply not working. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, might agree with me on this point. I refer to the question of enforcement. If the fisheries policy is to achieve its goals it simply has to be enforced more rigorously than is the case at the moment. As we have a common fisheries policy this is obviously an EU matter. However, I wonder whether the Minister and his colleagues might consider whether, as part of their activities during our presidency of the EU, more impetus could be given to the whole question of enforcement of the common fisheries policy as this is one of those areas where failure tends to bring the whole policy into disrepute.
I cannot leave this issue without referring briefly to the wider problems of the fishing communities and the regions in which they are found. In the case of Cornwall, for example, even the most optimistic person on the future of the fishing industry does not believe that it will be capable of lifting the whole region out of high unemployment and low income levels. There is, therefore, a compelling case for a range of employment generating initiatives, of which in Cornwall the establishment of the university of Cornwall and the establishment of a regional development agency are probably the most important. We shall press for progress on both those initiatives during the course of this Parliament. However, whatever is done on these alternative methods of employment, it is difficult to imagine Cornwall, or indeed east Yorkshire, without a strong, viable and sustainable fishing industry. The scheme under discussion today will play a small part in making that possible.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is the first time I have talked about fishing in this House since I entered it. Part of the reason for that was that while I was a government Minister I never had responsibility for fishing, and another reason was that prior to joining the Government I was the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority and I decided that I was precluded from discussing fishing matters, whether or not that was actually the case. Therefore this is my first opportunity to discuss fishing in this House. I could be tempted to make a far more wide-ranging speech than will be the case. I was almost tempted by my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches to make a slightly more wide-ranging speech on general points about the common fisheries policy. However, I shall resist that temptation.
320
This decommissioning package is part and only part of the policy on fishing, both the common fisheries policy and the policy on fishing of the British Government. It is difficult to talk about a specific part of decommissioning without discussing some other parts. Therefore I shall probably make a slightly more wide-ranging speech, but I shall try to resist the temptation to speak too widely.
The primary purpose of the scheme is of course to spend the £12 million which was budgeted for and which is the final tranche of the 1992 scheme. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the scheme will deal with the current unmet capacity reduction targets under the multi-annual guidance programme. As the Minister rightly pointed out, there are two differences between this scheme and the previous schemes. The first is the exclusion of Nephrops vessels from participation on the ground outlined by the Minister that this sector has fulfilled the capacity reductions laid down.
I do not think it is quite as simple as that. As the Minister will know, the Nephrops fishermen around the coast are not at all happy that they have been excluded from the decommissioning. My reasoning for thinking it is not entirely wise to exclude that section is that the sections of the fishing industry are not self-contained compartments because vessels and fishermen move from one sector to another. People change from fishing principally for white fish to fishing for Nephrops. More importantly, I think it is fair to say that older vessels tend to find their way into the Nephrops fleet. I suspect that is why the Nephrops fleet took up the decommissioning on offer. That will still be the case. Looking at the whole fleet, if Nephrops vessels wish to come out of the fleet, I suspect that will create openings in the Nephrops fleet for vessels in rather more heavily fished parts of the fleet. I underline the point that the Nephrops fleets in, for example, the west of Scotland and, I suspect, in Northern Ireland are not happy about the discrimination against them.
Further, there is the point about allowing fishermen to dispose of the track record separately so that the grant scheme will relate only to the value of the vessel and not to the value of the track record. I am not sure that I can join the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches in welcoming that, for two reasons. First, it suggests that the industry itself might be part funding this decommissioning; in other words, the boat being decommissioned will get some of its money from the scheme and some of its money from its track record—and that means from other parts of the industry. What is perhaps more worrying, I do not think there is anything to preclude these track records from passing into the hands of the flag ship operators. That will make the position on flag ships even worse.
The position on flag ships is relevant to decommissioning because the industry feels strongly that the two issues are linked. I shall not discuss the history of this. We tried hard as a government to find a legislative way to stop quota hopping. We thought we had done so as we had received some sound legal advice on the matter. Unfortunately, the European Court decided that we were wrong and that we could not do it because the common fisheries policy, which was

321
designed not by Ted Heath but in the early '80s, was inconsistent with the Treaty of Rome. My view of that is that the European Court may have had logic on its side but it did not make a sound judgment. It ought to have considered the matter in the round. Undoubtedly the people who created the common fisheries policy thought they were working within the treaty and thought they were doing the right thing in tying quota to country. They did not envisage in any way that there would be any quota hopping. Therefore I believe that this is a linked problem.
The previous government had said very clearly that they would not go down any of the MAGP IV routes until this problem of quota hopping was addressed. The noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches said that we were making belligerent noises. That was the case. However, all we have heard from the Government is that there is an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission saying that something will happen. A few months have passed since June when the letters were exchanged and nothing seems to be happening. I wonder where we are on these issues.
If one limits effort, because that is what decommissioning is about, and one moves into a MAGP IV situation where there are limits to efforts, which means that vessels are forced to tie up for a certain number of days in the year, I wonder what the consequences of that will be. I can see a link between restriction of quota and restriction of days at sea. If one needs only to spend a couple of hundred days at sea to catch one's quota, perhaps it is easier to judge one's fishing effort in terms of days at sea. However, I know that the industry is not convinced about that. We would have to do much more work before we replaced quota with days at sea. I must tell the Minister—this has always been said by fishermen—with his knowledge of agriculture that fishing is an industry which receives little money from the taxpayer in comparison to agriculture.
If we go down the route of restricting the number of days fishermen go to sea that looks—dare I say?—not unlike agricultural setaside. To this Government, and to the previous government, many fishermen said: "Why can we not have the same kind of payments as the farming industry enjoys on setaside?" I always found my answers less than convincing; and I do not suppose that the Minister's answer will be much better than mine.
All these measures are designed to protect the stocks. When I read the results of the European Fisheries Council as announced by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on 4th November, I was disappointed on a number of matters and approved of a number of matters—for example, gradual increase in the size of mesh provided it is still realistic. I was glad to see that the Government resisted an increase to 110mm in the North Sea, but there is an argument for a gradual increase in mesh size elsewhere around our coast from 80mm to 100mm. I was disappointed to see that the square mesh idea was not being adopted other than in the nephrops nets. The nephrops nets having square mesh panels is a
322
considerable improvement; however, square mesh could be used rather more widely in fisheries. When I was chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority I advocated that change quite firmly. We were absolutely convinced by research done by the authority that it allowed for a better escapement of under-sized fish.
I did not fully understand the point about minimum landing sizes being changed in order to reduce discards. While it is not all that relevant, perhaps the Minister will write to me.
My final point relates to the interesting fact that the only other subject which the Minister in the Commons decided to take up with the Commission was progress on driftnets. I should like to have seen from the Statement that he had taken up the need to make progress on quota-hopping. However, if it has to be driftnets, it has to be driftnets. My question—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will also be interested in the answer—is: does the definition of "driftnet" cover driftnet fishing off the Northumberland coast of England, which is an interceptory net to the salmon returning to the Scottish rivers?
8.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have had a lively and interesting debate on issues which will be very material to the long-term survival of both the fishing industry and the stocks on which it depends. I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part.
Perhaps I may first make a general point, and then deal with questions in so far as I am able. Improving the balance between catching capacity and what stocks will bear is fundamental and, I hope, common ground between all concerned, be they politicians of whatever party, fishermen of any member state or the scientists and administrators who have the very difficult job of devising and implementing the policies required. The problem, which we all understand, is that the equation between capacity and fishing effort, or fishing effort and fishing mortality, is not straightforward and varies according to the circumstances involved. A broad brush approach may penalise legitimate fisheries of no conservation concern, but a finely targeted approach will inevitably be much more complex to administer. The MAGP process has discernibly shifted from broad brush to fine targeting over the past few years, bringing with it a legacy of outstanding issues.
I now turn to the many questions that were asked. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in his usual place on the common fisheries policy. In relation to the remark I made about the CAP, I can only say that I should learn my lesson. You should never try to make a joke in this House, because it comes back to hit you. I congratulate the noble Lord on the assiduity with which he read Hansard.
To turn first to the noble Lord's question on decommissioning and facilitating quotas for other member states, he is not correct: the quotas of other member states are not affected by decommissioning, which concerns fleet size.

323
The noble Lord asked about the money for Spain. Spain has the largest fleet in the European Union. It is therefore not surprising that it receives a significant share of EU money.
Another question concerned money for building boats in Spain. That is true, because Spain has met its MAGP targets and does not compare directly with UK expenditure on decommissioning, which is still needed to meet the targets which the previous Administration failed to meet.
I was also asked about transfer and track records. We decided to detach track record from licences following requests from the industry and after full consultation, which showed strong support for greater flexibility in the use of track records. Moreover, as there is a financial value associated with track records, and mindful of the need to try to reduce the level of bids so that the taxpayer will receive better value for money from decommissioning, we decided to take account of that on a pilot basis to see whether that would have any effect on the value of bids. The noble Lord referred to the former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, accusing him of treason. That was a little on the strong side, even for the noble Lord.
The system of voting on the common fisheries policy is by qualified majority, as required by the treaty. There are no plans for changing that.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who is speaking for the first time from the Front Bench. He has my sympathy since his first speech is on fishing. I assure the noble Lord that things will get better. I am extremely grateful for the support that he provided.
The noble Lord asked how many of the decommissioned boats are in museums. I understand that there were three last year. It is for owners of museums to make the necessary arrangements.
On the important regional question—the impact of decommissioning on vulnerable ports—my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Elliot Morley, has had a series of meetings with representatives of some of the ports that have been badly affected. We have considerable sympathy with those who are suffering as a result of the problem. However, if we consider the way in which the decommissioning scheme has been structured there is little control over where the bids come from and whether they come disproportionately from England or from any particular port. There is a socio-economic impact on those ports. At this stage all we can say is that we recognise that fact and are giving some thought as to whether there is any way in which the problem can be mitigated. I repeat that we have great sympathy with those who are suffering the impact of decommissioning.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I welcome him on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, although obviously not agreeing with him. Turning first to the question of nephrops, this round of the scheme is designed to focus on those segments of the fleet which have not met their targets under MAGP III; since the nephrops segment overshot it target Ministers did not want to see that
324
segment of the fleet run down further and were not able to justify the public expenditure that would have been involved in decommissioning capacity which would not contribute to our meeting the MAGP III targets.
The noble Lord asked about the separate disposal of the track record. We decided to detach track record from licences after requests from the industry and after full consultation, which showed strong support for greater flexibility in the use of track records. Moreover, as there is a financial value associated with track records, and mindful of the need to try to reduce the level of bids so that the taxpayer will receive better value for money from decommissioning, we decided to take account of that on a pilot basis to see whether it would have any effect on the value of the bids.
On quota-hopping, we are not able to discriminate on grounds of the nationality of the owner. As previously, the scheme is confined to fishing vessels registered and licensed in the UK. That will continue to apply. If quota-hoppers are decommissioned, that will contribute to our targets and increase the quota available to the rest of the fleet. It is clear that the Amsterdam deal will not get rid of all quota-hoppers. It is now open for the Government to lay down requirements to ensure that real economic links exist between the UK fishing fleet and our coastal communities which are dependent upon fisheries-related industries.
Treaty changes were never a realistic option. There was no support for them from any other member state. We have clear guidance from the Commission on measures that we can take to ensure that fishing vessels have genuine economic links with the UK and will continue to work up a package of measures based on that guidance and in consultation with the industry.
The noble Lord also asked about MAGP IV. The Commission has now formally consulted the member states through the Management Committee procedure and will proceed to approve the resulting proposals in the next few weeks. Rates of reduction vary considerably according to vessel type (segment) and stock fished. The calculations also differ according to the means of implementation. The calculations are made either by reducing capacity (decommissioning) or introducing limits on time spent at sea (effort control). It is therefore not possible to give a single figure for the whole fleet in terms of either capacity or effort. The highest weighted reductions, which apply to the pelagic segment, will be about 20 per cent. over the next four years, while vessels under 10 metres in length may face no reduction at all.
I refuse to be drawn on the comparison with the set-aside. No one likes the principle of set-aside in farming. So why repeat it in fishing?
I know that the noble Lord is concerned about the question of square mesh. I am sure he knows this, but it is as well to repeat that as from 1st January 2000 a 70mm square mesh panel will be required in nets in the range of 32mm to 54mm; an 80mm panel will be required in nets in the range of 70mm to 79mm. This is the first time that EC legislation has required such panels on a mandatory basis. Any other net may

325
incorporate a square mesh panel of at least 80mm. The so-called Baltic panels, at the side of the net rather than on the top, can be used in any net of at least 100mm.
Finally, I believe the noble Lord made a point with regard to panels not being mandatory in all nets. It is true that we too were disappointed that it did not prove possible to secure the Community's agreement to the mandatory inclusion of panels in all nets. However, there is a requirement in the regulation for the Commission to give priority in the next three years to funding research projects concerned with the use of square mesh panels or other selective devices. The Council will then be better placed to make informed decisions about further improvements to selectivity in nets at a later stage. That is very welcome.
Drift nets on the Northumbrian coast are outside the terms of the scheme but I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord with regard to that matter.
As I said, today's debate is about setting the record straight and going into MAGP IV committed to meeting our obligations and serving the best interests of the industry. Much work remains to be done, and there will no doubt be many opportunities for debate. Within the limited terms of the 1997 scheme, and without prejudice to the continuing consultation with the industry on the implementation of MAGP IV, I trust that I may count on the support of the House in approving the scheme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.23 to 8.40 p.m.]

Competition Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 18.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, line 30, after ("no") insert ("necessary").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to address what I find to be one of the most tiresome abuses of a dominant position, and that is bundling. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, whom I believe is enjoying a long supper, referred to it earlier as making the customer who wanted to buy one good take another good with it if he was going to get the first good. This is an abuse of a dominant position which goes back to biblical times, when the poor man was not allowed to marry Rachel until he had married her older sister. This is prevalent also in modern times with the way in which Microscoft is alleged to have been dealing with its rival Netscape.
There are many more domestic examples of this abuse. Without naming names, I can think of a major company which is in a dominant position in the supply of a raw material which insists that its customers also buy transport from it if they wish to buy the raw
326
material. I can think of a dominant supplier of a consumer good who insists that if you want one of their goods you have to buy another half-dozen as well.
These are all practices which, it seems to me, should fall squarely within the prohibitions of Clause 18 of the Bill. However, the example given in Clause 18(2)(d), illustrating how this sort of abuse would be tackled, is restricted to,
"acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of the contracts".
Clearly, that is far narrower than is intended by this prohibition and far narrower than European practice. If we have an example in this Bill which is so narrow it will surely encourage our courts to define abuse narrowly, which is not what we wish to achieve. I know that this follows the wording of the European Treaty, but since we are dealing here, not with a piece of definitive law, but merely an example. it would be advantageous to render it into English rather than Eurospeak. It would be advantageous to render it nearer to what we mean and to put the word "necessary" between "no" and "connection" so that where companies are indulging in a practice where there is some connection, as indeed Microsoft would be able to say there was with its Internet Explorer and where there are indeed the domestic abuses I have illustrated, they would be able to claim that there was some connection and thereby they did not come under the example. I am sure the example was drafted to show the sort of abuses that were intended to be caught, and that therefore they should not be caught by this provision, but surely we should use wording more in line with our intentions rather than the particular wording that has arisen through copying a European statute. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: The noble Lord has given me the defence which I am afraid I must plead. Subsection (2) of the clause sets out an illustrative list. It is based, as the noble Lord rightly suggests, exactly on the corresponding illustrative list in Article 86. While I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may wish to change its emphasis, I believe that the right course is to follow Article 86 as closely as possible.
Although the noble Lord may think that it is Eurospeak, it has the advantage of being absolutely clear, and for that reason reduces the business burden. I emphasise that the list is illustrative and amendments would not affect the substantive effect, prohibition of the abuse, but that is a secondary issue. We are talking about the clarity of the statement and I am afraid, as the noble Lord observed, we believe that it is better to stay as closely attuned to the Article 86 text as possible for reasons of clarity and lack of doubt for business.
I hope, on that basis that the noble Lord is prepared to reconsider and to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I expect to end up by withdrawing the amendment but I would hope that the noble Lord could address himself, if not to the technical aspects of the amendment, to the substance of it. I would appreciate confirmation of the sort of anti-commercial practices

