Sitting of 27 November 1997

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

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1997, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order 1997, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order 1997 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Lesotho) Order 1997 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

    SUMMER TIME ORDER
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Inward Investment
    Dr. Stoate: If he will make a statement on the impact of the Green Budget on the Government's policy on inward investment into the United Kingdom. [16585]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Our policies for stability, for sustainable public finances, for long-term investment, including our cuts in corporation tax, and for skills and employment will enhance the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a location for inward investment.
    Dr. Stoate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that partnerships between the public and private sectors, such as the Kent Thames-side group, which is working for the regeneration of north-west Kent including my
    1070
    constituency of Dartford, are the blueprint for inward investment and stable growth that this country needs and that this Government can deliver?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I understand that this morning he launched an exhibition on the Kent Thames-side region, and I wish him well in his efforts both to form an effective public-private partnership there and to attract inward investment. What is absolutely clear is that for inward investment we need a stable monetary framework—that is why we gave the Bank of England independence—a commitment to Europe, sustainable public finances and measures such as our cuts in corporation tax for long-term investment, which are all measures that we support. We have still to hear what the Opposition think of them.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While the Chancellor will know of my deep commitment to manufacturing industry and while I commend him on some of the actions that he has taken, is he not worried that in the short term the changes that he has made to corporation tax will cause many companies to have liquidity problems, so that in the short term there will be a problem with investment? Will he perhaps give that matter serious consideration?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. He has always championed the cause of manufacturing industry. I must tell him that businesses have welcomed our proposals: they accept that it is necessary to move to the abolition of advance corporation tax and have welcomed our cut in corporation tax. It is a measure of how much the Conservative party is now out of touch with business that Conservative Members cannot welcome our proposals.
    Mr. Gunnell: Is it not true that the one policy mentioned by the Chancellor on which we are certain where the Conservative party stands is the policy on Europe? Is it not also true that our commitment to Europe and our insistence that we will be at the heart of Europe are particularly attractive to inward investors after the uncertainties that they suffered with the previous Government's position?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I remember working for many years and who has always been a champion of inward investment for Yorkshire. I think that most people in business agree that a stable policy on Europe—one that will make people sure that this country is committed to Europe—will benefit Britain. It is therefore unfortunate that we do not have all-party support for that policy.
    Mr. Lilley: I congratulate the Chancellor on his well-deserved award at the Spectator"parliamentarian of the year award" lunch yesterday. Can he confirm that the combined effect of his July and November changes in corporation tax, after taking account of the changes in the rate of tax, will mean that, over the lifetime of this Parliament, British business will have to pay £20 billion more tax?
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept those figures at all. The corporation tax cut will give business an extra

    1071
    £1.5 billion a year. The transitional costs having been met, business will be £1.8 billion a year better off. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes on The Spectator award, but if he is going to pursue this course of action, he had better explain why Adair Turner, secretary general of the Confederation of British Industry—[Laughter.] It is interesting that Conservative Members now scoff at the CBI. That is what has happened to the Conservative party.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Red Adair.
    Mr. Brown: The Conservatives now call the secretary general of the CBI "Red Adair". That is how far the Conservatives have sunk and how far they have moved away from business. One of their friends at the Institute of Directors, Mr. Richard Baron, its taxation executive, said that abolition of ACT was wonderful for companies. The Institute of Directors, the CBI, the chief executive of BP, and many others, including the Financial Times, have welcomed the proposals.
    I fear for the Conservative party. It has moved so far from business that in Scotland, business people who were pro-Conservative are trying to form their own pro-business party to fight the Conservatives. I think that the Conservatives should go back to Eastbourne, hold another bonding session and think again.
    Mr. Lilley: Is the Chancellor then denying the figures that he himself published, which show that, over the lifetime of this Parliament, British industry will have £20 billion less to invest and to create jobs with? Does he deny that the effect of his changes will be to make investment abroad more attractive and investment at home less attractive? Those are the figures on page 19 of the document "A Modern System for Corporation Tax Payments", which the right hon. Gentleman published. The document also shows a figure of £2 billion a year extra taxation during this Parliament as a result of the changes announced in November.
    Can he confirm that, in the borrowing forecasts that he issued for this Parliament on Tuesday, he did not take into account the extra revenues that he is to raise from the changes in corporation tax, and will he explain why he did not do so? Is it because he did not want Labour Members to realise that he was raising several times more than it would cost to meet recent demands to defer certain changes in benefits?
    Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to read out that document, perhaps he will remind the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am about to—[Interruption.] They must listen, Madam Speaker. I am about to quote from the very document that the shadow Chancellor mentioned. Will he not thank us for the cut in corporation tax in July, and the further cut announced on Tuesday, and will he read to the House the passage that states:
    "After the transition, the annual impact is an Exchequer cost of about £2 billion a year"?
    We are doing something to help long-term investment. That is the reason why it is being supported as a principle by business.

    Public Expenditure
    Dr. Tony Wright: If he has plans to set a target for public spending as a share of gross domestic product. [16586]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have no plans to set a target for public spending as a share of GDP.
    Dr. Wright:Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous Government wanted permanently to reduce public spending as a share of GDP? Does he further recall that the dogma of that ambition was exceeded only by the incompetence of their attempt to achieve it? Can he tell the country that the days of dogma are gone, that spending on high-quality public services will be a first claim on a growing economy, and that, even under an iron Chancellor, fiscal prudence will never be confused with fiscal parsimony?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right in that the previous Government ended up spending almost exactly the same share of the national income at the end of their 18 years as they did at the start. He is also right in saying that, although the amount that they spent did not change, what the money was spent on did change. They had to spend more and more on mopping up the failures that their misguided policies created.
    The objective of our comprehensive spending review is to examine each and every penny that the Government spend. The test for this Government is not just how much is spent but where it is spent and to what effect. I agree with my hon. Friend that public spending is extremely important for building economic prosperity—important in economic terms and important in social terms; but it is fundamental that we achieve the long-term stability and sustainable public finances that will allow the economy to grow as well ensuring that we have the wealth to provide the services that we all want.
    Mr. Jenkin: Should we conclude that the threats to benefits for disabled people and the lengthening hospital waiting queues, alongside massive increases in taxes, rising interest rates and slowing economic growth, are somehow a price worth paying for achieving the criteria for economic and monetary union?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, obsessed with Europe. He sees Europe behind just about everything. The country will remember that the Conservative party systematically denigrated those on benefits and systematically undermined the benefits system without regard to the consequences. We are determined to build a stable economic platform so that we achieve growth and so that the finances of the country are put on a sustainable long-term footing so that we can provide the very services that hon. Members—certainly Labour Members—want to see in the future.

    State Pensions
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What discussions he has had with the DSS about the level of future financial provision for state pensions. [16587]
    Mr. Darling: I have regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, at which we discuss a wide range of issues, including pensions.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he accept from my constituents and all Labour Members sincere thanks for the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last Tuesday, in which he announced help for pensioners throughout the winter and over the Christmas period? That is most welcome. Will my right hon. Friend continue that good work in his talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on improving pensions to a standard at which people no longer rely on handouts, but are offered a pension that sustains the quality of life that the old people of this country deserve?
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the announcement on Tuesday. My hon. Friend has been in the forefront in campaigning for pensioners. I saw that when I visited his constituency recently. Of course, he is right. The Labour Government have delivered their promises to pensioners. We have cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. We have uprated pensions in line with prices, as we promised. We have cut fuel bills for pensioners by up £100 a year and there is more to come.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced a pensions review. We are encouraging pensioners to ensure that they receive all the entitlements that are available to them. Last week, we launched a document on stakeholder pensions which is designed to encourage people to have fully funded pensions in future. Next year we shall consult on the new citizenship pension. The Labour Government are delivering their promises to pensioners and, as a result, this winter many pensioners will no longer have to worry about whether they can heat their houses—something that never happened when the Tories were in power.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Chief Secretary explain to a constituent of mine—a pensioner whom the pensions tax has hurt particularly hard because he belongs to a closed pension scheme—why he refused to extend to closed pension schemes the benefits afforded to charities when the pensions tax was introduced?
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the measures we took in respect of charities— we appreciate that degree of support. As I have said before to the House and to the hon. Gentleman, our reforms to corporation tax announced in July and the further reforms announced on Tuesday are designed to encourage profitability in this country's companies, which, in turn, will benefit pension funds. The fact is that,
    1074
    since July, the reforms we have implemented have been widely welcomed as the far-sighted and long-term reform that people in this country wanted.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What about the stock market?
    Mr. Darling: The stock market, which has a substantial bearing on the value of one's pension at retirement, has climbed since we were elected, which shows—among other things—that there is another sector that has absolute confidence in the Government's ability to deliver long-term, sustainable economic growth that will benefit pensioners and everybody else.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I say to my right hon. Friend that there is no such thing as the pensions tax?
    Mr. Darling: I agree—there is not.

    Inflation
    Mr. Hammond: What assessment he has made of the measures that will be required to control domestic inflation, with particular reference to house prices, in the event of United Kingdom interest rates converging with those prevailing in the other major economies of the EU. [16588]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson):None, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in pursuing convergence of interest rates so as to achieve his objective of joining a single currency, he will not find that he has to increase the tax burden on the British people in order to achieve his inflation targets?
    Mr. Robinson: The question was muddled—I now understand what the hon. Gentleman wanted to say. The position is simple: the Governor sets the monetary policy to achieve the inflation target set by the Chancellor.
    Mr. Stringer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tough measures that he has had to take stand in marked contrast to the policies of the previous Government; and that the failure of the previous Government's policies led directly to nearly 1 million people losing their homes?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is precisely because the Conservative party did not have the political courage to give operational independence to the Bank of England that economic policy was too often dictated by political expediency. That is why we experienced the two biggest recessions and the two biggest periods of inflation during 10 years of hopelessly incompetent macro-economic policy under the Conservative party.
    Mr. Bercow: The Minister had a little difficulty with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)—I hope that he can do better this time. Can he give the House an assurance that, if this country joins a European single currency and if the interest rate across Europe is inappropriate for the control of domestic inflation, he and

    1075
    his Government will be willing and able to make representations against the interest rate policy of the European central bank?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is as muddled as his hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it absolutely clear that five tests would have to be met, the central one of which was convergence. Central to convergence is convergence of interest rates and the question of entry does not arise until that is sustained and a sustainable period of convergence has been achieved.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Cranston: What steps he proposes to take to help business prepare for economic and monetary union. [16589]
    Mr. Bayley: If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to help businesses prepare for economic and monetary union. [16602]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: The Government are committed to ensuring that British business is well equipped to take advantage of the introduction of the euro in other member states from 1999. We have set up a new standing committee, the members of which include the president of the Confederation of British Industry and the president of the British Chambers of Commerce, alongside the existing business advisory group to co-ordinate and press forward the preparations agenda. I will be publishing a summary of the advisory group's findings early in the new year.
    I have also arranged for the Treasury to publish a practical guide to EMU for business and 55,000 copies have already been issued to a wide range of businesses.
    Mr. Cranston: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, especially in relation to the establishment of the standing committee. He will be aware that Marks and Spencer has announced that it will install tills to take the euro. Does not that show how British business is getting on, in a practical and pragmatic way, with dealing with the single currency, while the Conservative party is in an ideological time warp?
    Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that what frustrated British business was the previous Government's inability to help them with preparations to cope with the introduction of the euro in other member states in 1999. Marks and Spencer has said that it will have the capacity to deal with the euro in the United Kingdom as well as Europe. Other companies such as the National Westminster bank are preparing to trade in euros and to train staff to do so. The Conservative party should wake up to the fact that this is something that is going to happen in other member states in 1999, and it should stop its ideological opposition to a single currency.
    Mr. Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that large companies will, in future, increasingly be manufacturing and marketing their products on a pan-European basis and that, as such, they will be concerned about the predictability and stability of exchange rates when making their investment decisions? How does my right hon. Friend think British business will react to the
    1076
    Conservative party when it pursues a policy of saying that it will not join a common currency even if it is in the national interest to do so?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. British business is reacting: business men in Scotland are about to set up their own party even though they are Conservatives because they are so out of touch with the Conservative party. As for business preparations, I think that business understands and the Conservative party will soon understand—if it does not listen to what its Conservative Members of the European Parliament are telling it, the public will tell it—that 50 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union, more than 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and 30 per cent. of inward investment into Europe comes through Britain. It is important for the Conservative party to wake up to those realities.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: What is the point of spending all this public money on so many publications if they are shoddily produced or even deceptive about the facts? The document that I have with me, which I think every hon. Member has received, called "UK Membership of the Single Currency", deals on page 10 with the important matter of interest rate convergence. It sets out and compares current nominal interest rates. The Chancellor knows perfectly well that it is not nominal, but real, interest rates that are important for economic behaviour.
    If we compare current real interest rates—nominal interest rates minus inflationary expectations—we see that the gap is very much less than that set out in the document. Was that just a schoolboy howler, or were the document's authors, the Treasury Front-Bench team, determined for their own reasons to exaggerate, even dishonestly, the difficulties that this country will have to overcome to converge on interest rates and join a single currency?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an interesting case: he is putting a case for entering the single currency in 1999; he is totally at odds with his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench who want to delay entry for 10 years. I have made it clear that we shall have to meet five economic tests, not one. Some of those tests are: unemployment must come down; investment must benefit; inward investment must benefit. The hon. Gentleman should start questioning his own Front-Bench team, as they do not seem to have any answers for him.
    Sir Robert Smith: In the committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced, how are the views and concerns of self-employed people and small businesses to be taken into account?
    Mr. Brown: The small business community is already represented on the business advisory committee; it will be on the wider group; it will be consulted on such matters. The Federation of Small Businesses is represented on the business advisory group. The shadow Chancellor is out of touch with events, and should go back and do his homework.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, long before Marks and Spencer is using the euro, lone parents will be visiting the stores to spend money, and that some of those parents will have less money if the Government

    1077
    continue to implement the Tory dogma contained in the Social Security Bill? I know that my right hon. Friend is against Tory dogma, so let us get rid of the proposal that will penalise lone parents.
    Mr. Brown: It is because we are against Tory dogma that we are giving lone parents new opportunities that they never had under the previous Government. We are giving them opportunities for work, opportunities for training, opportunities for child care—up to 1 million child care places as a result of our £300 million investment. When people see the range of new opportunities available as a result of a £200 million welfare-to-work programme and a £300 million child care programme, they will welcome the changes that we are making.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: A written answer from the right hon. Gentleman's Department on 11 November confirms that the Government have no estimate or idea of the cost to businesses, the public or even the Government of converting to the euro. Is it not a disgrace that the Government are calling for a national debate on monetary union without having any idea of what the costs are likely to be? Since unofficial estimates of those costs range up to £19 billion for the private sector alone, will the Chancellor replace his hot air and rhetoric with some hard estimates and facts about what the likely costs of conversion will be, and will he report them to the House?
    Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman is so interested in that question, why did he not bother to find out the answers when he was the Treasury Minister responsible for those issues? We are now making the preparations and looking at all the necessary detail. The previous Government failed to do that, because they are completely divided over Europe.

    Inflation
    Mr. Ruffley: If he will make a statement on his policy for controlling inflation. [16590]
    Mr. Darling: The Government's policy for controlling inflation is absolutely clear. We have a target of underlying inflation of 2½ per cent. We have put in place the necessary institutional reforms to ensure that the Bank of England delivers that target which has been set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Ruffley: Is the Chief Secretary aware of concern in the City about how the Government will measure inflation in the future? Will he therefore give an undertaking to the House that the Government will not change the basis of measuring inflation from RPI X to the European Union harmonised index of consumer prices?
    Mr. Darling: The Conservative party is so obsessed with Europe that it cannot see anything rationally. The position is quite clear. The Government have set out their target of 2.5 per cent., and that is only likely to change if, when the circumstances are right, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor comes to the view that that target should be revised downwards. It is widely understood that the target is 2.5 per cent.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I hope that the Chief Secretary will accept that the Liberal Democrats greatly welcome
    1078
    the Chancellor's proposals to lock in economic stability, in particular the fiscal code, but can he explain to the House why the Chancellor is forecasting an inflation rate of 3 per cent. at the end of next year, while the Bank of England is forecasting an inflation rate of less than 2.5 per cent? Is that because the Government are concerned that there is a risk of moving to a mini boom-bust cycle, not least because they have revised downwards their growth forecasts for the same period?
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he supports the Government's policy on fiscal stability, which is something of a change from what he has said at treasury questions in the past. The position of the Government and Bank is clear; our target is 2.5 per cent., and we are confident that all the measures that we have taken and the Bank has taken will result in us meeting it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can explain to me what is meant by the term that he keeps using—"fiscal stability". Given that the Bank of England has been changing the interest rate virtually every month, will we achieve fiscal stability when it does that every week? Did the Bank get it wrong four out of five times, or is he satisfied that its policy is the right means to get inflation down? After all, inflation is going up while it is changing those rates.
    Mr. Darling: As I have said before, fiscal stability means ensuring that we get stability in public spending and stability in taxation. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Bank's monetary policy—[Interruption.] They are complementary, but they are different. As I have said on many occasions before, the Bank has had to increase interest rates because, in the six months before the election, the previous Government did absolutely nothing to deal with the inflationary pressures that were mounting in the economy.
    We are determined that the necessary action will be taken in terms of monetary policy and the other measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced. They will ensure that we have stability so that we can increase the capacity of the economy, and begin to remove the inflationary pressures which would otherwise exist in the economy. Under this Government we will get long-term stability—and, unlike the previous Government, this Government are not afraid of taking the necessary tough decisions.
    Mr. Boswell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor is not a touchy-feely kind of person, but neither of them is averse to a little bit of ear-stroking of the representatives of industry. Has the right hon. Gentleman not noticed press reports that the Post Office, which is the largest corporation remaining in state ownership, recently settled a 4 per cent. increase in wages, and will he not concede that that, combined with his own projections of the growth rate sinking to as low as 1.5 per cent. in a little over 12 months' time, inevitably means that high and rising unemployment will result?
    Mr. Darling: There are two points there. If the hon. Gentleman considers public and private sector wage settlements over the course of this year, he will find that they have been very low. Most people will welcome that,

    1079
    because they know that we have a choice: we can blow our current prospects in higher wage increases, which lead to higher inflation and therefore higher interest rates and higher mortgage rates, or we can take the opportunity to get sustainable growth in the long term, which will mean increasing prosperity for individuals and ensure that we generate the necessary wealth to improve the public services—and we all want that.

    Charities
    Mr. Green: What representations he has received from charities regarding dividend tax credits; and if he will make a statement. [16591]
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: We have received some 500 representations, half of which have related to VAT matters, about 20 of which have been concerned with tax credits.
    Mr. Green: Is the Minister aware that Mencap has confirmed that it will have to find £750,000 to top up its employee pension fund as a direct result of the pension tax introduced in the Budget? Does he agree that that £750,000 would be better spent on Mencap's important charitable purposes than on filling the Treasury's coffers? What remedies does he have to offer the large charities in this country, which would prefer to spend their money on charitable purposes than to fill the Treasury's coffers because of the unnecessary imposition of a swingeing pensions tax in the Chancellor's Budget?
    Mr. Robinson: The large companies will benefit from the 10 per cent. rise in the stock market that has taken place since Labour came to office. I was at a recent Mencap meeting, hosted by George Bull, and was very supportive of that charity, which does especially good work. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, unprecedentedly, the Labour Government—acting much more generously than the Conservative Government did when they took action on tax credits—have delayed the starting date for two years, until April 1999, and there is a further five-year transition period, at a cost of £1 billion to the Government. That is very good treatment.
    Ms Ward: Will the Minister take into account the representations that I have received from many constituents, regarding their anxieties about possible tax changes and their effects on charity shops? Will he recognise how important charity shops are, not only to the charities that they work for, but to the local community?
    Mr. Robinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I can confirm to her that the position of charity shops is a fundamental part of the charities review, which is under way now and due to report in the spring.
    Mr. Rowe: As so many of the services that used to be public services are now rendered by charities, has the Minister made any assessment of the costs to the public purse if charities are forced to retrench on the services that they offer because of the various tax threats hanging over them?
    Mr. Robinson: It is a pretty poor reflection on the previous Government if their plans eventuated in charities
    1080
    undertaking necessary public services, but we are aware of the great work done by charities. The charities review is under way, which is considering VAT matters and other matters, and there is a seven-year transition period. Charities have time—I am sure that they will profit from it—to ensure that they can carry on the very good work that they do.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the assurances about tax credits and charity shops, but will the Minister bear in mind that many charities are suffering under the impact of the national lottery? The charity review needs to take into account not only pension funds but the impact of tax credits on charities' everyday money to help people in need.
    Mr. Robinson: That, too, will be part of the review.

    Barnett Formula
    Mr. Randall: If he will make a statement on the future of the Barnett formula. [16592]
    Mr. Darling: The Government have made it clear that they intend to keep the existing arrangements. The Government's position was clearly set out in the two White Papers on which the referendum campaigns in Scotland and Wales were fought and won.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with members of his own party that there should be cuts in Scottish public expenditure?
    Mr. Darling: I do not think that anyone is saying that. We are determined to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from our economic policies and our spending decisions. That has always been so, and it always will be.
    Mr. Dalyell: After all the assurances given in and out of the House before and during the referendum, were there by any chance to be any tampering with the Barnett formula, would there not then be a moral obligation to hold yet another referendum on the question, "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997–98?"
    Mr. Darling: I never thought I would see the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would call for another referendum on devolution. Our position was clearly set out in the White Paper; it remains our position.
    Mr. Wallace: I welcome the Chief Secretary's affirmation that that will be the position. I am sure that he would agree, having campaigned on a White Paper in which the Barnett formula was a key component in the funding of the Scottish Parliament, that any Government departure from that position would be a breach of faith. But if there is a need to investigate divergence, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, under the local government distribution from central Government, Westminster gets £864 a head and Rutland gets £213 a head, which is a greater divergence than any between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Deputy Prime Minister is to make a statement on the local government settlement for England shortly. I do not think I ought to anticipate it.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Chief Secretary agree that it would be supremely self-contradictory if the

    1081
    Barnett formula were now to be abandoned, given that it was invented 20 years ago to cope with the then anticipated devolution of 1978–79? Would he further agree that, in the experience of all countries to have introduced it, devolution can be introduced successfully only if there is an effective resource transfer mechanism from rich to poor regions?
    Mr. Darling: The principle of ensuring transfers between the regions and nations of the United Kingdom has been stuck to by successive Governments of both political colours. I repeat what I said at the outset: the Government fought and won the referendums on the basis of the White Papers; that remains our position.
    Mrs. Ewing: Perhaps the Chief Secretary would like to count up the number of Members of Parliament who had heard of the Barnett formula outwith the past couple of weeks. More seriously, what assessment has been made of needs? What commitment is there to ensuring that these arrangements continue? We should bear in mind the point raised yesterday with Madam Speaker about the Treasury Committee's assessment of the Barnett formula. May we have an assurance that these discussions will be open and transparent?
    Mr. Darling: This Government are always open. I would agree that there are many people outside and not a few inside the House who may not be aware of what the Barnett formula does. I would commend to them the evidence recently received by the Treasury Select Committee. At the risk of repeating myself, I will state that the Government's position on Barnett and needs assessment remains exactly as set out in the White Papers.

    European Single Currency
    Mr. Reed: What representations he has received on the consequences of British entry into the European single currency after 1999. [16593]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: My statement of 27 October on economic and monetary union was widely welcomed in this country. Representations are still being received.
    Mr. Reed: I thank my right hon. Friend. Will he comment on the contrast between the Government's policies in Europe, which have given us a leading voice with business in Europe, and the Conservative party's policies? The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has said that the Tories are leading the fight against British companies, and we have heard some examples of that today; does my right hon. Friend agree that their increasing isolationism in Europe is leading to increasing isolation in the opinion polls?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have declared for the principle of monetary union: we have not yet had an answer from the Conservative party. We have said that there is no constitutional bar to entry: we have not yet had an answer from the Conservatives. We have said that the economic tests will be decisive, and if entry is in the national interest, that is what we shall do: we have not yet received Conservative party policy.
    1082
    It is small wonder that the former Deputy Prime Minister has said that the Conservative party has fallen out with Britain's leading companies.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Has it occurred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by 1999 the danger of inflation may be rather less than the danger of deflation? If that should come about, the economic criteria for the establishment of a single currency laid down in the Maastricht treaty will be not only irrelevant but exceedingly damaging for the people of this country.
    Mr. Brown: That was exactly the proposition that was put forward in 1987, and it led the Conservative Government to cut interest rates, cut taxes and cause boom and bust conditions, as a result of which 1.5 million people lost their jobs and businesses were destroyed. We shall have stability in our economy, and we shall not return to the stop-go days of the Conservative party in government. Even now, they should apologise to the British electorate for what they did.

    Economic Growth (North-East)
    Mr. Cousins: When he next plans to meet the north-east regional Chamber of Commerce to discuss economic growth. [16594]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
    Dawn Primarolo: I am touched by the support shown by Opposition Members.
    My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was recently in the north-east to give the Darlington economics lecture to the local employers forum. Although there are no immediate plans for a meeting with the regional chamber, Treasury Ministers regularly meet business representatives, and pay careful attention to what they have to say.
    Mr. Cousins: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she accept that we have very few fat cats in the north-east? With our colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland, we are last in and first out of any recovery. We understand that the Government have had to make tough choices to secure stability, but does she accept that high interest rates, the strong pound and our exposure due to links with south-east Asia have given us special and particular problems? Is she willing to meet some of us involved in business and some of my hon. Friends from the north-east to work out how we could match the tough patience that we shall need with the tough choices that the Government have had to make?
    Dawn Primarolo: Recent business surveys indicate that the north-east economy is performing well. In particular, north-east manufacturing industry is growing at a reasonable pace. My hon. Friend has made important points. The Government's policies on regional development agencies and the consultation document that will be released shortly reinforce our determination to

    1083
    ensure prosperity in our regions. I should be happy to discuss with him how those policies can be developed further in the north-east.
    Miss McIntosh: Has the Financial Secretary had the opportunity to consider the impact on the local economy in North Yorkshire of the collapse of the Samsung plant at Flaxby moor? Will the Government review the effect that the collapse of south-east Asian economies may have on job prospects and economic development in north Yorkshire generally?
    Dawn Primarolo: The Government are vigilant on all matters, especially jobs. We need to ensure that the economic framework is sound, so that business can invest, grow and survive in our communities.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Burns: If he will estimate at what level of national minimum wage the current departmental spending limits would be breached. [16595]
    Mr. Darling: The level of the minimum wage has not yet, of course, been set. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Minimum Wage Bill received its First Reading today. The level of the national minimum wage will not be decided until the Government have the benefit of advice from the Low Pay Commission, which has already started work.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for that answer. I am slightly surprised, however, that his officials have not been carrying out any studies of the impact of a minimum wage at different levels on the Government's spending targets. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance to the House that, if the level of a minimum wage, when it is set, has any impact on the wages bill of the national health service, patient care will not suffer and the Government will make up any shortfall?
    Mr. Darling: It is a bit rich for Opposition Members to lecture us on patient care after their record for 18 years— [Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman does not like being reminded of what the Tories did to the NHS. The minimum wage will be set at a sensible level that is manageable, and we shall keep the promises to the health service that we made during the general election campaign. We are ready to be judged by that at the next election.
    Ms Abbott: Are not the arguments against a minimum wage at a decent level, as put by Tories in business, exactly the same as the arguments advanced by the same people in the 1970s against equal pay for women, being based on the premise that a minimum wage will lose jobs? Just as equal pay for women did not lose jobs but did more to raise the living standards of working-class women than any other act of the Labour Government, will not the minimum wage have the same effect?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The Conservative party has always been against any economic or social progress. We were told that equal pay would spell the end of British industry, and the Tories say
    1084
    exactly the same about a national minimum wage. We believe that a national minimum wage is right in principle and that it will be good for the economy.
    Mr. Forth: Is the Chief Secretary suggesting that it is possible that a minimum wage level, when set, will be at such a low level that it can have no impact on budgets or cash limits in the health service and other public services?
    Mr. Darling: As I told the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the Government will decide the level at which the national minimum wage will be set when they receive the benefit of the advice and evidence of the Low Pay Commission.
    Mr. Pike: Is it not increasingly obvious that the public support the policy of a national minimum wage and oppose poverty pay, whether in the public or the private sector? They believe that the implementation of such a policy is long overdue. They obviously welcome the policy announced earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and believe that it will prevent those who go into work from losing out as a result of the present conflict between benefits and tax. It is a good policy, and it is overwhelmingly welcomed by the people.
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He is right to say that it is the Government's strategy to ensure that as many people as possible are encouraged to go into work. To that end, we want to remove some of the barriers that face people coming off benefit and going into work. Our strategy is geared to achieve that. As for the minimum wage, many people will wonder why the previous Government put up with a situation in which some employers paid wages so low that their employees were being subsidised by decent employers and by the public purse. That is an intolerable situation and one that we are determined to end.

    EU Tax Co-ordination
    Mr. Gibb: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the European Union paper "Towards Tax Co-ordination in the European Union". [16597]
    Dawn Primarolo: The Government deposited an explanatory memorandum on 17 November on the Commission communication of 5 November 1997, "A Package to Tackle Harmful Tax Competition in The European Union." The issue was debated yesterday in European Standing Committee B.
    Mr. Gibb: This European Union proposal, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to agree to at Brussels on Monday, breaches the principle that the EU does not involve itself in direct tax policies of member states. Why do the Government think that it is necessary to do this?
    Dawn Primarolo: As I explained repeatedly to the hon. Gentleman yesterday in Committee, the code is a voluntary agreement. There are no sanctions and it is not legally binding. It specifically recognises national

    1085
    competence in direct tax issues. There is no giving away of sovereignty on this issue. The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that we should realise a single currency for the next Parliament, or does she think that the shadow Chancellor is right when he says that we should not bind future Parliaments?
    Dawn Primarolo: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and with the Government's policy on that issue.

    Local Authority Expenditure
    Mr. Gorrie: What studies the Treasury has undertaken into the impact on (a) the national economy and (b) prospects for meeting the convergence criteria for economic and monetary union of the removal of local authority self-financed expenditure from the control total. [16598]
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am not aware of any specific studies of that sort, but I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
    Mr. Gorrie: The Government's insistence on retaining capping and on keeping local authorities' self-financed expenditure within the control total is a major reason for many local council cuts. It is therefore an important issue. Will the Minister explain why the Government are so insistent on that policy? If a council, reflecting the democratic wishes of its voters, raises £1 million more in council tax and invests it in employing 40 or 50 more teachers, those teachers will live and spend their money locally. Much of the money—perhaps a quarter or a third—will come back to the Treasury in increased taxes. How does that have a disastrous effect on the national economy, or prevent us from signing up to something with Europe? It is nonsense and I should like some explanation.
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the £1 billion extra that we have given to schools, which is £1 billion more than even his party asked for. On the narrow question of the control total, with which he seems to be obsessed, he, his local authority and other local authorities should consider what they can do in partnership with the private sector. We are introducing legislation to enable them to do that and we have set up a new energetic task force in the Treasury, run by the private sector, to get private-public partnerships going with local authorities. That is where he should put his efforts.
    Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister confirm that, before spending any available money on schools or social services, local authorities are under a legal obligation to put money into their pension funds to make up the cost of his July tax measures?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman knows that that question will not arise for two and a half years. It is being studied and we are in discussion with local authorities to find a proper resolution to it in due course.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Mullin: What plans he has to review the effectiveness of corporation tax; and if he will make a statement. [16600]
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson rose—
    Hon. Members: Come on.
    Mr. Robinson: I apologise. I did not realise that question No. 15 had been passed. I apologise for the delay in locating Question No. 16.
    We are satisfied with the excellent measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took in the July Budget and announced in the pre-Budget document which we discussed this week. They put corporation tax on an excellent long-term basis. They do not distort competition and they make for investment. We are pleased with all the long-term, principled reforms that we have carried through.
    Mr. Mullin: Has my hon. Friend noticed that some companies do not pay their fair share of corporation tax? One thinks, for example, of the Murdoch empire, which I believe paid only about 2 per cent. of its profits in corporation tax. Does he agree that that is unfair on companies which do pay their fair share? What plans does my hon. Friend have to ensure that all companies do so?
    Mr. Robinson: If my hon. Friend brings the matter to the attention of the corporate division of the Inland Revenue, I am sure that it will investigate, if it is not already doing so. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have already announced four tough anti-avoidance measures for the corporate sector, which we expect will yield £1 billion in savings.
    Mr. Yeo: Does the Minister understand that the changes in corporation tax announced two days ago greatly increase the amount of tax that companies will pay in the next four years? As that will inevitably reduce new investment by companies, what assessment did the Treasury make of the number of jobs that will be destroyed directly as a result of the Chancellor's statement?
    Mr. Robinson: The statement has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry and by companies throughout the country because they recognise the principled reasoning behind it. The hon. Gentleman is getting his cash flow mixed up with his profits; if he would like a lecture on the subject after Question Time I shall be happy to give it to him.

    Euro (UK Retailers)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What discussions he has had with major United Kingdom retailers concerning their preparations for the introduction of the euro. [16601]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: I have had many discussions with United Kingdom companies, particularly retailers, about the introduction of the euro.
    Mr. Prentice: Does not the decision made by Marks and Spencer and others show remarkable foresight,

    1087
    and does it not contrast with the immobilism of the Conservative party, whose members cannot make up their minds whether they are for or against the euro in principle? Is it not eccentric of the Conservative party to decide not even to consider joining the single currency for a decade, although to do so may be in the nation's economic interests?
    Mr. Brown: I agree. I think that businesses are increasingly worried by the Conservative party's behaviour in this regard. Those who run businesses are practical people who want to get on with preparing for what will happen, but they are now faced with a Conservative party that cannot give them any answers about future policy other than ruling out the single currency for 10 years.
    Of course, not only businesses are now against the Conservative party. The shadow Cabinet is being depleted week after week as its members resign as a result of the policy on Europe, and one former Conservative Member has been added to our side during the past few days. The downsizing of the Conservative party continues.
    Mr. Soames:: Certainly not over Christmas.
    I welcome the prudent steps that the Chancellor has taken to prepare business for possible entry to monetary union. Does he accept, however, that there is a vast gulf of misunderstanding in businesses of all sizes about what
    1088
    monetary union actually means? In preparing the documents that he rightly intends to distribute to businesses, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those documents are carefully tailored to fit the sector and size of the companies to which they are sent?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful that the voice of one-nation Conservatism is now being expressed in the House. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: business has a right to know the implications of the euro, and the last Government should have made those implications known long ago. We have published a pamphlet by Professor Currie, which sets out the arguments on the euro, and we have now also published a practical guide to the euro. Literature will be available to small businesses. They have a right to know how the euro will affect them, and how British business can benefit from it. We shall take the steps that the previous Government refused to take.

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts

    Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1997.

    Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997.

    Plant Varieties Act 1997.