327
outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, previously. I took the noble Lord's name in vain because the noble Lord, before supper, gave, as an illustration of an abuse of a dominant position, being forced to take one good when you wanted to buy another. I hope the noble Lord the Minister can confirm that that is very much the sort of thing which the clause is aimed at and that it is his hope and expectation that the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading will come down hard on such abuses when he has the ability to do so.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. In no way was I intending to suggest that the drafting should give any doubt as to the severe penalties that will be available if abuses of this nature can be proved.
Lord Lucas: I shall have to be content with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("in the market").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Excluded cases]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Exclusions: Mergers and Concentrations]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 39, line 25, leave out (", or would if engaged in result,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 39 and 40. Schedule 1 excludes mergers from the prohibitions to avoid overlap with existing merger control regimes at the UK and EC level. Exclusions under this schedule cover mergers both above and below the thresholds for investigation at UK level. The Government have listened carefully to comments from legal practitioners and others that the draft Bill published in August needed to provide for a wide exclusion of all mergers, including those involving the taking of effective control over a company. As a result of the consultation the schedule now provides for that wider exclusion, which I think has been much welcomed by the business community.
The schedule provides a general exclusion from the Chapter I prohibition for mergers that fall within the description of enterprises ceasing to be distinct in Part V of the Fair Trading Act 1973. However, to provide an objective definition for the exclusion, certain arrangements that may be treated as mergers for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act must be treated as mergers for the purposes of the exclusion. These are
328
arrangements—broadly the acquisition of control or material influence by one business over another—to which the exclusion has been extended in response to the consultation. But this extension of the exclusion creates some risk of providing a loophole for anti-competitive agreements. The schedule therefore provides that the director may, with notice, remove the benefit of the exclusion from an agreement where he considers it would infringe the prohibition and would not merit an additional exemption. This approach has been developed in consultation with practitioners.
The Government intend that this ability for the director to remove the benefit of the exclusion should apply only in respect of mergers that are mergers by virtue of Section 65(3) or 65(4)(b) of the Fair Trading Act and should not apply to mergers cleared by the Secretary of State or which the competition commission has decided, on reference, qualify for investigation. The Bill as introduced provided for these limitations to be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. However, we want to give certainty from the outset for those kinds of mergers where there is no ability for the director to remove the benefit of the exclusion and we wish therefore to set out on the face of the Bill the categories of protected agreements in respect of which the director is not able to withdraw the benefit of the exclusion. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 give effect to this and remove the order making power. The department's memorandum to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation signalled our intention to do so, as noted in the committee's report.
Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 37 make drafting amendments. Amendment No. 34 removes unnecessary wording. We do not believe that the Chapter II prohibition would catch contemplated conduct. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 amend the exclusion for newspaper transfers to limit the extent of the exclusion from the two prohibitions to agreements and conduct to the extent that they constitute such a transfer. They incidentally remove the Chapter II exclusion from provisions directly related and necessary to the implementation of a newspaper transfer.
I am conscious that this raises an issue that is relevant to Amendment No. 35 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Lucas. I would prefer to deal with the issue when we discuss Amendment No. 35 but I can assure the noble Lords that I will keep an open mind on that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 39, line 27, at end insert—

("(I A) The exclusion provided by sub-paragraph (I) extends to any provision directly related and necessary to the implementation of the merger provisions.

(1B) In sub-paragraph (IA) "merger provisions" means the provisions of the agreement which cause, or if carried out would cause, the agreement to have the result mentioned in sub-paragraph (I).").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 35 refers to paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. Its simple intention is to include in paragraph 2 the identical

329
phrases to those included in paragraph 1(2) and (3), so that in the context of these mergers ancillary agreements will not be caught by prohibition 2. It is very hard for the Opposition to understand why ancillary agreements to mergers are given protection against the application of prohibition 1 but not protection against the application of prohibition 2. That is the reasoning behind Amendment No. 35.
Amendment No. 38 applies to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 and the discretion it gives to the director general not to apply a particular agreement if a direction is given under that paragraph. I ask the Minister to look in particular at paragraph 4(2)(b), which states:
"the agreement is not a protected agreement".
I have noted that the Minister has tabled his own amendment, Amendment No. 40, which defines protected agreements. I welcome that on behalf of the Opposition. However, it does not completely satisfy our objectives.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to turn to heading (c) of his Amendment No. 40, beginning with the words,
"the agreement does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b)".
Our difficulty here is that part of the heading in the ultimate and penultimate sentences in brackets,
"otherwise than as the result of subsection (3) or (4)(b) of that section"
Those subsections refer to the Fair Trading Act 1973.
That Act allows the director general in some circumstances to investigate mergers where the control aspect is as low as 10 or 15 per cent. The effect of the exception in the brackets would be to continue to allow the director general, in certain circumstances where he wished, to look at mergers where the control factor was as low as 10 or 15 per cent. In the Opposition's respectful submission, that is too onerous a burden for mergers carrying that level of control to bear. We ask the Government to give an absolute exclusion.
The final amendment refers to what I think is an unintended, rather technical, point which is contained in paragraph 5(2). I quote:
"the Chapter II prohibition does not apply to the conduct if the Merger Regulation gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction in the matter".
Paragraph 9 of the merger regulation gives member states the authority to request that their national competition authority should look at a merger which has a Community dimension, so that to that situation the word "exclusive" does not apply. The way to cover the problem posed by paragraph 9 is simply to remove the word "exclusive" altogether, so that the ultimate and penultimate lines would read:
"the Chapter 11 prohibition does not apply to the conduct if the Merger Regulation gives the Commission jurisdiction in the matter".
I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: In Amendment No. 38 Members of the Committee seek to take away the ability of a director under certain circumstances to remove the benefit of the general mergers exclusion from an
330
anti-competitive agreement. As I have already stated, we have listened very carefully to comments from legal practitioners and others that the draft Bill published in August should provide a wide exclusion of all mergers. We accepted that that point had force. However, there were concerns that in widening the exclusion there might be a risk of creating a loophole for anti-competitive agreements. The very width of what is to be regarded as a merger means that there is a risk that anti-competitive agreements might masquerade as mergers.
An approach was therefore developed, in consultation with the practitioners, in which the exclusion was widened, but with the provision for the director to be able, with notice, to claw back the benefit of the exclusion where he considers that it would infringe the prohibition and would not merit an unconditional exemption.
The claw-back is not to apply to certain categories of agreement. In the Bill as introduced these were to be prescribed by order. Government Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 will now set out these categories on the face of the Bill. I believe that it is right that where we can reasonably and properly widen exclusions we would and should do so. If it is necessary to provide safeguards in order to be able to widen such an exclusion, I believe that that is the right balance. I shall refer to a further example in relation to a later amendment where we hope to provide an exclusion, but with an appropriate safeguard provision.
However, if I were to accept the amendment we would lose all the safeguards. We would then have opened up a significant loophole in the prohibition as a result of the width of the exclusion. I believe that the better approach is to limit the claw-back powers to what is necessary and not to remove them altogether.
Amendment No. 35 would exclude ancillary provisions from Chapter II prohibitions as well as from Chapter I prohibitions, as the noble Lord mentioned. The purpose of the exclusion from mergers is to leave them to be dealt with as now under the merger regime of the Fair Trading Act to the extent that they fall within its jurisdiction, and not to subject them to new controls to the extent that they do not. Hitherto we have seen the risk of a merger being caught wrongly by the Chapter II prohibition as being a matter of the formation of the merger itself. We have viewed any ancillary restriction as being part of an agreement to which the Chapter I prohibition might apply, hence the exclusion from the Chapter I prohibition.
The noble Lord prompts the question whether we are quite sure that ancillary provisions which should properly be scrutinised as part of the merger regime can never fall foul of the Chapter II prohibition. That is a point on which I would like to reflect further. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing it to my attention.
Amendment No. 41 would delete the word "exclusive" in paragraph 5. The word is included in order to target the exclusion on EC concentrations to the extent that the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction. In so far as the UK may have competition jurisdiction because part of the concentration is referred back to it

331
under the EC merger regulations, the exclusions in paragraphs 1 and 2 should apply. That is the effect of the paragraph as drafted.
We were talking about the level of a shareholding acquired and whether it will be defined as a merger or whether, if I can express myself in that way, it would be there for loophole purposes. The words in brackets in the new provision make agreements where a low level of control is acquired capable of being looked at as anti-competitive agreements. It does not affect their treatment under merger control. The issue is whether one can apply the anti-competitive agreement in order that one can test the loophole theory. The worry was that anybody taking small participations might claim merger and then avoid the competition clause. So it is effectively not to be looked at in the merger section but rather to be taken in the competitive section.
As I say, I would like to reflect further on the point made under Amendment No. 35. In the light of the points I have made, I hope that for the present the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment while that particular point is considered.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for responding so sympathetically. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 39, line 31, leave out from beginning to second ("transfer") in line 32 and insert ("The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to an agreement to the extent to which it constitutes, or would if carried out constitute, a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 39, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) The Chapter II prohibition does not apply to conduct to the extent to which it constitutes such a transfer.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
Page 40, line 4, leave out from (" 4(3)(a)") to end of line 6.
Page 40, line 10, at end insert—
("Protected agreements
An agreement is a protected agreement for the purposes of paragraph 4 if—

(a) the Secretary of State has announced his decision not to make a merger reference to the Competition Commission under section 64 of the Act of 1973 in connection with the agreement;

(b) the Secretary of State has made a merger reference to the Competition Commission under section 64 of the Act of 1973 in connection with the agreement and the Commission has found that the agreement has given rise to, or would if carried out give rise to, a merger situation qualifying for investigation;

332

(c) the agreement does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) but has given rise to, or would if carried out give rise to, enterprises to which it relates being regarded under section 65 of the Act of 1973 as ceasing to be distinct enterprises (otherwise than as the result of subsection (3) or (4)(b) of that section); or

(d) the Secretary of State has made a merger reference to the Competition Commission under section 32 of the Water Industry Act 1991 in connection with the agreement and the Commission has found that the agreement has given rise to, or would if carried out give rise to, a merger of the kind to which that section applies.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [General Exclusions]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 46, line 32, leave out from ("75") to ("(agreements") in line 33.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. These amendments extend the exclusion for planning obligations to cover Crown planning obligations. These are analogous to the planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that may be entered into under Section 299A of that Act in respect of Crown land. There is no reason to treat Crown land differently from other land. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 43 and 44:
Page 46, line 33, after ("land)") insert ("or 246 (agreements relating to Crown land) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997)"
Page 46, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
("(2) In sub-paragraph (I)(a), "planning obligation" means—

(a) a planning obligation for the purposes of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; or

(b) a planning obligation for the purposes of section 299A of that Act.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 47, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) In respect of conduct by a regulated utility, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that conduct which is in compliance with its licence and the statute under which its licence was granted or treated as granted does not constitute a breach of any prohibition under Chapter II.").
The noble Lord said: As the Bill is drafted the regulators will express prohibition powers for their own industry: concurrent powers with OFT. However, in each of the regulated industries there are already detailed rules set out in the licences which each company has to abide by. Those licences cover price controls, customer protection and how a company may respond to competition. In the case of gas, the licences had considerable parliamentary scrutiny, as I know, as recently as 1995. Despite that, there is little mention of the licences in the Bill, so behaviour that complies with a licence could then be questioned by the regulator as

333
anti-competitive. The amendment tries to get round that problem by stipulating that behaviour that complies with a licence should be assumed not to be anti-competitive until proved otherwise.
A strong feeling throughout the Second Reading debate, and now in this Committee, has been our concern about the way in which utility regulators will exercise their powers under the Bill. The amendment simply states that the behaviour of a utility that complies with an existing licence provision should be assumed not to be an abuse of a dominant position unless proved otherwise. There is little mention in the Bill of how the provisions should interrelate with licence conditions. It would be wrong for the regulators not to consider the licences when exercising their new powers. That would undoubtedly be a worry and would put the utilities in the difficult position of complying with one statute but not knowing whether they had infringed another. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand it to be a courtesy of your Lordships' House, but not a requirement, that if the Opposition want to agree with a proposal it is appropriate to signal that by putting a name to the amendment. I apologise for not having done so, but I should like to take this opportunity to say that with regard to Schedule 3 and this amendment, we have considerable sympathy with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. At a later stage we shall want to return to our concern that if the Government want to persist with a scheme under which the regulator is put into pole position, there exist opportunities nevertheless whereby a third party might then revert to the broader, general provisions relating to competition. That ought to be restricted so far as possible. If it were not, an unacceptable degree of uncertainty would exist. We are thinking of companies such as BG which have met their requirements (having possibly battled long and hard with the regulator to reach a compromise). It seems unacceptable that thereafter a third party might re-enter to challenge, say, BG, over price caps.
Whether the particular approach promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is the most suitable means of achieving that end we leave open, but at this stage we signal that we share his concern that there should not be that ping-pong between the regulator (in the premier position) and those challenging companies. Such an approach has its attractions and might have the advantage of avoiding the problem almost entirely other than in the most exceptional circumstances. The presumption which the noble Lord has suggested ought to be included is not an absolute one, but, as the wording of the amendment suggests, it would be rebuttable.
ven if the Government are not prepared to accept the exact wording of the amendment, I hope that they will at least understand and be sympathetic to what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. We on the Opposition Front Bench ask nothing more than that the Minister gives us some signal that he will reconsider this point before we return to it on Report.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I recognise the point which has been raised. Schedule 3(3) provides an
334
exclusion for compliance with legal requirements. It is clearly right that if a company is required to do something by law, it should not be caught by the prohibitions for complying with that requirement. In the utility sector, such legal requirements include the requirements imposed by the licence conditions. That is quite clear. It is the Government's policy that prohibitions should apply in the regulated utility areas. The purpose is to ensure that anti-competitive conduct can be dealt with.
It is wrong to make the assumption that licence conditions deal with all competition concerns that can arise particularly in a dynamic market place. The point of having separate regulation and expertise with the regulator is the fact that these markets are developing in very different ways and at a different pace as privatisation and competition grow in the market place. We must think of them as being different. If we made this assumption there would be no need to apply the prohibitions in these areas, but precisely because of the changes in the market place we have a certain amount of caution. As we do not make that assumption we believe that we would give utilities false comfort about the real position under the prohibitions if we accepted the amendment that there should be a rebuttable assumption that conduct in conformity with the licence did not infringe the prohibition.
If anti-competitive conduct which is not covered by explicit licence conditions takes place one wants the prohibition to be applied as rigorously and as effectively as elsewhere in the economy. I do not believe that it is appropriate to introduce a provision that seeks to alter the burden of proof in relation to the Chapter II prohibition for conduct in compliance with the licence conditions. So far as concerns the process, the director, the tribunal and the courts can in any event take account of all the relevant factors in applying the prohibitions. When we come to the process later it will become clear that a third party who brings an unreasonable or vexatious case before the Commission will be turned down.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I completely understand what the noble Lord has said about a requirement. We take no exception to that provision. It is desirable and well positioned within the scheme of the Bill. The particular point is related to the price-capping provision. As the noble Lord will be aware from his former position as a doubtless interested observer of the battle between the then British Gas and Clare Spottiswoode, there was an intense battle about the establishment of the price cap, including a reference to the MMC. It seems to us to be at least worthy of exploration that after such a battle has been concluded—perhaps there will be other battles in future—as the companies settle down and understand that that is where the line has been drawn, there may be a risk that a third party has the capacity to intervene and take it back into the general competitive regulation. It is the uncertainty that that causes which is the source of our anxieties.