Youth Crime
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on youth crime.
I am today publishing a White Paper entitled "No more excuses". It sets out the Government's new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales. It follows a period of intensive consultation, which began when we were in opposition. In May this year, I appointed a youth justice task force to advise me on the issue, and in September and October I published three consultation papers.
Reform of youth justice to make good years of mismanagement and under-performance is an urgent priority. In the past, the youth justice system has mimicked a bad parent, being indulgent one minute and harsh the next. Those are precisely the faults that foster youth crime, and they are compounded by the fact that the system suffers from endemic delays.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the problems in their constituencies. There are children whose misbehaviour goes unchecked and escalates into crime, and children who offend repeatedly, with no meaningful intervention, and come to court only for their cases to be adjourned time after time. When they are finally sentenced, many receive only a conditional discharge. There is no punishment, no chance for them to make amends for their crimes and no action to tackle the cause of their offending.
There must be no more excuses for youth crime. Before the election, we promised to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders, as part of a fundamental reform of youth justice. The White Paper sets out how we will deliver those pledges. We will make a start through the crime and disorder Bill, which is to be laid before Parliament shortly.
One of the fundamental deficiencies of the youth justice system is that different agencies work to different, even conflicting, objectives. The crime and disorder Bill will make it clear, for the first time, that the principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by young people. All youth justice practitioners will be under a duty to take account of that aim.
To tackle youth crime effectively, we must recognise that young people often start down the path of offending when they are very young. Therefore, the Bill will provide new powers to protect children under 10 from being drawn into crime. Local authorities—after consultation with the police and the community—will be able to set up local curfew schemes for the under-10s, and a new child safety order will help to stop individual children under 10 from drifting into crime.
Many factors draw young people into offending. Not attending school, through truancy or exclusion; having delinquent siblings or friends; coming from a family with multiple problems; and, for older teenagers, being unemployed—all those factors increase the risks of juvenile criminality.
The Government are taking action to tackle the causes of juvenile crime across the board, by raising school standards; by fighting truancy and under-achievement;
1090
by combating social exclusion; by helping families at risk; and by giving the young long-term unemployed a pathway from welfare to work.
We know that the single most important factor associated with youth criminality is the quality of a young person's home life—crucially, the relationship between parents and children, and the level of parental supervision. The parents of young people who offend or who are at risk of offending need particular support and guidance. They should be made to face up to their own responsibilities. A new parenting order will therefore require parents to attend guidance sessions and to comply with requirements specified by the court to help them to control the behaviour of their children.
However, families are about much more than preventing crime. Families are the fundamental unit in society, providing mutual care and support and helping to shape the values of future generations. At the Prime Minister's request, I am chairing a new ministerial group looking at wider ways of supporting families more effectively and of promoting good parenting.
Young people, too, should face up to the consequences of their offending. The present rule of doli incapax— being incapable of evil—can stand in the way of holding properly to account 10 to 13-year-olds who commit crimes, yet young people of that age know that it is wrong to steal, vandalise or commit an assault. We intend to abolish that archaic rule to ensure that such young people are answerable for their offences.
Firm action is needed when young people begin to offend, but that does not happen at present, so we will replace repeat cautions with a new reprimand and final warning scheme to provide a consistent, graduated police response to youth crime, within a clear statutory framework.
A final warning will normally trigger a tailor-made intervention programme with the offender and his or her family, to tackle the causes of the offending. Once a youngster has had a final warning, the firm presumption will be that he or she will be charged with any further offence.
The Government will give the courts a much wider range of powers to help to change offending behaviour. Reparation and apology can bring home to young offenders the harm that their offending has caused. The crime and disorder Bill will provide a reparation order and make reparation available as a requirement of a supervision order.
There will also be a new action plan order providing an intensive programme of intervention with offenders and their families, combining punishment, reparation and rehabilitation, as an alternative to custody.
Custody is, however, necessary for the most serious or persistent young offenders, and for some young people, it may be the only effective way of preventing offending while they are awaiting trial. The courts' existing powers to remand young people to secure facilities are wholly inadequate.
The crime and disorder Bill will therefore pave the way for powers for the courts to direct that 12 to 14-year-olds and 15 and 16-year-old girls who are charged with serious offences—and who have a history of absconding or offending on bail—are held on remand in secure local authority accommodation. The Bill will also enable the

1091
courts to direct that particularly vulnerable 15 and 16-year-old boys also held in local authority secure accommodation when a place is available, rather than remanded to prison.
For the minority of young offenders whose crimes require that they are sentenced to custody, public protection is best served if sentences and regimes work to change anti-social behaviour and equip those youngsters for a law-abiding life on their release. The crime and disorder Bill will establish a new detention and training order in place of the current sentences of detention in young offenders institutions and the separate sentence of a secure training order. Detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 will remain available for 10 to 17-year-olds convicted of the most serious crimes.
The detention and training order will be made up of 50 per cent. custody and 50 per cent. community supervision, with provision for shortening or extending the custodial element to encourage young offenders to make good progress against agreed sentence plans. Orders will range in length from four months to two years, and young offenders will be placed in the most suitable accommodation for their circumstances.
At the moment, we do not have effective local or national structures to tackle youth crime. The crime and disorder Bill will rectify that, establishing local, multi-agency youth offending teams charged with planning and supervising community interventions. To provide better national direction, the Bill will establish a new national youth justice board for England and Wales, which will ensure consistent standards and monitor local performance. The national board will also set and oversee standards for secure accommodation.
I have spent a good deal of time over the past two years studying at first hand the operation of the youth courts. Over the summer, I visited courts across the country and discussed problems and solutions with all those involved, including young offenders. Despite the obvious commitment of the people working in the system, the unavoidable conclusion is that it is simply not operating effectively. Offenders are rarely asked to account for themselves. They are bystanders in the process, at best bemused by the obscure theatre of the occasion. Parents are not confronted with their responsibilities; victims have no role; and the public are excluded.
I am convinced of the need for fundamental change. For example, we are already encouraging magistrates to allow victims into court to see that justice is done. We will be asking youth court magistrates to use their discretion to lift reporting restrictions following a young person's conviction when that is in the public interest.
I want to go further, and integrate the best aspects of restorative justice into the youth court system. There has been a wide welcome for some remarkably successful schemes that bring young offenders face to face with the human consequences of their crimes. These schemes can bring significant reductions in reoffending. Victims, too, can benefit from this opportunity—if they want it—to tell offenders how the crime has affected them, the innocent parties.
Confronting young offenders with the damage they cause is much tougher than the present alternative. Today, young offenders are spectators in legalistic, adversarial
1092
court proceedings and frequently all they hear is lawyers making excuses for their offending. With the restorative approach, there is no way for youngsters—or their parents—to hide from their personal responsibilities in committing their crimes.
The White Paper proposes a radical new approach for young offenders coming before the youth court for the first time. First-time offenders pleading guilty would normally be referred, after conviction, to a youth panel. The panel would draw up a contract with the young offender and their parents, which could last for up to a year and would tackle the causes of the offending as well as punishing that offending. Under the contract, the offender would be obliged to make reparation. If the contract were broken, the young offender would end up back in the youth court and could be sentenced for the original offence.
Those changes would require primary legislation. The Government will introduce that at the earliest suitable opportunity once the crime and disorder Bill has been enacted and in light of comments in the House and from parties outside it regarding the details of our proposals.
Currently, there is no system of quality assurance to guarantee that legally aided lawyers in youth courts possess the right skills and experience for that work. Moreover, what those lawyers are paid depends on the length of time that they take to complete cases—which, unquestionably, can provide a perverse incentive, and so add to delay and expense.
The Government believe that a better approach might be for lawyers to provide services under block contracts. Such an approach would provide flexibility and a consistently higher quality of legal representation. Such contracts would also discourage delay. Pilot trials will be run by the Legal Aid Board.
Delays in the youth court system impede justice, frustrate victims, and only encourage more crime. A young offender who commits an offence today will have to wait, on average, until the middle of next April to be sentenced. That is wholly unacceptable. No parent and no teacher would wait that long to deal with misbehaviour by their children or by the pupils in their charge. Our first priority is to halve the time that it takes between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders, to ensure rapid justice for individuals from whom the public most need protection.
Before we came into government, information was not even collected to show how long it took to deal with persistent young offenders. In contrast, over the past few months, we have been collecting such data. I can now tell the House that it takes, on average, 142 days—five months—from the date of first arrest to sentence, during which time the victim receives no justice, and there is neither punishment nor intervention to prevent reoffending.
With the Lord Chancellor, I took immediate action after the general election to combat some of those delays. Provisional data for last month show that the average time to complete young offender cases, once they reach court, is 60 days, compared with 68 days in October 1996. The average number of adjournments also has fallen.
I welcome those improvements, but they can be only a start. In areas that have already introduced fast-tracking schemes, the results are clear. In north Hampshire,

1093
for example, the average time between charge and sentencing for young offenders has dropped from 133 days to 89 days since last October. That dramatic change has been achieved in only one year.
The crime and disorder Bill will provide for fast tracking for all persistent young offenders. There will be mandatory time limits for all young offender cases, and stricter time limits for cases involving persistent young offenders. Time limits will be backed by demanding performance targets. The Bill will also implement many of the recommendations of the Narey review of delay in the criminal justice system, to streamline procedures, improve case management, and so expedite justice for both juveniles and adults.
One of the most depressing things about visiting this country's adult prisons is seeing and hearing how many inmates started offending as children. By nipping youth crime in the bud, we will be preventing today's young offenders graduating into tomorrow's career criminals.
Our manifesto committed us to tackle youth crime and its causes. The White Paper sets out how we will do that. The measures that I have announced should deliver a youth justice system that prevents youth crime and punishes it; deals directly with offending behaviour, rather than simply processing cases; reinforces responsibility; delivers justice for victims and for offenders; and provides value for taxpayers' money. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I start by thanking the Home Secretary for his courtesy in allowing me to have a brief prior view of both the White Paper and his statement. He knows that I have not yet had time to study the White Paper, but I was grateful for the opportunity to read it.
I know that the Home Secretary will accept that Members in all parts of the House are concerned about high levels of crime committed by young people under the age of 18. Such crime is damaging to the community, but, far more important, it is damaging to the young people themselves and to their families. Most hon. Members agree that, overwhelmingly, such young people need to focus on the difference between right and wrong and that they do know the difference but choose to ignore it in their behaviour patterns. The Home Secretary will have no difficulty with the part of the Bill that deals with doli incapax.
Like the Home Secretary, we accept the principle of parental responsibility. Indeed, he will have noted that our manifesto stated that, if we were re-elected, we would introduce parental control orders, which sound similar to the ideas that he has outlined today. We also accept the principle of partnership—the Home Secretary's youth offending teams sound similar to the child crime teams also proposed in our manifesto. Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a broad similarity of approach even if, as we will no doubt discover when we debate the Bill, there are differences of detail?
Does the Home Secretary accept that not only do parents have responsibilities but society has a responsibility, and that adults must set standards that are good templates of behaviour for young people, rather than the opposite which is too frequently the case?
We will support any and all measures in the proposed Bill that will fairly and effectively help to reduce the level of youth crime, but I have some detailed questions for the
1094
Home Secretary. What are the measures that he envisages will "break the habit", as mentioned in paragraph 3.11, of young people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs?
Will the Home Secretary consider a form of parenting order based on truancy which, as the White Paper correctly states, is an indicator of subsequent criminality? In many cases, parenting orders after the criminal conviction may be too late to be effective. Paragraph 4.11 talks about parenting orders being made against parents who have been convicted of failing to send their children to school, but this is a different matter which I hope the Home Secretary will consider.
Will the Home Secretary be cautious about encouraging the use of local authority care proceedings in the event of the failure of child safety orders, given that the local authorities' record in terms of children in care and offending is—I will be delicate—doubtful?
The White Paper and the statement contain several references to correcting or addressing the "causes of offending"—as in, for example, paragraph 5.19 of the White Paper. Does the Home Secretary accept that he has to decide whether he believes in personal responsibility, as he suggests by, for example, wanting to replace doli incapax, or whether young people who offend are somehow doing something that they cannot avoid doing because they are overwhelmed by circumstantial forces? He will have the whole House with him on the first interpretation. When we debate the Bill, I hope that he will be a little more precise about dealing with the causes of crime.
Why does the Home Secretary believe that 17-year-olds should be offered the incentive of release earlier than the courts have determined, but that 18-year-olds should not have a similar incentive? Who will assess the risk to the community in these early releases? I have asked the Home Secretary twice before, and now give him another opportunity to tell the House, whether young offenders under the age of 18 are to be included in the tagging proposals that he announced to the House a little while ago.
How many new jobs will youth offending teams they entail? How many existing jobs will they replace, in what areas, and what will be the cost? Will parenting orders be served on parents who do not have custody of the young people as they live apart?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition welcome the practice of restorative justice, but will he guarantee to the House that victims of crime will have a final say on whether they wish to meet or have anything to do with those who offended against them?
What obstacles in the magistrates court rules— mentioned in paragraph 9.6 of the White Paper—does the right hon. Gentleman want to remove? Will he refute suggestions that he will fine police forces if he thinks that they are acting too slowly?
I realise that I have asked a number of detailed questions, and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would write to me on those that he is unable to deal with today.
In government, we showed that we recognised the importance of continuing to press down on youth crime and, where practically possible, to create circumstances that reduce the temptation to offend. I assure the Home

1095
Secretary that we will bring the same constructive and responsible attitude to the consideration of the crime and disorder Bill when it appears.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive response to my statement. I hope that he will take it as something of a compliment when I say that those of us who spent years in opposition debating these issues from that side of the House—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is still in the same place, and he remembers those debates—now recognise an altogether different approach by Conservative Members. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) argued with anyone who opposed him, even about what time it was, as well as about issues such as crime and punishment. I should much prefer that the whole House was united on that issue, and I will forbear to mention the previous Government's record over 18 years.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of responsibility and the fact that society—I commend him on his use of that word—has responsibilities. I look forward to many more occasions on which the word society and the idea of community that it embraces are used by Opposition Members. He asked 11 questions and I shall rattle through them as quickly as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about our proposals to break the link between crime and drugs. A large part of what we are proposing in respect of youth crime is to do with the fact that perhaps 60 or 70 per cent. of the youngsters who come before the courts have some sort of drug habit, so that is woven into all our approaches. We are also proposing the drug treatment and testing order to try to break the vicious circle between drugs and crime. Much of the intervention that is involved at the final warning stage, the youth court stage and when youngsters are committed to custody, is about breaking that drugs habit.
The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question about whether the parenting order could be used as an enforcement for parents who are keeping their kids out of school. The answer is yes. We tried to cover that in paragraph 4.11 of the White Paper, but if he feels that we have not dealt with it adequately, we shall be happy to hear his representations.
It is fair to say that the majority of local authorities deal with care proceedings very sensitively. It is the abuses that we hear about, and it is important that more control is exercised there. However, the final sanction for people who do not face up to their responsibilities as parents is for the state to intervene as parent. I can think of no other final sanction. I wish that it did not have to be used, but sometimes all of us have to accept that the state, through the local authority, must step in and remove parents' rights because they are not accepting their responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the causes of offending. The Labour party and I are committed to the notion of getting youngsters to acknowledge that, if they steal from a shop, they have committed the theft and not some extraneous forces. That has to be the only way in which we can run a justice system. Set against that, we must recognise that external factors may tempt
1096
youngsters into that condition. There is no contradiction there. Indeed, it was the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who said that the best answer to young adults who commit crime was to provide them with jobs. He was not diminishing their responsibility for their crimes but suggesting a constructive way to get them away from crime.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire asked about early releases for under-17s. There is bound to be some difference in the detention regimes for under-18s and over-18s. We think that it is worth building some incentive into the detention and training order for young people subject to detention to ensure that they go straight at an earlier age. If they break their release conditions, they can be taken straight back into detention. Electronic tagging will apply to 16 and 17-year-olds in the Prison Service, which includes those in young offenders institutes.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the number of new jobs that are likely to be created, and the overall cost. The overall cost for the package is estimated at £22 million, which is relatively small for the changes that we are making. Over time, we hope that it will be offset by savings. If we can get the delays down, we can save money. I do not in any sense regard the establishment of young offender teams as an opportunity for job creation in the local authority sector. It is about making better use of existing agencies and resources, although there may have to be some expenditure changes at times.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether parenting orders should be available for parents who do not have custody. They should be available for parents with care and control. If parents have no involvement in the upbringing of the child, the idea is redundant.
Should victims have a final say on whether they are to be involved in the process? Unquestionably, it should be up to the victim to decide whether he or she wishes to be involved. The examples of restorative justice that I have seen suggest that victims want to be involved and just want the person who has committed the crime to say sorry. Often, that is enough, but getting that out of a youngster under the current system is difficult.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I put it to the Home Secretary that the measures that he has announced will be especially welcomed by those parts of our community where law-abiding people's lives are made miserable by out-of-control youths? Will he confirm—he touched on this earlier—that the strategy is not meant to be seen in isolation, and that the best way of stopping youngsters going into anti-social activity is to provide them with a purpose in life? That requires investment in sports facilities, training and education, and, ultimately, in getting them into work. What progress has been made on setting up secure training units, a subject much announced by the previous Government but on which we have not so far seen results?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those questions. He is right about the importance of giving youngsters a purpose in life. This morning, the Prime Minister and I saw the excellent mentoring programmes run by the Dalston youth project in Hackney, which deals with young offenders. To pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, it is

1097
about getting youngsters at risk of drifting into offending away from crime at an early stage and providing them with mentors—adults who are willing to give them advice and guidance. One of the terrific things that mentors told us was that it has not only been important to youngsters subject to it but added something to the lives of those who provide it.
I have already announced the establishment of a secure training unit at Cookham Wood. The contract for that has been let, and it should be running next year. I have agreed to have a competition for the contract for the other four, which will all go ahead.
Mr. A. J. Beith: We welcome the emphasis on prevention and the new statutory duty, but does the Home Secretary recognise that the agencies with most to offer, especially the youth service, are under the greatest threat from local government cuts?
In a paper endorsed by Sir Stephen Tumim last year, we called for the less adversarial youth justice system that brings together offenders, families and victims. We warmly welcome the steps that the right hon. Gentleman has announced in that direction. Does he accept the Audit Commission's recommendation that savings achieved by improving the youth justice system should be ploughed back into prevention projects and positive opportunities for young people?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while it is right that the courts should have the power to ensure that young offenders can be remanded in secure local authority accommodation, 15-year-olds should never be sent to adult prisons? If they need to be detained, it should be in accommodation suitable for their age group.
Does the Home Secretary recognise that some measures, especially the curfews, in this generally useful package look a little like gimmicks, and that even the parenting orders will not work if the problem is criminality in the home background or if parents are at their wits' end, having tried everything to stop their youngsters offending? It would be a pity if gimmicks obscured the good features of the package of proposals that he has announced.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the two cheers from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, it is de rigueur for a Liberal spokesman—it is always a man, by the way— to call for more spending. He never says where it is to come from.
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is to refer to the Audit Commission report. It pointed out that more and more was being spent on dealing with fewer and fewer offenders. We are spending £1,000 million. I have accepted the need for some more spending, which should be carefully targeted, but the existing system is not only ineffective and replete with delays but inefficient. We have to get people working together. The reason why it is important to have a single statutory aim for everyone is that we must ensure that they are all focused on the common objective of reducing offending.
For example, social workers believe that their objective is the welfare of the child and that the welfare of the child is not necessarily dealt with by punishing the child. That is not a view I take, but it is their view. We have to break that view.
1098
The right hon. Gentleman said that 15-year-olds should never be sent to prisons. I greatly regret that adult prisons have to be used for 15-year-old boys. We intend to ensure that they are not used for 15-year-old girls. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, has already announced a series of major improvements in the way in which 15 and 16-year-old boys will be dealt with within the prison system. We shall set up new regimes specifically for them in the light of the report of the chief inspector of prisons.
The right hon. Gentleman described the proposals for curfews as gimmicks. If he had been to the places that I have been to, such as Yardley in Birmingham, Redditch, and Hamilton in Scotland, and many other places where young children under the age of 10 are out at 11 or 12 o'clock at night without adult supervision, he would not think that curfews were gimmicks. He would think that they were sensible and straightforward, and would wonder why they had not been imposed before.
Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the proposals that my right hon. Friend has brought to the House. May I draw his attention to the work of the Burslem youth consultative panel, which has just reported on offending and what young people want? My right hon. Friend talked about how different agencies came together. Will he look at crime prevention? If the views of young people can be brought in at local level through the Burslem youth consultative panel, perhaps we can learn nationally from the work that the panel has done.
Mr. Straw: I will certainly take that on board. I do not have direct knowledge of the consultative panel to which my hon. Friend refers, but I know of some others. I know that excellent results have been achieved. Where young people are brought in and offered responsibility, they typically take it with open arms.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that in many cases one of the root causes of offending among young people is the fact that they have no self-esteem outside that provided by their peer group. Does he have any proposals to ensure that some of the gangs that roam the streets are directed towards more constructive purposes? It can be done. There is no doubt that the areas in which such gangs rampage suffer most from their activities. It is interesting that, almost without exception, those at a national conference of gang leaders in the United States asked for some way of getting themselves back into the legitimate system.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. On visits to young offenders institutions and adult prisons, once one has cut through the bravado, one sees young people who lack any sort of self-esteem and often lack much in the way of formal education. That is why, despite the Prison Service's best efforts, the number of suicides in prison remains at a worrying level. Youngsters who, outside, would have been cocky beyond belief get inside and realise that they have thrown their lives away.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that programmes aimed at targeting some of those youngsters and moving them away from criminality can be effective. There is a project in my constituency in exactly the sort of area he

1099
describes: it is highest crime area in the constituency, and the poorest area. It also has the highest levels of unemployment. A project called Youth Works has specifically targeted four or five known young offenders; that work has helped those young offenders, but—much more important—it has ensured that the level of property crime has dropped dramatically. The costs to one of the housing associations of repairing houses has been reduced from £400,000 to £100,000 in a year.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement today and I am sure that my constituents will, too. However, I am sure he is aware that social services departments across the land are expressing concern about an increasing minority of young offenders being placed in expensive secure accommodation. Will he comment, if not today, on a future occasion, about the resulting increase in costs, for which social services departments cannot budget?
Mr. Straw: There is a problem with social services secure accommodation, because it costs more than £2,000 a week, whereas a place in a young offenders institution costs a quarter of that, at £500 a week. One reason for setting up the national board for youth justice is to ensure much more effective planning and management of the secure estate, and, as part of the comprehensive spending review, we are conducting an audit of such accommodation. Although we have to maintain high standards of quality in secure accommodation, there must be opportunities for savings—after all, it costs £100,000 a year to keep one youngster in such accommodation— and we hope to achieve that. We are also looking at the charging arrangements.
I also say to my hon. Friend that the problem with the current situation is the young offender who simply cannot be remanded in custody and who, for months and months, commits scores—sometimes hundreds—of offences while on bail. When that young offender finally gets put into secure accommodation, everyone breathes a sigh of relief, but, typically, by that stage the habit of crime is ingrained, so the overall cost to the public purse will be much greater. If we can get that small hard core of persistent offenders into secure accommodation earlier, we may be able far more effectively to do something for them and for their victims.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Home Secretary is well aware of my long-standing interest in the subject of youth justice from the number of times I have raised it in the House. I welcome much of what he has announced, but will he deal specifically with a number of questions?
First, on the issue of restorative justice, does the Home Secretary intend to issue some guidance to chief constables to reinforce what he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) about victims being given the final say on whether to meet the perpetrators of crime? That relates particularly to elderly people, because pensioners may be unwilling to meet those who have committed crimes—indeed, to be confronted by young offenders may be the last thing they want.
1100
Secondly, will the Home Secretary agree to publish in due course the legal advice that he and the Lord Chancellor have been given on the question whether the proposals in the White Paper—especially those relating to the abolition of doli incapax—will be acceptable in European law? I worry that the Government's proposals to import the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law may cut across some of the things the right hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest in the White Paper.
Finally, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, the Home Secretary suggested that Conservative Members had changed their attitude. I should point out that many Conservative Members have been campaigning for many years for tough measures to be taken against young criminals, especially repeat offenders.
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who was in the Chamber earlier, was opposing what became the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 through 180 hours of Committee debate, the Labour party was opposing our tough measures? Does he accept that his change of attitude, which has been so brilliantly satirised on television over the past few days by Messrs. John Bird and John Fortune, shows that it is the Labour party which has been brought to agree with us?
Mr. Straw: I know that there are many more opportunities for watching television in opposition than in government and I am afraid that I missed Mr. Bird and Mr. Fortune; I shall have to get a tape out of the Library.
The Minister of State has done sterling work and no one has been more energetic in fighting crime and trying to shift the policy towards crime prevention. He has left the Chamber because he is addressing the annual general meeting of Victim Support in my place. I hope to go to the meeting after the statement and I shall tell those present that, of course, victims have to have an absolute right to determine whether they are involved in the process. The explicit answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is: yes, we shall issue guidance, as he requests.
The hon. Gentleman will know that, for good reasons, it is never the practice of Ministers to publish legal advice that they have received either from the Attorney-General or from their legal advisers. We are convinced that our proposal to remove the concept of doli incapax is fully consistent with the European convention on human rights. Interestingly, there was a period in the divisional court— when C v. the Director of Public Prosecutions set the law—when doli incapax was effectively abolished. That did not lead to injustice for young offenders, but made for a little more efficiency.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: My right hon. Friend mentioned publicity in respect of certain types of juvenile crime, which causes me some concern. Perhaps he will take on board the concerns that I and many others in the profession have that such publicity can create heroes as well as portray villains. Does not any publicity have to be approached with great caution?
Mr. Straw: It does, but I also think that communities have a right to know, particularly about older

1101
young offenders such as 15, 16 and 17-year-olds. Some young offenders who are dealt with by youth courts are over 18 when they come up for sentence, and the public have a right to know the identity of offenders in that age group—as well as that of some of the younger offenders. It would go against the European convention on human rights and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child to require the names of children accused, but not convicted, of offences to be made known—and I do not support that.
In many cases, it is right for the names of the accused who have been convicted to be made known. I do not think that that will make them into heroes, but we must introduce an element of shaming people. There is nothing wrong with that—it is what kept many of us in check when we were at school; it is an important element of social control, which is what we are about.
Another problem is that the youth courts have retreated into what I have described as a secret garden and have become secret and unaccountable; too few people have known about them. That has reinforced their inefficiency and ineffectiveness.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I welcome many of the measures that my right hon. Friend has outlined, particularly the one involving working with parents and having parents at counselling sessions. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a disproportionate number of young offenders have spent a large part of their lives in care? Obviously, they are emotionally damaged; they have often been abused and feel alienated. Will my right hon. Friend work with other Departments to try to introduce special measures to help that group of vulnerable young people, and to try to divert them from crime and show them that the rest of society cares?
Mr. Straw: Yes is the answer to my hon. Friend. She has raised a very important point. The high proportion of youngsters from care who are locked up at 15, 16, 17 or 18 is depressing. It is a serious comment on the nature of residential care provisions for young people. My hon. Friend will know from the Secretary of State for Health's statement following the Utting report that we take the subject extremely seriously. We have to raise the standards of residential care for children, particularly those who are most vulnerable.
Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Secretary of State share my view that the tradition of policing by consent is extremely important in this country and that it is a matter of great concern that many young people come into contact with the police only in a crisis when they are already committing crime? Does he have any plans to enhance the police's community role so that they have more contact with young people before those youngsters commit crimes, and, therefore, see them in more co-operative circumstances?
Mr. Straw: The police are doing a great deal in many areas to improve their connections with local communities. These days, being community police officers is no longer seen by police colleagues as a slightly eccentric task for those who have been put out to grass, but as part of police officers' core activities.
I have gathered from visits around the country that police officers are often involved in youth work. For example, in one town in Norfolk, a police constable
1102
dealt with a minor epidemic of youth crime by establishing a youth club in the area. That is one of many good examples of community policing. Let us not forget that the police run attendance centres, which are much neglected, but are often as effective as, if not much more cost-effective than, dare one say it, some activities run by social services departments.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: My right hon. Friend has announced that at least 60 per cent. of young offenders are drug takers, which is a worry, particularly in my constituency where young kids on drugs have got into crime. When they are sentenced, get bail or whatever, they have to wait three, four or five months before they are detoxed. All the time that they are still on drugs, they cause havoc. Has my right hon. Friend any answers to the problem of how to get those kids through the detox treatment and back on the right road? I am aware that not all of them go back on the right road and that many of them, having been detoxed, go back on to drugs, so I know that it is not an easy task.
Mr. Straw: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing in his area and more widely in respect of young drug addicts. I have visited his constituency and seen that work. We are extremely concerned about the problem, and I do not pretend that there is an easy answer, because the demand for detoxification outstrips the supply.
We believe that there could be a more efficient delivery of services and better co-ordination between some of the drug action teams. That is one reason, out of many, why we are beefing up the national drug action strategy with the appointment of Keith Hellawell, the former chief constable of West Yorkshire, as the anti-drugs supremo and Michael Trace as a deputy. He comes to the task with a different experience; Hellawell has the background of a police officer, whereas Trace has the background of someone who has dealt on the front line with drug addicts in prison. Both will be able to advise the Government on some imaginative improvements to the current system.
Mr. Bob Russell: When the Home Office ministerial team is considering the causes of crime and being tough on crime, does it have discussions with other parts of government? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that national youth organisations have a critical part to play in tackling the problems of youth crime? If so, would he care to comment on a written answer that I received this afternoon which says that the cadet forces of this country have had their budgets cut by £2 million in the current financial year? Will that help or hinder the policies that he set out in his earlier remarks?
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Disgraceful.
Mr. Straw: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, we discuss such matters with other Departments. I chaired a ministerial group that dealt with youth justice and provided ministerial input into our proposals. In addition, my senior policy adviser, Norman Warner, a former senior official and director of social services in Kent, has been chairing a youth justice task force which has involved practitioners from everywhere.
As for the written answer that the hon. Gentleman has received, he will know that we are working within the budgets set by the previous Administration, so I suggest

1103
that he directs his question about those cuts at the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) who is sitting along the Bench from him.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that major contributions to youth crime include truancy and suspension, particularly the use of indefinite exclusions from schools? What action will he take to deal with those specific issues?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Unquestionably, if a child is truanting—especially if he or she is then permanently excluded from school—there is a very high risk of that child offending.
Some children have to be excluded from school, but unquestionably many schools are permanently excluding too many youngsters, and it is too convenient for them to do so. I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—with whom I have been discussing this crucial issue—in saying that schools must examine their internal procedures to try to reduce the number of youngsters who are excluded. In the case of the hard core of youngsters who are excluded, local authorities and schools must ensure that good arrangements are made to provide them with education and other interventions during the period when they should have been at school.
Mr. Desmond Turner: Nowhere will the Home Secretary's statement be more welcome than in my constituency, where these problems rank very highly. However, I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would be more specific about the way in which he envisages the use of local authority secure accommodation, not only because of the cost implications, which have been mentioned, but because of the scarcity of such accommodation. To the best of my knowledge, Hampshire, Sussex and Kent between them have available 14 such places, which are already being fully used under the present regime. There is a problem not only of cost but of supply.
I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would elucidate the criteria that will be used to determine how places are used, and what measures he would propose to expand them, because obviously more will be needed.
Mr. Straw: Some more local authority secure accommodation is coming on stream. In previous Parliaments, there was agreement between the parties on the principle that more was needed, and a scheme was established in 1991 to bring more on stream. It is now producing about 200 extra places, which is quite a high proportion.
The problem is partly one of supply and cost, but it is also a question of organisation. There is no effective co-ordination of the current arrangements, and the charging regime can cause local authorities not to use secure accommodation when they should do so. That is why we are establishing the national youth justice board and giving it the responsibility for carrying out an audit of accommodation and for ensuring its proper co-ordination and perhaps its management.

Computers (Century Date Change)
4.27 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on how Government Departments and their agencies are tackling the millennium compliance problem—sometimes called the "millennium bomb"—within central Government Departments and their agencies.
The problem is widely understood to pose serious and potentially catastrophic hazards in all organisations, in both public and private sectors, in every country worldwide. It affects mainframe and personal computers and any device containing a microprocessor chip that manipulates dates. That includes telephone equipment, lifts, air conditioning, lighting, clocks, timers and control equipment.
Checking and, where necessary, correcting every system is a detailed, laborious process, and there is a fixed deadline for its completion. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is leading efforts to raise awareness of that urgent problem throughout the private sector.
The principal responsibility for ensuring that systems are millennium compliant rests with individual Departments. They are also responsible for ensuring that organisations in the wider public service sectors that they sponsor have the necessary guidance and information. My role is to co-ordinate activity in central Government, assess progress and provide guidance. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in my Department has produced comprehensive guidance for Departments on how to deal with the problem. That is available publicly.
Immediately after taking office, I asked to receive, as soon as possible after 1 October, detailed and costed plans, showing how Departments and agencies were tackling the problem. My officials have now analysed those plans. On the basis of those plans, I am now able to confirm that all Departments and agencies have work in hand and scheduled for completion in time—many by December 1998, a majority by March 1999 and a small number later in 1999. Some Departments will in general give priority to correcting business-critical systems, and may leave systems of minor importance until later.
The total estimated cost set out in the plans is just over £370 million. Most of it will be spent in the current and next two financial years. That is less than some estimates, but is based on careful calculation by Departments and their advisers, and I have no reason to believe that it is not of the right order, but that is something that other Ministers and I shall monitor carefully.
The Government's policy is that the cost will be met from within planned allocations, and the evidence from the plans is that almost 97 per cent. is so covered. Many costs will be accommodated in maintenance and system replacement budgets. In some cases, Departments will bring forward investment plans and adjust their priorities.
Guidance published by CCTA asked Departments to consider whether staff shortages would inhibit progress. The plans as a whole do not suggest that that is a serious problem at present, but I shall keep a close watch on that and have already written to Departments asking for further clarification. I shall ensure that that will be covered specifically in subsequent reports.

1105
Overall, my assessment is that we have established the measure of the problem and set in hand plans which are realistic and achievable, but the bulk of the actual remedial or replacement work is yet to be done, the timetable is tight and there is little margin for error. That is the challenge. The programme needs continuous monitoring, and I shall be checking progress regularly and reporting to the House on a quarterly basis, starting this spring.
It is also my intention that we should be open about the scale of the problem and our progress in dealing with it. I am therefore arranging for all the departmental reports to be placed in the Library of the House and published on the internet; and I shall ensure that progress reports are also made available on a regular basis.
Finally, I can announce today that we are reinforcing and strengthening our effort in two significant ways. First, a ministerial group is being set up, under my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to drive forward action to tackle the year 2000 problem across the public and private sectors. I shall be a member of that group, chairing a sub-group which will co-ordinate and drive forward the action for which central Government Departments and agencies are responsible.
Secondly, we have asked Don Cruickshank, the chairman of Action 2000, to reinforce this effort across both public and private sectors by keeping in close touch with the ministerial group and advising on best practice from the private sector. I hope that that demonstrates the seriousness with which we take the problem, and the vigour of our approach to it. Those efforts will be maintained.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I start by welcoming the Chancellor's statement on millennium compliance—it is not before time. However, many listening to his statement today will have been disappointed. There remain many unanswered questions, which I hope the Minister will now cover.
The Minister has done little today to engender confidence in his handling of the matter. He appears once again to have set up yet another committee chaired by a Minister who is rarely in the Chamber; and he appears to have saved a little money.
The timetable that we set when we were in government seems already to have slipped. Our deadline for all Departments to be compliant was December 1998. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that a small number of Departments will not complete the work until later in 1999. Can he tell us when in 1999? Why is he leaving matters until the eleventhth hour? Which part of the Department of Social Security will not become compliant until the end of August 1999? What minor matters can be left until we are right up against the wire?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a date by which all Government systems will be compliant? That is most important. A date for all Government systems has not been given today.
The right hon. Gentleman has glossed over the problems by announcing yet another ministerial group. He has not concentrated on the shortages of staff skilled for this exercise. What estimate has he made of the number of IT specialists and workers that will be required? Is he convinced that we have enough IT-skilled personnel available in the United Kingdom? I have talked
1106
to some companies that are already finding a shortage of skills in the United Kingdom, and are contracting with companies as far afield as India. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any contingency plans to cover any shortages that he may find?
To what extent are the Government refusing to deal with non-government organisations and suppliers that are not already millennium compliant? If the Government are dealing with non-compliant organisations, will the right hon. Gentleman set a date beyond which they will cease to deal with such companies? That has been the case in the commercial world with companies such as British Telecom.
The right hon. Gentleman has been less than frank on costs. He said that the costs are less than some estimates, but we need to be convinced on the detail. In the schedule attached to the statement, he surprisingly estimates that the compliance costs for the NHS will be only £6 million, whereas the costs for social security will be £45 million and those for defence will be £200 million. The statement on the Department of Health contains the phrase "excluding embedded systems". Will he tell us the cost of bringing into account, for example, the embedded systems, because there will be problems with, among other things, defibrillators and heart monitors in the health service?
There has been no mention of local government. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that local government systems will be millennium compliant? Will extra grants be available to councils, and what will be the total cost to local government?
Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced that the Government are doing enough with their awareness programme? How does he react to the Cap Gemini survey, which is detailed in early-day motion 497? The survey shows that 29 per cent. of gross domestic product will be at risk, but if the timetable slips by another three months, the figure will be 37 per cent. Does he agree with the Midland bank survey, which estimates that one in five companies could fail?
How will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the problems of the European Commission, particularly in the light of the answer from the Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry that the Commission has produced no guidelines on millennium compliance? Does he know what steps are being taken by European organisations, and how much will it cost? Surely there will be a serious problem if plans in Europe are behind even our own.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that millennium compliance is unavoidable, but as it comes at the same time as Euro-compliance, it presents our organisations and businesses with the greatest IT task ever faced by government and industry? Perhaps he will now realise that, although we cannot put off millennium compliance, we could put off joining the single currency. Should not joining the single currency be postponed?
Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced that all computers that are being sold, including those sold to Government Departments, are millennium-compliant? I do not want to put people off buying computers, but how will the Government ensure that suppliers of computer equipment have checked that their stock is millennium-compliant? Does he appreciate that this is not just a technical problem? What steps has he taken to

1107
investigate all contracts, licences, stationery and manual processes? How will he ensure that all guarantees on computer equipment are honoured?
If the Government are asking organisations to certify their millennium compliancy, as I presume they are, how will the Chancellor of the Duchy confirm their compliance? What form will that process take? Even if organisations certify, how will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that their critical systems are indeed compliant? Will he set up a testing system, and if so, what form will it take?
What contingencies does the Chancellor have in place in the event of failure in any testing process or any eventual millennium disasters? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the details now? If not, will he give us a date by which he will have contingency plans in place?
The year 2000 and the century date change probably constitute one of the most complex and threatening problems that we shall ever face. A time bomb is ticking away inside computer systems whether they are the largest mainframe computers or software embedded in domestic appliances. The possible effect of problems may vary from something that is slightly annoying to something that is a major threat to business, people or the environment, especially in the event of failure of critical safety systems. Will the Chancellor please reassure me and the rest of the country that he has understood the magnitude of the problem and commands the detail of the solution? If he does not, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman will last in office until the millennium.
Dr. Clark: I agreed with the hon. Lady only when she described the millennium problem as complex and complicated. I wish that she had not trivialised it. By her cavilling and dislocated series of questions, she showed that she does not begin to appreciate the nature of the problem. Before the hon. Lady jumps in and makes such outrageous statements, I advise her to go to the Library of the House to look up the departmental reports that I have deposited there, or she can read them on CD-ROM or turn to the internet.
There are 1,200 pages of reports from the Departments for the hon. Lady to analyse. My officials and I have spent considerable time analysing all those reports, and we are confident that we shall be millennium-compliant at the appropriate date.
Mr. Michael Fallon: When?
Dr. Clark: The compliant time and date is midnight on 31 December 1999. It is as clear as that, and there can be no slippage. I am sorry that I had to spell it out to the hon. Gentleman, but I know that he is not as numerate as he could be.
We are keen that we in the public sector and those in business can work together because it is not viable for one sector to be millennium-compliant and the other not. We obviously need an interface.
The hon. Lady talked about skills. I sometimes wonder where she and her colleagues have been over the past 18 years. There is a shortage of people with computer skills, and training takes time. I remind the hon. Lady that we have been in office for only seven months and that it
1108
was her Department which failed to match up to training people in computer skills. It was her Government who set a deadline for millennium compliance, but they did nothing else. They did nothing within the Department to prepare for that.
In the same month as I took office, I looked at the books and found that practically nothing had been done. I then wrote to all my ministerial colleagues—this was in May—asking them to prepare reports. That they did, and I have placed the reports in the Library.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: May I express the gratitude of the House to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for making this statement? It does not underplay the seriousness of the issue, which is beginning to assume the epoch-making significance of the switchover from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1720, or whenever it was. Indeed, if we went back to the Julian calendar, we might avoid the problem altogether. I do not know whether that is really the case.
My right hon. Friend's statement is important because it emphasises that the millennium will affect more than the banking and finance industries, along with the private computer industry. It will have an effect also on things such as life support machines in hospitals, surgical equipment and our own domestic television sets. Would my right hon. Friend welcome a report by a Select Committee—not necessarily the one in which he and I have a special interest—to reassure the House and the public that the Government, including my right hon. Friend's Department, are being kept up to the mark on that important issue?
Dr. Clark: The Government have no plans to go back to the Julian calendar—I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend.
We want to be as open as we can with information and, as I have said, we have published all the reports from Government Departments for people to see. If my hon. Friend—he happens to be a Chairman of a Select Committee—and his Committee want to look into those matters, my Department will give him any and every assistance. The House and the country need to be involved in the issue, and the more who are involved, the better.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the Chancellor's statement, which is one for which I have been asking. In opposition, the Labour party was critical of the previous Government's timetable, yet their timetable seems to have slipped behind that of their predecessors.
The right hon. Gentleman's answers seem to be inconsistent with the written answers that I have been receiving. Why, for example, did he issue a statement on 12 November stating that no deadline for tackling this serious problem had been missed, when answers to me show clearly that only three of 16 Departments could confirm that they had met the January 1997 target date?
Why did the Chancellor make a claim about receiving costed and privatised plans as soon as possible after 1 October, when the agreed date with the National Audit Office was completion by October? It is clear from parliamentary answers to me that only seven of 16 Departments could say that all their areas had met the October deadline. How can the right hon. Gentleman explain those inconsistencies?