335
Doubtless there are expert advisers within the noble Lord's department who can deal with this matter. We do not suggest that there should never be intervention, but that a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute or irrebuttable presumption, in principle is the line that should be pursued.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I first respond to the issue of the price cap which, quite pertinently, the noble Lord has tabled. I should like to go back to an earlier exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Pricing within a price cap is not a guarantee against anti-competitive behaviour. We have had a long discussion in other circumstances on the question of predatory pricing. The noble Lord spoke about the proposals of BG in discussion with the regulator. On the basis of experience, the discussion has often turned on how close it is to the price cap, not how far below it it may be given the price cap regime. It is always open to the company, if there is a concern that the cap may be challenged under the Chapter II prohibition, to make a notification to his regulator to obtain guidance. I believe that there is an opportunity to test the cap on the upside by guidance, and that the regulator always gives and is obliged to give. But one should not forget the issue of predatory pricing if the price level is well below the cap. There is no guarantee as to which of those two will pertain. It is for that reason that I believe that the prohibition is still a valuable notion in regard to licence regulation.
I shall reflect strongly on the question of whether rebuttal is an appropriate concept as to the way that the guidance process may be undertaken. In the meantime I would ask and urge the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to withdraw his amendment if he is satisfied that we have positioned the debate in the right area.
Lord Ezra: May I express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for his strong support. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Simon, did not go a bit further. I take it that he is going to reflect on this. He having said that, that will lead me in a moment to withdraw the amendment.
We are left, nevertheless, with this issue: that these enterprises are operating under licence. There are two qualifications in the amendment: one is the rebuttable presumption—it is not a firm presumption, it can be rebutted—and, secondly, conduct which is in compliance with the licence.
The noble Lord referred to market evolution and changes of circumstances. Of course these can always occur, and if anything in those changing situations should lead the enterprises to do something which infringes this Bill when it becomes law, then there ought to be intervention.
Within the terms of the licence, and subject to this rebuttable presumption, the Government should attempt some reconciliation between the two pieces of legislation. I would take it very much amiss if I were in charge of one of those enterprises and meticulously stuck to the licence conditions, and then found that
336
I was being attacked through this wider legislation, with the adjudicator being the same regulator who had set the regulatory terms. I would find that an intolerable situation to live under.
I hope that within the noble Lord's reflections he will take that into account and, at the next stage, come forward with some proposed wording. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 47, line 10, after ("Kingdom") insert—
("( ) imposed by or under the Treaty or the EEA Agreement and having legal effect in the United Kingdom without further enactment;").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendments Nos. 46, 71 and 251. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 provides an exclusion from the prohibition for things done in compliance with legal requirements, the rationale being that we should not prohibit what the law requires.
The main amendment in this group is No. 46, which extends this exclusion to cover requirements imposed by or under the EC treaty or the European Economic Area Treaty, which have effect within the UK without further enactment.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 251 are drafting amendments and apply the definition of the EEA treaty to Part I as a whole. On this point it will be helpful to know that we are considering for Report a number of other possible exclusions, one of which will be the exclusion from Chapter I prohibition of a regulated market for investment services in a EEA regulated state, just as similar markets in the UK regulated under the Financial Services Act have been excluded under Schedule 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 48, line 13, at end insert—
('Agriculture
.—(1)The Chapter I prohibition applies to an agreement which relates to the production of or trade in an agricultural product only to such extent as the Secretary of State may by order provide.
(2) In this paragraph "agricultural product" means any product of a kind listed in Annex II to the Treaty.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment addresses the problem that agricultural co-operatives may experience under the Bill. The Bill quite rightly extends a general prohibition to horizontal agreements, agreements between people who are competitors in an industry. Agricultural co-operatives have had a long and useful role in the past—and one hopes for a similar future—as well as having a significant role as such in EC legislation. They might hope for exclusion under the de minimis provisions, eliminating small businesses from the scope of the Bill, but it does not take many farmers to band together before their turnover exceeds any likely level of that provision: perhaps just 50 or 100 farmers, given that those co-operatives trade in products and

337
trade several times in their turnover, as it were, in physical terms, and may also provide the raw materials that farmers need.
It may need only 100 farmers to make up a £50 million turnover business when one reaches the agricultural co-operative level. They might hope for exemption under Clause 9, but they fail under Clause 9(a) because they are too far from the consumer to show that they are demonstrating a fair share of the resulting benefit to the consumer. They would fail also under Clause 9(b)(ii).
We turn to the question of how we deal with that problem. The amendment is intended to provide a means of doing so. It excludes agriculture, as defined in the treaty, from the scope of Chapter I, but allows the Secretary of State to provide certain subsets of agricultural agreements which would fall within Chapter I. That gives the Secretary of State the necessary ability to curb any abuses that there might be, while allowing agricultural co-operatives, which are not the most sophisticated and worldly of businesses, to proceed in any ordinary way, and to operate on the presumption that their ordinary way of doing business will not land them in trouble under the Bill.
This is a problem which does not apply to agriculture only; it applies to any small producers of primary products who are selling into a market which is dominated by much larger producers. The other obvious candidates would be fishermen and forestry products. I do not know those markets well, and I am not sure that they have organisations like agricultural co-operatives operating; but forestry is one that could do with it, and it would benefit greatly if those structures existed. We would see a great many under-used woodlands coming into use. That is diverging from the main point, but I hope that the Government will take on board the thrust of the amendment, will look rather wider than the amendment goes, and produce on Report an amendment which suits their tastes, and answers the problems which I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should declare an interest in so far as I have been a director of a few agricultural co-operatives. Therefore I must fall into the category of being fairly naïve, according to my noble friend. I support my noble friend, and I should, first, like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Simon, for having taken so much trouble in contacting me last week to explain the Government's position on this matter.
I want to ask tonight that the Minister consider the matter, tell us what the position is, and if he cannot give a definitive answer tonight, I hope that he will be able to do so on Report. I am sure that he, like me, would like to make a decision fairly quickly rather than procrastinate on the matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am delighted to have support for co-operatives from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is not a surprise. They are good organisations. They need some assistance and encouragement. The interest I declare is as chairman of the United Kingdom Co-operative Council which has, as one of its members, the Agricultural Co-operative Movement. The case for
338
a modest interpretation of what can be done to assist agricultural co-operatives, and others of a similar size and position, has been well stated.
My noble friend the Minister and his colleagues have an opportunity, when one looks at "Competition" and the big boys, to remember that there are many little people struggling. I am not saying that the farmers are starving or in need, but they need to feel loved and wanted. One of the ways in which that can be achieved is by careful consideration of a Bill such as this, which could offer some ease. I hope that the Minister will do so and that he has some helpful comments to make.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I, too, should have declared an interest in that my great-uncle, who held my title, set up a co-operative bacon factory in Hitchin in 1910.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is it still going'?
Lord Lucas: I have not been to see.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You never said a rasher thing!
Lord Simon of Highbury: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to intervene and, unfortunately, take the mood of levity down a peg or two. I hope that I am able to offer solace to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Stanley. The exclusion sought by the noble Lords has also been requested by the National Farmers Union and the Federation of Agricultural Co-operatives as part of the consultation process we have been undertaking.
The noble Lords made a good case for providing an exclusion on the Chapter I prohibition. Such an exclusion might well be along the lines of an EC treatment of agricultural agreements set out in EC Regulation 26/62. That would limit so far as possible any inconsistencies with the EC approach.
I believe the case to be strong. The points made merit very careful consideration and I shall do that between the Committee and Report stages. I hope that in the meantime the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: Yes, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. Clearly, if the Government are unable to produce proposals by Report or Third Reading we may have to insist on something. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 48, line 13, at end insert—
("Legal estates and equitable interests in or over land
The Chapter 1 prohibition does not apply to agreements creating or disposing of a legal estate or equitable interest in or over land, as defined in section I of the Law of Property Act I925.").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may first declare an interest as a practising surveyor with some ongoing involvement with commercial property. I have already

339
indicated to the Minister that this is a probing amendment. It was tabled only earlier this week and the Minister has not had time to respond to me directly. I have bounced it on him and I apologise to him for that.
The amendment arises out of concerns expressed to me recently by the British Property Federation and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The Minister is aware of those concerns.
There are at least two categories of commercial property agreements that I have in view in relation to the amendment. First, there are those commercial agreements which arise out of sales and joint ventures, often containing covenants and restrictions which may bind successors downstream. They are commonly encountered in property redevelopment schemes. The second category relates to commercial leases, in particular those covenants and conditions relating to what is euphemistically referred to as the interests of good estate management. They may occur in particular in multiple let developments and govern such things as the category of use of premises, the way in which insurance payments and policies are placed and maintenance service charge matters as well as assignments and alienations of leasehold interests. The question is whether those will be brought under Chapter I. Whatever the answer, it is accepted that they will be subject to the provisions of Chapter II.
Chapter I would be retroactive, so it could at worst result in some important contractual terms being declared void if challenged. That could create all kinds of management risks and materially affect investment values, certainly while a new equilibrium was threshed out in the market place. That is undesirable. In moving the amendment, it is not my purpose to defend commercial practice in property matters which may be deemed to be anti-competitive—far from it—nor even other undesirable practices which may not be competition matters. But I want to get some certainty into this matter and to achieve a proper assessment of the Bill's impact on property agreements and the scope of that impact; how far would it run if property agreements are caught in the manner that I fear might be the case?
There is an added difficulty here in that property contractual matters are not conveniently divided into vertical and horizontal agreements. They just do not respond to that type of categorisation. Therefore, the effect of the amendment is to add another category of exemption. But its purpose is merely to probe the Government's intentions and to explain that there is some urgency in connection with the need to know in the commercial property industry because there is a whole raft of law and practice, as well as property economics, which could be materially affected in that regard. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: First, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his positioning of the amendment. The Government accept that a good case can be made not to subject certain agreements relating to land to the
340
Chapter I prohibition. When the Government raised that question in the consultation document, that was certainly the response that they received.
However, as we have found with vertical agreements, the problem of finding a clear definition which will prove of real value is complex. It has not been solved by the noble Earl's amendment which I recognise was drafted by the British Property Federation. To my mind, that would provide a very unclear exclusion which would foster the uncertainty which the noble Earl wishes to avoid. It would also very possibly be narrower than the BPF intends and might not be appropriate. Nor does it deal with the position in Scotland which has a different system of law which may not be amenable to the approach set out in the amendment.
Scope of a possible exclusion for certain land agreements has been discussed with the Lord Chancellor's department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Those discussions have made progress and are continuing. I hope that in the not too distant future, we shall have worked out an approach to the question which my officials will then share with interested parties such as the BPF.
On the basis of those comments and the position of the amendment, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment at this time.
The Earl of Lytton: I thank the Minister very much for that detailed reply. Certainly, I should not wish to defend the precise wording of the amendment which, as he rightly said, was drafted by the British Property Federation. However, it has enabled me to raise the point with him and I am grateful for his response.
There must be seen to be some urgency about this in terms of making sure that property interests are not gratuitously destabilised in a way that would be manifestly unsatisfactory. It is an understatement to say that there is quite a lot at stake here. I do not intend to press the amendment but I should like to feel that the Minister will be able to return with something more definite at a later stage of the Bill and not ask the property industry to hold with the situation of uncertainty until some time after the Bill has become law. That would be terribly unsatisfactory. I reserve my position to return to this matter later in the Bill's progress and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Currie of Marylebone Lord Currie of Marylebone moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 48, line 13, at end insert—
("De minimis exceptions
The Chapter 1 prohibition does not apply to an agreement in respect of which a direction under section 21(2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 is in force immediately before the commencement date").
The noble Lord said: This amendment addresses the question of compliance costs for business. There are a whole raft of agreements under previous legislation,

341
particularly the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, which may require approval and business will certainly need reassurance that it complies with the new Bill.
The Bill currently provides for a five-year transitional period for such agreements before they require approval. The estimated costs in the compliance costs estimate attached to the Bill is that that process of getting scrutiny would cost between £4 to £10 million. That is quite a substantial amount of the one-off transitional costs associated with the Bill and clearly, if it were possible, it would be desirable to reduce those costs.
Therefore, in that compliance cost assessment exercise the Government indicated that they were examining closely whether the cost of scrutinising such agreements was justified. One course proposed in the amendment would be to exclude such agreements from the Chapter I prohibition, not just for a transitional period but on a permanent basis, subject to appropriate safeguards, if necessary, which are not to be found in this current form of the amendment and to save those compliance costs on business without in any way affecting the objectives of the Bill. It would be helpful to have an indication from my noble friend the Minister as to the Government's intentions in that direction. My noble friend may also wish to respond to a question of which I gave him notice and clarify the purpose of some aspects of Clause 15 and Schedule 2 to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Currie for the opportunity to address the question of agreements which have received a direction under Section 21(2) of the RTPA. These agreements are ones where restrictions excepted, or information provisions made, were found not to be of such significance as to call for investigation by the restrictive practices court. Many respondents to the August consultation document, as my noble friend Lord Currie said, referred to the effort and cost that would be required to review such agreements, even after a five year transitional period, and asked that they should remain outside the scope of the Chapter I prohibition for the full life of the agreements. The CBI has also forcefully put that point to us.
The Government, of course, wish to minimise the cost to business of complying with the prohibitions. We have considered the position and believe that an exclusion for the generality of agreements which have received directions under Section 21(2) is the right approach. However, there is the possibility that there may be agreements which have received Section 21(2) directions but which may turn out in practice to have anti-competitive effects. An exclusion should, therefore, be subject to a power for the Director General of Fair Trading to claw back the exclusion in certain circumstances. The Government intend to return on Report with an amendment on that basis.
I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment after I have spoken to his secondary question which relates to the Schedule 2 application. The schedule disapplies the Chapter 1 prohibition from certain agreements which are subject to separate competition scrutiny under other enactments.
342
The enactments concerned are the Financial Services Act 1986 (which deals with the regulation of investment businesses); the Companies Act 1989 (Part II of which deals with the supervision and qualification of company auditors and its equivalent in Northern Ireland): and the Broadcasting Act 1990 (which, among other things, deals with the Channel 3 news provisions and networking arrangements).
Schedule 2 amends existing provision of those enactments which provide for modifications or exclusions from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in respect of agreements which are subject to competition scrutiny under those enactments. The RTPA is repealed under Clause 1 of the Bill. Where agreements are scrutinised under other competition scrutiny regimes specially constructed to deal with a particular category of agreement I do not believe it is right for them to be subject also to the Chapter l prohibition. That would just create an unwelcome and unjustified double jeopardy.
The competition scrutiny regimes in question offer an effective means of ensuring that agreements in those areas are not anti-competitive. However, we need to ensure that the amendments to the competition regimes and the scope of the exclusion provided by this schedule are correct.
It has come to our attention that it may be necessary to make some amendments to ensure that this is the case. For example, there may be a need to make amendments in relation to the producer responsibility regime. We are considering whether changes to the schedule are indeed required and will, if necessary, bring forward amendments at Report. After that statement, I shall speak to Clause 15. I am sure that the Committee has been waiting for this.
Clause 15 sets out the effect of the giving of guidance by the director that an agreement is unlikely to infringe the Chapter I prohibition whether or not it is exempt, or that it is likely to benefit from an exemption. The director is to take no further action under this part against the agreement except in specified circumstances. These include, for example, where he has reasonable grounds for believing that there has been a material change in circumstances since he gave his guidance. The clause prevents a penalty being imposed in respect of an infringement of the Chapter I prohibition by an agreement which this clause applies. The director is able to remove the immunity in specified circumstances. If he does so because he has a reasonable suspicion that the information on which he based his guidance, and which was provided by a party to the agreement, was incomplete, false or misleading in a material particular, he is able to backdate the removal of immunity.
I believe this provision is important and will greatly assist business by giving it the security that the DGFT will be able to take further action in respect of an agreement only in specified circumstances if the DGFT has given favourable guidance of the kind to which Clause 15 applies. We are considering whether any amendments are needed in relation to this clause. In particular, we are considering whether the use of the expressions "likely to infringe" or. "unlikely to infringe" are consistent here and elsewhere in the Bill. We are