1109
I am puzzled by the Chancellor's claim that he has covered all aspects of Government and public body responsibility. He quotes a figure to which the Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), alluded—the £6.1 million for the national health service. Labour Members have observed that we are talking about life support systems and every trust in the land. Is the right hon. Gentleman really asking us to believe that £6.1 million will resolve the problem for the NHS? Will the cost not be hundreds of millions of pounds?
Will the Chancellor explain how he will ensure that all the public bodies outside the central Departments are complying? It is difficult to believe that £370 million is the definitive cost. Experts who have commented on those matters will find £370 million a bizarre figure. They are suggesting costs amounting to billions of pounds. The gap is huge. The right hon. Gentleman has said that, of £370 million, £200 million can be identified for the Ministry of Defence alone. Is he suggesting that that Department can absorb that cost without any consequential cuts in its budget?
It is an extraordinary statement if we are led to believe that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has everything under control and covered and that there will be delivery on time. Is the right hon. Gentleman's statement not inaccurate on deadlines? Is it not incomplete about costs and is it not insufficient on how costs will be met? In those circumstances, is the right hon. Gentleman not complacent to suggest that the Government have the matter under control? Will that phrase not come home to haunt him?
Dr. Clark: As far as we are aware, no other Government have undertaken the exercise that we have carried out and published all information for their citizens to see. The hon. Gentleman has taken a particular interest in these matters over the years and has a serious contribution to make in trying to solve the millennium problem, which is not party political but one that affects us all, public and private. It is also a global problem. I urge him not to fall into the trap of accepting the words and figures of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who leads for the Conservatives on this. She quoted the figure of just over £6 million for the national health service. That is not the figure for the NHS, for which I have no responsibility and for which I am not speaking. I am responsible for central Government Departments, and the figure of £6 million relates to the Department of Health.
The hon. Gentleman questioned me about a general series of figures. He produced his own figures, in which he estimated that the total cost of the Government's millennium computer problem was almost £1 billion. That of course includes local government, the national health service and various other bodies. The £370 million, which I estimate is the cost of central Government's compliance, is in line with his estimate. We do not know whether his figure is right, but we think that his general ballpark figure is probably about right—that the cost for the public services will be about £1 billion.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. As a former information technology manager with perhaps a little expertise in this sector, I should warn him that, as the systems for which
1110
central Government are responsible are so complex, plans to complete the work in time for the end of the millennium should have been drawn up probably in 1995. I wonder whether he could remind me who was in government in 1995 and suggest why they never took responsibility? The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the Conservative Government had plans for completion of all systems by early 1998, but those plans will not be completed until the end of 1999, and that slippage did not take place in the past six months. I wonder why they did not deal with the slippage at the time.
My main point is this. Will the Minister clarify his statement on auditing plans and how they progress? What plans does he have to ensure that progress is constantly audited and that there is no further slippage?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the complexity of this issue and of the many factors that are unknown to the best brains worldwide. He also makes a fair point when he asks what the previous Government did on this issue over the years. On attaining office, I came to the conclusion that they did very little. That is why we are faced with the problem today.
I am aware of the need constantly to monitor and to audit the problem. That is why I have asked each Government Department to send me, every quarter, detailed plans of how they aim to meet their proposals. I have assured the House that those detailed plans will be reported to the House, so that all hon. Members can see them in detail, monitor the position and check that no Departments are slipping. I am in the game of trying not to contrast Department A with Department B, but to ensure that the governing of this country can continue normally after 2000.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Chancellor was unnecessarily touchy about the genuinely important questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked. He is also slightly ill informed. I am sure that his officials did not mean to ill inform him, but the previous Government did much on this issue, often with considerable criticism from people who thought that it was all hype.
I am delighted that the figures that he has come up with—which the previous Government started in order to meet the October deadline—show that the costs and the problem are serious. Will he confirm what I think he has just said to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Liberal Democrat spokesman: the £370 million figure is only for central Government services, and the likely cost for the public services will be well over £1 billion? I think that he said at least £1 billion. In my judgment, it will be well over £1 billion because of the extensive problems of the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Social Security and the national health service.
Will the Minister say what he implied in his statement about prioritisation? Does that mean that some public service functions may not be able to continue? Will he answer the important point of what the cut-off date will be for testing, because half the cost is likely to be in the testing, not in the analysis, of the problem? Will he lay down to private sector companies a date beyond which

1111
the public sector will not deal with them electronically— unless they have computer compliance that is acceptable to the Government?
Dr. Clark: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. I am talking only about central Government Departments, and the estimate for them is £370 million.
No one has an accurate estimate of the ballpark figure for public services. I do not demur greatly from the figure proffered by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of about £1 billion.
As to our contracts with electronic and IT companies, we now have an agreement that all contracts must be for millennium-compliant machines and equipment. I have today asked the various Departments to do random tests on the equipment that they receive to ensure that those terms are adhered to.
Mr. Brian White: The Minister's statement will be greatly welcomed. Until 1 May, I was working in information technology and, had the good people of Milton Keynes not elected me, I would be working on the millennium problem. One of my concerns is that the debate is mostly about computers, not embedded software. Most people seem to ignore that. Will the Minister assure me that that will be given greater priority in the publicity he issues, and that the testing programmes, which are always the things to be cut in every computer system development programme, will not be cut in this case?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that we are talking about not only IT systems, but the embedded chip issue, although we are not sure of the extent of that problem. It involves not only mainstream and personal computers but things involving dates, such as lifts. Many digital watches may also be affected. Some Departments may not have taken it completely on board, so I have written to all Departments to ensure that they are aware of it.
I heard what my hon. Friend said about testing. Those were very wise words. We shall try to adhere to that because, to ensure that our programme works on the critical day, testing must be done in the lead-up to that period.
Mr. David Atkinson: It is nearly two years to the week since I was the first to raise this issue on the Floor of the House, and was widely ridiculed for doing so.
I warmly welcome this overdue statement, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will not be enough to ensure that the computer systems for which the Government are responsible are millennium compliant because, if those with which they are linked in the private sector are not, they will all crash together? Will he therefore acknowledge the value of my private Member's Bill, the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill, which is listed for its Second Reading tomorrow and which will do a great deal to ensure that this country will avoid much of the chaos that is predicted for two years' time?
Dr. Clark: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in this subject. For obvious reasons,
1112
I was aware of his Adjournment debate. Over the years, he has taken a sustained and real interest in this subject. His foresight at that time has been appreciated.
The House will decide on the hon. Gentleman's Bill, but he is absolutely right to say that it is no use us being compliant at the centre if other organisations—both public and private—with which we interface are not compliant. For that reason, we have asked Don Cruickshank to take this forward and to ensure that there are arrangements and co-ordination between the public and private sectors.
Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for the openness that was involved in the publication of the reports about how Departments will proceed. It will make discussions of this kind much more fruitful.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of the concern that is felt in the business community? First, there is concern about the continued sale of non-compliant equipment. I know that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for that, but I noticed that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was present earlier, and I hoped that my right hon. Friend would have conversations with the DTI.
Secondly, there is what could be described as a mirror image of the issue that has just been discussed. Private companies that have made progress with compliance are concerned about their relationship with Government, and feel that Government are progressing more slowly than some of them.
I spoke at a meeting of the southern region of the Confederation of British Industry, at which both those issues were raised. CBI representatives said in terms that they did not want petty bickering between parties; they wanted collaboration, seriousness and progress. That was stated at the meeting by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the Government are prepared to make the information available, not only to Members of Parliament but to anyone who cares to use the internet to find the detailed information supplied by the Department. That process will be on-going.
I take on board the message that my hon. Friend has passed on from the regional CBI that business does not want the issue to be bogged down in inter-party bickering. I am reassured by the fact that Opposition Back Benchers did not follow the lead of their Front-Bench spokesman, and have realised the seriousness of the issue. Along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall try to ensure that they have as much information as possible, so that they can help us to make the balanced judgments that will need to be made.
Mr. Ian Bruce: May I follow what was said by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)? I believe that answers are needed to the list of questions that the Minister was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). I should be grateful if he would answer those questions and publish his answers, because all the issues are relevant.
Will the Minister assure the House that the all-party European informatics market group—of which I am vice-chairman—has been considering the subject for some

1113
time? There have been a number of draft reports, and the group is now about to produce its final report. I hope that the Minister will meet officers and experts from industry so that we can discuss our findings.
The Minister may be interested to know that, in an early draft of the report, it was suggested that we could not have both the year 2000 and economic and monetary union. Clearly, having discovered that, the Chancellor decided to postpone EMU. We recommend that all new Bills should be considered in terms of their implications not just for manpower and cost but for information technology. The right hon. Gentleman has said that Departments' current budgets are sufficient to provide the £370 million that is needed. I do not agree with that, but, if we assume that it is correct, the cost of staff will rise enormously because of demand and the fact that their salaries will be increased.
Experts say that the problem will have to be cured by the end of 1998, because the year 99, put into certain codes, means something completely different from the year 1999. That is not just a millennium problem; it is also a year 99 problem.
Dr. Clark: Having participated in debates on the issue with the hon. Gentleman, I know that he takes a considerable interest in it, and knows a good deal about it. I think that, when he has time to read the detailed reports that are in the Library, he will see that Departments are aware of the problems. The various departmental budgets cover 97 per cent. of the £370 million that I mentioned earlier.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the obsolescence factor in IT is very great, and there is a very short period for the upgrading and refurbishment of equipment and of IT generally. As we advance with the refurbishment, all the equipment involved is 2000-compliant. The problem is not quite as great as it might at first appear, but I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall write to him if there is anything that I feel I have not covered.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)>: Order. This is a complex matter, but I appeal for concise questions and answers.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Pursuant to his last reply, does my right hon. Friend agree that the millennium presents us with an opportunity, as well as a serious challenge? In the process of ensuring that Departments purchase millennium-compliant equipment, will advice go downstream to purchasing departments at the levels of, for instance, schools and local government? Will the same advice go to the private sector, particularly the small and medium business sector, through the DTI?
Dr. Clark: I have today stated the Government's position vis-a-vis our own Departments. We have also announced that we are establishing a ministerial group, and that we are asking Don Cruickshank to ensure that the very points raised by my hon. Friend are met. Those points are indeed very serious.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Minister? I recognise that he is speaking on behalf of
1114
the central Department, and that he has also referred to other Departments, but is the Northern Ireland Office abreast of what is happening? At times, it seems to be in another orbit, and regularly behind developments.
Dr. Clark: The information that I have does not relate to the Northern Ireland Office, but we have made inquiries of the NIO. It is well aware of developments, and is in line with the other Departments.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend understand Labour Members' irritation at the way in which the issue was addressed by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)? When did the last Government decide not to continue buying computer equipment and computer systems that were millennium-compliant? Has my right hon. Friend that date?
Dr. Clark: I do not have the date, but I think that the whole House will share my hon. Friend's disappointment at the cavalier and cavilling way in which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) addressed the problem.
Mr. Keith Simpson: We have had a revelation this afternoon. Whenever the Opposition are on weak ground—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I automatically think of the Labour party as being in opposition.
Whenever Labour Members are on weak ground, they suggest that party politics has somehow come into the issue. I think it right that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) should ask questions, and should receive answers from the Chancellor of the Duchy. After all, this is a serious issue.
May I bring a specific Government aspect to the right hon. Gentleman's attention? Many hon. Members would be amazed if the Ministry of Defence's compliance costs were only £200 million. I suspect that that figure will go up and up.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that we are talking about a vital element of national security, ranging from our Trident nuclear deterrent to command and control systems that are now being operated by our military personnel in Bosnia and elsewhere. It has an international and a multinational dimension. In future, when we wish to question the Government, will we be able to question the right hon. Gentleman on specific departmental issues, or will we have to go from Department to Department to obtain answers?
Dr. Clark: The MOD estimate is accurate, I think. The MOD purchases about half of all the IT purchased by Government Departments. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition are on weak ground, not because they are bringing in party politics, but because the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham tries to rewrite history, which I find strange.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 13 March, I had an answer from Mrs. Angela Knight, then a Treasury Minister, which stated:

1115
"The Treasury has work in progress to identify and test its computer systems to ensure that they will operate correctly at the turn of the century. It has not proved necessary to commission any additional research."—[Official Report, 13 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 323.]
Has my right hon. Friend resorted to any additional research, particularly in relation to the local authorities? The matter was raised in a Standing Committee on which I served with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson).
Dr. Clark: The CCTA and the central IT unit in my Department have conducted considerable research into the matter. On the specific narrow issue, I shall make inquiries and write to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Following on from the previous question, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that local authority systems and police command and control systems will be millennium compliant? Can he estimate the cost of putting those right?
Dr. Clark: As I said before, I cannot put a precise figure on it. I gave the ballpark figure that I estimated was the cost for the entire public sector. We had to take the new initiative because we found that the work had not been done previously by the Conservative Government. That is why we established the Cruickshank Action 2000, so that we could address the problems that he has brought to the attention of the House.
Dr. George Turner: As I have a background in information technology in a university environment, one aspect that disturbs me is that the millennium problem seems to be giving higher rewards to those with long memories than to those with recently trained skills. I suspect that, all too often, we are looking to botch and fix what should be replaced. One of the disadvantages of not starting early enough on a project is that that leads to a waste of money. Is that proving to be the case? If so, will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will seek to minimise it? In the interests of those in the private sector, will he ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to investigate whether we can use the millennium as an opportunity for investment in new technology, rather than trying to fix the technology of the past decade?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to draw to our attention the temptation to botch when one is faced with a short-term problem. According to the figures that I have, between 50 and 80 per cent. of reinvestment in IT is coping with that problem. It is important that we use the millennium as an opportunity to re-equip and refurbish our industry, so that we can compete more effectively in the new millennium.
Mr. John Hayes: Given the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the previous
1116
question, and the comprehensive audit that has been carried out, perhaps he will answer a few specific questions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one.
Mr. Hayes: One specific question, then. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many older turnkey systems are in use in central Government Departments? The problem is more profound with older line of business turnkey systems, rather than with office productivity systems or hardware. How many of the turnkey systems in existence in Government Departments are more than five years old? Any that are more than five years old are bound to be non-compliant.
Dr. Clark: I do not know the answer. I shall find out, if possible, and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Fraser Kemp: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I accept that, as he says, some of the costs associated with the problem can be met from existing IT budgets through the purchase of new equipment. What steps has he taken to ensure that all new materials, equipment and systems purchased now will be compliant and that we shall not have a problem with new equipment in a little more than two and a half years?
Dr. Clark: All the contracts that we have with companies supplying IT and similar equipment to us insist that the new equipment is millennium compliant. As from today, we are carrying out random tests of the equipment received, to make sure that that is the case.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, my personal equipment and all my systems are entirely millennium compliant? More seriously, will he take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) in relation to the Ministry of Defence?
First, having been a Minister there, I believe that the figures being quoted are way under the actual cost. Secondly, my hon. Friend's point about security applies not only to weapons systems and command and control systems, but to intelligence systems. Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence inform the House of the representations that they have made to the former Soviet Union, in particular, and other countries holding nuclear weapons and other global weapons systems, and of whether Ministers are satisfied with the security of those systems, given the changes that are taking place in IT?
Dr. Clark: The House will be reassured to know that all the hon. Gentleman's personal equipment is millennium compliant. I am reassured that his clock chip is okay, and that his bios firmware is above the mark.
On the serious issue, the hon. Gentleman certainly has a knowledge of the Ministry of Defence, as I have. I have examined the figures carefully and I have heard what he said. We shall be able to see on a quarterly basis what the position is. He has drawn attention to a serious problem with some of the former Warsaw pact countries, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Business of the House
5.15 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 1 DECEMBER—Opposition Day [5th allotted day].
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on Government policies on welfare, pensions and disabled people, followed by a debate entitled "The Government's new burdens on business". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 2 DECEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill [second day].
WEDNESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be the usual debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill [third day].
THURSDAY 4 DECEMBER—Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 5 DECEMBER—Debate on special educational needs in schools on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill.
TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates, the votes on account and supplementary defence vote A.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be the usual debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 12 DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
The House may wish to be reminded that on Tuesday2 December there will be a debate on tobacco advertising in European Standing Committee B, and on Wednesday 3. December there will be a debate on part-time work, European works councils and parental leave in European Standing Committee B.
It is also proposed that, on Tuesday 9 December, there will be a debate on Agenda 2000: structural and cohesion policy, in European Standing Committee B. On Wednesday 10 December, there will be a debate on Agenda 2000: reform of the common agricultural policy, in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on Agenda 2000: a new financial framework, in European Standing Committee B.
1118
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Monday 22 December, and return on Monday 12 January. That means that the open three-hour Adjournment debate held before each Recess will be on the morning of Wednesday 17 December.
[Tuesday 2 December:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 6294/97 and unnumbered, Tobacco Advertising. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vii (1997–98).
Wednesday 3 December:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 10230/97, Part-Time Work; 10975/97, European Works Councils; 10975/97, Parental Leave. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi.
Thursday 4 December:
Relevant documents: White Paper on Developments in the European Union, January—June 1997 (Cm 3802); The Commission's Work Programme for 1998. Political Priorities (COM (97) 517); The Commission's Work Programme for 1998. New Legislative Initiatives (SEC (97) 1852; European Community Document No 9984/97 on "Agenda 2000".
Tuesday 9 December:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000 Structural and Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).
Wednesday 10 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000: Reform of the CAP. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98)
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000: New Financial Framework. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).]
Sir Patrick Cormack: I once again thank the Leader of the House for announcing two weeks' business. That is very helpful, and much appreciated. I thank her also for providing the dates of the Christmas recess, but I ask her to think again.
The right hon. Lady must be aware that there are many working mothers—she is one herself—within the Palace of Westminster; and I do not refer only to elected Members. Would it not be more sensible to forgo a non-sitting Friday so that the House may rise on 19 December, rather than returning for one day and causing great inconvenience to hon. Members, and to members of staff—who are often neglected and who serve us so well in this place?
Will the Leader of the House kindly assure us that there will be no Government statement—we have seen this afternoon how long they can take—on Monday, which is a Supply day? Will she do her best to ensure that, unless there is an emergency, she will never schedule statements for Supply days?

1119
The right hon. Lady may recall that there was always at least one day's debate on autumn financial statements in the past. A major financial statement was delivered this week: can the Leader of the House promise that we shall be able to debate it for at least one day?
The House will spend a number of days debating the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Will the right hon. Lady provide an assurance that she has no intention of imposing a guillotine on that measure? In that context, as the House has now approved the Modernisation Committee's first report, will she say when she proposes to begin implementing the report's recommendations with respect to future Government legislation?
A statement this afternoon revealed the enormous potential danger posed by the millennium time bomb. Can we please have a full debate on that issue in the fairly near future?
Finally, I have received several very disturbing accounts from hon. Members—and not just those in my party—about the length of time that Ministers are taking to reply to letters. I refer not to letters on what might be called contentious topics, but to letters that often forward requests and inquiries from constituents and organisations. It is unacceptable that Members should have to wait from 1 September until 27 November, for example, for replies. Will the right hon. Lady, in her capacity as Leader of the House, deliver an early statement about that matter?
Mrs. Taylor: As to the first point, about the late sitting of the House until 22 December, it is not a matter of personal choice. Like the hon. Gentleman, I could do other things on that day, in both a personal and a constituency capacity. I know that many hon. Members try to attend constituency functions, sorting offices and things of that kind. However, the House has a heavy programme. I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the reasons why Parliament cannot return any earlier, so we must sit on 22 December.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a guarantee that there would be no statement on Monday, or on Supply days generally. We try to avoid scheduling statements on such days. I can never say never, but we shall use our best endeavours to ensure that there are no statements on Monday. That is one reason why we had two statements today.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on Tuesday's statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was somewhat surprised that there were no requests for such a debate during the question-and-answer session on Tuesday. Perhaps hon. Members have thought about it since then. Hon. Members had a good opportunity to question the Chancellor on Tuesday, but I will not rule out a debate. Perhaps we can discuss it through the usual channels: I am happy to enter into discussions on that point.
As to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, we are allowing two days for further discussions next week, and we shall see what kind of progress is made then. We have just had a statement on the "millennium time bomb", as the hon. Gentleman called it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that he would keep the House informed about the issue, and that he intended to place significant information in the
1120
Library. We shall monitor the situation, and, if it proves necessary, my right hon. Friend will return to the House and update hon. Members.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire referred to the delay in ministerial replies to hon. Members. I am aware of that problem, because it was raised in the House a few weeks ago. I said then that, if any hon. Member had particular difficulties, I would try to check on the situation. One or two examples were provided, but there have been few representations.
I know from my own inquiries that Ministers are receiving far more letters than their predecessors did in the previous Administration. Expectations of Ministers are higher this time, so replies sometimes take longer. I repeat that, although I offered to try to help, very few hon. Members have taken up that offer of assistance.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I welcome the fact that the Government of Wales Bill is to have a Second Reading. If the Government intend to split the Bill between the Floor of the House and Standing Committee, will hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies be fully consulted about such a split? Will my right hon. Friend give considerable thought to how the Committee stage will be dealt with? She may remember that there were many protests about the handling of Welsh legislation in the last Parliament. Will she ensure that all Welsh Members who are interested in serving on such a Committee will be able to do so?
Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has very strong views on this matter, as do other hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is no simple party divide as to how we should handle legislation of that kind.
As I said in my statement, I have announced the business for the second week on a provisional basis. Discussions have begun through the usual channels about the handling of the Government of Wales Bill—and, later, of the Scotland Bill. We want to try to agree a way forward with all parties in the House. I hope that hon. Members will make their views known and will feel able to make representations in the way that my hon. Friend has done. When we have had further discussions, I hope to be in a position to make a more definitive statement about how the Bills will be dealt with.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I reiterate the concern felt by many hon. Members about the delays in ministerial correspondence. There is equal concern about the apparent increase in the number of delayed replies to written questions.
I reinforce the concern that I think will be expressed by hon. Members and members of staff about the business on Monday 22 December. Perhaps the Leader of the House can examine carefully the business for that day to see whether she may ease the strain and stress.
I thank the Leader of the House for listening to representations about the timing of the debate on welfare to work. Many hon. Members—particularly those who serve on the Social Security Select Committee—would have been at a considerable disadvantage and would have been unable to participate in the debate as they will be on a special study tour on the day specified. Will the Leader of the House announce an exact date for the usual

1121
statement on social security benefits upgrading, which we expect at this time of year and which is of considerable importance to our constituents?
We were anticipating the arrival of several measures— both Bills and White Papers—from the Department of Health, perhaps in conjunction with other Departments. However, they seem to have been pushed into a backwater or up a branch line in Downing street—to either No. 10 or the Cabinet Office—with the intervention of yet more Ministers and consequent delays. We expected to see three Bills in the next few days, as well as a White Paper on food safety, and we now do not know when they will arrive. Will the Leader of the House assure us that that is not a sign that the position of the Secretary of State for Health is now unassailable?
Mrs. Taylor: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made about delays in letters and written answers. If he has specific information on such delays, I should be happy to deal with any queries that he may wish to raise with me.
I appreciate the problems that the 22 December sitting will cause for some hon. Members, but we have a very packed legislative programme, and there are some Second Readings that we wish to progress.
In his last point, the hon. Gentleman complained that the House is not making enough progress, yet he complains that we will sit on 22 December. These are difficult judgments, but we want to go ahead with as much of the programme as possible.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments on changing the date of the welfare-to-work debate, which is provisionally scheduled for 19 December. I hope that that date will be for the convenience of hon. Members who, for very good reasons, requested a change of date. We will try to accommodate such changes if they are necessary. That is one reason why I say that business for the second week is provisional.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is happy with progress on the various very large issues that are facing his Department. We will have a White Paper on health in the very near future, and it is important that such a White Paper is launched by a statement in the House. We need to make statements to the House on a series of issues. Therefore, it will be better if we try to pace them, and ensure that each gets proper consideration.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time for an urgent debate on maintaining jobs in manufacturing industry? My constituency might serve as an example. We are facing pressure on jobs in train repairing, in Rolls-Royce motor cars, and even in a tea factory. Will she also seriously examine the business of retaining the absurd system of having Fridays off—which effectively means that Thursdays, too, are a dead day? Ministers and hon. Members would really much prefer to work solidly through the week, right up to Christmas, rather than to have extra days, such as 22 December.
Mrs. Taylor: The House will be sitting every Friday this month. Two of the Fridays will be used for debates on the Adjournment, in Government time, and two of them will be used as private Members' days. We currently have a good mix in the use of Fridays. I think that most
1122
hon. Members appreciate constituency Fridays, because we can plan some time in advance what we will do in our constituencies.
I appreciate and understand my hon. Friend's long-term concern about jobs in the manufacturing sector. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Tuesday and the Government's welfare to work programme will help to improve skills in this country, with a consequential beneficial impact on jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps that matter could be raised in the debate that I said should be held on 19 December.
Sir David Madel: Will the right hon. Lady look again at the business on Friday, 5 December? Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he could not answer questions about disability benefits, because a consultation process was going on. There is, of course, also a consultation process going on about special educational needs in schools, and it is not due to finish until 9 January 1998.
Therefore, it would be much better to hold the debate scheduled for Friday, 5 December after the consultation process has ended—in the middle of January. If that were done, she could move the programme for Monday, 22 December to Friday, 5 December, perfectly dealing with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the organisation of business in the House.
Mrs. Taylor: It is very easy to shuffle all those cards around. Ultimately, however, we have to provide, for example, for two weekends after Second Readings. If we did not, Conservative Members, including the hon. Gentleman, might well complain. The matter is therefore not quite as simple as shuffling the cards, as he suggests.
It is a very good idea to have a debate on special educational needs. Many hon. Members feel that it would be beneficial if the Green Paper itself were discussed. It would be a good opportunity for hon. Members to report on the consultations that have already taken place, and for Ministers in that Department to open the debate and to give the paper further publicity, so that more people can participate in the consultation exercise.
Mr. David Winnick: If, as we hope, tomorrow's private Member's Bill will be passed by a large majority, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether, next week, there will be a statement of the Government's intention? Has she seen the latest opinion poll, in today's edition of The Times, which shows that more than two thirds of the public support the measure? It seems to me that the Government should give either time or a definite commitment that such a measure will be added later—for example, to a Criminal Justice Bill. The House should be told. The public want such a measure, and they have a right to expect progress towards proper legislation.
Mrs. Taylor: There is a great deal of interest, both inside and outside the House, about tomorrow's debate on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. I myself will be voting for it. If the House supports the Bill tomorrow, I hope that the Bill's opponents will respect that support, and not attempt to frustrate its passage.

1123
We should not anticipate problems before they occur, but we have made it clear that we cannot provide Government time for any private Member's Bill.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on Members' privilege? She will be aware that, last week, I raised the issue of the M5 contract irregularities. I am restricted in making the case on that matter directly to the Secretary of State, because an hon. Member is not covered by the same privilege when making a case to the Secretary of State as he or she is when speaking in the House.
It seems to be a ridiculous compartmentalisation of our work that we can raise an issue orally in the House to deal with something that we regard as a wrongdoing in our constituency, but that we cannot put the matter to the Secretary of State in writing. If we are to work effectively, does not that anomaly have to end?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises a significant point that affects all hon. Members trying to perform their job on behalf of their constituents. I cannot promise a debate, as he requested, but I will draw his comments to the attention of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Perhaps I should remind hon. Members of the existence of that Committee. We will be inviting anyone with an interest in the matter or who wishes to comment on changes to submit evidence to the Committee. Examples of the type that he gave will help the Committee in its work.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Before the Christmas recess, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security that will end, once and for all, the social insecurity being caused by her proposals to cut benefits for single parents and their children? More than 100 Labour Members have signed a letter of protest, and more than 90 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 333, deploring such an attack on the living standards of single parents and their children.
[That this House notes that a major impact of any cut in lone parent child benefit will be on parents who obtain work and that this appears to be contrary to the Government's strategic objective of encouraging lone parents to get jobs; therefore considers that before proceeding with this proposal a full assessment of its impact on the living standards of the children should be undertaken, including reference to the Social Security Advisory Committee and consultation especially with women's organisations and those campaigning against child poverty, so that these can be taken fully into account by both the Government and the House.]
Mrs. Taylor: On other occasions, Ministers have explained not only the position and the difficulties that we have inherited, but the significant initiatives that have been taken to help lone parents back into work. The points raised by my hon. Friend can, of course, be raised in other debates that will be held in the near future.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What liaison has the Leader of the House had with the Scottish Office and with Scottish Members in determining the pattern of business in the House? Why, for example, will we not have before
1124
Christmas the publication or a Second Reading debate on a Scottish Parliament Bill—although we welcome the debate on the Welsh Assembly?
May I point out also that, next week, the Scottish Grand Committee will meet on Wednesday afternoon. Hon. Members who serve on the highlands and islands convention will have to leave on the Thursday afternoon to attend a meeting, on Friday, in the Orkneys. That will deprive us of the opportunity to participate in a debate on the European Union, although the European Union is very important to the highlands and islands of Scotland. There needs to be a recognition of the pressures that are placed on hon. Members who come from the far-flung corners of the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Taylor: All hon. Members find it very difficult to do all the things that they would like to do. Very often, choices have to be made between constituency work, attending Committees and being in the Chamber. It is an inevitable difficulty, which always arises. As for the Scotland Bill, I have not announced all the business up to the Christmas recess or all the Bills that will be published.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does that mean that the Scotland Bill is likely to be debated on 22 December?
I have given the Leader of the House notice of my next question: given the widespread feeling among Arab countries that Britain is acting as the poodle of the United States, is there any possibility of some proper discussion of our relations with the Arab world?
Mrs. Taylor: In response to my hon. Friend's suggestion that I am simply keeping the House sitting on 22 December to debate the Scotland Bill, I have to say that other Bills are awaiting their Second Reading as well as the Scotland Bill. As for his request for a debate on our relations with the Arab world, I am grateful to him for giving me notice of it. My hon. Friend is always heard with great respect on these issues. During the recent crisis, we tried to keep the House as informed as possible, but I am sorry that I cannot find time for the debate that my hon. Friend wants. He could perhaps raise such issues in the Adjournment debate before the Christmas recess.
Mr. Graham Brady: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be as concerned as I am that I received a telephone call in my office only at 11 am today, informing me that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was opening a new building at a college of further education in Altrincham at lunchtime today. I gather from the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that this lack of notice is an increasing trend. Will the right hon. Lady arrange a seminar on procedure for her ministerial colleagues?
Mrs. Taylor: I will certainly investigate what the hon. Gentleman has said, although, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was to be in Altrincham at lunchtime, he must have done very well, because he was certainly in London at 11.30 am.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will be aware of press rumours that there might be a change in Government policy with regard to freemasonry and the

1125
appointment of the judiciary. Will she find time for a statement to be made to the House next week to clarify the Government's position in that respect?
Mrs. Taylor: The Government have not changed their mind on freemasonry. We remain of the view that the public interest is served by having a register of membership of the freemasons for police officers, magistrates, Crown prosecutors and judges. We are considering the detail of how to implement that approach, and we will be responding as soon as possible to the Home Affairs Select Committee, which has commented on this matter.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Leader of the House stand by the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Wales in a press release issued this morning on the publication of the Government of Wales Bill:
"During the Bill's parliamentary progress, it is, of course, open to any hon. Member to pur forward changes to the Bill and to have these explored in detail through open debate."?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the Bill will get the full attention of all hon. Members, which it deserves. As I said, we are discussing through the usual channels and with other hon. Members the detailed handling of the Bill.
Mr. Desmond Turner: Will the Leader of the House find time for a short debate on industrial relations, particularly in light of the extensive lobby of the House this afternoon by members of staff from Barclays bank, who have been involved in a long-running dispute, which I regret has not been the subject of conciliation and arbitration by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, as the Government would wish?
Mrs. Taylor: I am afraid that I cannot arrange for such a debate. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government would not wish to intervene in or comment on disputes of this kind. If he has a particular constituency interest, he might find other ways—perhaps by applying for an Adjournment debate—to raise the issue in the House.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week on the national minimum wage, as that would enable the House to explore the deep and worrying split between the President of the Board of Trade, who believes that widespread exemptions from it are impracticable, and the Minister without Portfolio, who believes that they are essential? Does the right hon. Lady understand that, if her answer is the usual niggardly no, people will start to inquire what exactly this shabby and unprincipled Government are afraid of?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the National Minimum Wage Bill was published today, and will be discussed in the House in the near future.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House referred to the fact that hon. Members like to have two weekends between Second Reading and the Committee stage of a Bill. I understand that my
1126
colleagues were not able to table amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill because of pressures placed on them by the Stormont talks. Would it be possible for amendments to be taken on Third Reading?
Mrs. Taylor: If hon. Members face any particular difficulties, we will always consider them, but we have given as much notice as possible of all stages of the Bills that have been introduced.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) in thanking the Leader of the House for giving two weeks' notice of business. It is extraordinarily helpful to colleagues to be able to plan further ahead. It is very good of her to make the effort, and I am sure that it is a practice that she will continue.
I respectfully draw to the right hon. Lady's attention a point made by several colleagues about the lateness of ministerial replies to constituents' letters. Not only are they consistently late—it is not true that the burden of letters is greater now: I have checked with my former Department and the burden is about the same, although it is still onerous—but many are not signed by Ministers, and this is happening regularly.
Of course, Ministers often have to go abroad and letters have to be signed in their absence perfectly straightforwardly, but the number of instances of this happening is unacceptable. Does the right hon. Lady accept that such a practice is not only impertinent to hon. Members who are writing to Ministers in an official capacity, but extremely rude to their constituents who have a right to expect a Minister to take the trouble to sign a reply which has, in any event, been drafted for him by someone else?
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I will try to sustain the practice of giving two weeks' notice, but, as I said, it might not always be possible and such business will be provisional.
As for ministerial replies, I have said that I am concerned if there is a problem. I would welcome evidence from individual Members. The burden of letters is greater—I have checked with one or two Departments where that is clearly the case. The hon. Gentleman referred to Ministers not signing letters personally. There are always occasions, under any Government, when Ministers are not available, and I am glad that some hon. Members recognise that. It is of course desirable that Ministers should sign letters to hon. Members wherever possible, but that cannot always be the case.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the Leader of the House clarify her views on the conduct of European Standing Committee B? There have been a number of occasions—indeed, this has happened at every sitting so far—when papers have been delivered extraordinarily late, sometimes with only 12 hours' notice. There have also been times when Ministers have steadfastly refused to answer serious questions, and the Liberal Democrats have been utterly absent from the previous three sittings, thereby illustrating their contempt for the Committee proceedings.

1127
Will the Leader of the House tell us why the most recent papers for the tobacco debate to which she referred fail to contain any reference to compliance costs or risk assessment, despite the relevance of those issues to that debate?
Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman has some queries about any of the factors he mentioned at the end of his question, he will be able to raise them in that Committee. I take this opportunity to remind all hon. Members that they can attend the European Standing Committees—and, indeed, some do. I know that there was a difficulty this week—on Tuesday, I think—in the sense that one of the documents that was tagged as relevant to the debate was not available until the evening before. However, it was not the document that was to be approved. It was an incidental document, which was useful but not vital to the work of the Committee.
As for the absence of Liberal Members, it is not for me to answer for them, although I suspect that some may have spent some time in Winchester.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Leader of the House find an early opportunity for a debate on local government finance, or allow for a debate shortly after any statement on the revenue support grant settlement? Is she aware that that will present an opportunity for a matter of serious concern in Cambridgeshire to be aired? Less than a month before the general election, the Prime Minister promised that the recommendations of the Elliott review into the area cost adjustment would be implemented for 1998–99, but her hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing says that that is not to happen, so that promise is to be broken.
Mrs. Taylor: I can confirm that the Department is considering a fairer system for the working of local government finance, and that there is much discussion on that matter. A statement on this year's settlement will be made in the near future.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Can the Leader of the House be a little more specific about the Committee stage of the Government of Wales Bill, following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and also the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who sits on the Government Benches? Will she take into account the fact that, although hon. Members from Wales have a great deal to contribute to such a Bill, so do hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that hon. Members from Wales have a great deal to say, although none of them will be
1128
representatives of the Conservative party, because it has no Members for Wales. I have been as fair as possible. The usual channels are discussing the handling of the Bills, and my colleagues and I in the usual channels are happy to receive any representations from any quarter of the House.
Mr. David Chidgey: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the growing public concern at the aggressive and predatory marketing of pre-paid funeral services targeted particularly at the elderly and the vulnerable, as set out in some detail in early-day motion 504.
[That this House notes the growing concern over allegations of widespread aggressive and predatory marketing of prepaid and at need funeral and burial services targeted at the elderly and bereaved, the lack of transparency in the ownership of seemingly family run funeral parlours and in the prices charged for their services; the lack of control over the use and management of investments into prepaid funeral plans, now exceeding £10 million and growing rapidly and over the endorsement of these products by registered charities whose subsidiary trading companies are in receipt of commissions on sales; further notes that recommendations made by the Office of Fair Trading in 1995 to curb anti-competitive practices in the supply of funeral services have yet to be acted upon; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislation without further delay to regulate the selling and management of prepaid funeral investment plans, require total transparency in the declaration and display of ownership of funeral businesses and their charges, control the commercial activities of registered charities and their trading subsidiaries in the context of their charitable status and prohibit anti-competitive and predatory trading practices through direct selling techniques, through monopoly positions, and through exclusive commercial arrangements with nursing homes, hospices and NHS hospitals bereavement services.]
May I remind the right hon. Lady and the House that, in 1995, the Office of Fair Trading reported in some detail on the unregulated nature of those services, and made several recommendations on introducing regulatory legislation? Please will she find time to debate that issue fully in the House to try to stamp out the unfair practices and predatory behaviour of those organisations?
Mrs. Taylor: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which may be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There have been difficulties, which have been reported to many of us as constituency Members. Presumably that is why that early-day motion was tabled. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for consumer affairs is studying that matter and consulting. Perhaps that issue would be suitable for an Adjournment debate.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Clause 1

    MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"
    5.55 pm
    Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 65 in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
    'but (for the avoidance of doubt) not Article 1 of the said Treaty.'.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 1)'.
    No. 14, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 3)'.
    No. 15, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 5)'.
    No. 17, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 10)'.
    No. 18, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 11)'.
    No. 19, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 12)'.
    No. 20, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 13)'.
    No. 21, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 14)'.
    No. 1, in page 1, line 13, after 'Articles', insert
    '1, other than the words in paragraph 5, (Cm. 3780, page 9) "and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".'.
    New clause 30—Extension of jurisdiction of European Court of Justice: legal advice—
    '.—This Act shall not come into force until Her Majesty's Government has obtained specific legal advice from the Attorney General setting out the extent to which the provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters in Article 1 para 11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam extend the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the United Kingdom, such advice to form the basis of a report to each House of Parliament and to be subject to an affirmative resolution.'.
    New clause 37—Relations between European Union and WEU—
    '—The Government will not take any steps to foster relations between the European Union the WEU with the view to the possibility of the integration of the WEU into the Union, as contemplated by Article 1, paragraph 10 [Article J.7] of the Treaty of Amsterdam, without first tabling a motion in each House of Parliament which shall be subject to affirmative resolution.'.
    1130
    New clause 38—Common foreign and security policy—
    '—The Government shall not take any steps to participate in the decision making arrangements as set out in Article 1 paragraph 10 [Article J.13 1 and 2] of the Treaty of Amsterdam, without first tabling a motion in each House of Parliament which shall be subject to affirmative resolution.'.
    Mr. Howard: Today, we begin our detailed examination of the treaty of Amsterdam. That treaty was the first major test of the Government's attitude to important international negotiations. We can assess their performance by reference to a number of criteria. How successful were they in achieving their declared objectives? Did they press and persuade our partners in the European Union to come round to Britain's way of thinking when they might initially have been disposed to take another view? Were they steadfast in resisting the views of our partners when those views did not reflect this country's interests or represent the best way forward for Europe as a whole?
    On all those criteria, the previous Government's record was impressive. We demonstrated that it was possible to take a leading role in Europe—hon. Members need look no further than the single market for an outstanding example of that—while successfully safeguarding Britain's interests.
    I hope that, after the Foreign Secretary's extraordinary revelations on Tuesday we shall hear no more about the wonderful spirit of co-operation that has supposedly been brought about by the Government's attitude to Europe. Last Tuesday, we were told that, after the summit had ended, Spain and the Dutch presidency had reached a bilateral agreement. That deal made a significant change in the treaty and one that was detrimental to Britain's interests. Moreover, it is in direct contradiction with what the Prime Minister told the House on his return from Amsterdam on 18 June. It is an extraordinary allegation to have made. If true, it gives the lie in the clearest possible way to the Government's pretensions and so-called achievements in Europe.
    Let us examine the present Government's performance against those criteria.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the previous Government, with their policy of stopping the show at the negotiations, would have got a successful agreement with all the other European Union countries? Or is he saying that he disagrees with the policy of the former right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands and would not have adopted that approach if he had been Foreign Secretary at that time?
    Mr. Howard: I have no doubt that the previous Government would have obtained a successful outcome at Amsterdam and one that would have differed significantly from that obtained by the present Government.
    Some of the most important aspects of the Amsterdam treaty are dealt with in the amendments and new clauses that we are considering today. Hon. Members will be aware that not all parts of the treaty are amendments to the European Communities Act. Those parts which do not need to be incorporated in our legal system can be agreed by the Government without the approval of the House. Treaty articles which are held to be intergovernmental in