343
considering whether there is a need to bring forward amendments at Report to ensure that each of these clauses in the Bill is consistent in this respect. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and that, together with my response to his amendment, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that full and helpful response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Professional Rules]:
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Individual exemptions]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 3, line 32, after ("rules") insert ("under section 49").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The Director shall publish full details of all requests for individual exemptions within 28 days of receipt in such a way as he thinks most suitable for bringing them to the attention of those likely to be affected.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 55, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 63. Amendment No. 55 refers to individual exemptions and Amendment No. 63 to block exemptions, imposing upon the director the requirement to publish details of all requests for exemptions within 28 days of receipt. The reason for the amendments is that unless there is some obligation on the director to publish information about applications for exemptions, the first people may hear of this, and also organisations which may potentially be affected by such applications, is under the circumstances mentioned in Clause 8(1) which states that,
"Before making a recommendation under section 6(l), the Director must publish details of his proposed recommendation".
I submit that, in many cases, that may be too late for representations to be made. Unless I have missed the provision elsewhere in the Bill, it would be very helpful if information were made available; indeed it is essential. I therefore beg to move the amendment.
Lord Simon of Highbury: It is important that, before the director grants individual exemptions or recommends that a block exemption order be made, interested parties are fully aware of the director's proposed action.
344
The Bill already provides, in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5, that when the director is determining an application for a decision to grant an individual exemption, he is required to publish the application,
"in such a way as he thinks most suitable for bringing it to the attention of those likely to be affected by it, unless he is satisfied that it will be sufficient for him to seek information from one or more particular persons other than the applicant".
When considering whether to recommend that the Secretary for State makes a block exemption order, subsection (1) of Clause 8 requires the director to,
"publish details of his proposed recommendation".
That provision will ensure that there is adequate consultation before the director recommends a block exemption. The nature of a block exemption means that undertakings do not have to apply to the DGFT in order to benefit from it, unless the opposition procedure in Clause 7 applies. If an undertaking applies for a decision under Clause 14, the DGFT may decide that the agreement is exempt from the prohibition because of the block exemption. The application will be published as described above.
As the Bill already contains provisions to ensure that interested parties are able to make representations relating to block and individual exemptions, I ask my noble friend whether he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that explanation. I shall read it very carefully, but I think it probably satisfies my requirements. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Cancellation etc. of individual exemptions]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert (", after hearing any representations from the undertakings concerned").
The noble Lord said: I think that the general intention of these clauses is to include an element of sportsmanship in the relationship between predator and prey. The Minister will be aware of those sections into which the Opposition wish to insert the appropriate protection.
Amendment No. 56 relates to page 3, line 37, inserting:
"after hearing any representations from the undertakings concerned";
and Amendment No. 57 proposes the same insertion at line 44 on page 3. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 relate to page 9 of the Bill. The insertion is slightly modified, but again has the same effect:
"after notifying the party which made the application and considering any representations".
Finally, Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are amendments to the same effect.
Bearing in mind that the end result of this procedure is a fine—a penalty—we believe it is important that a company that is likely to be on the end of an investigation should have proper time to reflect and to make counter-representations.
I am aware that we have not yet seen the Minister's proposals on the detailed procedure for reply. He may well have in mind some appropriate assertions of the sort I have mentioned at that stage. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: If the director cancels an individual exemption and imposes a penalty, his decision will be appealable to the competition commission under Clause 45. The appeal process provided in the Bill is the proper protection to which parties affected by the director's decisions are entitled. However, I accept that in addition there will need to be rules governing the procedures when the director takes further action after having decided that one of the prohibitions has been infringed or when cancelling an individual exemption, varying or removing a condition or obligation or imposing additional conditions or obligations.
If I may draw Members' attention to Schedule 9, they will see that paragraphs 5 and 6 make provision for rules on the procedures to be followed in those cases. I would expect that, among other things, the rules would make provision for the issues of notification and listening to representation raised by Members. I therefore hope that they will feel able to withdraw their amendments. The rules should make the appropriate provision clear.
Lord Lucas: I feel that the Minister could he a little more generous. There were so many qualifications in his answer that doing the exact opposite of what he implied would be perfectly consistent with what he said. If the Minister feels unable to go beyond the brief this evening, I hope that he will be able to feel more definite about the matter at Report and will give us satisfactory guidance to the effect that those who make applications and are concerned in this matter will be consulted in the way suggested by the amendments rather than saying that they might just possibly, maybe, one day, be consulted.
Lord Simon of Highbury: That sounds like a challenge to which the noble Lord will respond.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the Minister for his response. I simply add that it is not just in the interests of the alleged offender that these amendments are proposed. Some delay for consideration on behalf of the director general may lead him, for perfectly legitimate reasons, to change his mind about his original intentions. In those circumstances the appeal process would not have to be relied upon and a great deal of time and money would be saved by everyone. I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 61:
Page 4, line I, leave out from ("condition") to end of line and insert ("allows the Director, by notice in writing, to take any of the steps in subsection (l).").
Page 4, line 4, after ("(2)") insert (", (3)").
346
Page 4, line 6, after ("(2)") insert (", (3)").
Page 4, line 9, after ("(2)") insert (", (3)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendments Nos. 58 to 61, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62, which addresses a slightly different point.
This part of the Bill deals with the powers of the director general to cancel individual exemptions. Members of the British Retail Consortium are concerned about the form in which the words appear at present. Exemptions are important and valuable and in some instances could well be crucial. Therefore they are not to be given or abused lightly and certainly will not be lost lightly. The Bill provides for the director general to grant individual exemptions from the prohibition provided for in Clause 2 in respect of agreements if certain circumstances are satisfied. The director general can make individual exemptions subject to conditions.
The Bill provides that:
"If the Director has reasonable grounds for believing that there has been a material change of circumstance since he granted an individual exemption",
Or,
"If the Director has a reasonable suspicion that the information on which he based his decision to grant an individual exemption was incomplete, false or misleading in a material particular",
he may by notice in writing

"(a) cancel the exemption;

(b) vary or remove any conditional obligation: or

(c) impose one or more additional conditions or obligations".

However, the Bill provides that, if a condition in the individual exemption has been breached, the exemption is automatically cancelled and the Clause 2 prohibition will apply.
The amendments that I have moved, in effect, are saying to the Minister, "Steady on, it is possible to commit what, in the context, is a minor breach, and yet having done that there could be a technical breach such as a failure to provide information on time." That seemed possibly to fall within the ambit of what the director general can do. Therefore, with a small, modest dereliction one loses the benefit of the whole exemption. We think that is wrong. We suggest in these amendments that the director general should have power to impose a remedy proportionate to the problem, including the cancellation of the exemption if that is appropriate.
Amendment No. 62 replaces the automatic termination provision with one providing that the block exemption may contain provisions whereby the director general can by notice cancel a block exemption in respect of any agreement if there is a breach of condition for the reasons set out in the revised amendments to Clause 5.
Again, as with every amendment moved in the past seven or eight hours, they are substantially probing and designed to get from the Minister and his colleagues a reaction following which there may be further action at a later stage.,
This is a modest amendment and in the spirit of its being ten o'clock at night it is one which I hope the Minister will gladly give in order to go home early. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: I believe that the ability to grant block and individual exemptions is an important aspect of the prohibition regime contained in Chapter I of this part of the Bill. Both businesses and consumers will benefit from these exemptions. They will allow agreements which have countervailing benefits as set out in the criteria in Clause 9 to continue even where they have anti-competitive effects.
A decision to grant an exemption will be far from straightforward and will often involve the detailed consideration of the agreements and their economic effects. The ability to grant exemptions which impose requirements on parties to agreements will often be essential. It allows a necessary degree of flexibility when granting exemptions.
Our approach in this respect follows that under the Community prohibition contained in Article 85. The Bill provides for two kinds of requirements to be imposed, obligations and conditions. Where agreement reaches an obligation contained in individual or a block exemption the director must give notice in writing before taking action. In the case of an individual exemption he has a discretion as to whether there is a need to cancel the exemption, or whether it may be more appropriate to take other courses of action such as imposing an additional condition or obligation. Breach of a condition results in the automatic cancellation of that exemption with respect to that agreement with no need for the director to take further action.
The effect of these amendments would be to remove the distinction between conditions and obligations. Conditions would be treated in the same way as obligations currently are under the Bill. In each case, breach of these has the same effect as provided in the Bill.
Such a change would significantly weaken the flexibility which will be necessary when granting exemptions. At European level in granting exemptions the Commission has found it necessary to impose conditions as well as obligations.
There is a risk that if the director or Secretary of State is denied the ability to impose conditions the breach of which has the automatic effect of cancelling the exemption with respect to the agreement in question, he will be more cautious in granting exemptions. This would reduce the number of agreements which are able to benefit from block and individual exemptions under the prohibition.
Given that risk, I would urge my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton to withdraw these amendments at this stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for being so frank. He has said that it is possible that people will misuse or abuse the exemptions and the risk that the recipients of exemptions may become cavalier. That is well understood and it is a possibility. I think the Government are really saying that they are not prepared to risk the possibility.
348
This may be a huge issue but I am not competent to argue it in detail. I am sure the Minister has good grounds both for the words in the Bill and his explanation, which I found compelling but not completely acceptable. I shall take away the words he has used and consult colleagues. It may be that they will come back to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and wish the Committee good night.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Block exemptions]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Block exemptions: opposition]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 5, line 12, leave out from ("means") to end of line 14 and insert ("three months").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 73 to 76, 81, 83 to 85, 87 and 93. The first set of amendments concerns block exemptions in Clause 7. The general intention of all the amendments is to reduce the element of uncertainty for the alleged offender.
Amendment No. 64 introduces a period of three months in place of the expression,
"such period as may be specified with a view to giving the Director sufficient time to consider whether to oppose under subsection (2)".
That is a very open-ended expression and could leave the alleged offender in doubt for a long time.
Amendment No. 73 is to page 7, line 41 of the Bill. The Bill presently reads:
"On an application under this section, the Director may give the applicant guidance".
If the amendment were accepted the Bill would read:
"On an application under this section, the Director must promptly give the applicant guidance".
Amendment No. 74 substitutes the word "shall" for "may" on page 8, line 20. If agreed the Bill would read:
"On an application under this section, the Director shall make a decision".
Amendment No. 75 seeks to insert at the end of line 20, page 8,
"within a period of three months".
Amendment No. 76 seeks to insert at the end of Clause 14 (2) a new subsection (3):
"If no decision has been made under subsection (2) after a period of three months the Chapter I prohibition shall be deemed not to apply to the notified agreement".
I turn to Amendment No. 83. Clause 21 (2) states:
"On an application under this section, the Director may give the applicant guidance as to whether or not, in his view, the conduct is likely to infringe the Chapter II prohibition".
Amendment No. 83 seeks to leave out "may" in page 11, line 20 and insert "shall".
Amendment No. 84 seeks to substitute "shall" for "may" in page 11, line 27 of Clause 22 (2).
Amendment No. 87 seeks to insert on page 11, line 31, at end:
"If no decision has been made under subsection (2) after a period of three months the Chapter II prohibition shall be deemed not to apply to the notified agreement".
Finally, Amendment No. 93 proposes, on page 55, line 3 of the Bill, to add the expression,
"An application for a decision shall be determined within a period of three months from the date of notification, and where no determination has been made within the three month period the conduct shall he deemed not to infringe the Chapter II prohibition".
It has been the experience of the competition authorities in the European Community that it sometimes takes a very long time before a company knows where it stands under the competition rules. It seems to me that we could set a good example to the Community by not allowing our competition officials to fall into the same trap and leave our own companies in a period of long and unacceptable uncertainty. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: We are certainly keen to ensure that the prohibition regime operates efficiently. We agree with the noble Lord that, however long time, delays are inadvisable. They are bad for business and the economy. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern to ensure that the director does not delay in making decisions. It is of course important that business and consumers are not kept waiting for long periods. As the noble Lord pointed out, that uncertainty would be counter-productive.
However, it would be dangerous to impose a time limit of three months on the director. For example, when determining notification for a decision he may have to conduct a complex and detailed investigation of the economic and legal issues. He will wish to seek representations of third parties as part of his consideration. The effect of these amendments is that where he is unable to come to such a decision within three months, the agreement or conduct in question would be deemed not to infringe the prohibitions. We do not wish the director to be forced to make rushed decisions.
The Bill already makes provision to ensure that there is no undue delay in decisions made by the director which are expected to be brought into force once the system has bedded down. Both Schedules 5 and 6 make provisions which allow persons aggrieved by the failure of the director to determine an application for a decision to apply to a court for directions to secure that the application is considered without further delay.
Furthermore, Clause 49 enables the director to make rules on procedural and other matters. Schedule 9 elaborates on the kind of rules that can be made. Members of the Committee will see that paragraph 2(c) of that schedule makes specific reference to the possibility of rules making provisions for applications, whether for guidance or decision, to be dealt with in accordance with a timetable. I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand that until the system has bedded down and we have an idea of the volume
350
of applications that may be made, we believe that it would not be right to tie the director down to a fixed timetable.
Equally, if we were to remove the director's discretion to give guidance the new regime would be damaged. We should be clear that in some cases the issues may not be black or white. In particular, in the case of guidance the application will not be published and the director will have no opportunity to consider what views third parties might have on an agreement. Were they aware of it? It would be quite wrong to tie the director down by forcing him to give guidance.
However, I can quite see the business interest in guidance being given promptly. Clause 49 enables the director to make rules on procedural and other matters. Schedule 9 elaborates on the kinds of rules that can be made. Members of the Committee will see that paragraph 2(c) of the schedule makes specific reference to rules making provisions for applications whether for guidance or a decision. I would expect such rules to deal with those concerns. In the light of these remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: Is the Minister saying that in formulating the detailed rules that will apply to the procedure that the director general has to respect, specific time limits will be entertained?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I am saying that at this stage we do not think it a good idea to tie the director general down but, once the system has been bedded down, we may consider the matter further.
Lord Kingsland: At the risk at this time of night of irritating the Committee, perhaps I may address just one more question to the Minister. As I understand it from what he has said, the intention is to look at the experience (presumably over a period of, say, one year after the system has come into operation) and, in the light of that, to consider specific time limits. I say that because leaving many of these matters open-ended will pose great difficulties for the industry which will not know where it stands with regard to the competition regime. I should like to hear the Minister say that he accepts the approach of fixed time limits as a matter of principle.
Lord Haskel: What I can say is that the Bill already makes provision to ensure that there is no undue delay in decisions taken by the director. I expect to bring that into force once the system has bedded down.
Lord Kingsland: I appreciate the fact that the Minister has responded so frequently on this. I shall reflect on his replies in the cold light of dawn—well, perhaps not quite dawn!—but, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Block exemptions: procedure]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 65:
Page 5, line 15, after ("Before") insert ("granting an exemption under section 4 or ").
The noble Lord said: On the basis of my noble friend's explanations of my previous two amendments, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [The criteria for individual and block exemptions]:
[Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Parallel exemptions]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 6, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) An agreement is exempt from the Chapter I prohibition if the European Commission has granted a comfort letter clearing or exempting the agreement.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 68, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that where an agreement falls within the term of a European Union block exemption or has been granted an individual EU clearance (whether formally or informally) it should be regarded as valid under UK law and scrutiny of the same agreement by the UK authorities should be barred. That accords with the desired aims of consistency with the EU and of keeping the burdens on business to a minimum. The amendments would provide that informal comfort letters, which have been received from the European Commission in response to a notification, would be recognised as binding in the UK and that the DGFT will not be able to vary or cancel the terms of an EU exemption.
As noble Lords are probably aware, the vast majority of cases notified to Brussels do not receive a formal decision granting exemption but are dealt with by means of a comfort letter. In 1996, for example, out of 386 cases, 365 were dealt with informally by means of comfort letters and other forms of communication and only 21 by formal decision. If a firm has gone to the expense of submitting a notification to Brussels and then receives only a comfort letter, that should be regarded in the UK as equivalent to a formal notification.
Furthermore, we do not believe that the director should be able to change the terms of, or to cancel, an EU exemption by imposing stricter domestic law to the same agreement. We feel that that runs counter to the aim of consistency with the EU. If exemption decisions by the EU are considered inappropriate by the UK authorities, action should be taken to remedy that at EU level rather than causing confusion by subsequent conflicting domestic action. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the need to seek consistency in the application of EC and UK prohibitions. This clause is
352
designed to assist consistency. It provides automatic exemptions from Chapter I prohibition of agreements which are exempt from the EC prohibition of anti-competitive agreements or the EEA prohibition of anti-competitive agreements. This automatic exemption from Chapter I prohibition is referred to in the Bill as a parallel exemption. The parallel exemptions provided by Clause 10 are very wide ranging. Agreements that are not subject to the EC or EEA prohibition of anti-competitive agreements because they do not affect trade between the relevant member states, but which otherwise meet the conditions for an EC or EEA block exemption, are also to be parallel exempt from Chapter I prohibitions. Therefore, agreements with purely domestic effects can benefit from parallel exemptions.
I am sorry to go on at length at this late hour, but the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has raised an important point. I turn to his Amendment No. 68. This would extend the principle of automatic parallel exemption to European Commission comfort letters which fall short of a formal EC exemption. Comfort letters will be relevant in the application of UK prohibitions. The Director of the European Commission will be applying a consistent prohibition test and therefore a European comfort letter will be of persuasive authority to the UK system. However, it would be dangerous to confer a blanket automatic exemption from the UK prohibition on agreements that had received comfort letters. For example, such letters may state that the agreement is not caught by Article 85 because there does not appear to be an effect on trade between member states, while leaving open the possibility that the agreement produces harmful anti-competitive effects within the UK.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 proposed by the noble Lord would deprive the director of the ability to tackle agreements that raised particular UK competition concerns. Of course, there might be particular circumstances in which the director should be able to take action against an agreement which was parallel exempt under the clause. Take, for example, an agreement which had purely domestic effects but was nevertheless parallel exempt because if it affected inter-state trade it would meet the conditions of an EC block exemption. Such an agreement might raise particular UK competition concerns, and the director would be able to impose conditions on its operation, perhaps an obligation to provide market update information. The parties might have had to provide such information to the Commission if their agreement had affected inter-state trade. The director should also retain the ultimate sanction of cancelling the exemption.
I also draw the attention of the noble Lord to subsection (5) which provides that the circumstances and manner in which the director may impose conditions in relation to, or cancel, a parallel exemption will be set out in the director's rules which will not come into effect until they have been approved by order made by the Secretary of State. These orders are the subject of annulment by resolution by either House.

353
In view of the late hour and my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: Those are two persuasive arguments for me to do so, but I very much regret the response that I have received. I should like to study it with care. Since the bulk of the cases notified to Brussels are responded to by comfort letters, it is a hit hard for the UK authorities to say that they do not really count. That means that practically nothing that has been notified to Brussels will ever be regarded as having been dealt with. We must return to this and to the other points that the noble Lord has raised. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 7, line 17, leave out subsection (12).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Cause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Requests for Director to examine agreements]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Notification for guidance]:
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Notification for a decision]:
[Amendments Nos. 74 to 76 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Effect of guidance]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Effect of a decision that the Chapter 1 prohibition is not infringed]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Notification under Chapter 1: Procedure]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 52, leave out lines 24 to 27.
The noble and learned Lord said: With Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 are grouped Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. They are well grouped; they deal with an identical point. The amendments would remove the power of the director to convert unilaterally an application for guidance into an application for decision. It is a small but important point.
Companies must be able to make applications for guidance on a confidential basis. The ability to convert an application for guidance into a formal decision without the consent of the applicant could result in third parties becoming aware of confidential proposals, with
354
the end result that companies would be less willing to seek guidance or assistance in cases of uncertainty. That would be contrary to what the Government wish to achieve by this scheme of guidance and subsequent applications for decision.
I invite the noble Lord to reflect on that. It seems to run contrary to what would be an appropriate basis for taking forward such applications. All we ask of the Government at this stage is some signal that they will reflect on that before we return to it on Report.
We have considerable respect for the detailed and courteous way in which the Government Front Bench has dealt with some extraordinarily complex matters today. I hope that they appreciate that we have attempted to approach this in a co-operative fashion and that before we return to these provisions on Report—either informally or otherwise—they will seek to identify those points on which we are keen to ensure that we receive proper responses. If I get that short response from the Government, I give a solemn and binding undertaking that I will seek leave to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Haskel: A solemn and binding undertaking, certainly to reflect upon the issue. I hope that at this stage of the proceedings the noble Lord will accept that we will reflect upon the issue, but of course we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: On that solemn and binding basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Request for Director to consider conduct]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 82:
Page II, line 11, after ("prohibition") insert (", or which may amount to a dominant position,").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 82 and speak to the two other amendments in this group at the same time. They have a simple purpose. It is right that an applicant should be able to ask the director for a decision after a guidance as to whether he is in a position which amounts to a dominant position. It is essential that if the director issues such guidance he has the power to issue it; otherwise, it is something that can be challenged and overturned. So it is essential that somewhere in the Bill he is shown to have the power to issue such guidance. I cannot find it. I hope that the Minister can point me to it. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I could point to Clause 18 which prohibits the use of a dominant market position, but not the holding of a dominant market position itself. There is nothing wrong in companies holding a dominant position. It is only natural for companies to try to increase their share of the market. That of course is what competition is all about.
Lord Lucas: But if a company wants to know whether it will be caught by the clause, it has to decide

355
whether it is in a dominant market position. It may wish to seek guidance as to whether it is in a dominant market position. It would be especially difficult, for instance, to define what is the market and to be able to seek guidance as to whether it is looking at the market for vacuum cleaners or cleaning equipment as a whole. It is something that it would be reasonable to ask that the director give guidance on. So far as I can see in the Bill, he does not have the power to do it.
Lord Borrie: Perhaps I may intervene, just to say that I think that the noble Lord is asking for an academic question to be answered by an office which, even if it is resourced adequately, will have plenty of things to do. The prohibition applies only where the two conditions are satisfied: there is a dominant position and there is abuse. To enable people to ask whether one has a dominant position is to ask an academic question.
Lord Haskel: I thank my noble friend Lord Borrie for that. The director general is required under the Bill to issue guidelines as to how he intends to apply the prohibitions. Companies will be able to look to EC jurisprudence for guidance as to the principles which will be applied in assessing dominance. Some might put that as the ability to throw their weight around without worrying too much about the consequences, but business people usually have a fairly shrewd idea of the nature of their own markets and indeed the extent of their own market power. In view of that explanation, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I so do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Notification for guidance]:
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Notification for a decision]:
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 87 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Effect of guidance]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Effect of a decision that the Chapter II prohibition is not infringed]:
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Notification under Chapter II: Procedure]:
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 93 not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
House resumed.

Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from a Grand Committee with an amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on thePublic Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Thursday, 13th November 1997.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I call the first amendment, I should explain that if there is a Division in the main Chamber I should like the noble Lord who is speaking at the time to come to the end of a sentence and I shall adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.
Clause 8 [The Commission's powers to impose conditions on public processions]:
Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) the pattern and frequency of processions in particular localities;").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 14, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 15 which I understand is grouped with it. We addressed the meat of Amendment No. 14 yesterday when talking about the pattern and frequency of processions and the Minister indicated that he foresaw significant legal difficulties in respect of this. He requested that we take seriously the problem that might be created in terms of conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. I said then that we appreciated his difficulties but felt that we must search for some way of addressing this question. We said that we would be prepared, in light of the comments made not just by the Minister but by other noble Lords, to look at another form of words which might address this.
However, in Amendment No. 15 the situation is rather different. In this case we are asking that the commission be given the opportunity, when making a determination on a specific procession, to give guidance at that time in respect of subsequent processions in the same locality.I am clearly interested in what the Minister has to say, but I hope that his legal advisers will have acknowledged that this is a rather different proposition from the proposition to make determinations for the pattern of parades in an area. This is an opportunity for the commission to give a specific decision about a specific procession but to indicate its likely response further down the line.
The analogy that I made yesterday was of the planning department which is able to give guidance notes as to how it is likely to respond when applications are made. While one could argue that if it does not entirely fetter the decision-making powers further down, at least it narrows them. But I should have thought that
CWH 54
that was not unreasonable and it would at least give some reassurance to those who have concerns about the pattern of parades that giving permission to one parade was going to have some impact further down the line.
In respect of Amendment No. 15, therefore, I hope that there will perhaps be a somewhat more upbeat response from the Government, for the Minister yesterday, however kindly his response, was nevertheless fairly negative about the prospects of the pattern of parades being an acceptable one, however much we toiled over various forms of words. Amendment No. 15 is, I would submit, somewhat different because it asks that guidance notes he given.
It could be argued that in respect of this and the other matters, as was argued yesterday by one noble Lord, it is implicit in the Bill—and implicit indeed in the fact that some guidelines on parades have been published by the commission in a general sense—that it has the capacity to do this. Perhaps so, but it would be of great comfort if it were actually on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give a more positive response in respect of Amendment No. 15 than I suspect he will be prepared to give on Amendment No. 14, given that it is consequential on the amendments to which I spoke yesterday. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): I recognise the intention behind both amendments, although, as the noble Lord said, the effect of them would differ in that one is more relaxed in the way it would operate than the other.
May I say on Amendment No. 15 that I believe the commission already has the powers that the noble Lord asks for, and these are contained in the draft procedural rules which have been published recently by the commission. It is made clear that the commission will be seeking to gather information, take evidence and then express a preliminary view over a longer period than just one parade.
I quote from the procedural rules, which say:
"this will relate to the question of whether, and extent to which conditions might be imposed on any or all of the parades in the location".
I would suggest that what I have quoted and what the procedural rules say are so close to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 15 that I would think that the intention will already be fully met. Of course, the procedural rules go on to make clear that these preliminary views will not be binding and may be subject to change. Indeed, even if determinations were to be made well in advance, as the noble Lord has suggested in Amendment No. 14 and as he suggested in amendments yesterday, those also might have to change if circumstances alter nearer the time of a particular parade. So there is nothing unexpected in that.
In particular, the commission will wish to continue to take account of any fresh oral or written evidence on a parade up to 10 working days before the date on which it is due to be held. So by taking a preliminary view, the commission retains the flexibility to deal with further information that comes later in the day. The draft guidelines also make clear that the frequency with which

CWH 55
parades are held in a given area is a factor to take into account in assessing the likely impact of a procession on the relationships within the community.
There is a further point that, if we were to deal with, say, the middle of the marching season, my understanding is that it would be possible for the commission also to take into account previous parades at the same or a close location in making a decision about a forthcoming parade.
I believe that we are very close indeed to what the noble Lord seeks to achieve, not, I would suggest, as regards Amendment No. 14 but as regards Amendment No. 15. Therefore, I would argue that Amendment No. 15 is not necessary, and for the reasons that we discussed at some length yesterday, Amendment No. 14 I believe is not appropriate.
Lord Alderdice: If I might be permitted to respond, first, on Amendment No. 14, while I am not entirely surprised or particularly gratified by the Minister's response, it is what I had rather expected.
However, I am encouraged by his response on Amendment No. 15 because it indicates, first, that he does not see that proposition as being in conflict with ECHR and that indeed he regards it as being implicit in the powers of the commission confirmed by the fact that it has been able to publish these guidelines.
If I might make two comments in respect of that: first, it is the case that the subject matter of this is enormously sensitive, and therefore if any clarification can be given publicly, indisputably because it is not merely in Hansard as a ministerial reassurance but actually on the face of the Bill as a matter of law, then it may very well be that that would set to the side any dispute that there might be.
In passing, I make one other comment. It is to draw to the attention of the Minister the comments made by the Select Committee in regard to the sensitivities of the material upon which we are deliberating. It has indicated that, when it comes to orders, it may be important to consider the form of approval of orders and ensure that there is a degree of flexibility, so that no more parliamentary time is taken up than is necessary to ensure scrutiny but that there is proper scrutiny when the time comes.
Although the Minister and I might agree that we are not far apart on this amendment, sometimes things that appear very small and minor in a matter of this sensitivity may be seen as—if I quote the Select Committee correctly—"of the utmost importance". With both Amendment No. 15 and the question of how approval will be achieved, I simply wanted to draw the matter to the Government's attention in the hope that they will attend to it before we reach a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Molyneaux of Killeadhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 41, leave out from ("exceeding") to second (", or") in line 44 and insert ("level 5 on the standard scale").
The noble Lord said: In the light of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, yesterday and the response of the Minister and your Lordships generally, I would not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Review by Secretary of State of determination of Commission under section 8]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line I, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to comply with the Chief Constable's application or request, as it may be, in reviewing a determination issued by the commission. Given that the Secretary of State alone is answerable to Parliament, it is surely right that he or she should have cast-iron protection against allegations that due consideration was not given to the views of the Chief Constable.
The Chief Constable is not a kind of bit player; he is one of the three authorities in this form of decision-making. He is the person best placed to assess the capability of the police in terms of manpower and logistics, and if his advice and views are not automatically available to the Secretary of State any decision of the Secretary of State will be perceived in certain cases to be flawed. Apart from that, there can be no reason for appearing to downgrade the authority of the Chief Constable by retaining the word "may" instead of "shall". I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: I think it is a very reasonable amendment because, as we said yesterday and on Second Reading, any decisions that are taken will involve the RUC, who will have to police these parades. It would be a rather strange position if the RUC, who are, in fact, going to have to police the whole parade, went to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State said that he did not agree with them. It is something that I cannot see arising, but it would be better if it stated in the Bill that the Chief Constable should be listened to.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the amendment. We entirely share the North Report's assumption that the Parades Commission and the police will be working closely together and, therefore, applications by the Chief Constable to the Secretary of State to review the Parade Commission's determinations in any particular case should be few and far between. However, there may be cases where that will happen, and in the cases where the Chief Constable did make such an application, the Secretary of State would certainly wish to consider the case carefully. We are happy to make it clear that such a review will take place by accepting the noble Lord's amendment, which, in the words of the noble Lord, is reasonable.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for the support he has given. There is nothing unusual in that; we have seen eye to eye on a great many things; and I am even more grateful to the Minister for accepting our joint argument.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 6, line 2, after ("Constable") insert ("or a person proposing to organise a public procession").
Page 6, line 16, after ("Commission") insert (", the Chief Constable and the person proposing to organise the parade").
The noble Lord said: It is not intended to equate a procession organiser with the position of the Chief Constable. But, as we are all in the business of persuasion, it is surely sensible that a responsible organiser should have access to the Secretary of State when the occasion requires it.
It is not always possible for the Secretary of State to reverse a decision. But a decision may be acceptable to the organiser and those he represents if they have the right of access. They will then have the satisfaction of knowing that their views are clearly understood by all who participate in making the decision, particularly the Secretary of State herself.
Amendment No. 20 reflects the same principle in regard to the Secretary of State revoking, amending or confirming a determination. The Secretary of State, who, in addition to consulting the commission, has the power to authorise a determination, shall also consult with the Chief Constable and the organiser of a proposed procession. My amendment surely cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the light of the opening words of the subsection, though I accept that this might not always be practicable. However, I do not quarrel with the opening words of that subsection.
Again, it is true that an unfavourable decision by the Secretary of State is more likely to be broadly acceptable, admittedly with protest, by an organiser if that organiser is seen to have had direct access to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I have some doubts about Amendment No. 19. If it were to be accepted, it would tend to downgrade the role of the commission. Some parade organisers might be tempted to ignore the commission and wish to go straight to the Secretary of State.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was rather in support of Amendment No. 19. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is on a winning streak at the moment judging by the last amendment, but perhaps that will not last. However, it would be odd if the responsible organisers of a planned procession who were upset by the determination that the commission made were to make representations to the Secretary of State—which they or any other citizen would be able to do—and the Secretary of State were to say, "I am not allowed to consider what you say unless the Chief Constable raises the matter with me". That would place the Secretary of State in an awkward position which would be unsatisfactory. In addition to
CWH 58
that, it would place the Chief Constable in the unsatisfactory position of denying the citizens who were attempting to organise the procession the opportunity to have the determination reversed or changed in some respect by the Secretary of State.
Lord Alderdice: The anxiety that I have about the amendment is that one would quickly find oneself coming to the position where every parade organiser would automatically go for an appeal and the Secretary of State would have relatively little option but to grant it. Almost inevitably, it would downgrade the standing of the commission.
It has seemed to me from the beginning that it is important to develop the standing of the commission, rather than the opposite. Indeed, one of my concerns about the North Commission Report not being implemented in full and giving the commission powers of determination from the very beginning was that it was starting off from a rather lowly position where it could merely consult and then, frankly, be ignored. We may reach a point where it has powers of determination but every single one of those determinations can be set aside simply by the wish of the organiser of the procession, who will almost inevitably disagree with the Secretary of State if he or she does not get his or her own way. So while I understand the reasons given for the amendment, I do not think it is in the interests of the commission or its standing that there should be this loophole.
Lord Monson: Yesterday we spoke of the importance of balance in the Bill. It seems to me that these two amendments provide for a better balance, albeit of a slightly different nature.
Lord Dubs: I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and indicate that the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, come nearer to the position I would urge on the committee. Of course we want balance and of course we want openness and transparency, but there are a number of reasons why we would not be happy about these amendments.
First, there is the question of time. We need to recognise that time can often be of the essence and we need to avoid the danger that the new structures would be completely overwhelmed. I do not think we would be in the position that, at any given point in time, the Secretary of State would simply have to consider one parade. We would hope that she would have to consider none at all, but we would have to allow for the possibility that if we opened up the doors in the way suggested by these amendments, people who are dissatisfied with the commission's determination would appeal as a matter of course to the Secretary of State. We would find that the whole system would be clogged up at the very time when there were a number of key parades coming on stream very shortly. We would be opening up a whole new area of bureaucratic procedures and in practice it would almost take the decision on contested parades away from the commission, as recommended by the North Report, in order to give it