    1131
    structure come into that category. Yet, although nominally intergovernmental—I shall come to that shortly—those provisions will have a significant impact on the sovereignty of this House and Britain's place within the European Union.
    The amendments and new clauses tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends would, if accepted, make it clear that, although the House cannot override the Government's right to use the Crown's treaty-making prerogative, it does not accept the principle set out in article 1 of the Amsterdam treaty. That article contains measures which give rise to serious concerns about the treaty among Conservative Members. Many were measures that the Conservative party promised to oppose in its manifesto, and many were measures that Labour, too, claimed it would resist.
    Three main aspects of the article concern us. The first is the role and powers of the European Court of Justice, the second the measures on human rights and the third, the moves towards further integration in foreign policy and defence. I will deal with each in turn, but I shall begin by exploring a little further the supposed division of the Amsterdam treaty into supranational and intergovernmental sections—the distinction which limits the extent to which the House has any real say over the ratification of that part of the treaty.
    At Maastricht, foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs policy were hived off into the so-called second and third pillars. They were to be intergovernmental matters, with the question of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice left open. The Amsterdam treaty does much to undermine that pillared structure. Article K.7, for example, explicitly involves the European Court of Justice in the third pillar, seriously undermining the valuable distinction that we had agreed at Maastricht. I apologise to hon. Members if this seems abstruse and esoteric, but it is important.
    The involvement of the European Court of Justice in that area of policy represents the difference between collaboration among nations and supranational authority. It is the difference between co-operation and integration. Since neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary made any mention whatever of that article, I can only conclude that its importance has eluded them. However, I cannot believe that even they can have missed the significance of article K.2 on policing. The previous Government were proud to have agreed measures on common action against international terrorism. We played a key role in the establishment of Europol. At a time when Germany and France held completely different views about its nature—they were at an impasse—I helped to bridge the differences and bring them together.
    6 pm
    We were always aware that some of our European partners had ambitions to create a European army and a European police force. Some members wanted Europol to be a superior federal force, a sort of European FBI. Article K.2 is a step in that direction. It empowers Europol personnel to join in national policing operations in a support capacity. That is a significant change. What status will those personnel have? Will they have diplomatic
    1132
    immunity? How, and to whom, will they be accountable? Those are serious questions to which I hope the Minister will respond.
    Our reservations are reinforced by the provisions in the treaty that relate to the European Court of Justice. All parties should be able to agree on reform of the court. All parties should cherish the impartiality and efficiency of judicial institutions. This debate has nothing to do with whether one believes in a Europe of nations, as we do, or wants to hand over yet more powers to Brussels, as the Government do. The Conservative party believes that the European Court of Justice must remain the guarantor of the single market. Common rules require a supreme authority to interpret them. Without a strong, independent court, we could neither ensure the even application of Community law nor prevent the abuse of power by other EU institutions.
    It is equally important that the European Court of Justice remains within the remit given it by member states. That much is, or ought to be, common ground to left and right, federalists and non-federalists. There is concern across the EU that the European Court of Justice has taken to exceeding its competence and to adopting its own political agenda. Several judgments, such as that in the Francovich case, have gone beyond what is provided for in the text of the treaties. Some have had serious consequences for national exchequers. In a series of controversial judgments, the court has extended its jurisdiction beyond what was specifically bestowed on it by member states. That should worry all democrats, especially as there is no right of appeal beyond the court.
    The court's recent ruling on the 48-hour week is a clear example of the treaty being interpreted in a way that was not intended. Of course, there is an argument to be had about such measures. We believe that such labour market regulations can destroy jobs, and that Britain's employment record backs that up. The Labour party takes a different view, as it is entitled to. The argument in this case is clearly about social policy. For the European Court of Justice to rule that it is a health and safety issue stretches legal credibility.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was widespread concern across Europe about the alleged extension of the powers of the European Court of Justice, and mentioned the 48-hour week. Can he name a country whose Government have expressed concern about preventing their citizens from being forced to work more than 48 hours a week?
    Mr. Howard: Many employer organisations and other people in Europe recognise the damage that arbitrary provisions of this nature can do to job creation.
    To take another example—on which I hope there will be some cross-party consensus—the European Court of Justice recently ruled that Britain could not reserve its fishing quota for its own fishermen. Again, that ruling violated the clear intention of the treaties. When Britain gave up its exclusive right to fish its waters, it did so in return for a guaranteed quota of the total stocks. For that remaining quota to be fished by foreign vessels flying British flags of convenience undermines the basis of the fishing agreement; but the court ruled that the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, designed to return to the intention of the treaties by requiring British-registered vessels to be

    1133
    largely British, was illegal. If, like us, the Labour party believed that such decisions were wrong, why did it not join us in pressing for reform of the institution that gave rise to them?
    It was precisely to tackle such problems that the previous Government placed such emphasis on reforming the workings of the court. At the intergovernmental negotiations, we tabled a package of measures aimed at improving its effectiveness and curtailing any possibility of political bias. We wanted to limit the retrospective application of its judgments; to introduce the principle that member states should be liable for damages only in cases of serious and manifest breaches of their obligations; national time limits in cases based on EC law; and streamlined procedures for the rapid amendment of EC laws that have been interpreted in ways in which member states had never intended. Those comprehensive, sensible proposals would have streamlined the court and eliminated many of its most egregious flaws, without affecting its position as supreme guarantor of the treaties.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one reform that could hardly be described as revolutionary would be to allow one dissenting judgment? It must be the only supreme court in the world, outside the old Soviet Union, where dissenting judgments are not allowed.
    Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman has long studied the matter in detail, and his views are always expressed with force and heard with respect.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is not the real difficulty the fact that the court has to choose between such a variety of different bits of treaties in arriving at judgments? There is no logical reason why, for example, in the Factortame case, the single market provisions should have overruled other treaty provisions which allow member states to allocate their fish stocks. Until we resolve that ambiguity, the court will be able to choose which part of the treaty to interpret as supreme for the political convenience of the majority to continue to pursue the federalist agenda.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend touches on a fundamental matter, but all courts often have to deal with such difficult decisions.
    The reforms that the previous Government put on the agenda were a serious attempt to deal with the gravest flaws in the workings of the European Court of Justice and had the support of some other Governments, including some who wanted much deeper European integration but who wanted it on the basis of sound legal principles.
    What happened when the Labour party took over from us at the negotiations? It abandoned every one of those suggestions—and why? Because in the words of the Minister, there was little support for such reform in the intergovernmental conference. That explanation goes to the root of Labour's approach to Europe: its fear of isolation, its readiness to pursue the line of least resistance, and its unwillingness to win our partners round by argument. Sometimes it is necessary to be isolated— not for its own sake, but because without being prepared to stand alone we would never have secured our opt-out
    1134
    from the single currency, won the budget rebate or been able to opt out of common policies on integration and frontiers. The present Government are happy to reap the rewards of the previous Government's readiness to be isolated when the occasion demanded, but lack the courage and conviction to stand alone themselves. That bodes ill for our long-term national interests in the EU.
    Not only did the Government abandon our sensible proposals for reform, they agreed to further extensions of the court's jurisdiction. I hope that the Minister will give us details and say how they will affect our law, both civil and criminal. That is the subject of new clause 30, in which we ask for a report to the House from the Attorney-General on those matters.
    We also have reservations about article F.1 of the Amsterdam treaty, which is to become article 7 of the renumbered treaty on European Union. As hon. Members will be aware, this is the article that empowers the Council of Ministers to remove the voting rights or, indeed, any other rights, from the country which it claims is breaching human rights.
    It should go without saying in a democracy such as ours that every Member of Parliament supports the principles of human rights, individual freedom and the rule of law. The attempts by the Foreign Secretary to caricature our opposition to article F.1 of the treaty have not become him. In the 1980s, a unilateralist pressure group calling itself the Movement for the Preservation of Life on Earth—something that the rest of us, it implied, were supposed to be against—was in alliance with the now Foreign Secretary in its pursuit of unilateral nuclear disarmament. To present the issue as a disagreement about basic human rights is a childish tactic worthy of those 1980s peace activists who were his allies in those days.
    Let me run through our concerns about clause 1. They are widely shared. First, the rights in question are vaguely defined. All of us believe in human rights, as they are traditionally understood in Britain—the right to free assembly, the right to free speech, habeas corpus and so on—but is there a basic human right to a minimum wage or to abortion on demand? Under the Amsterdam treaty, those questions will be dealt with not by any judicial body but by other politicians sitting in the Council of Ministers. I know of no precedent in diplomacy or in law for the signatory to a treaty losing its rights but not its obligations at the behest of its fellow signatories.
    Mr. Roger Casale: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes the point that countries such as Britain will lose their veto under clause F. 1, but he knows very well that that is not the case. The decision about whether a breach of human rights has occurred has still to be unanimous within the Council of Ministers. Only once a persistent breach of human rights has been ascertained by unanimity can sanctions be triggered. Only at that stage does qualified majority voting come into play. So the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman lays before the Committee apply not to the triggering of sanctions but to identification of the breach, which is subject to unanimity.
    Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has overlooked one fundamental provision in the article. The initial decision is taken on the basis of unanimity, but not including the country against which the complaint is

    1135
    made. So that country would be at the mercy of all the other countries. That is the point. Nor will it do to claim that article F.1 is simply a precaution against the sudden collapse of democracy in a member state. If one of our fellow members were to fall into dictatorship, surely the logical response would be to end its membership of the EU. Article F.1 provides no mechanism for doing that. On the contrary, it specifies that the state in question would remain bound by all treaty obligations, while losing its rights. That is not the right way to deal with an undemocratic regime. So we are forced back to the conclusion that article F.1 could be used to disarm the national veto of any country that was holding up a measure that the other countries wanted.
    I invite hon. Members to play through logically a scenario in which article F. 1 would be put to the purposes for which Ministers claim that it was designed. Let us imagine that a new member state with a short tradition of democracy fell into dictatorship and took to persecuting its national minorities, arbitrarily confiscating private property or suspending the due process of law. Can anyone imagine that in those circumstances the other member states would want that state to remain within the Union? When we come across serious and persistent abuses of human rights in non-member states, as we did tragically in the former Yugoslavia, our response is not to invite the perpetrators of abuses to join the European Union, but without voting rights. Our response is to apply a series of sanctions and to make it clear that such behaviour is incompatible with an ambition to join the European Union.
    6.15 pm
    When the Commission delivered its opinion on the various pending applications for membership of the EU, a proven record of respect for human rights was rightly one of the prerequisites. So how do we imagine that, in a scenario such as I have outlined, article F.1 would be of the slightest use?
    It is instructive to contrast the Government's attitude to article F.1 with their attitude to incorporation of the European convention on human rights. In their White Paper, the Government make much of their refusal to give judges the direct power to strike down Acts of Parliament. Such a power, they say, would be incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty. Yet in the Bill now before the Committee the power to interpret human rights is transferred from Parliament not to British judges but to European politicians. So much for the Government's supposed attachment to the sovereignty of the House of Commons and those who send us here.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, if the EU is to be enlarged, it will need safeguards to ensure that all member states remain democratic? If so, should he not be a little more circumspect about his condemnation of the new articles which relate to human rights? They were introduced to ensure that the EU maintained a membership composed entirely of democratic states which respect human rights.
    Mr. Howard: I have just indicated to the hon. Gentleman the way in which that is to be achieved.
    1136
    Of course he is right. Of course we have to ensure that the EU continues to be composed of fully democratic states. The way to do that is, first, to require a track record of respect for human rights before a country's application is accepted and, secondly, if—alas, and against our expectations—a country falls into dictatorship, to say that that is incompatible with continued membership and that it will have to leave the Union. That is the way to do it—not by depriving a country of its rights while holding it to obligations.
    Article F.1 therefore flies in the face of precedent, and especially of our constitutional tradition. It provides a mechanism whereby the national veto could be decommissioned by other politicians without the possibility of appeal to any judicial body. With all those constitutional objections, the Government have not been able to point to a single scenario in which the power could properly be used. In agreeing to article F. 1, the Government showed themselves either ignorant or disdainful of the fundamental principle of our constitution.
    The Labour Government were elected on a specific promise that they would resist any dilution of the British veto in foreign affairs and defence. When the Prime Minister returned from the Amsterdam summit he claimed to have forestalled any moves towards deeper integration in those areas, but hardly were the words out of his mouth than the Dutch Government, who then held the presidency, put precisely the opposite construction on the summit, hailing it as a positive step towards a common defence policy. Who is right? One does not have to be a lawyer to see that the text of the new treaty brings an integrated European defence policy closer than before. The treaty refers explicitly to the
    "progressive framing of a common defence policy."
    It goes on to deal with integration of the Western European Union into the European Union.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that article J.7 of the Maastricht treaty, which becomes new article J.4, refers to the "eventual" framing of a common defence policy, whereas the Amsterdam treaty refers to "progressive" framing. The clear intention is that, from ratification of the treaty, the common defence policy begins.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to identify that important difference between the two treaties.
    The treaty of Amsterdam declares that
    "the WEU is an integral part of the defence component of the Union"
    and provides that
    "the Union should accordingly foster closer institutional relations with the WEU with a view to the possibility of the integration of the WEU into the Union."
    Again, that suggests that Amsterdam brings us closer to a common defence than before. The Prime Minister claimed to have ensured that NATO would remain the basis of Europe's defence. He has ensured nothing of the kind. The reference to NATO under the second pillar was inserted not at Amsterdam but at Maastricht.
    Let us take a step back and consider what role the European Union ought to have in the field of foreign and security policy. Of course, the member states of the

    1137
    European Union will have many interests in common. There is a role for a common foreign and security policy in safeguarding and advancing those interests, and that is a role in which this country can play a prominent part; but for half a century the peace and security of Europe have been guaranteed by NATO—perhaps the most successful alliance in history. NATO is founded on the democratic and liberal values that are common to its members. Those are not exclusively European values: they unite the whole of the western world.
    The importance of NATO is not only political, but military. The European allies alone lack the air and sea capacity, the missile defence, the advanced communications satellites and the military computers provided by the United States. There can be no more harrowing demonstration of the danger of seeking to exclude the United States from allied action or taking such action without the United States than the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. It is therefore essential that any development of a common security policy should not in any way impair the effectiveness of NATO, nor should it seek to duplicate what NATO does so effectively.
    The common foreign and security policy of the European Union should strengthen the European pillar of NATO. It should allow Europe to take on a more equitable share of the costs of its own defence, and it should provide a forum in which common interests can be discussed. During the course of this debate, I hope to get from the Government a clear statement of their vision of the role of the common foreign and security policy. How do they see its relationship with NATO? How can duplication of NATO's work be avoided? How can they justify the remarks made by the Prime Minister on his return from Amsterdam? I hope that the Minister will cover those points fully in his response to the debate.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The implication running through what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying for the past minute or two seems to be that there are no circumstances in which Europe should act alone. Was not the concept of combined joint task forces a recognition by the whole of NATO that there were circumstances in which the European nations would act alone and would be provided by the United States with the very resources to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, without the United States taking an operational role?
    Mr. Howard: That can all be done within the context of NATO. The implication that the hon. and learned Gentleman identified was not intended. It is true that there might be operations such as those to which he referred, but they can take place perfectly well within the context of NATO.
    It is also important to bear in mind that the implementation of decisions under the common foreign and security policy is to be decided by qualified majority vote. Given the new structure of decision making set out in the Amsterdam treaty, how does the Minister envisage the operation of qualified majority voting?
    Suppose, for example, that a general resolution was passed by unanimity calling for action to be taken in certain circumstances against Iraq. Suppose that that was followed up by a resolution passed by qualified majority vote calling for the implementation of the resolution by
    1138
    all measures short of the use of force. Suppose that the United Kingdom considered that the use of force was justified. Would it be precluded from using force in those circumstances? Those are vital questions, and I hope that we will hear some answers from the Minister this evening. It is because of our concerns about those issues that we have tabled new clauses 37 and 38, which seek to give Parliament an enhanced role in the consideration of such matters.
    The Minister also has questions to answer in relation to articles K.12 and K.15. They contain the provisions on closer co-operation between member states when not all 15 wish to proceed. In principle, I welcome those provisions: they provide a basis for a different approach by different member states that reflects the differences which inevitably arise as a result of different national circumstances. However, as the Minister will be aware, the previous Government always insisted that the decision as to whether such actions could proceed should be taken on the basis of unanimity. The provisions in the treaty on this question are not straightforward: they might appear to provide for a kind of unanimity, but it is not at all clear whether they in fact do so. They are to be found in Article K.12.
    I have a number of questions to put to the Minister on the provisions of that article. First, was it indeed the intention that decisions on that subject should be taken on the basis of unanimity? If so, why was there not a straightforward provision to that effect rather than the circuitous route we find in article K.12? That article provides that the decision should in fact be taken by qualified majority, except where a member of the Council declares that,
    "for important and stated reasons of national policy",
    it intends to oppose the granting of an authorisation by qualified majority.
    Is the action of a member state in that position subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? Could the court rule that the reason relied on by the member state in question was not in fact "important"? If so, does that not mean that any appearance of unanimity would in fact be illusory? Those are crucial questions, and I hope that we can receive clear assurances from the Minister today.
    Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is absolute absurdity in the idea that a common foreign and security policy should be subject in any way to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? Imagine a situation in which we are moving towards a crisis such as the Gulf conflict. The court should have no role whatsoever in determining questions relating to control and command in such an emergency.
    Mr. Howard: Were it the case that the European Court of Justice had jurisdiction in such matters, my hon. Friend's strictures would be entirely justified. He will no doubt put that question to the Minister himself.
    Article 1 of the treaty of Amsterdam represents an unnecessary move towards further integration of the European Union. It contains a series of measures that transfer powers to Brussels from the national Parliaments of the member states of the European Union. I have touched on some of those points and my hon. Friends will

    1139
    touch on more of them during the debate. Perhaps, more than anything, the treaty reflects a failure on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom.
    On measure after measure, the Government failed to press their case, failed to persuade our European partners of the merits of the argument and failed even to try. Why? Because they feared isolation. That attitude goes back to that phrase used by the Prime Minister in his first speech to the Labour party conference as leader of the party, when he promised that he would never be isolated in Europe. In the Government's view, the fact that there was no support for their proposals from other member states meant that the points were not worth pursuing. That approach augurs badly for the future—badly for Britain and badly for Europe.
    The truth is that the only real achievement to come out of Amsterdam was our opt-out on common immigration and frontier policies—and that was all thanks to the efforts of a Conservative Government. We shall not hesitate to press our reservations about article 1 of the treaty in the Division Lobby at the end of the debate.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is tempting to follow up on the host of issues raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). It was a little like hearing the speech that he would have made if there was to be a referendum on the treaty. It is noticeable that the referendum on the treaty has disappeared—perhaps it will reappear in a new clause to the Bill. Assuming that it does not, at least we have heard a rehearsal of what might have been said.
    I shall confine my observations to a single paragraph of the revised article 1, which lists the objectives of the European Union, including the achievement of "a high level of employment". I welcome that assertion and the consequential employment chapter of the treaty, but I would examine more closely the objective and the revised wording to find out how much substance they contain.
    Much emphasis has been placed on that wording by Ministers and by those who feel that they have achieved a great deal in the revised version of article 1, paragraph 9. It has been described as a vital re-balancing of the Union's objectives and priorities. It is claimed that the Amsterdam treaty remedies the omissions relating to employment in the Maastricht treaty.
    I believe that that was the claim made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he came before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to discuss the Amsterdam treaty—I do not think that I bowdlerise his views. In his evidence to us, he said:
    "it would be rather odd if we ended up with a Treaty of the European Union which gives specific tough targets on deficits, on inflation or on interest rates… but made no reference and offered no commitment to employment".
    That statement was supported by later remarks by my right hon. Friend. It is clear that the provisions in the article and the references to high employment, followed by the employment chapter, are meant to balance the Maastricht treaty in terms of employment.
    6.30 pm
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also said that the commitment to a high level of employment seemed to be
    1140
    "a very necessary corrective balance."
    Ministers regard the employment provisions in the Amsterdam treaty, including the wording in the revised article, as balancing the Maastricht treaty.
    One of my hon. Friends on the Committee questioned my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the significance of those words and the value of the employment chapter. He wondered whether they might be window dressing or a means of fobbing off. My right hon. Friend rightly said that putting in the same context as Maastricht the commitment to a high level of employment constituted a
    "very valuable and very important step"
    Anybody reading the evidence seems to be invited to compare the strength of the employment provisions in the treaty of Amsterdam and the monetary union provisions in the treaty of Maastricht. If one reads all the evidence given to the Select Committee, one can only draw the conclusion that significance is attached to the words "a high level of employment".
    An official added to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's observations and drew a specific comparison between the employment provisions in the treaty of Amsterdam and the monetary provisions in the treaty of Maastricht. Mr. Gass at the Foreign Office said in evidence:
    "Could I add one point… of course, the arrangements under the employment chapter in relation to employment guidelines follow quite similarly the arrangements under the economic and monetary union chapter of the Treaty of Maastricht for economic guidelines. There is a similarity of method behind those two things, they are not binding."
    We are invited to compare the strength and significance of the employment provisions in the treaty of Amsterdam with the monetary union provisions in the treaty of Maastricht. It is exactly that point that I am seeking to draw to the Committee's attention this evening. I want the Committee to make such a comparison. The only trouble is that, when I make the comparison, I find the contrast, not the similarity, between the two provisions most striking.
    Those of us who are veterans of the Maastricht treaty debates of the last Parliament will vividly recall the treaty's monetary union provisions. They define criteria, describe the processes and establish means of enforcement. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, "specific, tough targets" were established to achieve the monetary union.
    I studied the employment provisions, particularly the account in article 1 of the term "high employment". I looked in vain for anything like the equivalent of the monetary union provisions, or even for any definition or any criteria by which I could assess whether high employment had been or would be achieved in the time scale envisaged by the treaty.
    Having been invited to compare the two sets of provisions in the two treaties—as we were by all the evidence given to us and by the presentation of the employment provisions in the treaty of Amsterdam and the monetary union provisions of the Maastricht treaty— I should at least have hoped to find a definition of high employment or a target or criteria to balance the monetary union provisions in the Maastricht treaty. Sadly, although I hunted high and low, I did not find a definition, a target or a criterion.

    1141
    We included in the new provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam the reference to high employment—I believe that the Maastricht treaty also contains such a reference, although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary challenged me on that, and I have not had a chance to do my homework.
    What will the definition of high employment be? The present employment levels in the European Union are nothing to cheer about. One striking feature of our debates is that we have so often been told about the economic performance of the European Common Market, Community, through to Union. When I consider its performance over the past quarter of a century, I do not find much to give me comfort—that is certainly true when I compare its performance with that of countries that have been more successful.
    What about the employment success of the European Union? I understand that, at present, only 60 per cent. of those of working age in the European Union are in employment; less than 40 per cent. of those between 16 and 24 are in employment; only 35 per cent. of those of working age between 55 and 64 are in employment. Are those figures defined, under the terms of the treaty, as high employment or do we have to achieve higher employment? If so, how much further do we have to go? What is the objective? What is the definition? What are the criteria? Having decided to include an objective of high employment, by which criteria do we judge it?
    Mr. Llew Smith: Let us assume that we join the single currency, hand over many of our powers to the European central bank and, instead of achieving high levels of employment, face high levels of unemployment: what powers would we have as a democratically elected Parliament to alter that situation? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on article 107 or article 109 of the Maastricht treaty, which makes it illegal for democratically elected institutions—whether they be councils, assemblies or Parliaments—to try to influence the undemocratic and unelected European central bank?
    Mr. Rowlands: On the latter point, I think that when I was in opposition I often expressed my feelings on the monetary union provisions in the treaty of Maastricht. I was one of the hon. Members who did not vote for the Bill that implemented the Maastricht treaty. I share some of the considerable concerns expressed by my hon. Friend about the employment consequences of monetary union.
    The employment chapter remains the responsibility of national Governments in many respects; but, as my hon. Friend suggested, what if one of the consequences of monetary union were to be a rise in unemployment in many parts of the European Union? Which would take precedence—the monetary union provisions or the high employment objective?
    Mr. Cash: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the paper on foreign affairs presented by Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research? We should not forget that the United States is an important part of the problems that face the future of the European Union. In that paper he states:
    "a political union of European nations is conceived of as a way of reducing the risk of another intra-European war among the individual nation-states. But the attempt to manage a monetary union
    1142
    and the subsequent development of a political union are more likely to have the opposite effect. Instead of increasing intra-European harmony and global peace, the shift to EMU and the political integration that would follow it would be more likely to lead to increased conflicts within Europe and between Europe and the United States."
    Mr. Rowlands: As in previous debates, the hon. Gentleman tempts me to wander. I do not have the information from that article at my fingertips, and I should like to limit my observations to one paragraph in article 1, but I am sure that the wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman will be discussed later.
    We need to know what the definition of high employment is if its attainment has now been inserted as an objective in the revived article 1 of the treaty. I have quoted the latest employment figures in the European Union which reveal that just 60 per cent. of the working age population is in employment. Contrast that with the same figure for the United States or Japan, where it approaches 75 per cent. Is that figure a proper and reasonable definition of high employment for the purposes of the treaty? If so, it shows how much of a mountain we have to climb and how divorced reality is from the objective as stated in article 1.
    The words are in the Amsterdam treaty, but what do they mean and how will we measure progress towards the stated objective? We know about the criteria, objectives and endgame associated with monetary union—they were laid down as specific tough targets in the treaty—but the opposite applies when it comes to the commitment to high employment in the treaty.
    I have quoted the figures on general employment levels in the European Union, but the regional disparities in unemployment levels in the existing membership of the union are enormous and astonishing. Article 1 refers to the need for social and economic cohesion, but consider what is happening in reality. I accept that the gap between gross domestic product per capita and employment levels is closing when one compares nation states, but the interesting graph is that which reveals that disparities among regions in each nation state are growing alarmingly. I happen to represent one part of one of those so-called peripheral communities in the European Union which vividly illustrates the existence of such disparities.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Surely what we need to understand about unemployment is that, every time this country has had fixed exchange rates, unemployment has gone up exponentially. It increased from 1.67 million in 1990 to 2.85 million in 1992, and from 1.25 million in 1925 to 2.9 million in 1931. I should have thought that that was something that everyone could understand. I cannot understand why Labour Members sitting alongside the hon. Gentleman are not as concerned as I am about that precedent, which is so clear for all to see.
    Mr. Rowlands: I represent a community that understands exactly the impact of fixed exchange rates and gold standards on the economy and jobs. I shall refer to that in greater detail later. We know what impact such policies can have on peripheral communities that face structural difficulties, as my community did in the period between the wars and again in the 1980s and the early 1990s.
    I am not seeking to make a Welsh point, let alone a Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney point; I am talking about all the peripheral areas within the European Union. The

    1143
    relevant graphs are interesting, and I believe that they are as accurate as any, because they show that, whereas the gap is closing between the relative GDP per capita levels of nation states in the European Union, huge regional disparities are emerging; in other words, the peripheral areas of the European Union are suffering greatly. The figures reveal that the GDP per capita of a quarter of the present European Union is less than three quarters of the European Union average.
    I was astonished to discover that, if one were to apply the criteria for objective 1 status to the United States, just Mississippi and one other state would qualify for it. I can hardly believe that. As a member of the European Union and the Common Market, we should display some humility when reviewing our relative economic performance and employment growth in the past 20 years. We should not believe that the European Union has been a wonderful economic panacea.
    6.45 pm
    According to the objective set down in the treaty, we are also asked to believe that social cohesion and high employment will be achieved through economic and monetary union, "ultimately including" a single currency. Those two words are not new, because they were included in the Maastricht treaty. Even when we debated that treaty, I was curious about how the ultimate inclusion of the single currency fitted in with everything. I thought that monetary union was equivalent to a single currency. I thought that one could not achieve monetary union without a single currency; but, according to the revised article, it now appears that a single currency is an optional extra. We are invited to support the notion that communities like mine will achieve high employment and social cohesion through monetary union and a single currency.
    The language used is fascinating. We, in common with Conservative Members, now laud flexible labour markets and the possession of flexible, adaptable skills. We now denounce old-style corporatism and all forms of intervention. We have marginalised the role of public expenditure and have introduced treaty-based draconian laws not to borrow more than a certain percentage. We now believe in flexible labour markets, but inflexible exchange rates. We believe in a monetary union that is corporatist to its toes. Everything described in the treaty is corporatist. What could be more interventionist than the stability pact that backs up that treaty and has the power to fine nation states if they err?
    I am an historian, not an economist, and I can find no empirical or historical proof that all that 3 per cent. deficit stuff in the Maastricht treaty has any particular sacred, eternal, validity. We are asked, however, to support such a principle.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: If, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we enter an inflexible monetary union, and changes are taking place in the economies of peripheral areas—I suggest that it is not only Wales that is a peripheral area in terms of monetary union but all of the United Kingdom—is it not true that the only way in
    1144
    which adjustment could take place within such a fixed monetary union is through high unemployment in those peripheral areas?
    Mr. Rowlands: There are two or three ways in which adjustments could take place. First, there might be a significant transfer of resources. The problem is that the only way to achieve such transfers on a scale large enough to be effective would be to create a unitary or federal government capable of taxing and therefore redistributing resources.
    The second way in which adjustments might take place was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) in an intervention. It was the way that partially solved, but in the cruellest way, the problems that once confronted the communities that I represent: large-scale movement of people from peripheral areas. In 1928, it was called transference; the Government of the day set up a board to promote transference. Presumably there might be a European transference board to move the population within European Union to where the work is—a massive European bike ride, if Lord Tebbit will forgive me.
    Without the flexibility of exchange rates, there will be higher unemployment in peripheral regions.
    Sir Raymond Whitney: On a point of order,Mr. Martin. The hon. Gentleman is giving us a very interesting discussion on economic and monetary union. I am not aware that it is a subject of the amendment or of the Bill.
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that amendment No. 1 refers to economic and monetary union, so he is perfectly in order.
    Mr. Rowlands: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Monetary union is referred to in article 1, whose inclusion in the Bill we are debating, and in amendment No. 1. Although we cannot move the amendment, I am discussing that amendment, which I tabled.
    I am sceptical of that fine belief that monetary union will achieve high employment—that through full monetary union we shall achieve the social and economic cohesion that we all want. I find the notion of a 21st-century European gold standard—which I think is what monetary union is—as potentially dangerous for the future of my communities as the gold standard was to my communities between 1925 and 1932.
    One should re-read the history of that period. One should not become a prisoner of one's history, but one should at least re-read it and realise that the only post-war period of full employment in Britain did not result from a gold standard or very fixed exchange rates of the kind and character proposed for monetary union.
    I feel strongly about this subject. If we believe in the concept of high employment, we have cause to be worried—as I am—that some of the aspects of the treaties that we are discussing will not enhance job prospects and bring about high employment in the communities that I serve, but will destroy them.
    Mr. Cash: I should like to approach the debate from the position that I believe the Conservative party genuinely represents, which has been gravely

    1145
    misinterpreted and misconceived by many people—not only Labour Members, but the media and some of the malcontents in the European Union.
    The views that have been expressed by the Conservative party day in, day out on these fundamental issues—the add-on to the development towards what is called an "ever closer union", but which I believe is an ever-increasing division within Europe—may be encapsulated as pro-European views. It is a gross misrepresentation of our position to describe the views that we advance as Europhobic or anti-European. There is absolutely nothing Europhobic or anti-European in those views, and it is a gross calumny on the Conservative party that such descriptions continue to be expressed.
    I pay a deeply felt and emotional tribute to many Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). They genuinely believe in the national interest. We may differ about where we would go if we retained our ability to take decisions for ourselves, but the idea that those of us who seek to maintain the national interest in a manner consistent with a policy that genuinely represents the interests of Europe as a whole—and have tried to present such arguments over the years—are Europhobic or anti-European is a gross calumny.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I cannot resist an intervention—bring back the old days of the Maastricht treaty debates. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's remarks; he has obviously become a positive European. In that context, will he warmly welcome the very positive statement made by our right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, who said that, in achieving the development of the European Union and especially of the single market, it was essential that there was a supranational court—the European Court of Justice?
    Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend may be surprised to know that, about two years ago, I had a debate with the present Lord Howe before the Bar Council in which, to his astonishment, I actually agreed that, if one were to have certain rules that were applicable in the interests of co-operation within Europe, it was necessary to have a court of justice, which would arbitrate sensibly in achieving objectives that were in the interests of Europe as a whole.
    Unfortunately, for reasons that I gave in that debate, I am afraid that, as Sir Patrick Neill said in his essay on judicial activism, the European Court of Justice has departed from that policy of arbitration and has engaged in a policy of political activism—judicial activism, if you like—which has led to serious problems. However, I do believe that, if one is to have a rule of law within Europe and it is to be for the benefit of all the member states, it is in the interests of everyone to have an arbitrator, and the European Court of Justice, if it were to behave properly, could achieve that objective.
    At the heart of this very important debate lies the fundamental question of article 1 and the manner in which it traverses all the issues contained in the Amsterdam treaty. I suspect, looking at the Minister of State, with his foxy eyes, that he will—
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I will be hunted.
    Mr. Cash: I suspect that he and the Foreign Secretary will impose a guillotine, and I have no doubt whatever
    1146
    that they will seek to blame us. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), that we are interested in a proper debate, as are all Opposition Members present. I regret the lack of hon. Members in the Chamber, given the importance of the subject.
    I place on the record the fact that there is no need for the European Union to make the inevitable progression to a legal federal system. I shall quote briefly from one of our greatest statesman, John Bright, who, in his last speech, asked whether there was any need for a legal federal system within the empire of the United Kingdom and what later became the Commonwealth:
    "May we not hope for the highest and noblest federation to be established among us? That is the question to which I would ask your special and sympathetic attention. The noblest kind of federation among us, under different Governments it may be, but united by race, by sympathy, by freedom of industry, by communion of interests and by a perpetual peace. We may help to lead the world to that better time which we long for and which we believe in, though it may not be permitted to our mortal eyes to behold it."
    It is thus far better to achieve peace, stability and higher employment by co-operating as sovereign states than to lock ourselves into the arrangements proposed in the Amsterdam treaty. Incidentally, with great respect to our Front-Bench spokesmen, I might add that I strongly believe that the Maastricht treaty should be renegotiated.
    7 pm
    Mr. Casale: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants a proper debate. If that is so, why does he insist on tabling amendments that would scupper the treaty? Why not re-focus the debate on areas susceptible to serious discussion, instead of trying to undermine the Bill altogether? Or is he seeking to project into the Chamber a debate that is taking place only within the Conservative party?
    Mr. Cash: Having just heard the brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I am well aware that there are differences of opinion in all parties. It is the national interest at stake; the debate should not be defined in terms of party political interest. That is precisely why we have tabled our amendments, in fact.
    The hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot amend the treaty; all we can do is probe and ask questions about why certain provisions have been included. There is nothing negative about the views that we are expressing. I notice the hon. Member for Rotherham or somewhere— or is it Zurich?—holding up his Order Paper. He knows perfectly well that on occasion it can take up to 100 amendments to elicit the truth.
    I want to examine the issues covered by article 1, which divide easily into a number of categories: social policy, common foreign and security policy, the free movement of peoples, immigration issues, border controls, freedom, security and justice, the single currency, police and judicial co-operation, and the general subject of flexibility and the Court of Justice.
    There is no doubt that social policy will be a source of discord, tension and conflict in Europe. To anyone who doubts that I would recommend the essay by Martin Feldstein. Social policy also poses dangers for our relationships with the rest of the world, and for the

    1147
    investment that we want to come into the UK and Europe. The plain fact is that, without restrictive social policies, in the past 20 years the United States has generated another 36 million jobs, especially in small and medium-sized businesses. At the same time, Europe, with its restrictive and sclerotic practices, has at best produced 1 million more jobs—although other estimates put the number at zero. Therefore, it reflects no credit on the Government that they should be endorsing the social chapter.
    As Patrick Minford has pointed out in an important paper that he wrote for the Official Journal of the European Communities, unemployment in this country alone is set to rise by as many as 3 million, and our GDP to fall by as much as 20 per cent. The Government are, of course, free to challenge the Liverpool model, but I cannot believe that they intend to pursue this sort of policy merely to appease the European Commission. Do the Government not realise that the policies I have described will lead to the people who voted for them on 1 May disappearing like snow in spring? They will have no chance of holding those voters in the next election if they continue to pursue these policies.
    I initiated a recent debate on the coal industry; yesterday, a Labour Member had a debate on that same industry. Certain policies being pursued by the EU and advocated by our Government will definitely lead to more unemployment. It gives Conservative Members no satisfaction to realise that the policies pursued by this Government will be against the national interest. They may be worried about losing votes, but it is more important to realise that these policies run clean counter to the national interest.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Essentially, my hon. Friend is saying that he passionately believes in a Europe of nation states, but that that is not on offer from anyone across the channel. This boils down to a fight against Labour Ministers, who believe in the creation of a European state that will mean that the vital powers of the British people to make and live under laws which they can choose and change will be removed from them.
    Mr. Cash: I absolutely endorse my hon. Friend's comments, and I beg the Government, with their huge majority, to act responsibly—even if it is for reasons of self-interest. What matters, of course, is the national interest, and following the ideology underpinning the social chapter will lead to ever more trouble for the people we represent. Indeed, that is why we are in the House—it is time we brought some passion and fire to the European questions that affect the lives of the voters.
    Dr. Palmer: As the community of separate nation states that the hon. Gentleman would favour is not on offer, is not the logical extension of his argument a complete withdrawal from the European Union? By the way, has everything he has said today represented the policy of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Cash: So far as I understand it, the policy of the Conservative party is to oppose the Amsterdam treaty, and that is the position we all adopt. Indeed, I am sure
    1148
    that the shadow Foreign Secretary would leap to his feet if he thought I was disagreeing with party policy. The views that I am expressing are wholly consistent with the thrust of everything that the Conservative party, in Parliament and outside it, holds dear.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is not the boot on the other foot? If the Government are not prepared to object to the progressive integration of Europe and the gradual removal of powers from member states' national Governments, they are necessarily complicit in the construction of a European super-state, to which they say they are opposed, but to which also they are turning a blind eye.
    Mr. Cash: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should look at the big picture, because the totality of proposals under Amsterdam combined with Maastricht shows that we are moving towards a European Government. It is no accident that people such as Karl Lamers state that their avowed objective is to have one country. If we move from a single market to a single currency and to a single tax policy, there will no longer be an individual nation state.
    I challenge the Minister and Labour Members to deny that Britain is an independent, sovereign state. Let the Minister say at the Dispatch Box that we will not be an independent, sovereign, nation state. Is he prepared to say that? He knows as well as I do the direction in which the Amsterdam treaty is taking us. The arrangements for the corpus juris proposed by Directorate General XX— a common legal area—are concomitant with one single currency, one single tax policy, one country. The Government are showing their complicity by allowing that to happen.
    I defy the Minister to deny that that is the direction in which we are going. The Government know perfectly well that that is what it is all about. The Minister looks so uncomfortable as he sits there. Just look at him. He dare not get to his feet, because he knows that that is the position.
    What is the effect of a common foreign policy on our affairs? Some people believe that a common foreign and security policy is in the interests of a greater, more united, coherent approach to foreign policy in the European Union. There are practical difficulties. What happened in the Gulf and in Bosnia shows that such an approach did not work. Why have the Government endorsed the idea of high representatives, who would carry out a combination of the new secretary general's political functions and the political functions of the presidency, and who could set their own political agenda in association with the Commission?
    Such manoeuvres are highly dangerous and essentially undemocratic. At the beginning of my speech, I said that we are for Europe, for jobs and for democracy. What on earth are the Government doing pursuing a policy that is bound to lead to unelected high representatives having as their function the binding together of policies on their own political agenda in association with the European Commission? That does not make sense. What on earth do we think we are doing?
    We should not look back at history for its own sake, but we should consider the implications of these proposals. Surely the Government understand that, if common foreign and security policy is subsumed by the political agenda of unelected persons, it is bound to lead to difficulties for democracy. It is a retrograde step.

    1149
    As Professor Feldstein has pointed out, this proposal will lead to massive tensions between this country and the United States of America. Who bailed out Europe over Bosnia? NATO and the United States. Why do we want to pursue policies that are inimical to the interests of those who have come to our aid in the first and second world wars, in the Gulf war and in Bosnia?
    As for freedom, security and justice, we have a problem with the expansion of the legal area and the massive increase in the powers of the European Court of Justice. Why are no dissenting judgments published? Why does the court operate under such secrecy? It has a political agenda, and the electorates of the member states are not allowed to know who has decided what. That is not transparency.
    I have read over and again that the European Commission is enthusiastic about transparency, and is more open. There is no evidence from the Amsterdam treaty that any attempt has been made to deal with that problem. It is a political court and is primarily driven by its own agenda, which is, by its own admission, political integration. That was expressed by Professor Trevor Hartley in a recent interesting paper. It is not an objective, judicial court: it is primarily a court of political injunction.
    7.15 pm
    Although I disagree with the new arrangement, in the Select Committee on European Legislation the other day, I asked the Minister to explain why framework decisions in the area of freedom, security and justice are dealt with exclusively by secondary legislation. He was in some difficulty: I noticed his embarrassment. He could not state categorically that all questions relating to framework decisions would be dealt with by primary legislation.
    Why is there qualified majority voting for what is described as "the other decisions?" What are the other decisions? He looks at me across the Floor, but he will not answer my questions, because he does not know the answers. He did not know the answers in the Select Committee, so he kept referring to his civil servant. He will read out his brief tonight, but he does not understand what is going on. That is the problem.
    Why does the European Court of Justice continue to confer jurisdiction on itself? Why did the Government not take a position on the treaty to ensure a proper trimming of the Court of Justice?
    Fundamental questions lie at the heart of the debate, and the Government must answer them. They will not answer any questions, because they lack sufficient comprehension. I condemn the Government for the treaty. The Conservative party will vote against it, because it is fundamentally wrong and is not in the national interest. The Government know it, Labour Members know it, and they will rue the day that they allowed the treaty to go through.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) dealt brilliantly with the gist of amendment No. 1, so I shall be brief.
    I did not want to discuss the European Court of Justice, but I shall just make a few comments. I recognise that a European Union has to have a supreme court. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was a little unfair when
    1150
    he said that the court's agenda was political, and that it did not want people to know anything. The problem with the present court is that its antecedent is the Napoleonic French state court. The European Court of Justice was set up at about the same time as the European Coal and Steel Community—a particularly authoritarian organisation. It would be more sensible to use the different and more flexible procedures of other courts in Europe than the French state court procedure that the European Court of Justice uses. I suggest that we examine the court's procedures and consider whether they can be reformed to accord with continental practice in other countries, and with British practice.
    The amendment would exclude certain words in article 1 that refer to economic and monetary union and ultimately a single currency. A technical question has been bothering me and I shall set it out before coming to the substance of my speech. I understood that the purpose of the Bill was to incorporate Community obligations into English law. Indeed, if there were no such obligations, it would not, in theory, be necessary to have a Bill. As we know, the royal prerogative enables a Government to ratify a treaty. Presumably, certain provisions in the Amsterdam treaty have to be translated or incorporated into the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—the United Kingdom. That being so, a Bill is necessary.
    Article 1 refers to economic and monetary union and the single currency, the latter being stage 3. Those of us who participated in the debates on the Maastricht treaty are well aware that the single currency is the third stage of economic and monetary union. I had always understood that the United Kingdom had an opt-in, not an opt-out. Until we opt in to stage 3, if we ever do, how can that stage be a Community obligation for Britain?
    On a technical level, the amendment seems absolutely right. Why do we need to bring into British law, English law—the law of the United Kingdom—an obligation that is not an obligation, if I may so describe it? Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain when he replies.
    I see at the top of page 9 of the treaty the name" Mr. Douglas Henderson". He is said to have exchanged—I paraphrase—his full powers, which were found in "good and due form". I am glad to read that. The treaty tells us that he has agreed that
    "The Union shall set itself the following objectives".
    There is then a reference to, ultimately, a single currency. As I have said, the United Kingdom is not part of the Union in the sense that it has agreed to the single currency. It is an opt-in, not an opt-out. There are therefore no obligations on the United Kingdom under stage 3 of economic and monetary union.
    We are not subject to the stability pact. We are not subject either to the locking of exchange rates and the movement towards a single currency. I do not think that there are any legal obligations under stage 2, but there are definite legal obligations under stage 3. Why do we have to incorporate those obligations in the law of the United Kingdom when we are not bound by them until we accept them by opting in?
    The question might seem to be technical, and perhaps it is an example of the pedantic points that lawyers like to raise. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister is able to clear my mind when he replies and end my confusion.

    1151
    My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney dealt eloquently with the phrase "high level of employment". Should anyone think that I am out of order, those words are contained in article 1. They appear a few lines up the page from the reference to economic and monetary union. My hon. Friend said that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at a meeting of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, "No, it is all different now. We have a new treaty that includes the magic words 'high level of employment'." My right hon. Friend explained that the words were intended to show that we believe in employment. Apparently, they represent a grand counterweight to those nasty monetarists at the European central bank.
    The few of us who debated the Maastricht treaty night after night know very well that magic words about a high level of employment appeared in that treaty. I think that they were part of article 2. Our debates were designed to show the distinction between the vagueness of those words and the specific targets of setting up, for example, the central bank and price stability.
    All we have is more words. We have nothing that is really new, and we still have unemployment. Nothing has changed. The leaders of the European Union are faced with 18 million unemployed citizens, almost 5 million of them in Germany. It may be that there will be 5 million in that country later this winter. Faced with that level of unemployment, European leaders have wonderful meetings where men in extremely nice suits drive up in very expensive cars to pretend that they can create wealth by so meeting. They pretend also that they can do something about unemployment. Most of those men and women have never been unemployed. Most of them, like most of us in the House of Commons, have not created any wealth in their lives. However, the meetings continue.
    I accept that the lawyers do very well. I should be in favour of the process because it is great for lawyers. The Holy Roman empire was great for administrators and various other people and the European Union is great for lawyers, who draft with great skill. I have great admiration for continental lawyers, who are able to convert rather vague concepts into the language of treaties. As I have said, nothing has changed. I have no doubt that Mr. Jospin is happy with the drafting, because it enables him to show the socialist party in France that he has secured a sort of counterweight to the European central bank. In fact, he has achieved nothing, and he knows it. He is happy, however, to dress things up in an effort to show that the French Government were concerned about unemployment.
    What does a "high level of employment" really mean? We are incorporating those words into English statutes, in effect. That being so, we are entitled to ask what is meant by those words. If 80 per cent. are employed and 20 per cent. are not, is that a "high level of employment"? The words are chosen so that we do not know the answer. They are examples of the classical words used by monetarists, and I count myself something of a monetarist.
    I was converted to monetarism at the Treasury years ago by Denis Healey and Milton Friedman. It accords to some extent with my Calvinistic-Methodist upbringing,
    1152
    which told me that too much money is bad for us. I speak as a little monetarist. A "high level of employment" is part of a philosophy because we are told that monetary policy is what matters and that whatever happens to employment is unfortunate. There is no attempt—perish the thought—to refer to full employment. That being so, we have no definition. If there is to be incorporation into English law—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—what is meant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked, by a "high level of employment"? I think that we should be told.
    Economic and monetary union and a single currency mean a single bank. They also mean something that is called price stability. That term appears in the Maastricht treaty, and I have always been baffled by it. What does it mean? At least the Bank of England has targets for inflation. We are told that the present target is 2.5 per cent. The latest Treasury document tells us that it will not be 2.5 per cent. next year or the following year, but that is another matter.
    What is price stability? We are told that it is low inflation. Is it zero inflation? It is important to know, because Japan has had price stability for a long time. The inflation rate there has been between zero and 0.5 per cent. I suppose that that is price stability. It does not seem to have done the Japanese economy much good in the past few years. This European central bank is going to give us, as it has to, price stability, so what is it? Is it 1, 1.5 or 2 per cent. inflation? Again, we should be told what price stability means, because we are incorporating it into English law—or English and Welsh law, British law or UK law.
    7.30 pm
    I suppose that we have to have a central bank—or do we? I confess that, sometimes, I have radical thoughts. I had them in about 1976 when I was a junior Treasury Minister. I was not sure whether we needed a central bank at all. This is far too advanced and radical for new Labour Members, so I suggest that they stop up their ears. Indeed, I see one of them doing it already.
    I wonder about the European central bank. It is not going to have much effect on long-term interest rates. No central bank does any more; long-term interest rates are determined by the market. However, central banks and the European central bank know all about short-term interest rates. They know how to fix the rates to hit an inflation target or to create this nirvana of price stability. I am not sure whether global capitalism can survive price stability or zero inflation, but perhaps we should not be led into that argument now.
    Why do we need the central bank—those 10 men sitting there trying to fix an interest rate for a region stretching from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, or west Wales, almost to the Arctic circle? Poor old Eddie George is having problems fixing an interest rate for Britain. If there is growth in the south-east, apparently, interest rates have to go up, but there is no growth in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney or in Llanelli, so how do we compensate for that? Why cannot Llanelli have a lower interest rate than the City of London?
    How do we fix one interest rate for the whole of Europe? It is absurd to establish a body that apparently has all the powers and is an institution. It is like the

    1153
    European Court of Justice. It is not like the little committee that has been set up—I do not know where— to deal with employment, but is a joint committee of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. It will consider guidelines and consult the Committee of the Regions, and spend a lot of money doing nothing.
    We had the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers—the troika of the European Union—and now we have a fourth: the European central bank. It is a troika plus one. This new institution will determine interest rates—and employment levels—and it cannot take into account other matters such as employment because the treaty says clearly that it cannot.
    The Maastricht treaty says:
    "The primary objective of the ESCB shall be to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to the objective of price stability"—
    this is good draftsmanship—
    "the ESCB shall support the general economic policies in the Community".
    The general economic policies are that we should have high employment, but it cannot take that into account, whatever that means, because it has to determine price stability, which is zero or close to zero inflation, so why on earth do we need it?
    If Governments cannot achieve that aim, I would leave it to the marketplace. Some of my hon. Friends may be upset about that, but that is what I would do. Governments have to face the retribution of the electorate. There is retribution, they tell me, in the marketplace as well if we get it wrong, but the gentlemen in Frankfurt driving around in large cars, on eight-year contracts and an index-linked pension, are going to face not retribution, but a nice retirement after they have decided who has a job and who does not in the European Union.
    Mr. Llew Smith: May I use an argument that my right hon. Friend made some weeks ago, but in another instance? If we have no confidence in politicians setting interest rates or public expenditure levels, and if that is now to be the responsibility of the European central bank, why do we stop there? Why do we not give it powers to determine taxation levels, what sort of health and education service we have, and how much we should invest in the social services?
    Just a week ago, we celebrated the centenary of one of my predecessors, Nye Bevan. Politicians from left, right and centre were queuing up to say what a wonderful man he was, which he certainly was, but do we honestly believe that a European central bank would ever have had the courage, imagination or initiative to set up the national health service?
    Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. I shall not follow him, as I can see that the occupant of the Chair is getting restive, but obviously there are possibilities. Once we have a central bank, we have an Exchequer board to determine public expenditure levels and taxation. Perhaps we saw the germs of that now in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day.
    In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney mentioned corporatism, perish the thought. We old Labour Members in the
    1154
    previous Labour Government were accused of terrible corporatism, and we are still accused of all sorts of things: running the economy badly, being too corporatist and everything else. Fair enough: we accept those criticisms. We are now supposed to be living in a flexible world, a global economy, yet we belong to the European Union, one of the most corporate structures—I hate to say it again—since the Holy Roman empire. It is utterly and completely corporatist. It is there to determine, with institutions, treaties, words and lawyers, almost every facet of life—certainly of economic life. What can be more corporatist than that?
    My hon. Friend the Minister often goes to Brussels and sits in this corporatist body, as do other Ministers and the Prime Minister. We are members of a large corporatist organisation, and I wonder sometimes whether this old-fashioned, indeed out-of-date, corporatist organisation can live with the global economy. I am not sure that it can. Something will fall apart, because it is the antithesis of the global economy.
    Whether we like it or not, the global economy is there, yet we have this old structure—I am prepared to admit, this old Labour structure—in the centre of Europe to which we all subscribe and pay money. However, outside there is another world: the global economy, where Governments have to move quickly and be flexible, and where constitutions have to be flexible.
    The good old British constitution fits well into the global economy. We are trying to dismantle it, but it suits that economy. This stuff that we are debating does not suit it, and I suspect that the treaty will not be able to cure unemployment and do the things that everyone wants. I suspect that the European central bank, price stability and all this nonsense will lead to deflation. Perhaps we shall have zero inflation, but if we do, even more than 18 million will be unemployed in Europe.
    Mr. Jenkin: I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, because I want to ensure that we debate as many amendments and clauses as possible before the Government bring down the guillotine.
    I had meant to talk about the European Court in conjunction with article 1, and about the importance of the amendments relating to the further centralisation of power; and I had meant to ask the Minister to clarify one part of the Government's policy. Are the Government in favour of the development of a federal Europe, or are they not? That is not a difficult question, and we need not get bogged down in arguments about what a federal Europe is. Some say that federalism is about decentralising power, but, if we started with that premise, we would not have moved any power from the member states to the federal institutions in the first place.
    It is, of course, possible to centralise a certain amount of power in the institutions. Indeed, it was originally intended that the Community should take sovereignty from the member states in limited areas for the achievement of certain limited objectives—and it must be said that the European Economic Community, as it was then called, used to work extremely well on that basis. The objective of the single market was to consolidate the process, with the transferring of limited fields to the institutions to achieve free movement of goods, capital, people and trade within the single-market area.
    The question that needs to be asked is whether the Government want the process to continue indefinitely, because that is what the European Community institution

    1155
    are now involved in. The inclusion of the Amsterdam treaty in the treaty on European Union gives the process a considerable further kick in a federalist direction.
    Let me ask the Government a simple question: are they in favour of an indefinite and continuing transfer of power and responsibility from the member states to the institutions of the Community? It seems from the fact that they have signed the treaty, and from the fact that they have addressed none of the issues raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the operation of the European Court—the Conservative Government were going to insist on that—that this Government are indeed prepared to continue the process indefinitely.
    It should be understood that it is not necessary to go on changing the treaties for that process to continue. May I detain the House for a moment to explain the doctrine of the occupied field? Every time a new directive is created or a new regulation is created and approved, the Community removes further competences from the member states, and centralises decision-making in European Community institutions.
    Air transport is a classic example. It has been regarded as a competence shared among the member states and the Community, the presumption being that the Community should be responsible for air transport within the Community area, but should leave bilateral arrangements between member states and non-members to them. Now the former leader of the Labour party, the European Transport Commissioner, is trying to get hold of that system so that the European Community can take over the competence.
    Once the Community has acquired a competence, it cannot give it back to the member states. It can delegate it, but, once acquired by the Community institutions, that power is permanently in the possession of the institutions. It is up to them to give member states permission to exercise it.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Jenkin: I want to be brief, but I will give way.
    Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend add to his simple and graphic description the acquis communautaire, which produces a continuous ratchet effect? It is no more possible to revisit the occupied field than it is to revisit the existing legal norms that have been created by the Community. It is an irrevocable process, with no right of secession.
    Mr. Jenkin: I agree. My hon. Friend has amplified the point that I was making.
    It was all very well for the Prime Minister, before the general election, to write articles in The Sun declaring his affinity with a Europe of nations—presumably sovereign nations—involving our working in co-operation with our European partners. However little our European partners are now prepared to explain the consequences of signing the treaties as they have been signed, and however shy even Helmut Kohl now is about discussing the federal Europe, the fact is that that is the legal construction of the treaties.
    1156
    The European Community may not yet be a state; but I have attended debates such as this often enough to hear hon. Members describe one policy after another, and one aspect of the Community after another, that suggest that it will be. If it has an executive in the form of the Commission, a legislature in the form of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, a supreme court in the form of the European Court of Justice, a foreign policy and a nascent defence policy—if it is to have a currency, and if it has citizens and borders and passports and even a national anthem and a flag—it would seem that the European Community is taking on all the attributes of a state.
    Plenty of people seem to be prepared—nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more—to proselytise privately about the creation of something akin to a European state. I consider it incumbent on the Government to make it clear at the outset of our debates that that is not their objective. I challenge them to say that with courage, because, if they are prepared to make the statement, much will flow from it.
    I have a large amount of text with me, to which I was going to refer; but I shall put it aside, because I want to support strongly what was said by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I do not wish to wreck their careers in the Labour party, but the sentiments they expressed about the economic consequences of joining a monetary union are exactly the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he addressed the Confederation of British Industry a week or two ago.
    During one of those two speeches, one of my hon. Friends who was sitting near me—but who has now left the Chamber, so hon. Members will have to speculate about who it was—lamented, "These debates are going to be just like Maastricht." Sadly, they probably will be in some respects, because many of the issues that were raised in the Maastricht debates have not been addressed.
    In many other respects, however, they will not be like that. The treaties may not reflect the fact that the exchange rate mechanism has collapsed since the Maastricht treaty text was agreed, and the fact that many other economic events have occurred. For example, the unemployment rate in the European Union has continued to rise alarmingly. The treaties, sadly, are constructed as though nothing had happened.
    What I wanted to say about the excellent speeches of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and the right hon. Member for Llanelli is that the issue of centralisation of decision-making applies as much to the policies that I was going to discuss as to the policies of economic decision-making. The European Union is actually about the centralisation of decision-making, in limited but ever-widening fields, especially in relation to economic and monetary union. It is about diluting the effects of democracy, and the requirement for consent on the outcome of those decisions.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will my hon. Friend join me in a speculation prompted by the coruscating brilliance of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)? Might not the tendency that my hon. Friend is now describing so powerfully be carried to its ultimate conclusion, through the justiciability by the

    1157
    European Court of the phrase "price stability"? That leads to the interesting speculation that the body that may set the target for interest rates in Europe could be the European Court.
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is tempting me to explore the operation of the court, a topic that I set aside for today's debate, but he is right—the operation of the central bank is ultimately subject to the European Court of Justice.
    The question that I shall explore, which is relevant to the European Court of Justice, is the question of consent and accountability. Ultimately, the institutions of the Community will respond in one way or another to the unrest that is likely to ensue from the removal of democratic accountability through the removal of powers from the national Governments.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed conduct of monetary policy by the European central bank will not only be economically damaging, but, more particularly, will conflict with the much-vaunted commitment of the European Union and the Amsterdam treaty to democratic principles? If the European central bank is to be prohibited from taking representations from national Governments about the conduct of that policy, and if national Governments are potentially subject to fines for seeking to make such representations, is that not the antithesis of democracy?
    Mr. Jenkin: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I am surprised that a number of the new Labour independent central bank freaks are not jumping up and asking, "Are you not in favour of independent central banks, and is not the Bundesbank a frightfully successful institution?"
    The answer is that there is no such thing as a truly independent central bank. Even though the Bundesbank, for example, has a large measure of independence in the setting of interest rates and the governance of monetary policy, it is an institution that enjoys the wholehearted consent of the people of Germany. Indeed, they love their central bank probably more than any of their politicians, and they respect it more than any of their other institutions. To that extent, the Bundesbank as a central institution of the German constitution commands the consent of the German people.
    We are asked to believe that the European central bank will command similar respect and admiration. If one asked the German people about the matter, which of course the German Chancellor has no intention of doing, they lament the fact that their deutschmark is to be taken over by the euro.
    While the German people may accept that decision as inevitable at this stage of the proceedings, and while many other countries may even vote for it in referendums—it must be acknowledged that the issue may be decided in that way by this country—the problem is not the consent to that proposition, but the on-going consent on an annual basis to the way in which economic policy is determined.
    Mr. Gill: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the advocates of a single currency were advocating it some
    1158
    time ago on the basis that it would be a hard currency, yet the same people are now advocating it on the basis that it will be a soft currency?
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall deal with that point shortly. Crucial to the effects of the centralisation of economic policy and of interest rate setting is the fact that the same policy will be applied across all member states in the single currency area. That will lead to wide disparities in economic performance in different parts of the European Community.
    It is not difficult to see why the Confederation of British Industry has been so strongly converted to the idea of a European currency, if it is looking no further ahead than the next five or 10 years. The CBI sees that Britain is now suffering the effects of growth that has been too strong, and therefore we have rising interest rates and a strong pound, amid weak European currencies. As the markets readjust their expectations for a weak euro, the CBI sees the prospect of monetary union bringing a reduction in the value of the United Kingdom currency prior to joining, followed by a massive reduction in nominal interest rates. That would be a bonanza for the British economy.
    However, the CBI fails to understand that such a bonanza would be the beginning of a restructuring and reshaping of the British economy, the second half of which would be a massive recession and a massive fall-out as our economy adjusted to the economic circumstances of the rest of Europe.
    It would be easy to get consent for the first part. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hold out all the lollipops and carrots of the first part of our joining an economic and monetary union under such circumstances, but what will happen during the second part of the adjustment, when things get rough, unemployment starts to rise and the people who elect us to be responsible for economic policy in this country find that the politicians can do nothing but hold up their hands and say, "It is nothing to do with us—it is all now being decided by the European central bank"?
    My expectation is that people who hold up their hands so lamely are unlikely to be re-elected. The people who would be elected under such circumstances would be those who said that we should never have joined that contraption in the first place. Unfortunately, we would be in a single currency, and it would be extremely difficult for us to conceive of circumstances in which we could leave it.
    Members of the Committee know from experience how difficult it is to manage economies on a national basis, when we are all engaged in the process of the annual Budget statement, for example—the most important job that the House does—assessing what interest rates should be, what growth rates should be, what rates of employment are likely to follow, how much the Government should borrow, and how much they should tax.
    That is a hard enough job. Imagine transferring those decisions and judgments to international institutions for all the member states, where we no longer share an affinity through language, culture and historic institutions, but are working through untried, untested, rather distant and unaccountable institutions. The average Brit or German would have only a vague idea of what those

    1159
    institutions do, but even the people in them would find that they had to work in 15 languages and make up operating procedures as the single currency was bedded down. Imagine how hard it would be to run all those institutions with some measure of democratic consent.
    Members of the Committee should try to imagine a housewife in Surrey switching on her radio one morning and listening to "Yesterday in the European Parliament", in which a spokesman from her party presents the budget statement to the European Parliament in Greek or German—in simultaneous translation, of course—and the Spanish Opposition leader, say, delivers a response. Would she feel as connected to the process of economic management as the British, German or French people feel to the economic decisions currently taken in their country? If one can believe that, one can believe in the possibility of a federal Europe.
    Unless those circumstances are likely to arise, the embarkation on the centralisation of economic decision making in the European Union is likely to result not only in the economic dislocation so ably described by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and the, right hon. Member for Llanelli, but in political disintegration, the collapse of democratic consent, and in Europe the rise of frustrated extremist groups such as Jörg Haider in Austria, the Vlaams Blok in Belgium and Jean-Marie le Pen's National Front in France. They will be the beneficiaries of such misplaced idealism.
    The House and the Government must make sure that that eventuality never occurs. That is why I appeal to the Minister to make it absolutely clear today whether he is in favour of a federal Europe, and, if not, what action he will take to deal with it.
    8 pm
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Last night I enjoyed a rare pleasure as a Member of Parliament: I read a bedtime story to my four-year-old daughter. My daughter is very interested in stories about monsters, and one of her favourite books is called "Where the Wild Things Are". That story refers to people sailing away for a year and a day and rushing back only to realise that they have been asleep.
    I have listened to Conservative Members' contributions. It has been slightly more than a year and a day, and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has changed his constituency, but everything else in his speech was identical to last time. Sometimes one has feelings of deja vu because one is witnessing a total rerun of events during the 26 days in Committee on the Maastricht treaty.
    We must recognise that Europe has moved on since then. I admit that the Amsterdam treaty is modest, and may not be what many people want. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who criticised the limited nature of the employment chapter. I believe that it is a first step, and must be built on in future. Nevertheless, there have been some changes since 1991 and 1992 and our debates in this place during the last Parliament.
    One difference is that the people who contested elections with the support of Mr. Sykes's millions are now much reduced in number. That is partly because they have
    1160
    advanced exactly the same line, the same arguments and the same simplistic views about the threats to this country. They still talk of fears of Britain being taken over—
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Gapes: I shall give way in a moment. They use words such as "appeasement" and "capitulation". They speak all sorts of nonsense about this very modest treaty.
    Some people are expressing fears about developments in Europe—an American academic was quoted several times on the subject. It is interesting to note that some in the United States are becoming increasingly worried about what might happen if the European Union gets its act together and becomes more effective on the international stage. In terms of World Trade Organisation negotiations and a collective European voice on international matters, the European countries would be more effective if they worked together: they could not be played off against each other, and there could be no divide and rule.
    Mr. Jenkin rose—
    Mr. Gapes: I shall give way, but first I must develop this point.
    In the past few months, we have witnessed an emergency in international markets generated by a crisis in Thailand that spread to Indonesia, Malaysia and to South Korea. There is no single currency involved in that region; there is no unified super state. What lesson can I learn from those events? If I were to take the worst case scenario—
    Mr. Howard Flight rose—
    Mr. Gapes: I shall give way in a moment.
    I could claim that it proves that nation states and separate currencies lead inevitably to instability and crisis. However, it does not prove anything of the sort—nor does the model developed by the hon. Member for Colchester—
    Mr. Jenkin: North Essex.
    Mr. Gapes: The hon. Gentleman has changed his constituency also, but his views remain identical to those he expressed in the last Parliament.
    Mr. Flight: The lesson that the world has surely learnt from the crisis in Asia is that it is a great mistake to try to maintain a fixed exchange rate. The International Monetary Fund and leading economists have pointed out that, if those economies had permitted their exchange rates to move up and down with their cycles, most of the crisis would have been averted. If the whole of Europe, encompassing many different economies, has not only a fixed but a single currency, there will be greater mayhem than we have seen in Asia.
    Mr. Gapes: That is an interesting argument— presumably it is entirely consistent to apply it to events during the years when the Bretton Woods system worked well. There was economic recovery following world war

    1161
    two, and a period of relatively fixed exchange rates. Nevertheless, there was also increasing prosperity and economic growth.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) revealed an obsession with the European Court of Justice. He argued against the 48-hour week. Is it not a fact that many other European Union states have operated legislation of that kind without any difficulties? Do not the 48-hour provisions allow for exemptions for certain industries? Such rules take account of the diversity of industries such as travel and transport.
    Yet the obsessions and the phobias within the Conservative party prevent Opposition Members from seeing reality: they must build a straw man and create a big issue. A Conservative Government would have made the 48-hour week a show stopper—a sticking point—in Amsterdam.
    Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is developing a most interesting line of argument. Presumably he will want to castigate the Prime Minister, who stated categorically that he opposed the further development of the powers of the European Court.
    Mr. Gapes: No, I do not wish to castigate the Prime Minister. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to praise the Prime Minister and the Government.
    We went to Amsterdam committed to reaching an agreement and securing a treaty, without which the enlargement of the European Union would be impossible. If the Conservatives thought logically and rationally about the issue—rather than reading out the latest brief provided by some well-funded Euro-sceptic think tank—they would recognise that enlargement of the European Union, which they claim to want, and negotiations to secure enlargement will not happen until six months after the conclusion of the Amsterdam treaty.
    If there had been no agreement at Amsterdam—that was the hope of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who wished to stand alone and be isolated in Europe; he wished to block agreements, because everyone was wrong except him—there would be no enlargement negotiations.
    Dr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation is rather more sinister than he supposes? We have heard in European Standing Committee B that Conservative Members oppose the Opposition's official line, and oppose enlargement. That is yet another split within the Conservative party.
    Mr. Gapes: That is revealing information. It reflects the concern expressed recently by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who voiced fears about the Conservative party's continuing movement to the hard right since the election. The reality is that the European Union will succeed on the basis of practical co-operation, as it has done throughout its existence. The United Kingdom has a very important contribution to make to developing practical co-operation within the European Union.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is an example of practical co-operation or of a commitment to democracy to prohibit member states of
    1162
    the European Union from making representations about the conduct of monetary policy by the European central bank? Is that of accord with the type of practical co-operation to which he enthusiastically refers?
    Mr. Gapes: It is not in the interests of any European Union state to be out of the discussion process about the future of economic and monetary union and development of the institutions that will lead to it. That is why our Government have said that, when the economic circumstances are right, in principle we should join that economic and monetary union. In contrast, the Conservative party would have taken a view that—for the foreseeable future, for 10 years, or never—we should not enter the process, and therefore have no influence in the shaping of it.
    If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is concerned about such matters, he will presumably condemn the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for his important role in developing economic and monetary union in discussions that were held at the end of 1996.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gapes: I will give way to Conservative Members if they insist on intervening, but I should like to build my argument a bit—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) want to intervene, I shall be happy to give way, but I should be grateful if he will let me develop the point a bit further.
    Questions have been raised on European security, the NATO alliance and the former article J, which is now article 17. The shadow Foreign Secretary argued that the Amsterdam treaty weakens the commitment to NATO. An interesting paper from the Library points out on page 33 that the position is quite the opposite, and that, compared with the Maastricht treaty, some member states' commitment to NATO has been strengthened in the Amsterdam treaty. It states:
    "the recognition of the latter has been strengthened. Whereas article J.4(4) stated that 'The policy of the Union in this Article… shall respect the obligations of certain Member States under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within this framework', the new article 17 inserts the wording 'which see their common defence realised in NATO".
    Therefore, it is not true that our Government have signed up to weakening NATO. They have either maintained the current position, as in the Maastricht treaty, or perhaps even strengthened commitment to NATO, as stated in the paper from the Library.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney drew attention to the fact that there are problems of peripheral regions in the European Union. No one can doubt that. With enlargement, the disparities between peripheral regions and the European Union core will grow. Such disparities will also be a part of the logic of enlarging the European Union into eastern and central Europe, and will lead to significant changes in funding arrangements and in the special arrangements for countries that are being assisted with regional funds.

    1163
    8.15 pm
    The disparities show the need for a fundamental examination of European Union financing, and they provide the basis for an argument that greater resources should applied to dealing with the types of problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfd and Rhymney, and that fewer resources should be expended on the wasteful common agricultural policy. I hope that the Government will vigorously implement their manifesto commitment—I am sure they will—to press within the European Union for rebalancing resources, so that we can spend far less on subsidising farmers and far more on helping regions on the periphery of the European Union and on areas with very high unemployment.
    Mr. John Hayes: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore think that it is feasible to enlarge the Union but not to allow all members equal status in the CAP? Is he saying that the CAP is inappropriate for new members? If he is not saying that it is inappropriate, and that new members should be included in the CAP, the problems that he has described will be exacerbated.
    Mr. Gapes: I am saying that, as it is today, the CAP is inappropriate for existing members, and that, with enlargement, it would be inappropriate to try to keep the CAP as it is. One of the best arguments for enlargement is that EU membership for Poland and Hungary will make it impossible to continue the current common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Hungary, which has 1.1 million small farmers. One reason why Hungary wants to enter the European Union is that it appreciates the benefits of a common agricultural policy, be it in its current form or in a form envisaged under Agenda 2000. The problems that he described will be exacerbated by admission of some eastern and central European countries that have far less efficient farming than exists in the main stream—what he called the "core"—of Europe. He offers no solutions. Is he suggesting a two-tier Europe? What is he suggesting?
    Mr. Gapes: I always thought that the Conservative party was in favour of enlargement, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) was right. We are hearing speeches from the new isolationist wing of the Conservative party, which does not seem to be in favour of European Union enlargement. Anyone who has been to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic—as I have—and talked to people there will know very well that people in those countries realise that, although they may not like it, their current agricultural system cannot possibly cope with European Union membership.
    In Poland, for several years, there has been a significant economic shift, with fewer people working the land. Change is already happening. Many far-sighted people in those countries are using the prospect of European Union membership as an argument, before membership, to accelerate that economic shift, and they will use it after joining to reduce their dependence on an inefficient production system.
    1164
    I hope that the Bill will receive full-hearted support from hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe in British membership of the European Union, and who realise that the Amsterdam treaty is a modest but important contribution to assisting the people of the United Kingdom, those in the rest of the European Union and those who wish to join the European Union in the future.
    Mr. Gill: I am tempted to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who told the House what the consequences of fixed exchange rates would be on unemployment. It is important that there is a full, frank and honest debate about the consequences for United Kingdom employment prospects if we complete fixed exchange rates with the other countries of the European Union. History demonstrates—it is a matter not of economic theory but of fact—that, if the United Kingdom joins fixed exchange rates, unemployment automatically goes up.
    The hon. Gentleman was honest enough to explain to the Committee that the only way to mitigate the effects of fixed exchange rates was by a massive transfer of funds from the centre to the regions. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Ilford, South, let me say that we must not assume that Great Britain will in future necessarily be regarded as a poor region that will attract the funds which would be necessary, if there were fixed exchange rates, to create prosperity or avoid unemployment in our regions.
    On that same point, it is inconceivable that the constituents of those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the treaty are going to resolve the matter of their own unemployment by moving to other parts of the Community. It is all very well to talk like that with reference to the United States of America where the same language is spoken in New York, Florida and California, but the same does not apply in Europe. Someone who loses his job in south Wales is not going to be in the same happy position as his American counterpart, and will not be able to find himself a job in Prussia, Italy or Portugal.
    Mr. Gapes rose—
    Mr. Gill: I gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman; I look forward to him coming up with some hard arguments and facts to support his ridiculous contentions. To judge from what he was saying, I though that he was reading from his four-year-old's fairy tale book.
    Mr. Gapes: My daughter reads books for much older children than that. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, because this Government's policies will mean that we shall cease to have regions whose deprivation and unemployment is such that they attract special assistance from the European Union, we should therefore oppose enlargement of the European Union by smaller countries of central and eastern Europe? Is he now joining the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in opposing enlargement?
    Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not what I was saying. I shall now return to the point that I was making, which involved the effect of fixed exchange rates on unemployment. I conclude my comments on that issue by saying that it amazes me that

    1165
    so many Labour Members do not understand, refuse to understand or have perhaps been intimidated and are not allowed to understand that that is the key issue. It is the issue to which their constituents will return time and again—fixed exchange rates lead inevitably to unemployment.
    It will not be the fat cats or the Eurocrats who find themselves without a job but Labour Members' constituents, and my constituents. I could not vote for fixed exchange rates because I know what the consequences would be for my constituents. The same was true of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism—thousands of my constituents lost their jobs, many of them lost their homes, and many lost their businesses.
    Mr. Jenkin rose—
    Mr. Gill: I have to give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for returning the favour. Does despair, like me, when confronted with arguments to the effect that we can somehow return to a Bretton Woods system which depended on one major currency instead of several as we have now, and which existed when there were capital controls on all the major economies, so that there were no international capital flows such as we have now? Does he not despair when people simply ignore the fact that even a big currency like the yen can crash and be subject to speculation? Labour Members seem incapable of learning that even the euro, stretching across an entire continent, could be speculated against, be unstable and lead to economic dislocation within that area.
    Mr. Gill: I follow my hon. Friend's line of argument. As he knows, Bretton Woods was blown away by the oil crisis, just as every other system of fixed exchange rates has been blown away by one factor or another.
    What I am trying to tell the Committee, particularly those Labour Members who do not want to hear it, is that the inevitable consequence of pursuing fixed exchange rates will be unemployment for their constituents. Sadly, there will be unemployment for my constituents, too. I do not believe in this policy, which is why I am resisting it. I do so not because of any brief that I have picked up from central office or from anyone else's office or from any lobby group—this is what Christopher Gill feels so strongly in his heart, and what is demonstrated by the economic history of this century.
    Mr. Casale: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for employment and for a European Union that offers clear benefits to the British people. However, many of the amendments, which I assume he is supporting, would prevent Britain from ratifying the Amsterdam treaty. Is he not aware that failure to ratify the treaty, which would then disconnect Britain from Europe, would create a level of unemployment of which even he, in his current line of argument, has not dreamed?
    Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to what he believes to be the obvious benefits of being in Europe. If he catches your eye, Mr. Lord, perhaps he will tell the Committee what those tangible benefits are; let him quantify them. In the meantime, I return to the argument that I was developing.
    1166
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney also said that so many features of the European Union are the absolute opposite of what they profess to be. Paragraph 4 of article 1 of the treaty states:
    "This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union"—
    I shall leave out at this stage any consideration of whether that is what the people of this country want—
    "among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible as the citizen."
    The implication is that the European Union is to be a democratic organisation or a democratic state—that is the implication of saying that discussions and decisions are to be open and that everything will be brought as close to the people as possible. However, the opposite is the case. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, so much turns out to be the opposite of what we were told.
    We are not talking about democracy today. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney described the European Union as corporatist, but I have another word for it—collectivist. How else can one describe, for example, the common fisheries policy, whereby it is not this Parliament but the European Commission that tells our fisherman what he should catch—by species and size—where he should catch it and in what quantity? That is not democracy but collectivism.
    It amazes me that even some Conservative Members who have opposed Communism all their lives have apparently found it in themselves to support these policies which are nothing if not collectivist. To this day— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ilford, South laughs, but is he laughing for the people of North Korea who are starving because that country continues to promote and adhere to collectivist polices?
    Paragraph 2 of article 1 of the treaty declares that member states shall be determined
    "to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustained development".
    To continue my analogy with the fishing industry, it is interesting to consider sustainable development. There we have a natural resource, which will go on regenerating itself if we handle it properly. Under the collectivist common fisheries policy, hundreds and thousands of tonnes of perfectly saleable fresh fish are being thrown back dead into the sea. When some of the fish reaches the shore, they are condemned.
    In fishing harbours in the British isles, I have seen beautiful, plump fresh flat white fish covered in red paint because they did not come up to the minimum landing size prescribed, not by anyone in this Parliament but by the European Commission. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) nodding in agreement, because he has been to those harbours with me and can verify what I have said.
    That is all done in the name of conservation, which is the opposite of what is happening. In the name of conservation and in advance of the Fisheries Council last month, the Council was proposing to reduce the size of plaice that can be caught to the size of the piece of paper that I have here. A plaice of that size cannot possibly breed and needs a minimum of one more year, or more likely two, before it is fit to breed.
    8.30 pm
    The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Visual aids are not normally allowed in the Chamber. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would desist.
    Mr. Gill: I am glad that hon. Members were able to see that before you intervened, Mr. Lord, but I bow to your judgment on that matter.
    I was trying to point out that we are talking about an organisation that says that it believes in conservation, among many other things, but that what it is doing is the antithesis of conservation. I am glad to say that the Council has now agreed that the size of plaice that can be caught will be increased from the size that I was demonstrating, but there will still be a reduction of 20 per cent. on the size that is allowed now. In other words, we are going to catch smaller fish in the name of conservation. Everything is the opposite of what it seems, rather like another fairy tale.
    Only through the continual and consistent misrepresentation of what the European Union stands for and what the treaties mean has this country progressed so far down this road, in the opposite direction to democracy, and the people of this country have not been consulted.
    Will the Minister please be honest when he sums up tonight? Will he address the serious and important questions posed on both sides of the House and answer them? Unless he does, we shall not be having a debate at all. We want answers to those questions, and the British people deserve no less.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: It is fascinating to observe the fundamental change in the Conservative party since the general election. Tonight, the former rebels who had the Whip withdrawn in the previous Parliament for opposing the then Government's policy on Europe are strongly represented. All those hon. Members here this evening have argued passionately and with conviction against Europe, and by implication, I believe, against membership of the European Union, and they have clearly been supported from the Opposition Front Bench. Clearly, that shows the way things have changed since 1 May within the Conservative party.
    Also, we have heard a deep degree of fantasy, not reality, about what the Amsterdam treaty is about and what was agreed there. After all, that is what we are meant to be talking about. It is difficult to reconcile some of the assertions by Conservative Members and by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman about the Amsterdam treaty with the views of other prominent Conservative Members and Conservative party supporters.
    Mr. Jenkin: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify to which amendment he is referring?
    Mr. Rammell: I am referring to a number of the amendments tabled on foreign and common security policy, the social chapter and the single currency, among others, as other hon. Members have done.
    Interestingly, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said of the Amsterdam treaty:
    "There is no point in getting over excited about Amsterdam. The integrationists in Europe saw it as a victory for Britain and the British Government."
    1168
    Lord Howe, the former Foreign Secretary, said:
    "Amsterdam disappointed the advocates of integration. Actually the treaty is a pragmatic and not a path-breaking document."
    How do we reconcile those views of what was achieved with the treaty with some of the xenophobic rhetoric about what was achieved that we have heard this evening? It is impossible—
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. I invite him now, without a moment's delay, to cite exactly which example of a xenophobic statement he has in mind. Which hon. Member uttered the statement, at what point in the debate, and will he quote it?
    Mr. Rammell: The general tone of the comments put forward this evening stems from a little Englander attitude that is based on the concept that we in Britain know best, that we can achieve everything on our own but cannot do so in concert with other nations. That is the failure of some of the views expressed this evening.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rammell: No, I will do so later.
    Given the tone of this debate, it is also disappointing that it so little represents the majority view in the House and the country. People will look on this debate and wonder what sort of discussion we are having of these crucial issues when the arguments are so unrepresentative.
    Mr. Letwin: I certainly would not want to say anything remotely controversial. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the most remarkable feature of this debate is the entire absence of the Liberal Democrat party from our proceedings—a party which apparently has no interest in Europe and which he will agree has also not represented itself in European Standing Committee B.
    Mr. Rammell: That comment has been made before, both this evening and in the Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman makes it effectively, although we have an hour and a half to go and perhaps—who knows?—we shall have a view from the Liberal Democrats.
    Concerns have been expressed about the item in the treaty referring to penalties for persistent abuse of human rights and the fact that those penalties will be used in some way to disadvantage Britain and the British Government. The shadow Foreign Secretary even implied that that element of the treaty would be used to block Britain's view on a minimum wage or other social legislation. That sort of scaremongering does no credit to the people who put it forward. There is no evidence in the treaty or any of the discussions at Amsterdam or elsewhere that anyone intends to use that element of the treaty in that way.
    Concerns have also been expressed about the European Court of Justice, in particular about instances when it has gone beyond its remit, over-interpreting certain elements of the treaty legislation. One of the difficulties that the judges at the European Court of Justice face when interpreting the treaty is having access to the debates and discussions that take place when treaties are formulated. One mechanism that could help with the process would