CWH 59
to the Secretary of State herself. That would not be acceptable, and it would certainly be far away from the intentions underlying the Bill.
While this amendment refers only to a right of appeal for organisers, if the ability to make applications to the Secretary of State were extended beyond the Chief Constable, I do not think it would be justifiable to extend it only to parade organisers and not to other interested parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, people may wish to contact the Secretary of State on a whole range of issues. I would have thought it would then be proper, if one were to accept these amendments, to give other people the same rights as parade organisers.
The North Report considered these issues in some detail and felt that, provided the commission's initial consultation and determination took account of the views of all concerned, there was no need for an appeals process over and above the possibility of judicial review, as is always the case. The legislation of course already provides for a greater degree of consultation with both sides than is the case under existing arrangements.
I think both these amendments provide a bridge too far, and I would recommend the Committee to reject them. I hope, indeed, that the noble Lord would feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I wonder whether it would help in the case of the second amendment if the same phrase was used as appears in the other one, "where practicable", because that would not make it mandatory.
May I confide in your Lordships something from my experience of last year? Forty-eight hours before what for shorthand we can call Drumcree No. 3 this year, the Secretary of State and I travelled down to meet not just the key people or the top people in Portadown Orange district, but 124 people representing the different lodges. It was my conviction as I came away from that meeting that, if we had had another 48 hours—in other words, if it had been possible to start the consultative process a little earlier—we would have been as successful that weekend as we were the following weekend, when consultation did take place. But for reasons of confidentiality, I cannot go into that in detail. That taught me a lesson: if consultation at the very highest level can be provided for, we could hope to prevent entirely the kind of disasters which caused us all—not least Her Majesty's Government—a great deal of distress this past year.
In short, I am not suggesting that the Minister can give me an assurance today, but in the light of what I have said, I believe that no barriers should be placed in the way if it is thought appropriate for the Secretary of State to invite people in a position to cool the situation to help her to find a solution.
Lord Dubs: I appreciate the very difficult circumstances last July. I also appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said about the helpful part that he played as regards the Secretary of State
CWH 60
having had that kind of involvement earlier this year, and having a formal arrangement on the face of the Bill as regards what the Secretary of State must do by way of specific procedures laid down.
Clearly the Secretary of State has representations from all sorts of people in Northern Ireland all the time on all kinds of issues. But the noble Lord's amendment seeks to place this on a formal basis, and that makes the process too difficult. It is opening the doors to everybody to make use of these procedures.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: One thought occurred to me. Is it possible to have some form of words—I know that is a phrase beloved of the Foreign Office and not the Northern Ireland Office—to protect the Secretary of State or any of her Ministers from the allegation that they have been engaged in a hole-in-the-corner, secret conversation with this or that body, and as a result of that a certain decision has been taken? Is it possible to have some kind of informal recognition that a service could be established by providing for an avenue to the top decision-makers in certain circumstances?
Lord Dubs: There is a difficulty. With the Parades Commission we seek to have a body that is independent of the Secretary of State, and one that will seek to achieve a compromise on or an agreed resolution of any difficulties without having to make a formal determination. However, if it is necessary, that will be another function of the Parades Commission.
The more we say that the Secretary of State will be involved in these decisions, the more we move back to the position of last July, and the more we undermine the independence, autonomy and authority of the Parades Commission. We believe that if the Parades Commission is to work, it has to be seen not only as being independent but also as a body which is not simply a doorway to the Secretary of State but will make determinations if informal resolutions are possible, without opening the door to the Secretary of State for everybody who is disaffected. My fear is that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, would simply impose the responsibility on the Secretary of State; and the Parades Commission would be seen as having a lesser part to play.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: What struck me as odd on that earlier occasion which I call the "Drumcree minus weekend" was that there did not appear to be any input by the commission at any stage. The Secretary of State on that weekend, supported as she was by one or two of us, could be seen to be acting without the views, determination and advice of the commission. I am not criticising the commission on that occasion, but for some reason or other it did not appear to have a clear role or to take any beneficial part in the discussion.
Lord Alderdice: Perhaps I may make two comments. First, I should like to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, for his interventions last year. At the time, there was high tension and deep fear, and with good cause. Had it not been for the standing in which the noble Lord is held in this community, and the efforts that he made,

CWH 61
we might all be debating entirely different matters in respect of Northern Ireland at present. It is only fair to pay tribute to him because his experience there is real and considerable, and the contribution that he made was, in my judgment, enormous.
However, I also wish to draw to the noble Lord's attention that we now hope that the commission will have the power to make determinations. On the occasion when the noble Lord was involved, the commission did not have the power to make any determinations; the Secretary of State and the RUC Chief Constable were the people involved. He was involved in much of the behind-the-scenes and difficult work with the decision-makers. If the Bill is enacted, the members of the commission will become decision-makers and makers of determinations, which they were not at that time, and that will change the dynamic considerably.
I trust that we shall not again find ourselves in the invidious position in which the noble Lord and the community as a whole found themselves last year. If we do, however, and if his services are called on again after the Bill is enacted, he will have the opportunity of being involved with the determination-making commission rather than the purely advisory body, which was largely marginalised by what was going on last year, precisely because these powers had not been given to it in time.
4 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for putting the argument so clearly. I warmly endorse the point he made about the helpful and positive role of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, earlier this year. It was much appreciated by the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues and it played an enormous part in resolving some of the difficult issues in a peaceful way. I am happy to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said.
Having said that, the difference, as has been made clear, is that with the Bill in place the Parades Commission will have a clear role and clear powers and responsibilities. The fact that it will have those will give it a chance to carry out the functions which the noble Lord said it did not seem to be carrying out earlier this year. I do not know any details about that, but the Parades Commission will certainly have a clear remit. That is central to the way in which we see the legislation having effect. The Parades Commission will be there to do a specific task, which is to achieve peaceful compromise and the resolution of difficulties. If that fails, it will then be authorised to make a determination.
Lord Fitt: On the off-chance that the proceedings may be reported in the Northern Ireland press, which is highly unlikely, I should like to place on record that I, too, fully support and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, on what he did earlier this year. That was a very dangerous situation, as has already been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
I see the debate on the amendment opening up a whole can of worms. On the contentious parades where the commission will be asked to make a determination, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned responsible organisers. There are many irresponsible organisers in
CWH 62
Northern Ireland. The word "responsible" should be underlined. In Drumcree last summer the Secretary of State had to meet the protesters—the organisers, in other words—in Drumcree. She did what she could, and she received very little thanks for it at the end of the day. She was charged with everything under the sun in relation to that organisation.
At the moment two gentlemen—one who represented the Garvaghy Road residents last year and one who represented the Ormeau Road residents—are on a grand tour of America, and the only reason for their acceptance in America is that one of them led what was, and the other one led what could have been had it not been for the participation of the noble Lord, a very violent protest against parades which had been allowed by the police in Northern Ireland. Therefore, when the commission is approaching a determination on any given parade, it will have to speak to the people who are organising the parade. It will also have to speak to the people who are organising a protest against that parade; and one or other of those organisations will be dissatisfied with whatever conclusion the commission arrives at. Last summer, it was the Secretary of State, and I believe she showed great courage in trying to reach an accommodation with the various elements in these parades.
I believe it is right that the commission, as I am sure the noble Lord will confirm, will first seek to find an accommodation between the organisers of the parade and those who are liable to protest. After having taken account of their attitudes, it would make a recommendation to the police. We are only skating over the ice of all the terrible possibilities that could arise next year if no accommodation can be found between the warring factions.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: In light of the friendly and constructive way in which the amendment has been listened to, if nothing else, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 33, after ("procession") insert ("or likely counter-demonstration to a proposed public procession").
The noble Lord said: I believe that I am right in saying—the Minister will confirm this—that we deferred discussion on likely counter-demonstrations. I do not feel that I need to add anything, unless the Minister wishes to make any comment having slept on the matter overnight. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I said that we would look again at the amendment to which the noble Lord refers. However, I suggest that these amendments are in a somewhat different category and perhaps I could briefly explain why.

CWH 63
I believe that these amendments are unnecessary because the Secretary of State already has the power to ban such counter-demonstrations. Schedule 3 of the Bill sets out amendments to existing legislation. The Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 currently gives the Secretary of State powers to ban both public processions and public meetings. Clause 11 restructures the power to ban public processions. Schedule 3 also restructures the Secretary of State's power to ban public meetings broadly in parallel with the provision of Clause 11. The power to ban public meetings will remain therefore, but can be found in the public order order rather than the Bill.
Technical as all this sounds, we are dealing in these amendments with a somewhat different point from that of people who would simply try to obstruct parades. I undertook yesterday to look again at the second point about people obstructing parades or causing such difficulties. I believe that we have all the powers to deal with the points that are the substance of these amendments.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 35. after ("any") insert ("serious").
The noble Lord said: The insertion of the word "serious" merely brings the Bill into line with the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. The organisers of all manner of events anywhere in the United Kingdom at various times are accused of causing disorder, annoyance or damage. Usually, on investigation, it is proved that there is no substance in these claims and allegations—that they are frivolous and bogus—and they are not pressed when they are faced with that awkward fact. My reason for selecting the word "serious" is that it is used in all similar contexts in the existing Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order, and it would seem sensible to use the same terminology in the Bill before us and thus avoid any unnecessary problems over interpretation. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have discussed on several occasions—it was mentioned again this afternoon—the need for balance in the Bill. It is of course most important that the Bill is not seen as an anti-parades Bill and that the commission is not seen as an anti-parades commission. I do not believe that that was the intention of the North Report, nor do I believe it is the intention of the Government that it should be so. The Government may feel that it is unfair that some people undoubtedly at this point think of it as an anti-parades commission and an anti-parades Bill.
But there are a couple of parts of the wording which lend credence to that view, and I am keen that we should tidy those up to try to remove the feeling that it is an anti-parades Bill. The amendment goes to one of them because, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said, it repeats the wording of the public order order of
CWH 64
1987, except that it leaves out the word "serious" in a number of cases. The Secretary of State's power to prohibit public processions, which up to now has been only in case of serious public disorder being threatened or likely, means that in future any public disorder threatened or likely can give rise to the parade being altered or banned.
It is related to the same point that we were making yesterday about the code of conduct. The North Report specifically recommended that the code of conduct should have clauses in it about the conduct of counter-protests and what they should do. The Government have not put that into the Bill, which is another example of why the Bill tends to be seen as an anti-parades Bill.
It is important to point out that what is intended is certainly not a commission to stop parades. The commission itself has no power, as the clause makes clear, to stop a parade. Only the Secretary of State has the power to ban a parade, or the police in case of serious public disorder. The purpose of the commission is to enable parades to take place peacefully and in an orderly manner, as most now do. It is small changes to the wording of the Bill by comparison with the previous order and with the North Report which lend a little credence to the wrong idea about this commission, and it is important that we try to eliminate them.
Lord Monson: I agree that it is highly desirable that this series of amendments be accepted either now or possibly at the next stage; otherwise the likelihood of a single broken window pane or a single bent car aerial might lead to the banning of a traditional parade which has been going on for 50 years or more.
Lord Dubs: The amendments tabled by the noble Lord refer to the provisions contained in Clause 11 of the Bill on the Secretary of State's power to ban parades. That is a much more significant power than the powers given to the commission. The noble Lord seeks, I believe, to ensure that the clause lends greater emphasis to the seriousness of the factors which the Secretary of State must take into consideration in making her decision. Those factors include the threat to public order or damage to property and the impact of the parade upon community relations.
Clause 11 is based on the Government's view that the Secretary of State must take into account the full range of factors which have a bearing on any decision to ban a parade. Unlike in the previous legislation, there is not a threshold of disorder or disruption beyond which the Secretary of State can immediately act. Rather, we have moved from a criteria-based to a factor-based approach. We believe that the Secretary of State should seek to make decisions taking account of all the possible implications. That does not, however, mean that the Secretary of State will require a "weaker" case in order to consider it necessary to impose conditions on a particular parade. The Secretary of State must ask herself if it is necessary for her to ban a particular parade in the public interest.
The power to ban parades is a serious matter, raising fundamental questions of civil liberties and rights.

CWH 65
Indeed, in European Convention on Human Rights terms, if a decision to ban a parade were challenged, here again the Secretary of State would need to demonstrate that the decision was necessary and proportionate to the facts of the case. It has only been needed in exceptional circumstances in the past and I can assure noble Lords that this will remain the case in the future.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: If the Minister is reasonably confident that what appears to me to be a little loophole will not be permitted to be exploited by frivolous people, and with there being time to think about the matter while the Bill progresses through another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 28 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 40, after ("community") insert—
(" ( ) the desirability of allowing a procession customarily held along a particular route to be held along that route:").
The noble Lord said: There is a difference between the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to ban a public procession under Clause 11, which we are considering now, and the criteria to be used by the commission under the earlier clause in deciding whether to issue a determination. It seems to me that the difference between the two sets of criteria is undesirable.
In the set of criteria to be used by the commission, it has to have regard, among other things, to what is called in shorthand traditionality, namely, the desirability of allowing a procession customarily held along a particular route to be held along that route. By the time we get over the page to the Secretary of State's powers to ban a public procession, that paragraph has disappeared.
It seems to me to be right for the commission to have regard to the traditionality of a parade in making its decisions. It is equally right that the Secretary of State should have regard to that traditionality in making her decision on the same parade. It is rather difficult to see how the considerations of the Secretary of State could leave out a consideration which the commission had taken into account. It might have been of significance in the commission's decision, in which case the Secretary of State should certainly consider it too. That is why this amendment seeks to insert those lines and that paragraph into the Secretary of State's power to ban a parade.
Lord Monson: This is a good amendment. As a general principle it is proper that there should be a modest—and I stress the word modest—in-built bias in favour of any longstanding tradition.
Lord Hylton: I am not quite sure that it is absolutely necessary to have precisely the same
CWH 66
criteria laid down in the Bill for both the commission and the Secretary of State. If a text along the lines proposed in this amendment is thought desirable, then there might also be grounds for having something written in describing the situation where the character of a particular road, street or neighbourhood has totally changed—for example, as a result of the building of houses—and a completely different and new population has come into the area.
Lord Fitt: The amendment relates to the whole question of desirability and traditionality. Let us take the areas which have been a great bone of contention in Northern Ireland: Drumcree, Garvaghy Road and the Ormeau Road. In both those areas, over a period of 10 to 20 years the demography has changed out of all recognition. The Garvaghy Road was at one time an almost 100 per cent. Protestant district in culture and identity. Those people left. Many Roman Catholics moved into the Garvaghy Road area; they have their culture and identity. They did not like the Orange parades passing by what they regarded as their estate, even though those traditional parades have been taking place on that road for over 100 years.
The same thing has happened with the Ormeau Road in Belfast. At one time the population was nearly 85 per cent. Protestant. With the troubles that changed. People were ordered out of their homes. One section of the Catholic population was ordered out of a Protestant estate. I saw that happen, tragically, in 1968 and 1969 after the advent of the civil rights movement. Then the Ormeau Road Catholics who had been intimidated in other parts of Belfast moved into the Lower Ormeau Road, an area where Protestants had been intimidated to move out of that area. The whole demography of the area changed.
The Orange parades have passed this area traditionally over a number of years, and traditionality must take precedence over the wishes of the people who are living in those estates that the Orange parades must pass through. The commission will have to take many decisions. I believe that the wishes of the people who live in that area must be paramount. They live there. They do not want to see what they regard as a hostile, triumphalist parade going past their estate.
Two areas were highlighted last year. In the Garvaghy Road there has been a 90 per cent. change as regards the people who live in that estate. The same applies to the Lower Ormeau Road. Those are the two most contentious areas in which parades took place last year. They will undoubtedly be so next year. The big question arises as to whether traditional parades take precedence over the wishes of the people who are living in the areas where the parade will pass. That is a big decision for the commission to take.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes, indeed, it is a decision for the commission to have to take. In the criteria laid down in Clause 8. the commission is already charged with the duty of considering the traditionality aspect; and, in addition and in fact of more importance, any impact which the present procession may have on relationships within the

CWH 67
community. It seems to me that that allows changes about which we all know. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, knows a good deal more about such changes than I do and he speaks from great experience.
If, as we agreed yesterday, the commission will take account of traditionality in making its decision and issuing its determination, then I believe that the Secretary of State should have to take account of the same criteria in making her decision to ban the procession if that is what seems to be necessary.
I am seeking similar criteria. It is right that the traditionality criteria should be included. It is also right that account should be taken of changes in population in particular areas. But both the commission and the Secretary of State in their respective roles should have to take account of the same factors.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It might have been expected that I should wish to say something in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, given that I have been participating in such activities for some 60 years—on all occasions I trust well-behaved and within the law.
With great respect, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, misunderstood the opening words of the proposer. He spoke about the amendment's desirability. At no time did the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggest that the proposal meant giving a degree of priority or precedence to traditional parades on the route used. Nobody is suggesting that these routes should have absolute priority and precedence over all other considerations.
Lord Dubs: Clearly the Committee is well aware that the Government recognise fully the importance attached to traditional parades, particularly among those in the unionist community. This is also recognised in the North Report; and just as North recommended the commission be able to take into account traditionality in deciding whether to impose conditions, we have included a provision to that effect in the Bill as regards the way in which the commission would operate. We have not, however, included it in the banning power for what I would call pragmatic or perhaps technical reasons. Let me explain.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the traditionality criterion is intimately associated with the particular route a procession should follow. Should it be allowed to go a traditional way or should an alternative, perhaps less controversial, route be found? That will certainly be taken into account in deciding whether to impose conditions. But the banning power is a different matter. We hope the banning power will be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. But when deciding whether to exercise the banning power, the Secretary of State has to make up her mind whether a parade should be allowed to go ahead at all—not which route it should take but whether it should be banned altogether. In a technical sense, therefore, we felt that the traditionality criterion which
CWH 68
applies to the commission's work would be less appropriate, or indeed not really appropriate, for the Secretary of State.
That is how we saw it. It is not an absolute argument; it is simply a matter of asking whether we are giving the Secretary of State in this legislation the appropriate criteria with which to ban a parade. We took the view that the traditionality argument had particular relevance to the route a parade should follow but that this was less appropriate in the case of the banning powers which Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State. It is a fairly pragmatic argument and not one of absolute principle.
Lord Desai: May I ask my noble friend a question? I am sorry, I have not been here before. Suppose we have a traditional march and there are negotiations about changing the route or part of the route but not the march itself. Does the non-inclusion of this paragraph prevent those kinds of explorations being made? There may be a situation where people say that they want to march and the Secretary of State or the commission may say, "Yes, you can have the march but not along that route". Does this make it more difficult for those kinds of negotiations to arrive at a decision to have the march but on a different route?
Lord Dubs: I am happy to clarify that for my noble friend. The position is that the commission, when deciding about a parade, will take all these factors into account. If, however, we reach a more extreme situation when the Secretary of State has to consider banning a parade—not the route of a parade as determined by the commission but actually banning the parade altogether, which is an extreme step to take and in civil liberties terms a very difficult step for the Secretary of State to take—we have felt that in Clause 11 the four criteria that we have laid down are the ones that the Secretary of State would take into account, simply because we felt that technically it would not be appropriate to consider the route of a parade if such an extreme step as banning it altogether had to be taken.
That is not an absolute argument, but it is an argument as to how the Secretary of State might feel able to make such a decision. It seems to us that if the extreme point of banning a march had been reached, the traditionality aspect would play a smaller part in her mind. But I repeat that I am listening to the arguments; I am not taking an absolute view. However, one wants to have on the face of the legislation as sensible an approach as possible. For those pragmatic reasons, we felt that the four criteria in Clause 11 were the appropriate ones.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister has been generous in explaining that he will think about things further, and that includes this matter. I do not propose to press it today, but just to draw attention to the fact that there seems to me to be another practical difficulty from the point of view of the Secretary of State.