    1169
    be to open up the meetings of the Council of Ministers so that people can be aware of the basis on which the original decisions were made when interpreting them. I would welcome Opposition Members' comments as to whether that view is shared across the House.
    Mr. Letwin: That is a very serious point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that all Conservative Members share that view. Why does he believe that the Prime Minister made no allusion to even a desire to achieve such a result in Amsterdam?
    Mr. Rammell: In the six short months that we have been in office, we have taken several significant steps to open up the decision making of the European Union. That will progress in coming years. We are prepared to consider such changes. Time will tell.
    I share some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members about the status of the employment elements of the treaty. We must ensure that there is substance to the initiatives and that there will be detail and real momentum behind the employment provisions. If Europe is only a monetary or business Europe, and is not based on jobs and prosperity for its people, it will not succeed.
    We have also had a significant debate on the single currency. I welcome the fact that Conservative Members, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, have formulated policies on the single currency with some honesty and conviction. The concept of a single currency is alien to their political views. I believe that that is a false view.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rammell: No, I shall give way later.
    One reason why I support a single currency in principle is that I do not believe that individual nation states have complete sovereignty and control over economic decision making. We have only to reflect on what happened in September 1992, when massive speculation and a run on the pound forced us to put up interest rates by 4 per cent. in one day in a futile effort to protect the value of the pound. A single currency, by virtue of being part of a larger currency bloc, could help to stem the power of the speculators. By pooling some of our sovereignty, we would have greater economic control.
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Jenkin rose—
    Mr. Rammell: I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
    Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that, under the single currency that he favours, member states should be open to being fined for seeking to influence the conduct of monetary policy by the European central bank? Does that not do violence to the principle of democratic self-government?
    Mr. Rammell: The events of September 1992 were one of the major reasons for the scale of the Conservative defeat on 1 May, and one of their major causes was our lack of control over our economic affairs in a global international currency situation. I believe that, in some
    1170
    instances, we should pool some sovereignty to get more effective control over currency speculation and our own economic affairs.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Rammell: I will give way later. I want to make some progress.
    Many hon. Members have discussed the common foreign and security policy. We need Europe to speak with one voice and to be able to influence the international situation. In many ways, the common foreign and security policy has already worked. The stability pact with central and eastern Europe linked accession with the record on democracy and human rights of applicant countries. That made progress, and changes took place. Working together with other European nations to put such pressure through the common foreign and security policy would achieve more than we could achieve as an individual nation.
    The reconstruction and administration of Mostar under the common foreign and security policy saw countries coming together to achieve more than we could have achieved alone.
    8.45 pm
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Rammell: I shall give way in a moment.
    On future development, through the mechanism of the European code of conduct for arms sales, we can achieve more than we could on our own.
    Mr. Bercow: What objection does the hon. Gentleman have in principle to the extension of qualified majority voting in respect of the common foreign and security policy? To be absolutely clear, is there any such extension of QMV to which he objects in principle and that we can take as a touchstone of his political position on the subject?
    Mr. Rammell: There are several issues on which it would not be appropriate to develop policy through QMV. That goes to the heart of the debate. The treaty and the common foreign and security policy are about enabling the EU to speak more effectively with one voice. They build in safeguards.
    We have the common strategy, and we shall move forward by consensus where we can, but at the beginning the establishment of the common strategy must be achieved by unanimity. If we agree a common strategy and there is a proposal about which we are unhappy, we can argue the case as an important, stated reason of national policy that we want referred back to the European Council. Ultimately, the British people have the security of the veto on such important matters.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman suddenly sounds more sceptical about the nature and scope of European integration. By the same token, may I make it clear that Conservative Members, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, would, if we thought it in the national interest, agree to Britain joining economic and monetary union, but cannot foresee such circumstances arising for some considerable time.
    Mr. Rammell: I am not convinced that that is the policy of the Conservative party. It is interesting to reflect

    1171
    that official Conservative policy on EMU—not some of the views advanced this evening—is logically inconsistent. If the objection to monetary union is constitutional and political, it should be ruled out for ever and a day.
    To give Conservative Members their due, many have done that this evening. If it is not constitutional or political, it is an economic judgment, so how can it then be ruled out for 10 years? Many Conservative Members have thought the matter through and reached views with which I disagree but which are logically coherent, but that is not the position of their Front-Bench spokesmen.
    Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though entering into fixed exchange rates and giving away our currency would be a surrender of only a certain amount of sovereignty. What sovereignty would be left once we have created a single currency? I want him not to be airy-fairy but to think about the question and say in respect of what specific areas he thinks the House would retain any sovereignty, given that almost every decision affecting monetary and ultimately fiscal policy will be decided outside this Parliament.
    Mr. Rammell: I do not accept the final part of the hon. Gentleman's argument. One of the fallacies put forward in this debate has been that, by signing up to a single currency, we automatically lose control of tax rates. The convergence criteria are about public sector deficits. No one would argue—from the left or the right—that a huge long-term public sector deficit is sensible economic policy. We would still have the ability to manage taxation policy.
    In considering sovereignty, I am anxious about tackling international currency speculation, which the House cannot control. Some 90 per cent. of foreign exchange market transactions are not business transactions but pure speculation. When the circumstances are right and we join the single currency—we still need to make a fine judgment on that—we will pool some of our sovereignty and end up with more control over speculation and more ability to achieve stability, lower inflation, lower interest rates and, in the longer term, higher employment.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Rammell: I shall not give way, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
    The shift within the Conservative party and the views that have been expressed have been useful, in that they have flushed the issue out into the open. A view has long been held that there is a deep well of nationalism and chauvinism in Britain. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that those views are skin deep within the British people. By adopting and articulating such an extreme position, the Conservative party has forced people to confront the economic reality of Europe and the single currency.
    It is already clear that a shift is taking place. I come into contact with it in discussions with people in my constituency. One can see it in the opinion polls. More people are prepared to consider the issues, and fewer are
    1172
    prepared permanently to rule out a single currency, as many Conservative Members wish to do. So the Conservative party has done us a service.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: On this occasion.
    Mr. Rammell: Yes, on this occasion. We should take the shift forward. I hope that in the Committee proceedings we can have debates that are more representative of the views of hon. Members than the debate today.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I should like to address my remarks to amendments Nos. 65 and 17, both of which I support. In doing so, I find in front of me on the ground a standard bloodied and battered which I, as the new Member of Parliament for Reigate, have inherited from my predecessor. I intend and am proud to raise that standard, although I shall rotate 180 degrees and carry it towards the enemy.
    On foreign and security policy, the most important issue should be substance, not form. The treaty represents an uneasy compromise in this area, not only between form and substance but between the competing visions of the future of Europe. Nowhere is that more glaring or potentially more dangerous than the position on defence. That is illustrated by the language on defence in the treaty.
    We have the welcome protocol on NATO, but in the new article 17 the integrationist French position of
    "progressive framing of a common defence policy"
    is conceded. The prospect of common defence combined with the protocol language on NATO arguably ends up with the worst of all worlds.
    Let us consider the example of the Baltic states. Any security guarantee has the potential to spark a crisis with Russia. Russia will have no legitimate objection to the Baltic states entering an economic European pact, but the European Union is an institution accreting to itself the progressive trappings of statehood. For the Baltics there is an implicit security benefit to EU membership, but a specific defence arrangement could provoke a wholly avoidable European crisis and hand to the extremists in Russia the ammunition again to wind up the danger of Russian nationalism.
    Never mind the Russians, what about the Americans? The United Kingdom is anxious to see the EU enlarged, as, formally, are our partners. We want the EU to enlarge well beyond the boundaries to which the United States Senate would be prepared to extend article 5 security guarantees. The juxtaposition of the protocol on NATO and the progressive framing of a common defence policy could lead to a crisis with the United States. We are entitled to be suspicious of the motives of those who would welcome such a crisis, for they exist. The cause of European integration will be significantly advanced if Europe has to develop, in the absence of the United States, a stand-alone defence identity that has to work in its own interests.
    Although the Government should be congratulated on securing the language on NATO, they will need to be on their guard against the can of worms that the
    "progressive framing of a common defence policy"
    represents. Eternal vigilance will be required, a task beyond a Government who see no constitutional problems with a single currency.

    1173
    The relationship between the Western European Union—the proper vehicle for European defence arrangements—and the European Union have been made unhappily dynamic by the treaty. The protocol to article 17 calls for arrangements for enhanced co-operation to be drawn up within a year. That process must not allow those two organisations to become legally or constitutionally muddled. The WEU council must remain distinct from the European Council. When the treaty grandly talks of the EU "availing itself of the WEU, its language is thoroughly unwelcome. It implies legal superiority of the EU over the WEU.
    I remind the Committee that the duties imposed by the Brussels treaty are far more onerous than anything under the European Union or even NATO. That achievement should be preserved, not undermined, which is what the language of the treaty does.
    Many tens of thousands of brilliant man hours, not least those of my former colleagues in the Foreign Office, have been spent on trying to frame the operation of a new common foreign and security policy. Their efforts have avoided Monsieur PESC, but all that intellectual effort has been wasted on agonising over structure and has not been directed towards what the CFSP should achieve. Their efforts have resulted in the hideous complications of common strategies, common positions, joint actions, constructive abstentions, a high representative, special representatives and so on, in language incomprehensible to ordinary people.
    The focus should have been on output. I can express this no better than in the words of the previous Foreign Secretary, the former Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, Pentlands, in a speech in Paris. It is perhaps not difficult to discern the audience that he had in mind. He said:
    "A sham display of unity convinces nobody, particularly not those who can sense the exercise of real power… Where CFSP represents common interests and common will, where it acts with the grain of our national traditions and perceptions, then it will succeed. But where CFSP tries to over-reach itself, there we should let reality prevail …It is a Common Foreign and Security Policy that we seek to establish, not a Majority policy.… But it would be wrong to believe that constructive abstention will somehow resolve real disagreements. It would make no sense to expect a country which actually disagrees with a policy to support it—whether politically or financially—through something called 'constructive abstention'… The real issue here is that it is the effectiveness of CFSP that matters, not the internal decision-making procedures."
    Constructive abstention, as foreseen by Malcolm Rifkind, is nothing more than the recorded public division that will undermine Europe's collective foreign policy influence. The way in which we deal with real crises will remain in the future, through coalitions of the willing, as in the Gulf, and through contact groups, as in the former Yugoslavia. Where European co-operation and the mutuality of our interests are real, the CFSP will enable the voice of the states of Europe to be heard with greater force and clarity. Constructive abstention and qualified majority voting on CFSP issues will undermine the objectives that the individual nations of Europe might otherwise pursue on their own account.
    Finally, I shall discuss the wholly unfortunate arrangements for financing the CFSP. The treaty states that administrative and operational expenditure for the implementation of the CFSP, except defence expenditure, will be charged to the European budget. That startlingly foolish provision brings the CFSP within the scrutiny of
    1174
    the European Parliament, which, to its shame, already has a record of holding the budget to ransom in an attempt to force an increase in its influence in wholly unrelated areas. By that procedure, the Parliament will have an influence over the CFSP that we can be sure it will use. The Parliament might even use that influence for purposes unrelated to the CFSP, to advance its other objectives.
    That provision gives the game away. A policy that is supposed to be intergovernmental is to be funded not by the member states, but by the European budget. If we want to know where we are being marched by the treaty, we need only follow the money. The Government perceive no constitutional issues in respect of economic and monetary union, and they are in favour of the greatest measure of European integration available. Why then, I am inclined to ask, are we going through the charade of pretending that the CFSP will remain intergovernmental? Why do the Government not get on with honestly promoting European integration in the CFSP, just as they will in EMU? The financing of the CFSP is yet more evidence of the direction in which we are heading, and passing amendments Nos. 65 and 17 would help to stop the rot.
    9 pm
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: My concern is that the amendments, together with the comments made this evening, would undermine the social and economic well-being of significant numbers of citizens of this country, in opposition to paragraph 2 of article 1 of the treaty. If the amendments were passed, the treaty could not be ratified, and the position of this country in Europe would be undermined at a critical time for this country as a whole and for vulnerable regions of this country.
    One of the main ways in which the European Union has been of great benefit to significant numbers of our citizens has been through the operation of its structural and community policies. Enlargement of the community is being considered, and at the same time renegotiation is taking place on the eligibility of major areas of our country for access to vital European funds—conventional structural funds from the European regional development fund, and the European social fund and community funding.
    Mr. Swayne: Is the hon. Lady aware that those funds come from the British taxpayer—that we are net contributors—and that we are quite capable of making those allocations? Will she address the issue of how those disadvantaged regions will fare when they are subjected to an unfavourable interest rate regime, which it might well be beyond the limits of any structural fund to put right?
    Mrs. Ellman: I reject the hon. Gentleman's central contention, and I shall specifically answer his points about eligible regions.
    My experience of eligible regions in this country is that the sensitive application of European funding has produced greater business investment, enabled essential skills training to take place and helped to redevelop major areas of our country. Specifically, I have seen representations to the European Commission and the European Parliament result in the setting up of the vital

    1175
    Konver fund, which has directly benefited areas of this country where the local economy was undermined by the running down of defence industries under the previous Government.
    I have seen European funds working with the private sector in the objective 1 area of Merseyside, where the innovative special investment fund has used European funding with private sector money to support small and medium enterprises in a way not previously done. I have seen, in the north-west region as a whole, the setting up of a network of technology centres that work with the private sector, universities and the voluntary sector to ensure that new technological knowledge is applied in a variety of business concerns and voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Bercow: I note what hon. Lady says, but, if I may say so, she has rather missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Is she arguing, simply because she supports the operation of structural funds, that that justifies pursuing a deflationary monetary policy in Europe to increase those funds? Will she tell the Committee how, in any sense, the greater taxation that bigger cohesion funds would entail is consistent with the article 1 commitment to the promotion of
    "the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers"?
    According to the hon. Lady's ethos, is it a fundamental social right of workers to be much more heavily taxed in future than they have been in the past?
    Mrs. Ellman: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the gist of what I am saying. I again state that I totally reject one of the Conservative Members' major contentions that our continuing membership of the European Union and our support of the treaty would jeopardise our economy in general. On the contrary, I believe that, were we not to ratify the treaty and to withdraw from the European Union, as many Conservative Members seem to want to do, that would be tragic for our economy.
    I am not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, arguing at this point for increased structural funds for specific areas; I am saying that we are at a most critical point, when the very continuation of the eligibility of critical areas such as Merseyside and much of the north-west of England is at stake. Were we unable to proceed with the strong leadership that we now have from the new Government, and were we not to have the good relations that we now enjoy with Europe, those areas identified as in need, where focused funds working with the private sector are making a great difference, might have their funds withdrawn. I am talking about the necessity of the continued eligibility of those areas rather than the necessity of an increase in absolute funding, although that would be most welcome.
    Mr. Letwin: I have followed the hon. Lady's argument. I do not agree with her view on funding, but let us assume that she is correct. Has she understood the force of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? Does she agree that, given that we are a net contributor, the funding that she is talking about could just as well come
    1176
    from the British taxpayer as from the European Union? So far, the hon. Lady has not made the slightest vestige of an argument for cohesion funds, for membership, for the Amsterdam treaty or for anything under discussion; she has argued in favour of certain subsidies.
    Mrs. Ellman: The hon. Gentleman's comments strengthen the view that I have acquired throughout the debate, which is that most Conservative Members— certainly those here tonight—wish to withdraw from the European Union and not ratify the Amsterdam treaty.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mrs. Ellman: I shall give way in a moment. It appears that, the more that Conservative Members seek to intervene, the more they confirm their basic opposition to this country's continued membership of the European Union.
    Mr. Paterson: Let me put my question in incredibly simple language. In order to receive £1 back in European funds, the British taxpayer puts in £1.70. Our submission is that it would be more sensible if the decisions were made by the British Government and the money were not raked off on the way.
    Mrs. Ellman: Once again, the hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating withdrawal from Europe. That may be the logical conclusion of the policy that has been officially adopted by Conservative Members and their leader, which is that this country should state now that it has no intention of joining EMU in any circumstances for at least 10 years. Tonight, Conservative Members seem to be confirming that the logical conclusion of such a policy statement—given for 10 years ahead, irrespective of what is to the benefit of this country—is that they are seeking withdrawal from the European Union. If so, perhaps we can have a debate on that subject on another occasion. I shall be pleased to participate.
    Mr. Flight: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Ellman: I shall give way for the last time.
    Mr. Flight: The treaty and the single currency will inevitably require major changes to the subsidisation arrangements in the European Union—I hope to expand on this point later—and the part of the world that the hon. Lady represents is likely to do a lot worse in the future than it is doing today. There will be economic regions, particularly in the southern parts of the European Union, that will have the main call on that which is available for cross-subsidisation. I suggest that focusing on the benefits to her area is not an argument in favour of what is now going on in Europe.
    Mrs. Ellman: The hon. Gentleman confirms the major argument that I am seeking to make: we are at a critical point because the enlargement of the European Union is taking place. It is critical that this country should maintain its relationship with the European Union and decision makers throughout Europe to ensure that our vulnerable regions get the best possible deal from Europe. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing my argument.

    1177
    It was ironic to listen to Conservative Members object to sections of the treaty on the ground that it would lead to further centralisation. I found it ironic, because my practical experience of dealing with Europe to bring vital investment, training and funding to Lancashire specifically and the north-west of England in general revealed to me that those benefits were gained because of the flexibility of the European Commission.
    Together with colleagues from the private sector and fellow local authority representatives, I took part in delegations to the European Union and had meetings with commissioners and their staff. By arguing the detailed case relating to the economy of our areas, we were able to be decisive in persuading the European Union to define its boundaries for structural funds to reflect economic and social need. We also succeeded in persuading it to set up new funds, such as the Konver fund, to meet the specific needs of our individual areas.
    According to my experience, which is shared by many others, the European Union, far from being a centralised monolith, is flexible.
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mrs. Ellman: I shall not give way again.
    If those who are seeking support on behalf of our citizens work out their detailed case, take the trouble to present it clearly and lobby effectively, that delivers valuable results. It did so for the people I represented in the past, and I hope that I will be able to deliver the same results for the people I now represent in Riverside and on Merseyside as part of the north-west.
    I look forward to pursuing that case with Ministers in our new Government, because at least they are committed not just to the European Union but to the way in which it might benefit the regions and citizens of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Letwin: I do not think that I can share the brilliance that has been displayed on both sides of the House in the defence of major positions, and I shall restrict myself to a rather narrow argument, which I believe has the sole benefit of being true, about a particular part of article 1 to which amendment No. 65 addresses itself in part.
    I refer to article K.7, in particular paragraphs 1 and 6, which give the European Court of Justice, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) alluded in his opening remarks, two new powers relating to justice and home affairs, the so-called third pillar governed by title VI of the treaty of European Union.
    In respect of paragraph 1, the new powers are
    "to give preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of framework decisions and decisions"
    and conventions. Paragraph 6 contains the power
    "to review the legality of… any rule of law relating to its application"
    of those same framework decisions, decisions and conventions.
    A rational inspection of the history of this matter, of what is in the treaty and what we are being asked to pass into English law will show that this is part of what may best be described as the long march of the European
    1178
    Court of Justice toward ultimate power. Let me briefly review the history of its involvement in justice and home affairs.
    In the original treaty of Rome—the treaty of the European Communities—the European Court of Justice had no involvement whatever in the area of justice and home affairs, because articles 164 to 188, which set up the ECJ at that time, gave it jurisdiction over matters concerned with that treaty, which did not refer at all to the so-called third pillar.
    9.15 pm
    In the Maastricht treaty—the treaty on European Union—article K.3 did give the European Court of Justice a potential role in these matters, but it was carefully circumscribed. My right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister—no doubt aided by the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe—made great efforts to ensure the circumscription of that role.
    Article K.3 says that the member states may "draw up conventions" about justice and home affairs specifically decided to be conventions, not decisions or framework decisions, and adds:
    "Such conventions may stipulate that the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to interpret their provisions and to rule on disputes regarding their application, in accordance with such arrangements as they may lay down."
    In other words, the power to invoke the European Court of Justice was specifically restricted to agreements within conventions made by member states, and was not on the face of the treaty, a point which I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the former Home Secretary insisted on in the negotiation of that treaty.
    I have taken the trouble to investigate some of the conventions that have been drawn up under that provision. I have one here, 97/C 195/01, which no doubt Labour Members, with their deep familiarity with the progress of European law, about which they display such enthusiasm—
    Mr. MacShane: Conservative Members do not know any of them.
    Mr. Letwin: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says that we do not know, but I can assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) knows this text by heart. The text in question is directly relevant to the question that we are addressing in article 1 and to amendment No. 65. It happens, by a subtle irony, that it relates to the fight against corruption by officials of the European Communities and officials of member states.
    Exactly as envisaged in the Maastricht treaty, one part of the convention allows for the intervention of the European Court of Justice. It says specifically in article 12:
    "The competence of the Court of Justice provided for… shall be subject to its acceptance by the Member State concerned in a declaration to that effect".
    In short, under the treaty of European union, the role of the ECJ in arbitrating disputes about conventions drawn up in the area of the third pillar was specifically restricted to acceptance by member states of such interventions on a case-by-case basis.
    The position in the Amsterdam treaty is very different. When we move toward the Amsterdam treaty, we move

    1179
    to the new powers given in article K.7, which will be incorporated in English law if article 1 is incorporated in our law. Those are powers to give, in the first place,
    "preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation"
    of decisions in relation to the third pillar—justice and home affairs.
    The words "preliminary rulings" may sound innocuous; indeed, they may be designed to sound innocuous to the untutored ear. What more innocuous item could there be than a mere preliminary ruling? Alas, that apparently innocuous status is illusory. A glance at any of the standard texts, such as Craig and de Burca, shows that there has been a clear trend in the use of the preliminary rulings that article 177 of the treaty of Rome, which established the European Communities, gave rise to. I want to quote that authority for the illumination of the Committee—
    Mr. Swayne: The line of argument that my hon. Friend is developing represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power between European institutions, and an immense gaining of power by the Court of Justice. Does he consider that this form of constitutional model—possibly an extreme variant on the American constitution, with its Supreme Court—ought at least to have merited some discussion, if not a constitutional convention?
    Mr. Letwin: I am most grateful. As my hon. Friend will see, things are even worse than he supposes.
    I return to the preliminary rulings and what the authority that I mentioned had to say about them:
    "There would have been few commentators, at the inception of the treaty"—
    the original treaty of Rome—
    "who could have guessed at the importance which this Article would have had in shaping both Community law and the relationship between the national and Community legal systems."
    The authors of the text make that comment because the power to issue preliminary rulings has been one of the great engines of judicial intervention by the ECJ in a wide range of activities throughout the Communities. Now, the ability to give preliminary rulings in relation to justice and home affairs will inevitably lead to just such a wide scope for judicial intervention in the areas covered by the third pillar.
    It gets worse, because of paragraph 6, which gives the ECJ the right to review the legality not of framework decisions, conventions or other items of Community law but of any rule of law relating to the application of those aspects of Community law by member states. In short, it gives the European Court the right to review the legality of rules of law established by the member states themselves when applying framework decisions to justice and home affairs.
    I return for a moment to the example that I have chosen, the convention on corruption, to see just what this means. That convention, to which the UK is a signatory, states that each member state
    "shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct"—
    it specifies the type of corrupt conduct—
    "is made a criminal offence".
    1180
    Under paragraph 6 of the treaty of Amsterdam, which, by means of the incorporation of article 1, is to be incorporated in English law, the European Court of Justice will be given an unambiguous right to rule on the legal validity of any actions taken by the House to institute English criminal law which will govern corruption—in the case of this convention—perpetrated by English or UK officials. That is a departure of the utmost importance, not just in itself but because of its precedent effect. It suggests that the ECJ is to be given power to make rulings for the first time on the validity of English criminal law.
    As I told my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), the situation is even worse than it might appear. It is not merely that this seemingly innocuous paragraph gives this right to the ECJ; it is not merely that it forms a bridgehead into much greater powers, deploying the whole scope of teleological interpretation—about which many of my hon. Friends have spoken, and for which the European Court is famed—to make judicial decision making the means of advancing the cause of integration. It is that it is a transfer that directly contradicts statements made to the House by the Prime Minister, who, on 18 June, said:
    "In the justice and home affairs area… such co-operation will remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity. Thanks to amendments that we also secured"—
    I remember distinctly that he preened himself at that moment—
    "the European Court will have no authority to decide cases brought in United Kingdom courts on those issues."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 313.]
    In making those statements, the Prime Minister convicted himself of either not having read and understood the treaty to which he is a signatory, or not having intended to reveal to the House what it contained. It behoves him either to come back to the House and defend his position, or to instruct his right hon. and hon. Friends to accept an amendment that would make his statements on 18 June true. Without that amendment, they are indubitably false.
    We are discussing not merely the development of the European Union, but the incorporation into English law of something that the prime architect and sponsor of Her Majesty's Government was wholly unaware of—I convict him of no greater sin—when he brought the matter to the House. That is indicative of a far wider and greater problem. The Government have proceeded with a certain levity, and have regarded the treaty as a matter of no importance. They have suggested that nothing in it has the slightest constitutional impact.
    Some Labour Members have made excellent speeches of an opposing tendency, and some have been present for the debate, but the Government have used bleepers to tell other Labour Members to stay away from this unimportant debate. They have been much encouraged by the Liberal Democrats, who have not been present for large parts of the debate. It is the spirit of wilful and invincible ignorance of the contents of the treaty that Conservative Members most fear.
    The greatest danger for this country is not what lies in the treaty, but the Government's attitude. They encourage the British people to be innocent of what is in the treaty, so that they will discover only after the fact that great

    1181
    strides forward have been made by European institutions to acquire powers that it was never announced to the British people they were being given.
    Dr. Palmer: One of the most interesting aspects of the debate, and of the way in which the amendment was introduced, was the ballet between the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is on his way out of the Chamber, and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The hon. Gentleman claimed that he was speaking for the whole of the Conservative party. Very wisely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no such claim. Their approaches to the amendment complemented each other.
    It is striking that, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced what is essentially a wrecking amendment that would prevent Britain from accessing the treaty of Amsterdam, he gave as his reasons points of tiny detail. He spent a considerable time dealing with article K.12, which states:
    "If a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the granting of an authorisation by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the European Court of Justice might be able to state that those reasons were not important. Anyone who examines that sentence cannot seriously maintain that it sustains that interpretation.
    Not satisfied with that, the hon. Member for Stone suggested that the passage could mean that the European Court of Justice could decide whether the European Union could commit military forces, for instance in Bosnia. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not dissent, although the entire article K relates only to police and internal security matters.
    The Conservative attack on the treaty of Amsterdam again and again failed to focus on the main issues, and again and again returned to points of detail. We heard, for instance, the hon. Member for Stone arguing that the European Court of Justice should be allowed to give dissenting opinions.
    Mr. Hayes: I regret that I have interrupted the hon. Gentleman's charismatic performance. Am I right in thinking that I heard him say that we should be dealing with the broad aims of the treaty rather than the detail? Surely the detail is what we should be examining. If we do not consider the details of treaties, what are we here for?
    9.30 pm
    Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interesting intervention. The problem is that the Conservative Opposition focus on minor aspects of the treaty, which, when examined more closely, disappear into thin air. They do not address themselves to the central details.
    Should dissenting opinions be allowed in the European Court of Justice? Apparently it is an extremely important matter, but such opinions would change nothing in the decisions of the court. The issue was sufficient, apparently, to detain Conservative Members for some time. Is it Conservative policy that dissenting opinions should be allowed? The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe described it as an interesting
    1182
    point which had been forcefully expressed, but he did not express his opinion one way or the other. I do not know whether he wishes to do so now—obviously not.
    Another dog that has not barked is the question of a referendum. There was a time when the Conservative party favoured a referendum on the treaty; is that still its position? We should be grateful to know. Some Conservative Members nod their heads and others are shaking their heads. We see also the absolutely immobile head of the shadow Foreign Secretary.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have talked about a single currency. They drew attention especially to the impact on regions. It should not have escaped their attention that we have a single currency in the United Kingdom, where there are considerable differences in economic development. I do not know whether hon. Members who are opposed on principle to a single currency for the next 10 or 15 years, or for whatever number of years, would favour breaking up the single currency in Britain so that we might have one currency for each region, allowing for devaluation for Merseyside and Scotland, for example. Or do they accept a single currency in Britain but for some mysterious reason do not accept it in Europe?
    Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that within the United Kingdom, which he is correct to say is a single currency zone, there are enormous transfers within the tax and benefit systems to ameliorate the consequences of a single currency. The system ensures that, for example, people I represent in Surrey probably pay a significant amount of tax and receive fewer benefits than the people in Liverpool or Scotland. That is the sort of system that will have to be introduced to support a single currency within the European Union. That requires democratic authority and federal government to make things work.
    When the hon. Gentleman responds to my intervention, will he make it clear that he accepts that a single currency move is the greatest step towards a united states of Europe? As I have said, it will not operate without democratic authority at a federal European level.
    Dr. Palmer: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman had time only to ask a question rather than to make a speech.
    A single currency is coming whether we wish for it or not, and the question is whether Britain should be part of it.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Palmer: I will carry on for the moment. I will return to the hon. Gentleman's point.
    The hon. Member for Stone spoke of the glorious past, when we had an empire and a single currency throughout the world up to a point, but he used that argument to oppose the development of a single currency in Europe. We have the choice of isolation in the European Union, withdrawal from the EU or working with our partners in the EU and within the single currency. That is the reason why Britain under a Labour Government has accepted that there is no constitutional bar to working together within a European single currency.
    If there were a constitutional bar, there would be only two alternatives—isolation, as practised by the last Conservative Government, or withdrawal. We know that

    1183
    there are hon. Members who favour withdrawal and hon. Members who favour isolation, but Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen will not say which they favour.
    Mr. Bercow: To coin a phrase, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is suffering from a refreshing outburst of frankness and candour. I have followed the logic of the argument closely. The thrust of the argument seems to be that the single currency is inevitable anyway, so we have to sign up to it. May I therefore invite him to tell the Committee whether he believes that, if the Community goes forward with a single currency and adopts a common direct taxation system as its accompaniment, we have no choice but to accept that as well?
    Dr. Palmer: We have two choices: influencing the European Union's development and how the currency is implemented, or isolation, which the hon. Gentleman's party developed, signally failing to influence the development of the currency.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Palmer: I am aware that other Members wish to speak, so I am going to finish. I am sorry, but I will not give way again.
    We need the European Union because it is the only body in Europe which is large enough to enable to us to grapple with the economic, environmental and trade challenges that we face. We cannot face them effectively on our own. The EU needs us because, without us, it will not be as effective as it can be. It wants us to take part and we want to work with it, in contrast with the previous Government. The treaty of Amsterdam is an expression of that common will to work together. It makes sense, and only the diminishing ranks of the Opposition fail to realise it.
    Mr. Bercow: I am stunned by the contribution of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). He has done the Committee a signal service: he has broken ranks with hon. Members who spoke before him. Not for him the language of national independence, but support for the practice of federalism. From him, it is crystal clear what we are getting: support not only for the practice, but for the principles, of federalism.
    The hon. Gentleman did not disavow or eschew that, or seek to deny the thrust of the criticisms of his position. Instead, he seemed to accept what Conservative Members have consistently argued: the logical corollary of entry to economic and monetary union is the adoption of a common direct taxation system. To all intents and purposes, it is clear that we would get a federal centralised Europe in which scope for individual decision making would no longer exist.
    Dr. Palmer rose—
    Mr. Bercow: I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to correct that interpretation of his position.
    Dr. Palmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In view of the lack of time, let me simply tell him
    1184
    that I said no such thing. What I said was that expressing our willingness to work within the European Union and with monetary union gives us a chance to influence the way in which monetary union takes place.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his position, but, sadly, whatever he may think, what he says does not in any way detract from what I have just said about his position. The reason is simple. The hon. Gentleman believes that, if the rest of the European Union chooses to proceed with a single currency, we can argue about the detail, the way in which the currency will be developed and how it will be implemented, but we have no realistic alternative to participating in it.
    Similarly, it must logically follow from the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech that, if the European Union chooses to adopt a common direct taxation system— although we can argue about the detail, express an opinion about the way in which the system is implemented or offer a judgment about the level of direct taxation—we have no serious alternative to participating in that system.
    Mr. Hayes: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said—no doubt Hansard will bear this out— "We have no choice." He did not suggest merely that we were there influencing affairs, as he subsequently claimed in his brief intervention; he said that this was determined and inevitable, and that we had no choice.
    Mr. Bercow: As ever, my hon. Friend has been helpful in elucidating the truth, and distinguishing it from the way in which—moments after sitting down—Labour Members seek to rewrite history. My hon. Friend is an attentive observer of debates of this kind, and, as always, I am grateful to him for his voluntary co-operation in my speech.
    Mr. Letwin: I thank my hon. Friend for his patience in giving way to me a second time. I hope that he will join me in adding a codicil to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said a moment ago. Could it not be said that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) suggested earlier that he would like to join the top table in order to be eaten?
    Mr. Bercow: As ever, my hon. Friend makes his point beautifully and succinctly. Clearly, the experience of collectivism is always, everywhere and without exception to be preferred to that of isolation. The fact that being isolated in a particular circumstance might allow one to continue to live apparently does not spoil the beauty of being eaten as part of a collective.
    Mr. Gapes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many other parties of the Conservative and Christian Democrat right in the whole European Union and all the applicant countries agree with him?
    Mr. Bercow: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's thesis, although I am not sure which parties he has in mind.
    Mr. MacShane: Answer.
    Mr. Bercow: I am happy to answer. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who spends a great deal

    1185
    of time outside the United Kingdom, is becoming rather excited, but I can tell the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) that most of his friends elsewhere in the European Union have the guts and integrity to admit that the position that they support means the achievement of a federal Europe. I am saddened that the hon. Gentleman cannot permit himself a similar candour.
    Mr. Gapes rose—
    Mr. Bercow: As you know, Sir Alan, I have been extremely generous in giving way to Labour Members. I shall not continue to do so, for the simple reason that I feel an irresistible urge to develop a couple of points without being interrupted by them.
    I want to focus on two points. The first is the incompatibility, in article 1, between the commitment to the fundamental social rights of workers and the reference, a mere 284 words later, to economic and monetary union, including a single currency. When I have dealt satisfactorily with that, I shall move on to the subject on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, was especially eloquent—the pernicious new provision for European Union competence in respect of human rights.
    On economic and monetary union, let it be clear beyond peradventure what the treaty states. It refers to the fundamental social rights of workers. It says that at the outset. I want to know from Labour Members, and I should be interested to see whether the Minister is capable of an answer on this point, how that is compatible with the commitment to economic and monetary union and the adoption of a single currency.
    9.45 pm
    Let me make the point explicitly, so that the Minister has no reason to ignore it as the debates progress. Is it a fundamental social right of an individual worker within the European Union to make a representation about the conduct of monetary policy under the single currency by the European central bank? Is it a fundamental social right of a worker to be able to enjoy an interest rate that reflects the economic circumstances of the country in which he or she lives, rather than the preferred wisdom of a group of bankers whom he or she does not elect and cannot remove?
    We need to know from the Government whether they understand the difference and the inconsistency between the commitment, on the one hand, to the principles of democratic self-government, and the fact, on the other, that people will be entitled to no say—if the treaty proceeds and the single currency goes ahead—in the conduct of monetary policy.
    It is simply beyond belief that right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are not aware of the incompatibility between those two positions. Many Opposition Members believe that the commitment to what are called social rights is as near to meaningless as not to matter. We do not see any advantage to the citizens of the United Kingdom from adoption of the social chapter or acquiescence in the social charter.
    We see no merit in that, but we respect the fact that there are right hon. and hon. Labour Members who would see some merit in that. We cannot understand, however,
    1186
    how they can claim to be committed to fundamental social rights, yet not understand the incompatibility of that position with support for a single currency. How can it be right that a single currency, with a single monetary policy, a single fiscal policy, a single taxation policy and, to all intents and purposes, a single economic policy should be imposed on the citizens of this country, without their knowledge, let alone their approval?
    The Government cannot run away from the issue for ever. Elsewhere in Europe, the debate is conducted probably with equal intelligence, but with a degree of candour. Those who support the development of a federal Europe in countries other than the United Kingdom are prepared to say so.
    I challenge the Minister to explain how he can continually say that he does not favour a federal Europe, yet can sign up with unbridled enthusiasm to a treaty that indubitably takes this country increasingly in a federalist direction. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to explain the mismatch between the rhetoric and the reality.
    I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's constituents were saying to him on the subject during the election campaign, but, when I was canvassing during the election—this has been the experience of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well—we consistently met people, day after day, who were fed up with the conflict between the commitment to a free, democratic and independent Europe, and the reality of an increasingly centralised and undemocratic European Union.
    The Minister is drenched in the day-to-day party political conflict, but he must understand that I do not develop my argument on that basis. I am the first to concede that some people in my constituency were unwilling to vote Conservative on 1 May because they were insufficiently persuaded that we would resist the drive towards centralisation. If I had been accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe during that campaign, I do not doubt that I would have had even greater success in dissuading them from that view. However, some people were concerned about the Conservatives on that account.
    The Conservatives are explicit and honest. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who courteously gave way many times, correctly acknowledged that we have been absolutely consistent. We say that we are for free trade, not federalism; that we favour co-operation not coercion; and that we believe in a European Union of independent and co-operating nation states, but are wholly and irrevocably opposed to a single European state. Because we oppose a single European state, we oppose moves in that direction. That is why we oppose the treaty of Amsterdam.
    If the Minister wishes to advance an argument in support of federalism, the Committee will doubtless be fascinated to hear it. The Conservatives would disagree with him—my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) would dissect his argument brilliantly and ruthlessly—but we would hear him with respect. We would acknowledge the integrity of his argument and recognise that it is consistent with the policies for which the Government vote and for which Ministers negotiate. However, we cannot understand, and we surely cannot be expected to respect, the practical signature to, and consent for, federalist policies accompanied by a rhetorical denial that that is what the Government want.