CWH 69
The Secretary of State will have to consider in relation to a particular parade, first of all, whether to vary the determination made by the commission, which may be to do with the route and so forth. Then, in extreme cases—and there are relatively few parades which have been banned in the past—the Secretary of State will have to turn her mind to whether to ban it. In practice, I suspect the consideration will go on at the same time. The options open to the Secretary of State will be to stick with what the commission said, or to vary the instructions that are given, or to ban the parade altogether. We cannot say that when we are considering option two (to vary the determination) we must consider traditionality, but five minutes later when we are considering option three (to ban the parade) we must not consider traditionality. I agree with the Minister that traditionality will perhaps not feature enormously in the decision to ban, but to have a different set of guidelines for option two and option three seems to me to be unusual.
However, the Minister has said he will look at these matters and I accept that. Unless he wishes to say anything further, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Desai: Before the noble Lord sits down, could I put a question to him to clarify my mind? He says, for example, that negotiations will be going on with the commission about altering the route of a parade. If those negotiations get to a stage where people cannot agree to alter the route, I would see Clause 11 being put into effect at that stage, when all attempts to find solutions have failed. Therefore, a traditional march will go along a traditional route and the ban has to be invoked. I think this is probably why this framework has been designed. But I do not know whether that is the impression of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The process is that a parade is planned and an application is made to the commission. The commission makes a determination that it should follow a certain route, and then the Chief Constable says to the Secretary of State that there will be trouble if it proceeds like this and the determination should either be varied or the march should be banned altogether. He may say only one of those things. He may say that the only thing to do is to ban the march. The Chief Constable may say that if the determination is changed it would be all right and the march would not need to be banned, but if the determination is not changed then it should be banned and the Secretary of State will need to consider this.
At that point the Secretary of State will have the three options—to stick with the commission's view, to vary the determination or to ban the procession altogether. In considering varying the determination under the previous clause, Clause 9, traditionality must be taken into account by the Secretary of State. In
CWH 70
considering whether to ban it under Clause 11 the Secretary of State does not take into account that particular criteria. I think he should.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that I had said I would consider it. I am not sure that I used those words, but I do so now.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 41, after ("any") insert ("undue").
The noble Lord said: "Any undue demands" would be my preference—
"which the procession may cause to be made on the police or military forces".
Without the inclusion of "undue demands'', demands on police time and even military time could refer to road traffic incidents, normal crime detection and even regulating traffic at rush hour; so in plain common sense the inclusion of the word "undue" would clearly imply a very clear definition of the meaning of the word. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It would also have the advantage of bringing this wording once again into line with the public order order 1987.
Lord Monson: Any procession, even in London, with as few as a dozen people normally requires the presence of a police constable, so that, unless the word "undue" is inserted, it could give an excuse to ban almost any parade, however small.
Lord Dubs: This amendment is similar to other amendments to Clause 11 tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Molyneaux of Killead. I am not sure that I am happy about the amendment.
Clause 11 is based on the Government's view that the Secretary of State must take into account a full range of factors which have a bearing on any decision to ban a parade. We believe that the Secretary of State should seek to make decisions taking account of all the possible implications. In this case, we believe that the demand likely to be made on the police and military forces, of whatever level, is an essential factor to be taken into account and balanced by the Secretary of State against the other factors. A decision to ban would be unlikely to be made on this factor alone.
As I have already said, the Secretary of State will not take a decision to ban lightly. Total bans on parades have been needed only in the most exceptional of circumstances in the past, and I can assure noble Lords that this will remain the case. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is, in a sense, not strictly necessary and be able to withdraw it.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I believe that it is rather a pity that we are here designing fresh legislation which is going to

CWH 71
be implemented and enforced in parallel to existing legislation, the public order order 1987. It would surely be much simpler for all concerned, in the case of a judicial review, if the same terminology applied to both sets of legislation, overlapping as we all know them to be.
If I were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which I have no ambition to be at my time of life if I ever entertained such ideas, I would welcome the inclusion of that word because I would be protected from all manner of pressures by little do-it-yourself pressure groups and so forth. It is easy to lay on a march on the spur of the moment and to impose additional strain on the security forces when they might have many other demands on their time. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think about this issue and perhaps, when the legislation comes before another place, they might at least be able to modify their thinking on that particular subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Registration of bands taking part in public processions]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) A statutory instrument which contains an order under this section shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This brings us on to Clause 12 which concerns bands. The clause permits the setting up of a system for registering bands. The North Report urged the Government to look at this possibility and patently, judging by the clause being inserted in the Bill, they have begun to look at it. I hope that we shall learn a little more this afternoon of what their thinking is in that regard.
I was not quite sure why it was necessary to put this set of provisions in the Bill because they are already in the 1987 order in a not dissimilar fashion. Of course, that has been on the statute book for a decade now and has not been put into practice. I cannot recall from memory whether we seriously considered putting it into practice during the time I was in the Northern Ireland Office, but it undoubtedly has been considered over the years.
The North Report tells us that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would like to see a system of registering bands; it also says that consideration should be given to the system being court-based. That is put forward tentatively by the North Report, which believes it would be right for the courts to be involved in the process, certainly at the appeal stage and quite possibly at the initial decision-making at stage two. But we do not consider it right to make a specific recommendation to this end.
The Government have clearly gone further than North because he has chosen a court-based system, which is the principal difference that I can see
CWH 72
between the provisions in the Bill as compared with the provisions in the 1987 order. It seems to me that this is a provision to which careful thought should be given, and it would be helpful to know how the Government's mind is moving on it.
We all know that bands can be a cause of trouble, and I suspect that part of the purpose of having such a registration system is to be able to de-register a band which misbehaves. The difficult part is to know how the order which is proposed under the Bill should fulfil subsection (2)(c). That is to say, the order must lay down the grounds on which an application to register a band should be refused. I find it difficult to know on what grounds a first application to register a band would be refused.
I can see that if it misbehaved at a procession and was thought to be offensive, one course of action under the process would be to take away its registration. I suspect that in that case most of the members of that band would quickly find a slot in another band. I do not think it would be a very effective measure, and it may be that is why it has not been implemented since 1987. But I do think we should know more about how the Government are thinking on this.
I also put down Amendment No. 32 which suggests that there should be an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament to confirm the band order when it is made, rather than the negative provision which is given in the Bill. That is because I think it is important to get it right. To slip it through on a negative order, which in the other place is not very likely to be debated on any occasion and where it makes a bigger difference than it does in this House, seems to me unsatisfactory for an instrument of this importance.
My understanding is that the loyal orders, the Orange Order in particular, go to great trouble these days to try to control the bands, which are not their own. They are bands which they hire, and there is a contract system which has proved quite effective in some cases in controlling the bands. If it can be done voluntarily, that is much better than dragging the courts into a whole system of registration and appeals and all the palaver that is necessary if a registration system were to be set up.
I am not therefore wholly against the registering of bands, particularly if the RUC thinks it necessary. But I am sceptical about it, and I would certainly want to know more about it before we put it into law. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I would share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that the Minister, who I know will have given the background to this a great deal of study, can give us some idea why the authorities did not ever see fit to implement that which is already on the statute book in the terms of the public order order. It is true that some of the organisations—and those of us involved in some of the organisations became a little impatient about this delay and set about designing a code of conduct and, in some years, imposing very strict

CWH 73
measures of control over bands. It seems odd that that legislation has been lying unused for a decade, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, and is now being duplicated in the Bill for no very good reason while it is already on the statute book.
Lord Monson: Whereas there are many precedents throughout the United Kingdom for controlling processions along a public highway, forcing bands to register, and controlling them, seems a different matter to me. Is the Minister certain that this will not conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised an important question. I read somewhere in an earlier part of the Bill that a band in Northern Ireland could consist of two or more people. The people of Northern Ireland would feel highly insulted if they were told that they had a band with only two people. They have some of the best bands and the best musicians in the whole of the United Kingdom, if not in the world. It is not their musical ability that causes the trouble but the tunes they play.
I have lived on the Antrim Road where the Orange Parade begins in Northern Ireland in the City of Belfast. It is well known that a number of those bands have been referred to as "kick the Pope" bands. Many are brought over from Scotland and we know how bitter and sectarian some of those bands can be in Scotland. Two or three hundred yards from the beginning of the parade at Carlisle Circus the band passes St. Patrick's Chapel: I have stood outside the chapel and seen the Orange "kick the Pope" band passing by. It caused a great deal of ill-feeling.
I hope that some self-regulation could be applied here. The Orange Order could decide which band to employ for the day and which not to employ. I fervently hope that by the time we consider this legislation next year there will be some resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland from the peace talks now taking place which are meant to come to a halt in May next year. If a peaceable solution emerges from those talks, it will be far easier to implement the conditions of the Bill.
We have seen recently in Bellaghy that malign forces were undoubtedly trying to cause trouble in relation to Poppy Day. When they were challenged on this, they said they were not challenging the Remembrance Day march. But they took exception to the band because it was anti-Catholic, anti-Irish and totally sectarian. If the Orange Order wants to hold its traditional parades—and I support it in that objective—then it is incumbent upon it to ensure that the bands play non-inflammatory tunes when leading parades. The same consideration applies even to the names of the bands. I refer to the Lord Carson True Blues. Lord Carson is credited with being the architect of the Northern Ireland state and people find the name highly offensive to Irish nationalism. Many other names on the drums of the bands can be offensive to one or other of the cultural identities in Northern Ireland. Bands are an extremely important part of processions in Northern Ireland.
CWH 74
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has been helpful and constructive in his recent deliberations on the troubles in Northern Ireland. I urge him to take into account the feelings among the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland at the sometimes provocative attitudes of the bands. I am sure that if the Orange Order knows that the issue is of such importance to the national community, it will take the requisite steps.
Lord Hylton: I would like to say one word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said about sectarianism. The essence of sectarianism, as I understand it, is a complete opposition to and disrespect for anybody else's traditions. This can be expressed very forcefully by a small minority of bands.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I intervene briefly to assure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that I entirely agree with him about the tunes that are sometimes played in the wrong place. I was therefore glad to see in Appendix B to the draft code of conduct laid down by the commission that outside places of worship hymn tunes only are to be played and no tunes at all if Church services are taking place; no sectarian tunes where the majority of the population is of a different tradition, in the interface areas, and so forth. There are some quite detailed provisions which seem to me very sensible. They are part of the code of conduct and therefore will affect the way in which the commission makes its decisions.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may separate the two amendments because the arguments are somewhat different. Amendment No. 32 concerns the way in which the proposals about bands would he given effect to under parliamentary procedures. I appreciate that many people from both sides of the community have argued in recent years that one of the main causes of dissension around parades is the behaviour of bands. We believe that the overall powers of the commission to impose conditions on parades, which will include conditions relevant to bands, will be sufficient to deal with the problem and that it will not be necessary to introduce a scheme as set out in Clause 12. Such a court-based scheme would constitute a major new step. However, we have taken the precaution of putting the powers into Clause 12.
I notice that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation considered the form of the orders which might be appropriate and did not recommend an affirmative resolution procedure. However, given what I have heard this afternoon, I would be prepared to consider that point.
As to the substance of the points about bands, Clause 12 provides for the registration of bands wishing to take part in public processions. The North Report recommended that the Government give "active consideration" to a registration scheme for bands. Noble Lords have referred to existing legislation. We believe that that would be inadequate. It would not give us the powers to have a court-based scheme. Any regulation of bands under existing legislation would simply have to be seen as an administrative

CWH 75
measure, and to have a proper, court-based scheme would be better for all concerned. That is why we wish to have the new powers, in case it should be necessary to use them.
However, we consider that the commission already has sufficient powers to address the mischief caused by some bands. The prescribed form on which parades will be notified will contain considerable information about the proposed parade, including which bands are expected. It will not necessarily refer to the particular music, but, by inference, we will know from the particular band the type of music that might be played. The commission will have powers to impose conditions on processions, which may cover which bands can attend, or impose conditions on their conduct.
However, should for whatever reason these powers not be sufficient, there has been some support for the idea of a registration scheme. In that event, I believe that Dr. North and his colleagues were right to suggest a court-based scheme, perhaps on the lines of the procedures for registering clubs in Northern Ireland. This clause therefore amends the existing provisions to give the Government sufficient vires to introduce by order a court-based scheme if necessary. It would then be an offence to take part in a parade as a member of an unregistered band or a band that has failed to comply with the conditions of registration. That is the Government's thinking. It is a clause which we would not wish to bring into effect unless we felt it absolutely necessary to do so.
Lord Hylton: I wonder whether I might draw a very minor drafting point to the attention of the Minister. The side note to Clause 12 has in it the words "taking part in public processions". I notice that those words appear again in subsection (4), but the side notes, as I understand it, do not form part of the Bill. Would it not be a good thing to have those words in rather earlier in the clause?
Lord Fitt: May I ask the noble Lord a question on the registration of bands? Obviously when the band makes an application for registration it will be questioned about its ancestry, how long it has been in operation, how many members it has and what it does. Before granting certification for a band, would it not be possible for the people to put such questions? In Northern Ireland, the people would know the history of the particular band.
Being a Catholic and being of the Irish tradition, I take absolutely no offence at all at any Orange band playing the tune, "The sash my father wore". It is part of the Irish tradition. I certainly take no offence at it at all. But I take serious offence at another tune which is played by Orange bands. It was played recently in Ulster Hall at a protest meeting at which Dr. Paisley and Bob McCartney, the MP for North Down, were part of those proceedings. The crowd stood up and began a real sectarian, racist, anti-Catholic ditty, one line of which said, "We are
CWH 76
up to our necks in Fenian blood". It was Bob McCartney, who had engaged in this meeting, who took offence at this and disassociated himself from it.
When normally registration is applied for and consideration has been given to that registration, it should be said that there should be no such political vocabulary in Northern Ireland. There is no need in this year to have such songs carrying such sentiments and such hostility towards one section of the community. The band that plays such sectarian tunes should be questioned and if it insists or if it has a record of playing them, certification should not be granted.
Lord Desai: From what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said a while ago, it would seem that some bands are brought in from Scotland. Are these bands registered? Do you have to register those bands as well, and how would they come into the scope of Clause 12? We would have to think about that, because a band could always be re-routed by saying it comes from Glasgow and not Northern Ireland. Does that mean that Clause 12 does not apply?
Lord Dubs: I have said that we believe that the existing arrangements for the Parades Commission—and they have just been passed by the Parades Commission—will probably be sufficient to deal with the matters raised by noble Lords. It is only if it appears that those powers are not fully adequate that we would wish to bring the powers in Clause 12 into effect. It is a last resort, as it were. We very much hope that it will not be necessary.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the side note and so on, I am advised that it is in order and that the intentions of Clause 12—to cover the registration of bands taking part in public processions—are clear enough as the clause is drafted. That is the advice I have been given.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understood the Minister to say that he was accepting at least the point in Amendment No. 32. Whether he is accepting the precise wording on the Marshalled List is a matter for him.
Lord Dubs: I would prefer to consider the wording without being tied to the precise form today. If the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment, I will then think about it accordingly.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Control of alcohol at public processions]:
5 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("constable") and insert ("member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of sergeant").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that the title of the clause is:
"Control of alcohol at public processions".
I believe this is the only amendment dealing with alcohol. But I listened closely to the discussion on the previous amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. As an outsider, I enjoyed what he had to say about these tunes and "The Sash my Father Wore". As one who is fairly well steeped in the paraphernalia of bands in Scotland and Northern Ireland, I always believed that it was wrong that the melodies, let alone the words, should be distorted.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will appreciate this point. One evening I had occasion to sing at a Knights of St. Colombus dinner and suggested that we should play "The Old Orange Flute". I suggested that instead of the last words we should have, "Why should the devil have all the best tunes?" I was told this would not go down well. All the priests were present, so I said that we would adopt it, but Father Confessor said, "Twice round your beads". In fact, we only just got away with that. But I felt that it was really brutal that one could not enjoy these lovely, haunting melodies. Perhaps one could do away with what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to as the rather more unpleasant aspects, especially when he mentioned what was sung in the Ulster Hall. I have to assure the noble Lord that that tune is sung 30 seconds before kick-off at big games in Glasgow three or four times a season. I am always astonished at the moderation shown.
Clause 13 deals with the problems of alcohol. Clause 13(1) deals with the constable who reasonably suspects that a person is consuming intoxicating liquor. I wonder whether that would be clear to see or by other signs such as leakage. Perhaps there might be not an odour of purity around!
Clause 13(2) refers to locality. That should not provide too much of a problem. Clause 13(4) deals with the transport of persons, perhaps through or around the locality. Subsection (5) raises the query that I wish to raise with the Minister as regards disposal. Clause 13(5) states:
"A constable may dispose of anything surrendered to him".
I understand that it refers only to intoxicating liquor and not to any other apparatus such as sashes or regalia which might be found in the back of the mode of transport. It occurred to me that there might be just a faint glimmer of suspicion that intoxicating liquor, or what might appear to be intoxicating liquor in a motor car or in transport would not be taken, and would have no part in the processions or in anything to do with the processions. It might be a small chance, but there should be a strong safeguard against any misunderstanding or against any further worsening of relationships with the police.
If a constable has grounds for suspicion, or thinks that the drink should not be in that car or van for good reason, it is reasonable for him to confiscate the drink and put it in a safe place. It occurred to me that a perfectly innocent citizen might have some supposedly intoxicating liquor, perhaps for a good
CWH 78
reason—a golden wedding or a family celebration. If it were confiscated, removed by the constable and disposed of, there might be grounds for grievance. The amendment provides that if the liquor were removed, and confiscated but not disposed of, the aggrieved person could go to the station and say, "I had three bottles of white wine in the back of the car, I quite rightly did not argue with the policeman since things might have been getting a little ugly or it could have been difficult". It is this loophole that concerns me. The perfectly reasonable citizen might go to the police station or another relevant place in order to collect his property which he would have purchased for perfectly reasonable—dare I say, innocent—reasons and not for consumption—perhaps to encourage the stretching of the larynx and the singing of various songs at these events.
It seemed to me that there was the glimmer of a suspicion, and, if this is so, would it be possible to remove it? I wondered whether my amendment went a little way towards so doing. I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord should apologise. Most of the Orangemen I know do not drink white wine. But they drink everything else. They do not drink it before they go to the field because, if they did so, they would not be able to march to the field. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows what Orange marchers are. If they start at the beginning of the march and go to the Finaghy or somewhere, they have to march five or six miles. Anything they have will be consumed when they reach the end. It is when they are coming home that the trouble is liable to begin because they have naturally imbibed—drunk the health of the Pope and everyone else.
If they are in the situation which the noble Lord envisages, with a car coming down the Ormeau Road, the Malone Road or the Balmoral Road loaded with drink—which is highly unlikely because most of it will have been drunk at the field—and the car is stopped and is found to contain drink, the police should have the right to confiscate that drink. What the noble Lord is saying sotto voce is that they may take it back to the station and drink it themselves.
I do not think this is a serious amendment. I cannot see any situation where the police are going to be involved in confiscating drink that has been found in a car at an Orange parade.
Lord Monson: Exactly the same question arose shortly before the last general election, when a whole raft of Private Members' Bills from the other place were being rushed through this House at great speed. The Bill in question involved the consumption of alcohol in public by young people. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was present on that occasion. I too ventured to suggest that there was a danger in allowing the confiscation of alcohol from young people or their parents, and there was a question of what would happen to it once it was confiscated. I was told indignantly by the government spokesman that it was quite unthinkable that a