    1187
    I move from the subject of economic and monetary union—profoundly undemocratic as it is—to the provision on human rights to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred eloquently much earlier in the Committee's proceedings. The Minister must respond. Many hon. Members on Opposition Benches—and, I wager, a few on the Government Benches—are genuinely anxious about article F.l. [Interruption.] Chuntering from a sedentary position, as though he resembled the village idiot, does the Minster no good. That is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman must listen to the point and respond to it.
    The reality is that the provision on human rights is pernicious. The reason can be stated simply: the provision is unnecessary. Member states are signatories to the European convention on human rights and to the United Nations charter. Member states within the European Union are united in their support for the principles of liberty, the rule of law and democratic self-government.
    I challenge the Minister or the Foreign Secretary to answer—not abuse—the point that my right hon. and learned Friend has made: if a member state fails to respect human rights, surely it is better to expel that state from the European Union than say that a member state that falls foul of majority, at a given time, should be punished for so doing but still required to stick to its Community obligations. That is not an honourable or a defensible position.
    I shall state our concerns in practical terms by offering the Minister three examples. I shall give way happily if he is capable of responding seriously to any of them.
    The first example is the minimum wage. What is to stop the European Union deciding that there is a fundamental human right to a minimum wage at a given level? The issue is not whether the Minister thinks that a minimum wage should be a fundamental human right. The question is: what is to stop the European Union, after signature and ratification of the Amsterdam treaty, from so deciding? If it so decides and the United Kingdom believes that it is unacceptable and refuses to go along with it, this country would presumably then be subject to the penalties that the treaty envisages—while, of course, still having to honour its community obligations.
    Mr. Letwin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great force of his remarks in the light of the fact that many of the statements about human rights specifically refer to slave labour and to excessively low wages?
    Mr. Bercow: That is precisely right. Our concept of human rights, and specifically of what constitutes economic rights, is different from that of other member states of the European Union. As I am sure that my hon. Friend has anticipated, that is at the heart of my concern on this point. I challenge the Minister to state categorically that the European Union would not invoke new article F.1 in justification of the application of a mandatory Communitywide minimum wage of a given level to which all member states were obliged to conform. That is the first example.
    The second example that I offer the Minister—if he is able to contain his impatience for only a moment, and to exercise what self-restraint he can muster—is a situation
    1188
    in which the United Kingdom were to decide that it supported the right to the practice of homosexual sex at the age of 18, but declined to support it at the age of 16. If the rest of the European Union opted for a policy of allowing it at the age of 16 and we deviated from that policy, could it not be held that we had breached a fundamental right as espoused by the European Union? What recourse would we have?
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the notion of sexual orientation could easily include paedophilia? Does he agree that it was absolutely reprehensible to include a sexual orientation policy as a part of fundamental human rights when we are denied the idea of self-determination as a sovereign nation?
    Mr. Bercow: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. It would be a bizarre situation.
    Against that situation, however, I contend—I think that many Conservative Members would agree—that we have no protection if we sign the treaty. The Minister will probably think, "It might not happen; it probably won't happen; and, if it does happen, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have moved me on to some other ministerial post by the time that it does happen." That is not a satisfactory answer to Conservative Members.
    Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more likely that such a challenge will be mounted in the social sphere? The treaty makes it clear that the principles on which judgment will be given are not in this treaty but are laid down in the social charter. They are laid down not in the Maastricht social provisions, but in the social charter.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers of the social charter. The social charter has been much ignored in our debates, but it contains provisions that are infinitely more threatening to United Kingdom citizens than anything that is in the social chapter.
    I am inviting the Minister to offer some proof that we have protection against those developments. He sits there chattering away to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), but he has nothing to say. He has advanced no argument. He responded to no point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and he sat in blithe ignorance of the potency of the arguments made by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. It is breathtaking that the Minister can sit there, preoccupied with nothing other than where he is going when he leaves the House at the end of the evening, so that he is not able to respond to the thrust of the arguments deployed against him.
    The reason that we oppose article 1 and the treaty—
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On the issue of where everyone is going in about one minute, does the hon. Gentleman agree that section 28 of the Mental Health Act 1983 probably applies in his case, and that the sooner two men in white coats come to remove him, the better?
    Mr. Bercow: I hope that I can be forgiven for wondering whether the hon. Gentleman is experiencing the after-effects of an extremely agreeable dinner, but that does not detract from the point—
    It being Ten o'clock THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

    FOOD LAW
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8150/97, on the general principles of Food Law in the European Union, and 8386/97, on Consumer Health and Food Safety; and endorses the Government's intention to support and contribute to the development of an EC food policy which delivers high standards of food safety, fully reflects the needs of consumers and contributes to the development of an effective Single Market.

    HARMFUL TAX COMPETITION
    That this House takes note of the Commission Communications (10427/97) of 1st October 1997 Towards tax co-ordination in the European Union — a package to tackle harmful tax competition and (COM(97)564) of 5th November 1997 A package to tackle harmful tax competition in the European Union: and supports the Government's position as set out in its Explanatory Memorandum (COM 97(564)) of 17th November 1997.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Civil Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.— [Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.

    STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That Miss Ann Widdecombe be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. Martin Bell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That Siobhain McDonagh be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Paul Goggins be added to the Committee.— [Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful for you to know that I have absolutely no objection to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) sitting on the Committee on Standards and Privileges, but I feel that the House should have a further opportunity to debate the procedures that that Committee adopts with regard to Members who are charged with some form of misconduct, because previous cases have shown that there is a denial of natural justice. I do not object to the hon. Member for Tatton personally, but I want to promote a debate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that that is a point of explanation and argument rather than a point of order for the Chair.

  PETITION

    Hunting
    Mr. Graham Allen: Unaccustomed as I am to speaking in the Chamber, as I come from the Whips' Office, I wish to present a petition to the House ahead of tomorrow's debate on whether to ban fox hunting. The petition states:
    We the undersigned being constituents of Nottingham North commend the new Labour Government in allowing a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation. We therefore call upon our local Labour Member of Parliament, Graham Allen, to vote in favour of banning hunting with hounds—
    something that I do very gladly. The petition continues:
    We are totally opposed to this barbaric sport and demand greater protection for all defenceless wildlife. We believe that Parliament should support Michael Foster MP's Bill to ban hunting with hounds and respectfully request that the House of Commons should take this opportunity to outlaw this horrific sport.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Wharfedale General Hospital
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn-[Mr.Pope]
    10.3 pm
    Mr. Paul Truswell: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue in an Adjournment debate. The future of Wharfedale general has long been a subject of local debate and concern in the communities it serves. The hospital is highly regarded. Performance indicators prove that it provides quality care, efficiently and effectively, to more than 6,000 in-patients and day-case patients a year, as well as to many out-patients.
    A business plan produced by the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust to justify the continuation of the hospital listed a number of strengths. They included the loyalty of purchasers, the commitment of staff and the community, the range of services and accessibility, the availability of parking, no or low waiting lists—a crucial issue—a broad range of open-access therapy services, a wide range of purchasers, a strong minor injuries unit, and a potentially valuable site.
    About 40 per cent. of the hospital's patients are drawn from the Guiseley, Yeadon, Rawdon and Horsforth communities within my constituency. A similar number come from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). I trust that he will succeed in catching your eye at the appropriate moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    One of the hospital's greatest advantages is that it provides such excellent care away from the expensive, high-tech, congested, city-centre-based teaching hospital of Leeds general infirmary. Two years ago, the debate on the future of the hospital appeared to have reached a critical, yet positive, watershed. The United Leeds hospital trust began a consultation process on where a new Wharfedale general might be built. That seemed to imply that the hospital's future was secure.
    That sense of security has been backed up in a variety of planning documents in recent years—for example, the trust's own business plan and strategy, and the Leeds review—a major examination of acute health care in the city—and more recently in Leeds health authority's consultation document, "The Future of Health Services in Leeds". Each of those important documents has acknowledged the vital future role of the hospital.
    Given all that apparent commitment, why have I insisted on keeping my hon. Friend the Minister from his cocoa? In July 1995, almost two and a half years ago, the trust submitted an outline business plan to the regional office of the national health service executive. It was at that point that the circumstances that gave rise to tonight's debate began to unfold, and then to fold up.
    Initially, the issue became a ping-pong game between the NHS executive and the United Leeds hospital trust. Ping—the trust served up its outline business plan in July 1995. Pong—the regional office eventually returned it requiring more information. Ping—the trust went for an outright winner by supplying more information, but— pong—the region lobbed it back. Backwards and forwards it went.
    The game was an infuriating spectacle for the local community that is served by the hospital. But worse was to come, for there came a time when there was neither
    1192
    ping nor pong, but merely a deafening silence. It seemed that the ball had disappeared, and each side seemed to be claiming that the other had it in their pocket.
    I do not want to take up valuable time relating all the minutiae of this Byzantine farce. Three short quotes will serve to sum up the impasse that I hope this debate will help to remove. David Hall, the chair of the trust, told me two weeks ago:
    "We have done everything humanly possible to meet the requirements of the Regional Office in producing our outline business plan."
    Mr. Ron De Witt, the chief executive of Leeds health authority stated during the same discussion:
    "The Trust's business plan is one of the best I have ever seen."
    However, Dr. Bill Kirkup, director of the region's NHS trusts division told me:
    "We definitely see a future for Wharfedale General, but we cannot approve the Trust's Outline Business Plan on the strength of a business case from 1995 updated by a series of addenda."
    I am reminded of the much-quoted song from the Fred Astaire musical—Leeds says "potayto", the region says "potahto", Leeds says "tomayto", the region says "tomahto", and so on. The crunch comes in the song's punch line:
    "Let's call the whole thing off."
    Local people fear that, if this continues, the whole thing will eventually be called off. Their fear is understandable.
    As I have tried to show, precious little progress has been made in planning the hospital's long-term future. However, day by day, a great deal is happening, and it is not good. In the past month, a ward has closed. Last week, the trust agreed a package of further cuts that will dramatically affect the hospital. The hospital is like a cherished old friend dying of starvation because his doting hosts cannot decide what to feed him on. Whether the menu is potato or potahto, the planning process is, at best, in a persistent vegetative state. Some might say that, bereft of life, it lies extinct.
    I do not ask the Minister to play the pathologist and carry out a post mortem; I would prefer him to cast himself in the role of casualty consultant and resuscitate the ailing patient. To be cruder, I hope that he will figuratively, if not literally, apply some firm shoe leather to the appropriate part of the NHS management anatomy to jolt it back into some form of activity. I realise that such treatment is contained in no medical text, but everyone connected with the hospital despairs of the planning paralysis.
    I conclude with three appeals to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, please intervene to end the state of paralysis. Secondly, please ensure that everyone concerned is clear about what needs to be done. Thirdly, please lay down a time scale within which we can expect those objectives to be achieved.
    10.11 pm
    Mr. Harold Best: I wholeheartedly endorse observations of my hon Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). I too have been involved with the sort of confusing and bemusing delays that I hope this evening's debate will help to resolve.
    Wharfedale hospital, which is in my constituency, has been at the centre of several campaigns, not least during the general election, in which it made a considerable

    1193
    contribution to the outcome in my constituency. It is one of those wonderful parts of our health service that is at once a community hospital and a general hospital. It serves both functions exceptionally well. It covers a wide area, and several Labour Members present tonight have had and will have constituents in it. I have been in the hospital three times. I live about 13 miles from it. It is often easier to travel the 13 miles to the hospital than it is to travel to the centre of Leeds.
    The hospital is in Otley, which is in the beautiful part of lower Wharfedale which I am pleased to represent. The hospital has benefited from generation after generation of community commitment through fund raising and volunteer services. Everyone concerned considers the hospital essential for the provision of the one-class, first-class health service to which I referred in my maiden speech. The people of its catchment area, the people who serve those people, and various bodies including clinicians, have all given credence to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. It is a fine hospital.
    Among those notable bodies is no less a body than Otley town council, which has campaigned for many years to defend the hospital and the services that it offers to the community in its wide geographical band. Some hon. Members who are not present have constituents who benefit from the hospital. It is only fair to say that that campaign by Otley town council has in recent times received considerable support from the local business community. One business has made the offer of land and is prepared to assist with capital in the development of a new hospital in the area.
    In short, we have a united group of people in Wharfedale who are in desperate need of a modernised, well-appointed hospital. We are being confounded by what appears to be a lack of concentrated and serious effort to bring about that which is commonly held to be needed. What my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey had to say is that which we should consider here tonight. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister what he hopes to do.
    The need is desperate. There is a need beyond easy measure tonight for a modern and secure Wharfedale hospital. It is my hope that that need will be met soon. I look forward to it, and to hearing what our Minister has to say and what he might do.
    10.14 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on securing the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on contributing to it. They have both raised issues which are clearly significant for the people of the area that they represent, and those nearby. The issues that they have raised have wider implications for the national health service, and the way in which we plan our local health services.
    As both my hon. Friends have made clear, Wharfedale hospital is above all else a popular hospital, but it is an old hospital. It has its origins in the last century. Most of the present buildings were developed in a piecemeal fashion between the second world war and the 1960s. I understand from what I have heard this evening and from earlier conversations with my hon. Friends that the
    1194
    accommodation is in poor condition, and that it is unsuitable for providing health care into the next century. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey implied, proposals to replace the hospital with more suitable premises go back over 10 years. Sadly, none has made much progress. I understand the frustration that this must have caused my hon. Friend and his constituents.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West described the process as bemusing, and I understand why. As recently as 1995, responsibility for Wharfedale hospital passed to the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, which concluded that the hospital was unsustainable in its present buildings.
    At that time, I ask my hon. Friends to recall, the NHS around Leeds, as elsewhere, was being asked to operate in an environment of competition, in an internal market for health care. The populations served by Wharfedale hospital were the responsibility of three health authorities—Leeds, Bradford and North Yorkshire—and significant services were also purchased by fund-holding GPs.
    Hospital and community services trusts in Airedale, Bradford and Leeds would have been affected by any change in the nature and extent of services provided at Wharfedale, perhaps in some cases critically affected. The problem was that there was no mechanism to enable a co-ordinated approach to be taken across those various organisations, to ensure that plans were integrated and coherent.
    In this context, it is important to note that Wharfedale hospital is situated in a town of some 12,000 people, but its catchment population amounts to almost 200,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West made that point graphically when he spoke about his own experiences of Wharfedale.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey described what had gone on as a game of ping-pong. Certainly people in the local community must not have known whether they were coming or going. My hon. Friend asked me to play the role of a casualty consultant. I am not sure that I am up to that, but perhaps I can play the role of a management consultant and try to explain what happened in the past under the previous Administration, and bring some clarity to what will happen in the future under Labour Administration.
    When any investment is planned in health services— especially a major one—it is vital that, the proposal can demonstrate, first, that the health care needs of the population have been identified; secondly, that they would be met by the investment; thirdly, that the proposed service is sustainable in the future; and finally, that it represents good value for money and is affordable within the overall resources available. All those requirements have to be met for plans to be approvable as a good use of taxpayers' money.
    Taking into account those requirements and the fact that, under the internal market system, there was no mechanism for integrated planning, I am not surprised that it was not possible to come up with a sound proposal that got the agreement of all parties and secured the approval of the NHS executive. Nor would I regard that as due to any shortcoming on the part of those involved. It was the product instead of a set of policies—those of the previous Government—which put competition ahead of

    1195
    collaboration, which prized opportunism above partnership and which led to fragmentation instead of integration.
    All this will clearly not do for the people who look to Wharfedale hospital. In bringing to an end the idea of an internal market for health care, the Government will be putting forward a better approach that involves partnerships between all of those who should be involved in the provision of local services. However, I agree with my hon. Friends that this matter can and should wait no longer for resolution. I have therefore already asked officials to look at the matter afresh in the new climate that we have created for planning in the NHS.
    From the work that has already been carried out, I have been assured that several key principles have been established. First, there is no doubt that there is a need for a modern health care facility in the vicinity of the present Wharfedale hospital. Secondly, because of the unsuitable state of the existing buildings, new accommodation must be provided. Thirdly, I can assure my hon. Friends that there is no "hidden agenda" to run down the present level of provision in Wharfedale hospital until it becomes unviable. I know that there are real concerns in the community that there is such an agenda, but I assure my hon. Friends that there is not.
    In the new environment that we are creating to foster the sensible planning of health services, I am confident that approvable proposals can be drawn up without further delay. I have been assured that my confidence is not misplaced and that discussions to this effect have already occurred between NHS executive officials and local trust
    1196
    managers. I shall insist that a clear timetable is produced, so that public uncertainty surrounding the future of the hospital can be resolved as quickly as possible.
    Towards the end of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey asked me to respond to three appeals, and I am happy to do so. First, it is clear that the planning paralysis has already ended. Our intentions for the future of the NHS have played a part in that, but my hon. Friends' intervention this evening has helped to concentrate the minds of all those involved in the process. Secondly, everyone is clear about what is now needed. Useful and productive discussions have already begun, and I shall ensure that they continue. Thirdly, I have referred previously to the need for a clear timetable, which I shall require of the local managers. I will write to both my hon. Friends when that timetable has been drawn up.
    It is vital that there is careful consideration, with clinicians, of the services provided now and in future at Wharfedale hospital to ensure that they represent the most clinically effective arrangements possible for the care of the resident population. I am confident that we now have an environment in the NHS in which such planning can take place in partnership with all the relevant agencies. The result will be the production of a proposal to replace Wharfedale hospital with modern facilities able to offer clinically effective services to meet the health care needs of local people in a way that is both sustainable and affordable. Any proposal will be the subject of full local consultation. Local people continue to demonstrate strong commitment to Wharfedale hospital, and they deserve an early response, which I am pleased to say can and will now take place.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Military Personnel
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have left the Army since 1 May; how many have been recruited since that date; and how many vacancies existed at the end of October. [16926]

  Dr. Reid
  A total of around 5,000 personnel left the Army between 1 May and 1 October 1997. More than 6,000 personnel entered the Army from civilian life during the same period. At 1 October the Army was undermanned by around 4,500 trained personnel. The figures to 1 October are provisional, and include trained Gurkha personnel but exclude the Royal Irish (Home Service). The figures to the end of October 1997 are not yet available.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research projects have been commissioned by his Department in each year from 1987 to date concerning the genetic modification of(a) organisms and (b) micro-organisms. [17736]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Paul Tyler, dated 27 November 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about research projects concerned with the genetic modification of organisms and micro-organisms as most work of this nature is carried out for the Ministry of Defence by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  The genetic modification work undertaken at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is all concerned with micro-organisms. None of the work is concerned with the genetic modification of higher organisms.
  Health and Safety legislation requires that all projects involving genetic manipulation in the UK must be approved by local Genetic Manipulation Safety Committees (GMSC). The GMSC at CBD has approved the following experiments per year since 1987.

  Year

  Number of projects

  1987

  8

  1988

  11

  1989

  19

  1990

  8

  1991

  12

  1992

  19

  1993

  15

  602

  Year

  Number of projects

  1994

  13

  1995

  8

  1996

  20

  1997 (to 18 November 1997)

  14

  All these projects are part of an overall defensive research programme to provide safe and effective protection for the UK Armed Forces in the event of chemical or biological attack.

  It would not be in the national interest for me to give details of these projects.

  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Foxes (MOD Estate)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the number of foxes on his Department's estate in each of the past five years. [18033]

  Mr. Spellar
  No estimates have been made of the numbers of foxes on the Defence Estate.

  Buildings and Installations (Servicing)
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list each civilian company and subsidiary employed by his Department to service Ministry of Defence installations and buildings, indicating the functions they carry out; [17864]

  (2) if he will list by company the cost to public funds to date in payments to each company contracted to service MOD buildings and installations. [17863]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  University Air Squadrons
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that(a) cadets learning to fly through the university air squadrons and (b) those taking air experience flights will be trained in British-built aircraft. [18059]

  Dr. Reid
  A final decision has still to be taken on the contract to provide the University Air Squadron and Air Cadet Air Experience Flight flying requirements. A UK-manufactured aircraft is one of the options being considered. All factors will be taken into account in reaching a decision on which options offers best operational performance and best overall value for money.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 393, if he will discuss with the Masters of Foxhounds Association his Department's interpretation of the MFHA's press release of 8 August in respect of the practice of digging out foxes on the estate; and if he will make a statement. [17954]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's position on the practice of digging out is clear: it will be neither requested nor permitted on the defence Estate.

  Remembrance Sunday (Union Flag)
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who was responsible for the Union Flag flown above Whitehall main building on Remembrance Sunday. [17865]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under the terms of their contract, day to day responsibility for ensuring that flags on MoD Main Building, Whitehall, are maintained in good condition, regularly washed and flown correctly at the appropriate times lies with Building and Property Defence Limited. Under new arrangements instituted since Remembrance Sunday, visual checks carried out by Departmental staff will ensure that correct procedures are followed.

PRIME MINISTER

  President of the Board of Trade
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he gave permission for the President of the Board of Trade not to attend oral questions on 20 November. [17556]

  The Prime Minister
  I gave my permission for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to be overseas on 20 November.

  Ministerial Interests
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the issues and companies which each Minister is unable to handle in order to avoid a conflict of interst. [17557]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Ministers are required to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between their public duties and their private interests. There is no static list of issues or companies. Ministers are asked to remain alert to the possibility of conflicts of interests when dealing with Government business.

  Mr. Rupert Murdoch
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the issues of public policy which he discussed with Mr. Rupert Murdoch during their meeting on 13 November. [17655]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: We discussed a range of issues.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister when he became aware of the possible conflict of interest arising from a second donation on behalf of Mr. Bernie Ecclestone. [17943]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the oral answer I gave in the House on 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 898–99.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 325, what scientific advice the Government received recommending driving licence restrictions on insulin-dependent diabetics; and if he will publish that advice. [17610]
  604
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 November 1997]: As I told the hon. Gentleman in my earlier reply, the Government receives advice from the Honorary Advisory Panel on Driving and Diabetes, one of a number of such panels comprising experts in their field. At a recent meeting they confirmed that in their view there was no new evidence to support a change in the policy with regard to granting licences to drive the heavier vehicles to diabetes sufferers treated by insulin. Their advice draws on their experience and assessment of the scientific literature. There is therefore no scientific advice as such from the Panel which could be published.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that(a) all visits undertaken by Ministers in connection with their duties be notified, reasonably in advance, to the hon. Member of the area visited and (b) that hon. Member is permitted to participate in the visit. [17843]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 November 1997]: I set out guidance to my Ministerial colleagues on these matters in paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House in July.

  Government Information Service
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government Information Service. [18408]

  The Prime Minister
  I am today placing in the Library of the House the Report of a Working Group on the Government Information Service. The Report is about modernising the Government's communications with the media to make them more effective and authoritative—an integral part of a democratic Government's duty to govern with consent. Its main proposals are:to improve co-ordination with and from the centre, so as to get across consistently the Government's key policy themes and messages, through a new strategic communications unit serving the whole Government; a reformed Cab-E-Net system; and clearer rules on attribution;
  to improve co-ordination within each Government Department so that Ministers, their special advisers, their press offices and their policy civil servants all play their part in the coherent formulation and communication of policy;
  to bring the practice and procedures of all Government press offices up to the standards of the best, geared to quick response round the clock with help from a new central media monitoring unit;
  to retain a politically impartial service and to sustain the trusted values of the service embodied in its rules of guidance;
  on the basis that communication is an integral part of policy formulation, to develop closer and better working relations between policy civil servants and press offices;
  to offer high quality management and leadership, staffing and training and development tailored to meet the needs of the 24-hour media world.

  I have accepted the recommendations of the Report. The costs of the two new Units will be contained within the Department's running costs. Together, these proposals will produce a service, renamed the Government Information Service and Communication Service, which is fit for its purpose and fit for the future.

  European Council
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister at what time he left the European Council meeting at Amsterdam. [18035]

  The Prime Minister
  At its conclusion.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons the request by Mr. Tariq Aziz to meet representatives of the British Government at the United Nations to enter into a dialogue on the situation in Iraq was declined. [17918]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Aziz wished to enter into dialogue on the subject of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM). It is not for Iraq to attempt to lay down conditions on this subject. UNSCOM received its mandate under Security Council Resolution (SCR) 687. It is non-negotiable. Iraq must comply with all relevant SCRs.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Emergency Provisions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of 18 November 1997,Official Report, columns 215–16, what factors led him to conclude it would appear invidious for him to deny a person a jury trial in some scheduled offences; and for what reasons he assesses it not to be invidious for him to deny jury trials in other scheduled offences. [17570]

  The Attorney-General
  It is the legislation itself, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which provides that the scheduled offences are tried by a judge without a jury. The Schedule permits the Attorney-General, in respect of certain offences, to certify that a particular offence is not to be treated as a scheduled offence. My certificate therefore operates to confer the right to be tried by jury in the normal way. The right to trial by jury is currently removed only by Parliament and it would be invidious for a Minister to have that power. The Attorney-General's function is purely to reduce the severity of the law in favour of individuals where appropriate.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General what would be(a) the extra cost and (b) the necessary increase in personnel of the certifying in procedure for scheduled offences coming under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. [17571]

  The Attorney-General
  Under the current legislation the Attorney-General may "certify out" certain scheduled offences with the effect that such an offence will not be treated as a scheduled offence. It is impossible to quantify the extra cost and the necessary increase in personnel which would be required were offences to be subject to a "certifying in" procedure, whereby they would be certified in to the Schedule by the Attorney-General, since the amount of work involved is entirely dependent on the number of offences committed. Under the provisions contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill it is anticipated that there will be an increase in the work 606
  load of my office because of the proposal to increase the number of offences which are capable of being certified out.

  Sexual Offences
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what percentage of cases of alleged sexual offences against children investigated by the Police in 1995–96 and 1996–97 and referred to the Crown Prosecution Service(a) were judged to have passed the evidential test, (b) proceeded to prosecution in court and (c) resulted in a conviction; [17660]

  (2) what percentage of cases (a) proceeded to prosecution in court and (b) resulted in a conviction, in cases involving alleged sexual offences against children in 1995–96 and 1996–97 when the only evidence was the testimony of the child or children; [17662]

  (3) what were the reasons for the decisions not to proceed to prosecution in respect of those alleged sexual offences against children investigated by the Police in 1995–96 and 1996–97, in which the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute. [17663]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records on the outcome of proceedings in respect of particular offences. The information is held in Branch offices on individual case files and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what factors the Crown Prosecution Service takes into account in applying the evidential test in cases involving alleged sexual offences against children where the only evidence was the testimony of the child or children. [17661]

  The Attorney-General
  Each case is unique and must be considered on its own merit but, generally, a principle of fairness is applied to the evidence of children. This means that the evidence of a child is considered no less reliable than that of an adult simply because it comes from a child. As in all cases, prosecutors will consider whether the evidence can be used in court and whether it is reliable in deciding if there is a realistic prospect of conviction. Prosecutors are urged to use all the procedures available to assist child witnesses to give evidence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what stage in a sentence a prisoner becomes eligible for home leave. [16182]

  Ms Quin
  Following changes in the Prison Rules in April 1995, a new system of release on temporary licence was introduced to replace home leave and temporary release. The eligibility of prisoners to be considered for release on resettlement licence under the new system is set out in "Prison Service Instruction to Governors 36/1995," a copy of which is in the Library.

  European Parliamentary Elections
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a draft of
  607
  the ballot paper which would be issued to voters before the second reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. [16957]

  Mr. Straw
  The final format of the ballot paper for elections to the European Parliament has not yet been determined. Parliament will be able to approve the final design. I have, however, placed a copy of an initial sketch in the Library.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people will be eligible to vote in the European Parliament elections in(a) each of the English regions upon which the proposed new constituencies will be based, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [17060]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 21 November 1997]: The number of people eligible to vote in the next elections to the European Parliament in June 1999 will depend on the number of people on the relevant electoral registers on polling day. The number of people on the local government electoral registers in each of the proposed English electoral regions and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on 16 February 1997 was as follows:

  Number

  East Midlands

  3,167,433

  Eastern

  4,027,466

  London

  5,027,796

  North East

  1,984,212

  North West

  5,214,413

  South East

  5,988,686

  South West

  3,747,003

  West Midlands

  4,032,835

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  3,811,254

  Scotland

  3,995,923

  Wales

  2,226,923

  Northern Ireland

  1,190,977

  The number of people entitled to vote in an election to the European Parliament would be slightly smaller since not all European Union citizens on the local government register chose to exercise their right to vote in European Parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom.

  East European Students
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many students from eastern Europe who in the last six months have been given permits to work in agriculture have applied for political asylum. [17250]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many students from eastern Europe who have been given permits to work in the United Kingdom have been recruited by gangmasters to work in the food processing factories in Lincolnshire. [17248]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information on the number of eastern European students recruited by gangmasters to work in food processing factories in Lincolnshire is not held centrally.
  608
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many permits he has granted to students from eastern Europe to work in agriculture in the United Kingdom during the last six months. [17249]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Eight thousand five hundred such students entered the United Kingdom in the six months from May to October.

  Amsterdam Treaty (Asylum Seekers)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications of the Amsterdam Treaty for future asylum seekers from within the European Union; and for what reason his Department did not seek an exemption from the Asylum Protocol similar to that acquired by Belgium. [17217]

  Ms Quin
  The Asylum Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty will require that member states treat asylum applications from European Union nationals as either inadmissible or against a presumption that they are manifestly unfounded. Belgium has made a declaratory statement to the effect that it will apply the latter approach. This is not an exemption from the Protocol. There was no need for the United Kingdom to make a similar declaration. In accordance with United Kingdom asylum law, we will continue to give individual consideration to asylum applications from European Union nationals.

  Tagging
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the savings which will arise as a result of the use of tagging to bring about the early release of prisoners from custodial sentences. [17742]

  Ms Quin
  I expect the costs of electronic monitoring to be considerably smaller than the expenditure on prisons which would otherwise be necessary. Fuller information will be given in the Financial Memorandum to the Crime and Disorder Bill.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the criteria by which the Prison Service will carry out a risk assessment of offenders under consideration for early release through tagging. [17744]

  Ms Quin
  I shall publish more detailed information about the working of the home detention curfew scheme in due course. The risk assessment procedures will build on those applying at present to release on temporary licence, as set out in Instruction to Governors 36/95, a copy of which is in the Library. A copy of the Instruction to Governors on home detention curfew will also be placed in the Library.

  Prison Sentences
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders convicted of offences involving(a) sex and (b) violence were sentenced to periods of imprisonment of between three months and four years in the last year for which figures are available. [17743]
  609
  Mr. Michael
  For England and Wales in 1996 (latest available figures) of the 4,426 offenders convicted of indictable sexual offences, 1,763 were sentenced to periods of immediate custody of between three months and up to and including four years.

  Similarly, for the indictable offence group of violence against the person, 30,011 offenders were convicted, of whom 7,366 were sentenced to periods of imprisonment of between three months and up to and including four years.

  Integrated Transport System
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department made submission to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation on an integrated transport system; and if he will make a statement. [17749]

  Mr. Michael
  No formal submission was made but our two Departments have been and continue to be in close contact at Ministerial and official level about issues of mutual interest arising from the development of an integrated transport policy.

  Prisons (Food)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the quality and service of prison food. [17719]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service has introduced a number of changes to improve catering procedures, including increased flexibility for caterers to provide food suited to the needs of prisoners, and greater choice and reduced waste, for example through the use of pre-select menus.

  A recent National Audit Office report (published on 7 November 1997) acknowledged these improvements and confirmed that prison caterers do well in difficult conditions. The report also identified a number of areas where further improvement is desirable, and the Prison Service is currently considering its recommendations.

  1982 ANC Offices Bombing
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter of 30 August 1992 to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), what progress there has been in the inquiry into the bombings, in 1982, of the African National Congress offices in London; and what representations his Department has received on this matter. [17624]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 November 1997]: The Metropolitan Police are continuing to monitor the situation in South Africa in relation to revelations made to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is their intention to interview more people in the course of their investigation into the bombing in due course. As for representations received in the Home Office, records relating to the period between 1982 and the end of 1991 are not kept centrally and I will therefore write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is possible to check the relevant papers.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in considering legislation on fire safety. [18334]
  610
  Mr. George Howarth
  In my reply to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 23 June 1997,Official Report, column 360. I indicated that the Government strongly support the aims of the Fire Safety Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) introduced in the last Parliament. Since then. I have received advice from the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council on the main principles incorporated in that Bill and officials have held discussions with a number of key stakeholders.

  On 28 November, the Government intend to publish a consultation document entitled "Fire Safety Legislation for the Future" and copies will be placed in the Library. The consultation document sets out proposals for a new fire safety regime based on the main principles included in the Fire Safety Bill which in turn picked up many of the recommendations of the June 1994 Inter-Departmental Review of Fire Safety Legislation and Enforcement.

  The proposed new regime should enable rationalisation and consolidation of existing legislation. It would be based on a new universal duty of fire safety care on the occupiers and owners of almost all premises (except single private dwellings) to provide and maintain fire precautions. There would be additional requirements for high risk premises and enforcement would generally be by fire authorities. To combat the deaths and casualties in people's homes, we are attracted to the possibility of a new statutory duty on fire authorities to undertake community fire safety.

  The consultation document generally covers fire safety in England and Wales and in Scotland. But where there are differences in the situation or proposals for Scotland these have been stated in a separate chapter.

  We intend that this consultation document should be a first step towards a legislative regime which will serve to meet the fire safety challenges of the future. The proposals also form one strand of the Home Office Comprehensive Spending Review and are interrelated to other aspects of that review on the funding and structure of the fire service and the potential for more flexible standards of fire cover.

  The consultation period lasts until the end of February 1998. The proposals at this stage are cast in broad terms. We will consider carefully the responses to them and, if we then seek to proceed with new legislation, there will be further consultation on detailed and costed proposals.

  Religious Discrimination
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make discrimination on religious grounds unlawful. [18559]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are alive to concerns about religious discrimination. This issue raises many difficult, sensitive and complex questions, which need to be carefully considered before we reach conclusions. My current priority is the forthcoming legislation on racial harassment, violence and other racially motivated crimes. In the meantime, I am happy to receive views on whether legislation in due course would be desirable.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1997,
  611
  Official Report, column 39, what factors underlay the interval between the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, concerning international user requirements for the lawful use of interception by law enforcement agencies, and its being deposited in the Library. [17867]

  Mr. Straw
  The Memorandum of Understanding concerning international user requirements for the lawful use of interception by law enforcement agencies was placed in the Library on 3 March 1997 in response to a Question from Lord Lester of Herne Hill.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if MI5 is obliged to apply for a warrant of authorisation to tap a telephone in a public phone box. [17868]

  Mr. Straw
  Under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, a warrant authorised by a Secretary of State is required by the Security Service to intercept any communications in the course of their transmission by means of a public telecommunications system. The Interception of Communications Act applies irrespective of the type of telephone which is intercepted.

  Unsupervised Children
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research undertaken by his Department has identified a problem of unsupervised under-10-years-olds being on the streets at night; if he will publish that research; and if he will make a statement. [17774]

  Mr. Michael
  There is considerable research within the Home Office and elsewhere which indicates those influences which are strongest on young people, particularly in relation to commencement of offending. One of the strongest of these is poor parental supervision. This was dealt with in some detail in the 1995 Home Office Research Paper 145 "Young people and crime". The need for more responsible parenting is supported in a survey which was carried out for the Audit Commission in 1996 for its report "Streetwise Effective Police Patrol". Similar surveys for that report also revealed that there was a public concern about the need to deal with issues of juvenile nuisance and anti-social behaviour.

  The objectives of the Government's youth justice reform programme seek, amongst other things, to address these concerns. That is why one of the measures in the reform programme is the proposal to give local authorities the power, following consultation with the police and local community, to introduce local child curfews for unsupervised children under 10 who are out on the streets late at night. The aim of such curfews is two-fold. Not only will they address the need to protect young children from being drawn into anti-social or criminal behaviour, but they will protect communities from the misery and distress which can be so often caused by groups of unsupervised children acting in this way.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the National Anti-Vivisection Society's report "Accountability—Animal Experiments and Freedom of Information"; and what steps he plans in response; [17775]
  612
  (2) if he will set out the procedures for (a) appointing members to and (b) reviewing the membership of the Animal Procedures Committee; if the Public Appointments Unit list is consulted; and if he will make a statement. [17777]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We will be meeting with representatives of the National Anti-Vivisection Society next week and expect to discuss a number of issues with them, including their Accountability report.

  Copies of the report have also been given to all members of the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Much of the report is taken up with criticism of the membership of the Animal Procedures Committee, the way new members are appointed and the ways in which the Committee works.

  The procedures for appointing members to the Committee have been reviewed in the light of the recommendations made by the Nolan Committee: We have recently written to a number of professional bodies, representative organisations and animal protection groups seeking nominations for new Committee members. The field of potential candidates will then be considered by an advisory panel.

  In deciding whom to appoint, the requirements set down in section 19 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1996 must be met and we must maintain the necessary breadth of expertise needed by the Committee. All appointments are announced publicly.

  We have no plans to review the current membership. The existing members do an excellent job and bring to the Committee a valued mix of skills and expertise. However, four members will complete their second (and final) term on the Committee at the end of the year and we will be making a number of new appointments shortly. We have already announced our intention to increase the number of animal welfare experts on the Committee.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences, and for what projects, have been awarded which involve experimentation on monkeys at the Institute of Neurology in London since 1 January 1995. [17776]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Since 1 January 1995, no new licences under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have been granted which authorise the use of primates at the Institute of Neurology.

  Juvenile Justice
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what United Nations standards his Department recognises in relation to(a) the administration of juvenile justice and (b) the welfare of children; and if he will make a statement. [17773]

  Mr. Michael
  The United Kingdom signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in December 1991. In doing so, the then Government gave a commitment to implement and disseminate the Convention's terms and principles, subject to certain reservations which it entered. The United Kingdom made its first report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in January 1995. In formulating policy on juvenile justice
  613
  and child welfare, the Government aim to take into account the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other similar instruments, guidelines and rules.

  New Prisons
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the new prison building projects(a) he has authorised and (b) he has assessed prior to authorisation since 2 May. [18047]

  Ms Quin
  Since 2 May, authorisation has been given to proceed with the building of four new prisons:

  800 place Category B prison on the site of the former Agecroft Power Station, Salford;

  400 place Young Offender Institution on the site of the former remand centre at Pucklechurch near Bristol;

  600 place Category B prison adjacent to the current prison establishment at Onley, Warwickshire;

  600 place Category B prison at Marchington, Staffordshire.

  All four are to be built under the Private Finance Initiative.

  Planning approval has been obtained for a low security establishment to be built on land between Parkhurst and Albany prisons on the Isle of Wight, although no final decision has been taken to pursue this option. In addition, a planning application was made for a temporary prison at Middleton Tower, Heysham.

  Since 2 May, agreement has also been given to the Prison Service pursuing to the formal planning application stage possible new prison sites at Ashworth (Maghull), Belmarsh (in Woolwich), Peterborough and Winwick (near Warrington).

  World Cup
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the proposed membership of the committee established to liaise with the police in advance of next year's FIFA World Cup, separately identifying Scottish representation; what relationship this Committee will have with(a) the Scottish Office, (b) Scottish police and (c) the Scottish Football Association; what responsibility it will have for liaising with the World Cup authorities on behalf of Scottish football fans; and if he will make a statement. [17848]

  Mr. Michael
  The World Cup Co-ordination Group had its first meeting on 21 November 1997. Membership of the group includes officials from the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (including representation from the British Embassy, Paris), the Scottish Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Football Licensing Authority. Representatives of the Football Association and the Scottish Football Association are members. There is police representation from the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the British Transport Police. The group is chaired by the Home Office.
  614
  The aim of the group is to co-ordinate the interests and responsibilities of those on the group into a strategy for the World Cup finals in 1998. The strategy will help to: promote and foster an enjoyable, positive and safe World Cup for British supporters travelling to France; minimise the potential for trouble and football hooliganism; and ensure that the French authorities are made fully aware of intelligence and information which would assist them in dealing with Scotland and England supporters travelling to and attending matches.

  The group will provide a co-ordinating function and a forum to discuss and seek solutions to potential difficulties. It is the responsibility of individual members of the group to liaise, in conjunction with other members of the group where appropriate, with the relevant French authorities in respect of their particular areas of interest.

  A committee has been formed in Scotland to draw up a strategy for the safety and security of Scotland fans travelling to France. Membership consists of the Scottish Office, senior police officers and the Scottish Football Association.

  Charities
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions are placed on registered charities controlling the use of their title, style or logo by their subsidiary trading companies or other associates in(a) promoting, (b) marketing and (c) selling goods or services unrelated to their declared charitable aims. [18048]

  Mr. Michael
  There are no such restrictions. It is for the trustees of a charity to determine how its title, style or logo could be used by its subsidiary. Charity trustees are obliged to act in the best interests of their charity. Consequently, they should ensure that any use of the logo by a trading subsidiary, or any other licensee, does not put the charity's funds at risk or being negative publicity to the charity.

  Charities are permitted to the same legal protection for their intellectual property rights as any other person or body, and have the same powers as any other person or body to license others to exploit those rights, provided, of course, that the licensing arrangements are in the charity's interests (which includes economic interests).

  The Charity Commission has certain powers to act to protect the property of a charity—including its intellectual property.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Euro (Dependent Territories)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from dependent territories and what consultations he plans with them over the euro; and if he will make a statement. [17209]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Gibraltar Government have raised with us the possibility of issuing commemorative coins denominated in Euros. No other dependent territory had made representations, and no consultations are planned.