CWH 79
constable should do anything other than pour it down the drain immediately. I suspect that is the answer we will get from the Minister today.
Lord Alderdice: There are two issues raised by the amendment. The first is that asking for the intervention of a sergeant simply makes it more difficult to deal with what may be a very minor matter. I see little purpose in creating a great bureaucracy about the disposal of a couple of cans of beer. That seems to be adding enormous problems when they are not necessary.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he could clarify the position for the RUC in respect of seizure of such materials. If, for example, they were to come across a minibus full of intoxicating liqueur and the occupants refused to hand it over, would the police, with this power, be in a position to seize immediately, or would they have to apply for a warrant or issue a summons later? I am asking this for clarification rather than in respect of any propositions. I have to say that I see little merit in the amendment put forward.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I would be happy to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, provided I can be assured it is without prejudice to the Clause 10 reference to the powers of the constable. There is another variation in Clause 7 dealing with the ranks of an inspector in certain cases.
I wonder whether this is the sort of thing we might look at—maybe some of us consulting privately within the next two or three weeks—because there could be a conflict between these three different references to the rank of police officers. We have to bear in mind the possibility that it would not be an inspector, as stated in the Bill, but in some cases a lone constable having in an emergency to take a decision to re-route a minor parade.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may deal with the point that has just arisen before I deal with the substance of the amendment. My understanding is that if a person were unwilling to hand over alcohol, say in a car, a police constable would have the power of arrest under the legislation.
Dealing with the substance of the amendment, I am surprised at this amendment, coming, as it does, from a noble Lord who served as a Minister in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he ought to talk to a few police constables in view of what he said about them, because I am sure he would share my admiration for the integrity and, indeed, the sobriety of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at all ranks—not just sergeant and above. I am equally sure that Members of the Committee will share my view that constables in Northern Ireland, as in comparable legislation in Great Britain, can be trusted to dispose of any intoxicating liquor surrendered to them in a proper manner without the need for supervision by senior officers. I do not believe the noble Lord is serious in
CWH 80
saying that he does not trust constables in the RUC, and I hope that he will therefore do the right thing and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister but a little worried about his experience of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Everybody spoke of urban areas, but the Minister and myself seem to recall that much of our time was spent in rural areas. Of course, I would never cast aspersions on the sobriety of members of the RUC. I will pass that one aside after the hours of darkness, when they are away from the wheel and in the right circumstances. No, probity. It just seemed to me that there could be grounds for perhaps some grievance with what I call a misunderstanding.
However, the Minister made his case well that there should not be misunderstanding. In cases of doubt, any constables this side of the water, let alone the Royal Ulster Constabulary, would say, "You are having a celebration. I hope it goes well. On your way". The Minister may be interested to know that certainly in my country, Scotland, the police have fairly draconian powers to remove alcohol from people
going to— I would not call them public processions or expressions of cultural identity—football games, which of course can in this context combine the two. It seems, certainly in Scotland, that guilt is presumed first of all.
The Minister made a case and I assure him I was perfectly serious that there was a small glimmer in my mind that there could be a misunderstanding. But in view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Breaking up public procession]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 4, leave out from ("1995)") to end of line 5.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We have mention in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 of the phrase,
which is adapted to carry more than 8 persons".
That relates to a vehicle. I am genuinely confused over this because the only sort of vehicle I can call to mind is a minibus. The manufacture and structure of those vehicles are carefully supervised and the specifications tight and detailed.
If there were, for example, a vehicle converted into a minibus, that might qualify as being adapted. But I cannot think how, under the road traffic order, a small van or a large car could be adapted into something which could be licensed as a public service vehicle. If that means an omnibus, to carry eight persons or more, then there would be no problem. An omnibus is something which is manufactured en masse. It is a structure generally well understood and clearly supervised in design on grounds of safety. In the light of certain disasters, I cannot think that any sort of adapted chassis transformed into a passenger carrying vehicle could possibly conform with the road traffic order referred to. It is a matter of whether the Minister can provide some clarification on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful for this amendment, which impacts on the important question of controlling alcohol at public processions. It is generally agreed that hangers-on and alcohol are responsible for many of the problems which have been associated with contested parades. Anything which helps tackle the problem of alcohol is therefore to be welcomed. The power to confiscate was introduced in Public Order (Amendment)(Northern Ireland) Order 1997. We are currently reviewing this in the light of the experience of this marching season. We will certainly consider the noble Lord's amendment as part of this review.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is odd that the constable seems to have powers to stop a bus or a minibus and confiscate alcohol but not a car. A good many people go to these processions by car, and the effect of the amendment would be to ensure that a constable could stop a car and confiscate alcohol from it if that was necessary. That seems to be desirable.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful for the Minister's response. The amendment was put down in the light of the determination of all of us to ensure that this legislation is not in any way devalued by accidental drafting and does not conflict with existing legislation. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 38:
Page I1, line 13, at end insert ("and includes cavalcades or processions of motor vehicles along any public highway").
The noble Lord said: This is in no way a sectarian or political issue, but we are dealing here with a paramilitary speciality. I hasten to add that I do not include in those processions cavalcades of cars with their horns blowing in the aftermath of an election victory, because in the immediate aftermath of an election, and even during an election, a certain excuse has to be made for politicians generally, who are not at their best at such times. But, thankfully, that does not concern us in this House.
I wonder whether it would be possible to embody in the Bill the words which appear on the Marshalled List, and add:
CWH 82
"and includes cavalcades or processions of motor vehicles along any public highway".
The fact is that these are organised by paramilitary organisations on their very worst behaviour, insulting everyone in sight to an even greater extent than those earlier insults which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, described. They heighten tensions at a particularly sensitive time and stir up communities and small villages which have nothing whatever to do with any of the conflicts which might or might not be being celebrated.
That brings to mind the kind of things the paramilitaries celebrate. If the Court of Appeal decides that a prisoner serving a sentence is no longer regarded as being a prisoner and releases him, then whichever side the prisoner belongs to may then proceed to celebrate, as they would put it. At the same time they may cause a great deal of annoyance and a good deal of aggravation and excitement in the minds of people who would not otherwise have worried very much had they read it in the newspaper. It is a factor to which, particularly at a sensitive time as we are tidying up a good many of these other items, we ought to give attention.
As I said on another occasion, I understand that there is a loophole in the law. It would be helpful if we could do other law-makers a service by remedying that defect, if it exists. I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and took particular note of this cavalcade of vans. I wonder whether this clause will give the police power to intervene where there is a cavalcade of vans mounted in opposition to some political decision that has been taken in Northern Ireland.
I have vivid memories of May 1974 when a cavalcade of vans and tractors and motor vehicles of every description marched from every farmhouse in Northern Ireland—particularly from County Down—up the driveway to Stormont to bring to an end a specific government experience. I believed then, and still believe, that it was the most hopeful development in politics in Northern Ireland since the foundation of the state. There was certainly a cavalcade of vehicles in the most disruptive way possible that descended, or ascended, to Stormont that afternoon, which was the culmination of a fortnight's strike. That brought to an end the Sunningdale Executive at that time.
Can the Minister say, were such a cavalcade mounted not for the purposes of celebrating the Battle of the Boyne or any other historic happening in Northern Ireland, but with the intention of defying an edict from the Government in relation to politics in Northern Ireland, whether the police would have the same powers as we are now considering in relation to processions of a different nature?
Lord Alderdice: There are two elements to this particular proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. The first is an apparently reasonable one; that is, that if we are to expect the commission to monitor and to make determinations in relation to people who transport themselves on their

CWH 83
own feet, is it not reasonable that the commission should also have the power to make determinations if people choose to transport themselves in some other organised processional fashion? It certainly seems to me on the face of it that that is a reasonable proposition.
There is a further element which also may merit our consideration. On a number of occasions it has been remarked that we must do all possible to create a degree of balance and the perception of balance, and of course there are various elements in the community that are more prone to cavalcades of cars than others. I would be particularly susceptible to supporting this amendment, or a further more considered amendment of this type, if it were also clear that that would enable us to see a balanced Bill, and in particular a balanced Bill that did not require Clause 3. For those two reasons therefore I would be prepared to give a degree of support to this approach if all those elements were in place.
Lord Dubs: When the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, introduced the amendment—I believe I have the wording right—he said, "Politicians are not at their best during elections and thereafter". That seems to me to write off all politicians for ever! He may well be right.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have no objection to their feeling rather peculiar, but it would be remedied when there was dissolution and then they would all be back to normal again.
Lord Dubs: To be serious about the point in this amendment, I recognise the irritation and indeed offence which cavalcades of motor cars have sometimes caused in Northern Ireland, particularly at sensitive times. Those cavalcades are covered by the 1987 order in its definition of a public procession. I recognise that the drafting in the Bill is rather less specific, and I shall be happy to introduce an amendment to clarify the position.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: In the light of that generous response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("paragraph 4") and insert ("paragraphs 4 or 9").
The noble Lord said: The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation issued a report (the sixth report) which covered this Bill, among other matters, and drew attention to the fact that, where various documents are to be issued—that is to say, the code of conduct, the procedural rules and the guidelines—the initial structure of those documents
CWH 84
should be by order subject to affirmative resolution procedure, but that where there were subsequent variations to those documents it should be by order subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The Select Committee said that the House may therefore wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to allow Ministers the option to use either the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure for variations. It was pointed out that there will sometimes be substantial, or sometimes quite small but nevertheless controversial and difficult, variations to the documents to which the affirmative resolution procedure ought to apply.
It is a little difficult to frame a satisfactory way in which Ministers would have the option of a negative or affirmative resolution procedure. Also, that may be unsatisfactory from the point of view of the House or another place and, therefore, I drafted the amendment so that they should all be affirmative. I understand that there are precedents for Ministers having an option of this kind and perhaps that would be a better way to do it.
Either way, this Committee should react to the report of the Select Committee and at least consider the point. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord's amendment would require any subsequent revisions of the Parades Commission's code of conduct, procedural rules or guidelines to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It would not be appropriate or good use of parliamentary time to require debate for any changes which may be highly technical in nature to the code of conduct and procedural rules in particular. However, I can see that changes to the guidelines might be regarded in a different light since theoretically at least amendments to the guidelines would radically change the way the legislation is interpreted. Were any such changes proposed by the commission, that would, of course, be clear in the consultation exercise and any order would be likely to be prayed against. In this case there would be little difference between affirmative and negative resolution procedures in practice.
However, I note what the noble Lord said and I looked with interest at the report by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. That report suggests an unusual procedure; that is, that it should be either by the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure, presumably the former where there are real points of substance and the latter where the points are too minor to oblige both Houses to debate them. If the noble Lord would accept the argument that the proposal he makes in outline has particular relevance to the guidelines but not to the other two documents, I would be happy on that basis to consider the amendment. I would take note of what the Select Committee had suggested to see whether we can have the alternative of an affirmative or negative resolution procedure. I understand that has happened before, but very seldom. We would have to see whether that particular form would be appropriate in this case. I would not wish to apply that to the code of conduct and the procedural rules, only for the guidelines.

CWH 85
If the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, were to accept my agreement to look into this, perhaps he would be kind enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am entirely happy to accept what the Minister says, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
CWH 86
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

  Commonwealth Centre: Programme
  Commonwealth Centre: Programme
  UN Arms Register
  UN Arms Register
  General Affairs Council, Brussels, 10 November
  General Affairs Council, Brussels, 10 November
  The Horse: EU Classification
  The Horse: EU Classification
  Climate Change Convention
  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Mohammed Sarwar, MP
  Mr. Mohammed Sarwar, MP
  Gulf War: BTx Anti-toxin
  Gulf War: BTx Anti-toxin
  Army Base Storage Estate: Study
  Army Base Storage Estate: Study
  Armed Forces: Personnel Administration
  Armed Forces: Personnel Administration
  Lance Sergeant Haane Manahi
  Lance Sergeant Haane Manahi
  Gulf War: Chemical Agent Detection
  Gulf War: Chemical Agent Detection
  Gulf Veterans and Ill-Health
  Gulf Veterans and Ill-Health
  NATO Defence Procurement: Expenditure
  NATO Defence Procurement: Expenditure
  Per Capita Income and Energy Consumption in the EU
  Per Capita Income and Energy Consumption in the EU
  Perinatal Mortality in the EU
  Perinatal Mortality in the EU
  Invest in Britain, Welsh Development Agency and Locate in Scotland: Roles
  Invest in Britain, Welsh Development Agency and Locate in Scotland: Roles
  Extradition Arrangements
  Extradition Arrangements
  Prison Service: Report and Accounts
  Prison Service: Report and Accounts
  Rapid Draw Lotteries: Proposed Legislation
  Rapid Draw Lotteries: Proposed Legislation
  British Zoo Licensing System
  British Zoo Licensing System
  "Highway Code": Draft Revision
  "Highway Code": Draft Revision
  Hedgerows: Definition
  Hedgerows: Definition
  "Goodwin" Judgment
  "Goodwin" Judgment
  European Court of Justice: Referrals
  European Court of Justice: Referrals