  Spain
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that United Kingdom acceptance of the integration of Spain within the NATO structure is conditional on the dropping by Spain of restrictions on United Kingdom civil and military flights over its territory. [17193]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 24 November 1997]: We are currently negotiating with Spain over arrangements for military air access to Gibraltar. We will be dealing separately with civil air access, which is not part of NATO negotiations.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Turkey concerning their military activity in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [17833]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 26 November 1997]: I raised this issue with the Turkish Foreign Minister during my visit to Ankara on 14 October, and made further representations to him on 27 October. We have told the Turkish government that their involvement in the inter-factional Kurdish fighting in northern Iraq is not compatible with their role as a co-sponsor of the Ankara process of reconciliation.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings members of his Department have held with General Pinochet over the last three years. [17825]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 November 1997]: There have been no meetings between members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and General Pinochet over the last three years. British Embassy staff in Santiago have attended several official state and military functions in Chile at which General Pinochet was also present, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army. No discussions took place between these staff and General Pinochet at these events.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 November. [18542]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  At the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 24–25 November, the nine A points in document 12483/97 were approved, and the European Parliament resolutions of 5–6 November in document 11487/97 were noted. The texts of both documents will be placed in the libraries of the House as soon as they become available.

  Agenda 2000

  Ministers held their first discussion of the report to the Luxembourg European Council in December on Agenda 2000. Ministers re-stated their positions on enlargement (with the majority still in favour of differentiation), future
  616
  financing and policy reform. Discussion will continue, and we hope substantial progress will be made at the next meeting of the Council on 8 December.

  Turkey

  The Council discussed Turkey's participation in the European Conference and the Commission's proposals for strengthening relations with Turkey by building on the Customs Union. Most Member States expressed support in principle for both.

  EC/Israel Trade Issues

  The Council agreed that the EC/Israel Co-operation Committee with Israel on 28 November should address the issue of miscertification of goods from third countries under the EC/Israel Interim Association Agreement, notably orange juice.

  Transatlantic relations

  The Council took note of the preparations for the EU/US and EU/Canada Summits which will take place in Washington and Ottawa in December and agreed that the EU should agree a statement of general principles governing electronic commerce with the US. The Council also encouraged the Commission to continue its efforts to negotiate with the US an agreement to ban leg-hold traps.

  Former Yugoslavia

  The High Representative, Carlos Westendorp, briefed the Council on progress in peace implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Council also discussed the situation in the FRY in light of forthcoming Presidential elections in Serbia, expressing its concern at the authorities' failure to respect fundamental democratic principles.

  Switzerland

  The Council reiterated its wish to conclude bilateral sectoral negotiations with Switzerland but highlighted the outstanding problems in certain areas, including transport. The Council instructed COREPER to reconsider proposals to resolve this issue and called on the Swiss to exercise some flexibility in pursuit of their common objective.

  Mid term review of Overseas Countries and Territories Decision

  The mid-term review of the Decision on the association of Overseas Countries and Territories with the EU was formally agreed.

  MEPP

  Following discussions at the Foreign Ministers' dinner in the margins of the Special European Council on Employment on 20 November, the Council discussed developments in the Middle East peace process following the visit to the region by the President of the Council and Vice President Marin of the European Commission from 11–14 November. The Council confirmed the importance of close co-ordination with the US Administration, and that the Middle East peace process would be discussed at the 5 December EU/US Summit. The Council also reviewed the importance of EU aid to the Palestinians, and took note of the Commission's forthcoming communication on the programme.
  617
  Russia: Preparation for first Co-operation Council

  The Council emphasised the importance that the EU attaches to EU-Russia relations. In light of this, the Presidency asked Ministers to confirm whether they would be able to attend the inaugural Co-operation Council under the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA) on 15 December (Primakov being unable to attend on 8 December as originally planned). If this is not possible, the Co-operation Council will fall to the UK Presidency. Preparations in the meantime would continue in COREPER.

  EU-Jordan

  The Association Agreement between the EU and Jordan was signed on 24 November by EU Foreign Ministers, the Commission and Crown Prince Hassan.

  Yemen

  The EC/Yemen agreement was signed on 25 November by the Commission and the Yemeni Deputy Prime Minister.

  Afghanistan

  The Council exchanged views on the conflict in Afghanistan and took note of the Conference of donors which will take place in New York on 3 December. The Council confirmed that the UN has the principal role and expressed its support for the efforts of the UN Secretary General and his special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.

  European Economic Area Council

  The 8th Council of the European Economic Area (EEA) was held on 25 November. Ministers welcomed the continued development of the EEA. Conclusions were agreed which took stock of developments and looked forward to future work (Commission Press Release EEE 1608/97 Presse 368).

  £000s

  DoE

  DoT

  VI

  HA

  DVLA

  DSA

  VCA

  MSA

  CA

  PI

  QE2

  1993–94

  12,227

  8,275

  18

  —

  1,882

  58

  nil

  —

  nil

  nil

  209

  1994–95

  9,028

  8,039

  21

  n/a

  1,807

  53

  nil

  104

  241

  nil

  167

  1995–96

  7,670

  8,356

  40

  546

  2,171

  67

  8

  63

  297

  16

  167

  1996–97

  4,665

  9,679

  55

  1,100

  1,966

  63

  9

  79

  311

  17

  180

  £000s

  DETR

  VI

  HA

  DVLA

  DSA

  VCA

  MSA

  CA

  PI

  QE2

  1997–98 to date

  4,574

  58

  546

  1,219

  46

  nil

  65

  214

  17

  52

  1997–98 full year estimated outturn

  13,725

  111

  1,300

  3,584

  111

  5

  100

  280

  17

  196

  DoE—Department of the Environment DoT—Department of Transport

  DETR—Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  VI—Vehicle Inspectorate

  HA—Highways Agency

  DVLA—Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  DSA—Driving Standards Agency

  VCA—Vehicle Certification Agency

  MSA—Marine Safety Agency

  CA—Coastguard Agency

  PI—Planning Inspectorate

  QE2—Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  European Council (Amsterdam)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time he left the European Council at Amsterdam. [18034]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Fourth Session of the European Council Meeting in Amsterdam broke up at 0340 hours, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary left the closing Press Conference when it finished at about 0400 hours on Wednesday 18 June. He departed for the UK from Valkenburg Naval Air Base 1010 hours that same day.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff in Directorate General V of the European Commission are engaged in work relating to future Social Chapter legislation. [17070]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 24 November 1997]: I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Commission. We do not keep this information.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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) 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15233]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Advertising and publicity expenditure by my Department for the years requested is as follows:
  619
  The Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport were amalgamated on 16 June 1997. Figures are shown separately for 1993–97 but aggregated for the current fiscal year.

  Figures quoted include expenditure on statutory advertising (recruitment, official notices etc.) where applicable.

  Expenditure figures for Executive Agencies have been compiled and supplied by the Agency concerned.

  Information on publicity and advertising expenditure by non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Plans for 1998–99 have yet to be finalised.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many motorway and trunk road cross-over accidents have occurred in the past five years involving the rupture or crossing of safety barriers; and what form of construction was used for those road barriers. [17171]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total number of accidents involving rupture or crossing of safety barriers on motorways and trunk roads is not known. However, the numbers of injury accidents which involved one or more vehicles striking or crossing the central safety barrier are as shown below. No information is available regarding the form of construction of the barriers involved in these accidents.

  Injury accidents on motorways and trunk roads in Great Britain

  Year of Accident

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  One or more vehicles hit central safety barrier

  1,388

  1,490

  1,594

  1,621

  1,736

  One or more vehicles crossed central reservation

  230

  182

  188

  171

  156

  One or more vehicles hit central safety barrier and crossed the central reservation.

  46

  57

  56

  64

  61

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many drivers have(a) been involved in and (b) suffered (i) serious injury and (ii) death from road traffic accidents within 12 months of passing their test in each of the last five years. [17635]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, it is estimated that:

  (a) about one driver in five has an accident involving at least damage within 12 months of passing the driving test;

  (b) about one in five casualties (to all road users) occur when at least one driver involved is within three years of passing the driving test;

  (c) there are around 25,000 casualties per year (to all road users), of which around 3,500 are fatal or serious, in accidents involving a driver aged 17–25 and within 12 months of passing the driving test.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1997,Official Report, columns 48–49, on applications for telecommunications masts, if he will list the types of serious threat to amenity which might give sufficient grounds for rejecting an application. [17567]

  Mr. Raynsford
  An application for prior approval determination allows the local planning authority the opportunity to say whether they wish to approve, within 28 days, details of the siting and appearance of a telecommunications mast permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. It is for the local planning authority to determine whether the siting or appearance of the development would pose a serious threat to amenity on a case by case basis. Guidance on factors the authority may take into consideration when determining whether to give or refuse such approval is contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 and Appendix E to Circular 9/95. The answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning on 4 November 1997,Official Report, columns 152–53, announced a further factor for consideration in these circumstances.

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority planning refusals for telecommunications masts were overturned on appeal by planning inspectors in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [17530]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of appeals allowed against local authority refusals for telecommunications masts/towers information is as follows:

  Year

  Total number of mast appeals

  Number of appeals allowed

  1994–95

  58

  23

  1995–96

  55

  37

  1996–97

  85

  37

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many redundant telecommunications masts have been removed; and if he will list their locations: [17751]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the procedures in place to monitor the removal of redundant telecommunications masts. [17752]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Development carried out by a telecommunications code system operator under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 is subject to the condition that apparatus shall be removed as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for telecommunications purposes. Where telecommunications development requires a planning application to the local planning authority, it is open to the authority to impose a similar condition on any planning permission granted. It is for the local planning authority to take any necessary enforcement action where they consider that planning conditions have not been observed. In addition, the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1984 allow occupiers of land to require the removal of redundant apparatus from their land where access for the purposes of installing that apparatus was originally
  621
  granted to the operator under the Code Powers granted to them by that Act. Data on the number of redundant masts removed are not held centrally.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many telecommunication posts(a) under 15 metres and (b) over 15 metres were erected in the United Kingdom in each of the years since 1993 to the latest available date. [17633]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not collected centrally. We attach considerable importance to minimising the environmental impact of telecommunications mast development. It is for the that reason that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning recently stated our expectation that operators will provide evidence to local authorities that they have carefully considered the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures before seeking to erect any new mast.

  Waste-derived Compost
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to improve the markets for waste-derived compost. [18127]

  Angela Eagle
  I am today announcing the publication of two guides which are aimed at improving the markets for waste-derived compost. The first contains practical guidance for large-scale producers of waste-derived compost, such as local authorities and the waste industry, setting out how they can design and market their product effectively to a variety of end users, particularly those in the horticulture and landscaping industries. The second guide is aimed at potential users, such as landscape architects and contractors, and explains the benefits of using waste-derived compost in their operations.

  One of our major environmental objectives is to promote sustainable waste management across the country. Every nine months we produce enough waste in the United Kingdom to fill lake Windermere. And of the estimated 26 million tonnes of municipal solid waste produced in 1995–96, around 85 per cent. was landfilled. It is therefore vital that, in future, we choose waste management options which preserve and enhance our environment and safeguard human health. We are therefore committed to increasing the quality and quantity of organic waste which is composted. This means a greater degree of centralised composting by local authorities and the waste management industry. But to make such schemes viable, we also need to expand the markets for waste-derived compost and thereby increase the demand for the product.

  We hope that these guides will make a valuable contribution to this by providing practical advice to compost producers and specifiers. They will be widely distributed free of charge to local authorities in England, waste management companies, composting organisations, landscaping architectural practices and selected landscaping contractors.

  Copies of the guides have been placed in the house Libraries.

  Fire Safety
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to improve fire safety in homes. [17554]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Part B of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 1991 makes requirements with regard to fire safety when building work is undertaken with regard to all buildings, including homes. Guidance on ways of meeting these requirements is given in Approved Document B. This Document is currently being revised and changes will be proposed that will improve fire safety in the home. The draft Approved Document will be issued for public consultation in the near future. Most relevant to homes there will be additional guidance on the siting and installation of smoke alarms, including in loft conversions to two storey houses, and on means of escape, in particular the provision of suitable windows in habitable rooms.

  Unoccupied Homes
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total number of unoccupied homes in England (i) in 1990 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available; and what proportion was owned by(a) local authorities, (b) central government departments, (c) the private sector, (d) housing associations and (e) others. [17711]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Estimates are given below of the numbers of vacant dwellings in England on 1 April in 1990 and, the latest date for which figures are available, in 1996.

  1990

  1996

  Number

  Proportion

  Number

  Proportion (per cent)

  Local authority1

  99,400

  14

  79,600

  10

  Housing associations2

  19,700

  3

  23,600

  3

  Other public sector3

  17,000

  2

  20,000

  3

  Private sector1

  587,000

  81

  667,000

  84

  Total

  723,000

  100

  790,000

  100

  Sources:

  1 HIP1 returns from local authorities.

  2 Housing Corporation HAR10/1 returns from housing associations.

  3 Govnerment Departments and HIP1 returns from local authorities.

  There are doubts about the quality of some authorities' estimates of the number of private sector vacants; independent survey data suggest that the HIP1 figures may over-estimate the total number of these vacants. Total vacants have been falling in recent years after increasing by around 20 per cent. between 1990 and 1993, and at any one time around half of the private sector vacants are empty as a function of the housing market.

  Council Tax (Home Annexes)
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial incentives are available through the local authority council tax system which encourage elderly or young relatives to live in annexes adjoining the main family home. [17709]
  623
  Mr. Raynsford
  An annex which is classed as a separate dwelling for council tax purposes is exempt from council tax if a resident is a dependent relative. A relative is regarded as dependent if they are aged 65 or over, if they have a severe mental impairment, or if they are substantially and permanently disabled. In addition, there are exemptions for dwellings occupied only by those under the age of 18 or only by students.

  EU Environment Council
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures were agreed at the Luxembourg European Environment Council meeting of 16 October; and what are the projected compliance costs to the United Kingdom. [17081]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 November 1997]: I informed the House of the outcome of the Environment Council in Luxembourg in October in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 19 November 1997, Official Report, column 199.

  One measure was agreed at the Environment Council in October: the proposal for a revised Drinking Water Directive. The current best estimate for the total capital or non-recurring costs of this for the UK is in the range £2,200 to £3,500 million at current prices with the majority of expenditure over 15 years from adoption of the Directive. This estimate was provided to the House in this Department's Compliance Cost Assessment under cover of Explanatory Memorandum 7208/95 in September 1996. The costs of measures will continue to be covered in the Department's explanatory memorandum to Parliament.

  Local Authority Elections
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to bring forward proposals for annual elections for local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [17592]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A wide ranging consultation exercise on the agenda for modernising local democracy will begin in the coming few weeks. This will include options for the introduction of annual elections. The consultation process will feed into a comprehensive White Paper on Local Government in the late Spring or early Summer 1998.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the proportion by region of local authority owned dwellings fitted with smoke alarms. [17616]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1996 the proportion of local authority homes in each region estimated to be fitted with smoke alarms was as follows:

  Region

  Percentage with smoke detectors 1996

  North-east

  55

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  54

  North-west

  69

  624

  Region

  Percentage with smoke detectors 1996

  East Midlands

  66

  West Midlands

  68

  South-west

  71

  Eastern

  56

  South-east

  80

  London

  41

  Merseyside

  55

  England

  66

  Local Authorities (Housing Strategy)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he plans to take to support local authorities wishing to convert derelict land, vacant offices and difficult-to-let shops, in town and city centre areas, into housing units. [17240]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are responsible for drawing up housing strategies that set out how they intend to meet local housing needs. In drawing up these strategies, they have to assess the need for additional housing as well as other housing needs. They then have to consider how to use the resources available to them, both financial and other, to meet those needs. It is for the local authority to decide the best way of using available resources to the benefit of their residents and tenants while achieving the best value for money.

  To assist local authorities meet housing needs we have recently made available additional resources through the Capital Receipts Initiative to assist with housing and housing related regeneration. Over £600 million will be available in England in 1998–99.

  More specifically, as far as local authority assets are concerned, in April this year the capital finance system was relaxed so that if an authority disposes of certain assets, more of the capital receipt can be recycled into regeneration schemes in deprived areas rather than being set aside for debt redemption. Assets covered by the concession are unoccupied council dwellings (except those sold under right-to-buy or large scale voluntary transfer), occupied industrial estates, docks and harbours, leisure facilities, shops and offices and land for development. Receipts from the sale of these assets can be applied to regeneration schemes in listed wards and wards adjacent to listed wards.

  In addition, planning policy guidance notes, both on housing (PPG3) and on town centres and retail developments (PPG6), advise local planning authorities, where appropriate, to reallocate land allocated for other uses to housing, and to encourage conversions of vacant offices and vacant accommodation over shops by taking a flexible approach to residential car parking and other standards.

  Local Authority Duties
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish his proposals to place on councils a new duty to
  625
  promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area; and what plans he has to consult on the scope of the duty. [18121]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will shortly be publishing a consultation paper on democracy and community leadership, which will include details of our proposals to place a duty on councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. It will be one of a series of consultation papers on local government matters including best value, the ethical framework and finance, that will feed into a comprehensive White Paper on local government next Spring. We will consult widely on our proposals, including with the Local Government Association, local authorities, business, the voluntary sector and other interested organisations.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards the granting of transatlantic fifth freedom rights from regional airports in cases where the granting of such rights would contribute materially to the development of other long-haul services from that airport. [17782]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department takes many factors into account in preparing its strategy for air services negotiations, including the granting of transatlantic fifth freedom rights from regional airports.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment was undertaken of the wider benefits to the economy of north-west England of increased flights between Manchester and Pakistan with onward connections to the USA in connection with the recent negotiations between his Department and representatives of the Government of Pakistan; what criteria and methodology were used in the assessment of regional benefits; and if he will publish the study. [17772]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The CAA carried out an economic analysis on behalf of the Department before the recent negotiations with Pakistan. It was made available to all members of the UK delegation before the talks, including representatives of Manchester Airport, and taken into account when Ministers agreed the strategy for the negotiations. It is not our policy to publish such analyses, given their bearing on the UK negotiating position in air services negotiations.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will carry out a comprehensive study of industrial and tourism development benefits to regional economies of improved access to global air services. [17783]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government welcomes increased international services to regional airports. As the economic impact of a new air service is dependent on the characteristics of an individual route the Department considers it a more effective use of resources to ask the CAA to carry out a specific economic analysis before air services negotiations with bilateral partners.

  Air Services (Malaysia)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his officials plan to meet representatives of the Malaysian government to discuss the project of commencing air services between Manchester and Kuala Lumpur before the 1998 Commonwealth Games. [17784]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My officials have no current plans to meet representatives of the Malaysian government for discussions on air services.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the incidence of fly tipping since the introduction of the landfill levy. [18096]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 198.

  Lewes-Uckfield Railway Line
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his assessment of the viability of the financial case and of the arguments advanced in the Mott Macdonald Report on the possible reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. [17780]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that the financial case will be presented to the Franchising Director very shortly and it will be for him to consider using his Criteria for the Appraisal of Support for Passenger Rail Services, a copy of which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport placed in the Library on 6 November.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the results of his consultations on the extension of Part M of the building regulations; and if he will make a statement. [18120]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I expect to announce my conclusions on Part M next month.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the use of economic instruments to improve water quality; and if he will make a statement. [18473]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear on World Environment Day our determination to find the best way to address environmental concerns and to make polluters pay for necessary remedial action. Regulation has achieved a good deal but it may not represent the most cost-effective means by which environmental objectives can be achieved, nor does it always make polluters pay for the cost of their activities.

  We want to find a mix of instruments that will be environmentally effective and economically efficient. Many of these will be regulatory in nature. Others may

  627
  be voluntary. But we believe that economic instruments have a role to play in improving the environment. So, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget, we are actively considering their role as part of our environmental policy and as a contribution to reform of the tax system.

  Today, we are setting out ideas for the use of such instruments to protect and enhance the quality of our rivers and other waters. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the library. This is an important initiative. Water is of enormous environmental and economic importance and water pollution causes great concern to the public. We look forward to a period of active debate on these issues.

  Drink Drive Casualties
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what new measures he proposes to introduce to achieve further reductions in drink drive casualties. [18517]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government will be publishing a consultation paper in the New Year setting out a range of proposals for discussion, including the reduction of the legal blood alcohol limit and measures to deal with serious or persistent drink drive offenders.

SCOTLAND

  Official Hospitality
  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 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. [15246]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Expenditure on official hospitality by The Scottish Office and its departmental agencies is shown in the table.

  Year

  The Scottish Office£

  Scottish Office agencies£

  1980–81

  18,427

  not applicable

  1987–88

  41,983

  not applicable

  1990–91

  65,123

  nil

  1991–92

  83,836

  5,700

  1992–93

  1125,118

  4,979

  1993–94

  76,088

  24,145

  1994–95

  79,510

  28,603

  1995–96

  282,978

  27,635

  1996–97

  86,167

  20,200

  1997–98 (May to September)

  19,774

  12,046

  1 This figure includes expenditure on hospitality during the EC Council Meeting in Edinburgh in December 1992.

  2 In addition, in 1995–96 The Scottish Office spent £34,680 on hospitality as part of the Government's contribution to the VE Day and VJ Day commemorations.

  Information on hospitality spending by non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he intends to put in place to increase the level of pre-school provision once the pre-school education voucher scheme is withdrawn in June 1998. [18474]

  Mr. Wilson
  We believe that every child should have the chance of good pre-school education. That means a major expansion of services. We have pledged, first, to make a good-quality, part-time education place available, without charge, to every child in the pre-school year; and we aim to achieve this by the winter of next year. After that, and as new resources are found, we will set staged targets for three-year-olds. This is an ambitious and exciting programme.

  For too long in some areas, pre-school education was neglected and ignored. Then it was subjected to the experiment of vouchers. Pre-school education needs a fresh start. It needs clear national priorities and targets, a fair and stable funding system, strong support for quality, and a framework for consultation and planning that will strengthen co-operation amongst providers.

  I am delighted today to announce the launching of a major consultation paper, Education in Early Childhood: The Pre-school Years. Through this paper, I am initiating a national debate about the future of pre-school education in Scotland. The paper sets out our policy priorities; it discusses how services should be planned and funded, how providers, parents and others can work together in mutually rewarding ways, and how high standards of service can be assured. It also asks questions about the educational needs of three-year-olds and the kind of provision that parents want for them; and how best we should plan to offer learning to these very young children. The consultation paper also lays the foundations for more integrated early years services linking education to daycare and other services for children.

  Football
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is putting in place in respect of Scottish police liaison with(a) FIFA, (b) the French authorities and (c) the French police over the World Cup; and if he will make a statement. [17849]

  Mr. McLeish
  The police in Scotland are represented on the World Cup Co-ordinating Group, set up by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to co-ordinate arrangements at UK level. In addition, a committee consisting of officials from The Scottish Office, senior police officers and representatives from the Scottish Football Association has been established to draw up a strategy for the safety and security of Scottish fans travelling to France. The committee will liaise with the French authorities after the draw on 4 December when venues for matches will be known. The Scottish Football Association will then deal directly with FIFA. The police plan to contact their counterparts in France where the Scotland team will play to exchange intelligence and invite representatives to attend matches in Scotland to gain first-hand experience of Scottish supporters who have a world wide reputation for good behaviour.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances local authorities, in assessing ability to pay for domiciliary services which do not include personal care,(a) should discount attendance allowance benefit and (b) have discretion to exclude from consideration attendance allowance benefit. [17917]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Local authorities in Scotland have similar powers to charge for domiciliary services to those which apply in England. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Health on 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 63.

  Dounreay Nuclear Plant
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action will be taken to prevent further contamination of land and sea adjacent to the Dounreay nuclear plant. [14302]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Contamination in and around the Dounreay site is an historic legacy and one that the UKAEA is urgently addressing, subject to strict independent regulation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. Government continues to monitor the situation closely.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC officers have been seconded to other jurisdictions inside and outside the United kingdom over the past year; and how many officers of other jurisdictions have been seconded to the RUC over the same period. [13073]

  Date

  CB1

  CB2

  CB33

  Total

  Percentage CB1

  Percentage CB2

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage female

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  1 September 1995

  7,536

  672

  256

  8,464

  89.04

  7.94

  7,589

  875

  8,464

  10.3

  2 September 1996

  7,447

  677

  260

  8,384

  88.82

  8.07

  7,494

  890

  8,384

  10.6

  1 September 1997

  7,522

  701

  273

  8,496

  88.54

  8.25

  7,576

  920

  8,496

  10.8

  Full-time reserve

  1 September 1995

  2,780

  199

  166

  3,145

  88.39

  6.33

  2,994

  151

  3,145

  4.8

  2 September 1996

  2,653

  196

  162

  3,011

  88.11

  6.51

  2,859

  152

  3,011

  5.0

  1 September 1997

  2,567

  200

  156

  2,923

  87.82

  6.84

  2,706

  217

  2,923

  7.4

  Part-time reserve

  1 September 1995

  1,447

  77

  21

  1,545

  93.66

  4.98

  1,009

  536

  1,545

  34.7

  2 September 1996

  1,411

  79

  21

  1,511

  93.38

  5.23

  972

  539

  1,511

  35.7

  1 September 1997

  1,297

  68

  17

  1,382

  93.85

  4.92

  899

  483

  1,382

  34.9

  630
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: During the past year seven RUC officers have been seconded to other jurisdictions and one officer is presently seconded to the Royal Ulster Constabulary from a GB force.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the principal functions of E4A squads, special support units, headquarters, mobile support units and special military intelligence units within the RUC; the annual cost of each; the numbers of officers and administrative staff employed; and the composition of each based on gender and religious/community origin. [13075]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: The information sought is confidential to the Chief Constable.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the terms of reference of the joint RUC and Police Authority for Northern Ireland working group to address the under-representation of women, Catholics and minorities within the RUC; and when it is expected to report. [13069]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: The terms of reference of the joint Royal Ulster Constabulary, Police Authority for Northern Ireland and Civilian Working Group are:
  to review the representation of Catholics, women and ethnic minorities within the RUC;
  to assess the reasons for any under-representation and to make recommendations how suitable applicants from all communities can be encouraged to apply;
  to examine selection procedures and satisfy the group that they assure equality of opportunity.

  The group is expected to report to the Chief Constable in early 1998.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the staffing levels of the RUC in September(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997 (1) in total and (2) broken down (i) into numbers and percentages of full-time, reserve full-time and part-time staff (ii) by gender and (iii) by perceived religious/community origin. [13071]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: The information sought is set out below:
  631

  Date

  CB1

  CB2

  CB33

  Total

  Percentage CB1

  Percentage CB2

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage female

  Combined

  1 September 1995

  11,763

  948

  443

  13,154

  89.43

  7.21

  11,592

  1,562

  13,154

  11.9

  2 September 1996

  11,511

  952

  443

  12,906

  89.19

  7.38

  11,325

  1,581

  12,906

  12.3

  1 September 1997

  11,386

  969

  446

  12,801

  88.95

  7.57

  11,181

  1,620

  12,801

  12.7

  1 Perceived to be from the Protestant community.

  2 Perceived to be from the Catholic community.

  3 Other.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the rules relating to the display by a uniformed RUC officer of clear personal identification. [15898]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: RUC instructions require that Sergeants and Constables display numerals on the epaulettes of all outer garments. All other officers are required to display their badge of rank.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what her policy is on the RUC indicating adherence to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the 8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in September 1990; [15903]

  (2) what her policy is on the RUC indicating adherence to the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990; [15904]

  (3) what her policy is on the RUC indicating adherence to the United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions recommended by the Economic and Social Council Resolution of 24 May 1989; [15905]

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  Year

  CB11

  CB22

  CB33

  Total

  Percentage CB1

  Percentage CB2

  Percentage CB3

  1993

  518

  86

  129

  733

  70.67

  11.73

  17.60

  Acceptances

  58

  3

  4

  65

  89.23

  4.62

  6.15

  CompA 1994

  2,836

  442

  339

  3,617

  78.41

  12.22

  9.37

  Acceptances

  62

  9

  5

  76

  81.58

  11.84

  6.58

  CompB 1994

  1,704

  512

  165

  2,381

  71.57

  21.50

  6.93

  Acceptances

  86

  17

  8

  111

  77.48

  15.32

  7.21

  CompC 1995

  1,448

  467

  143

  2,058

  70.36

  22.69

  6.95

  Acceptances

  98

  20

  9

  127

  77.17

  15.75

  7.09

  CompD 1995

  1,774

  438

  188

  2,400

  73.92

  18.25

  7.83

  Acceptances

  128

  28

  14

  170

  75.29

  16.47

  8.24

  CompE 1996

  1,573

  367

  155

  2,095

  75.08

  17.52

  7.40

  Acceptances

  67

  9

  6

  82

  81.71

  10.98

  7.32

  CompF 1996

  2,058

  403

  268

  2,729

  75.41

  14.77

  9.82

  Acceptances

  126

  12

  5

  143

  88.11

  8.39

  3.50

  CompG 1997

  2,166

  412

  212

  2,790

  77.63

  14.77

  7.60

  Acceptances

  Not yet processed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CompF 1996 is still subject to withdrawals by applicants.

  1 Perceived to be from the Protestant community.

  2 Perceived to be from the Roman Catholic community.

  3 Other.

  632
  (4) what her policy is on the RUC indicating adherence to the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by the General Assembly Resolution of 9 December 1988; [15906]

  (5) what her policy is on the RUC indicating adherence to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, approved by the Economic and Social Council of 13 May 1977. [15907]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: The instruments to which my hon. Friend refers, which are not legally binding as their wording shows, are recommendatory in nature. None carries a requirement or mechanism for indications of adherence. However, the importance of the recommended standards has been acknowledged by the United Kingdom's support for their adoption.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for employment in the RUC were made in each year since 1993; from which community they came; and how many from each community were recruited. [15897]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: The number of applications for membership of the RUC for each year since 1993 is shown in the following tables together with the community background of the applicants and the numbers accepted from each community.
  633

  Full-time reserve

  Year

  CB11

  CB22

  CB33

  Total

  Percentage CB1

  Percentage CB2

  Percentage CB3

  1993

  1,039

  111

  124

  1,274

  81.55

  8.71

  9.73

  Acceptances

  95

  8

  11

  114

  83.33

  7.02

  9.65

  1994

  No vacancies advised for FTR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CompB 1995

  1,042

  282

  130

  1,454

  71.66

  19.39

  8.94

  Acceptances

  19

  4

  3

  26

  73.08

  15.38

  11.54

  CompC 1996

  1,075

  255

  101

  1,431

  75.12

  17.82

  7.06

  Acceptances

  129

  24

  8

  161

  80.12

  14.91

  4.97

  CompD 1997

  1,154

  184

  135

  1,473

  78.34

  12.49

  9.16

  Acceptances

  51

  7

  2

  60

  85.00

  11.67

  3.33

  CompE 1997

  613

  105

  55

  773

  79.30

  13.58

  7.12

  Acceptances

  Not yet processed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CompD 1997 not yet fully processed.

  1 Perceived to be from the Protestant community.

  2 Perceived to be from the Roman Catholic community.

  3 Other.

  Part-time reserve

  Year

  CB11

  CB22

  CB33

  Total

  Percentage CB1

  Percentage CB2

  Percentage CB3

  1993

  830

  90

  38

  958

  86.64

  9.39

  3.97

  Acceptances

  123

  13

  2

  138

  89.13

  9.42

  1.45

  CompA 1994

  451

  45

  15

  511

  88.26

  8.81

  2.94

  Acceptances

  59

  6

  3

  68

  86.76

  8.82

  4.41

  CompB 1994

  1,416

  236

  102

  1,754

  80.73

  13.45

  5.82

  Acceptances

  128

  19

  5

  152

  84.21

  12.50

  3.29

  1 Perceived to be from the Protestant community.

  2 Perceived to be from the Roman Catholic community.

  3 Other.

  Police Authority
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total work force of the Police Authority, including staff seconded from the Civil Service; and what is their gender and perceived religious/community origin. [13074]

  Mr. Ingrain
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: The Police Authority for Northern Ireland provides an annual monitoring return to the Fair Employment Commission in respect of the gender and perceived religious affiliation of its work force.

  The review includes employees directly recruited by PANI and those staff on secondment from the NICS, Department of Finance and Personnel. The last review was completed on 1 Janaury 1997, when the breakdown was as follows:

  Number

  Total number of employees

  3,489

  (a) Gender

  Male

  1,242

  Female

  2,247

  (b) Perceived religious affiliation

  Protestant

  2,885

  Roman Catholic

  414

  Not determined

  190

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inquiries are presently under way into the circumstances of the death of Robert Hamill in 634
  Portadown town centre on 27 April; and what assurances she has given the nationalist community that the RUC will protect the right to life of all citizens without prejudice. [13064]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: Inquiries into the death of Robert Hamill are on-going and papers have been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has given and will continue to give all the citizens the full protection of the law without prejudice.

  Hoax Bomb Alert, Markethill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the result of the police investigation into the hoax bomb alert in Markethill on 27 September; and what action the Director of Public Prosecutions intends to take. [15900]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: The Police have conducted a thorough enquiry into the events in Markethill on 27 September 1997.

  The file is now with the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.

  Southern Area Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the names of the members of the Southern Area Health and Social Services Board. [17022]
  635
  Mr. Worthington
  The membership of the Southern Health and Social Services Board is:

  Mr. W. F. Gillespie—Chairman

  Non-Executive members Mr. J. Brown

  Mrs. M. K. P. Hagan

  Mr. S. T. Hogan

  Mrs. S. G. Ingram

  Mrs. J. Power

  Mr. D. J. Ryan

  Executive members

  Mr. B. Cunningham—Chief Executive

  Dr. A. Telford—Director of Public Health

  Mrs. S. Reid—Director of Commissioning and Planning

  Mr. S. McKeever—Director of Finance

  Mr. R. Blair—Director of Social Services

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the proposed Orange telephone mast at Portavogie has received planning permission; if the Ards Borough Council was consulted; what representations she received in connection with this mast; and if she will make a statement. [17433]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 26 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the proposed Orange telephone mast at Portavogie.
  The mast in question has planning permission as it is permitted development by virtue of Article 3 and Part 17 of Schedule 1 to the Planning (General Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 1993. Ards Borough Council was not consulted on the proposal, and no written representations have been received by Planning Service in connection with this mast.
  I do hope this clarifies the position.

  Royal Victoria and City Hospital
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will refer the rationalisation of the Royal Victoria and City Hospital to the National Audit Office to examine the reasons for proposed capital expenditure at a time when beds are vacant. [17768]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: No. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board with the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust and the Belfast City Hospital Health and Social Services Trust, as part of the on-going process of rationalisation, are currently considering a range of options for the utilisation of capacity being freed up at Belfast City Hospital.

  Ambulances
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what (i) age and, (ii) mileage an ambulance is expected to have reached the end of its normal working life; how many and what percentage of 636
  ambulances are beyond that normal span (a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in each health and social services board area. [17357]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: DHSS Guidelines for the replacement of accident and emergency ambulances stipulate that those vehicles should be replaced after they have reached seven years of age or whenever they have covered 140,000 miles, whichever is the sooner. For non-emergency ambulances this is five years or 70,000 miles.

  In Northern Ireland, 22 representing 17 per cent. of Accident and Emergency Ambulances are beyond the normal span of age and mileage. Seventy-four non-emergency ambulances representing 88 per cent. are beyond the normal span of age and mileage.

  The position in each Board area is given in the following table.

  Accident and Emergency Ambulances

  Number in Board area

  North

  South

  East

  West

  Total

  Number in board area

  37

  30

  39

  27

  133

  Exceed on both

  14

  1

  3

  4

  22

  Age and mileage (per cent.)

  38

  3

  8

  15

  17

  Non-emergency Ambulances

  North

  South

  East

  West

  Total

  Number in board area

  16

  14

  38

  16

  84

  Exceed on both

  16

  13

  30

  15

  74

  Age and mileage (per cent.)

  100

  92

  79

  93

  88

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the total real level of her Department's planned expenditure on health in 1995–96 prices in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–9; and what such figures were for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99, following the November 1996 budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget. [17566]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: The figures requested are as follows: (a) £1,565 million, (b) £1,544 million, (i) £1,576 million and (ii) £1,570 million. The figure for (b) reflects the spending plans of the previous Government as 1998–99 public expenditure reallocations for the individual Northern Ireland programmes will not be announced until early December.

  >Jubilee Maternity Hospital
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many job losses the proposed transfer of the Jubilee Maternity Hospital will entail. [17767]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: I have asked the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospitals HSS Trust and the Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust to work closely together to take forward the arrangements for the transfer of services from the Jubilee. There are no indications of job losses at this early stage of the process.

  Regional Cancer Centres
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the proposed cancer centre at the Belfast City Hospital will be operational. [17764]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: The time scale for the establishment of a regional cancer centre will be considered when consultation on the future location of radiotherapy services has been completed and a detailed business case agreed for the capital investment required.

  Belvoir Park Hospital
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the funding provided for updating Belvoir Park Hospital will result in increased funds for treatment of cancer patients. [17766]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: No specific funding has been identified for updating Belvoir Park Hospital. Bids essential for the maintenance of a quality service at Belvoir will, however, be considered sympathetically.

  Judicial Procedures
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 174, if she will list the colleagues and those with responsibility for judicial matters whom she consulted on certifying procedures, indicating the positions they held; and which other bodies she consulted on this matter. [17572]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted with the Attorney-General, the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland and the Lord Chancellor on the matter of certifying procedures; these consultations were confidential. Before making final decisions on the matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State charged officials to confer with the Chief Constable's office and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland); she then advised the Attorney-General, the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland and the Lord Chancellor of her decision.

WALES

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many four year olds were receiving 50 per cent. nursery education in May (i) 1997 and (ii) 1996 in(a) the public and (b) the private sector; [17304]

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of four year olds who will be receiving 50 per cent. nursery education in 2000 in (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector. [17305]

  Mr. Hain
  The information is not available in the form requested. The January 1997 Schools census showed 35,313 pupils aged four were receiving at least half-time education in maintained nursery, primary and special schools, compared with 35,251 at January 1996. Nursery Voucher redemption statistics indicate that 2,407 four 638
  year olds were receiving at least half-time nursery education in private and voluntary sectors in the Summer term 1997.

  The intention is that from September 1998 local authorities should fund at least half-time education places for all four year olds whose parents want them, either in maintained schools or through partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors. The number of 4 year olds who will receive nursery education in each sector in 2000 will depend on arrangements adopted in each local authority area.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on assistance for the coal industry in Wales. [17638]

  Mr. Hain
  I am holding a workshop with a wide range of organisations on 5 December to discuss development opportunities for the Welsh coal industry to which I attach great importance. The outcome of this will be carefully considered.

  Anti-social Neighbours
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of complaints involving anti-social neighbours in each of the last two years; and what advice and assistance his Department gives to social housing landlords. [17640]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  In 1996, 46 written complaints were received by the Welsh Office about anti- social behaviour by neighbours. To date, in 1997, 50 have been received. We have no information on the number of complaints received by social landlords.

  We are determined to take and support measures which protect the majority of citizens who respect the law and the rights of others. The proposed Crime and Disorder Bill will contain a number of measures to reduce petty crime and neighbourhood disorder. These include such measures as community safety orders to restrain the behaviour of individuals; and a new responsibility on local authorities to develop statutory partnerships to help prevent crime and enhance community safety.

  There are a number of legal measures, including eviction, which landlords can use against tenants guilty of anti-social behaviour. The Welsh Office has issued good practice guidance (entitled 'Getting the Best Out of the Court System in Possession Cases') to all local authorities in Wales to help them make more effective and speedier use of these measures. In addition, the Housing Act 1996 contains provisions to improve the legal processes and strengthen the powers available to landlords to deal with anti-social behaviour by tenants and their visitors.

  Guidance on these provisions was issued to local authorities earlier this year in Welsh Office circulars 2/97 'Conduct of Tenants—Introductory Tenancies and Repossession for Secure Tenancies' and 38/97 'Conduct of Tenants—Injunctions Against Anti-Social Behaviour'. Guidance on anti-social behaviour for housing association landlords is contained in paragraph 8.4 of 'The Regulatory Requirements' issued by Tai Cymru.
  639
  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 and the Noise Act 1996, local authorities have responsibility for investigating incidents of noise nuisance in their area. Should a statutory nuisance be detected, local authorities have wide-ranging powers to prevent or abate noise from premises (including land) and vehicles. Guidance on the duties and powers of local authorities in implementing the Noise Act 1996 and the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 is provided in Welsh Office Circulars 41/97 and 42/97.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on prospects for the beef industry in Wales. [17636]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The government has continued to support various initiatives to help restore and improve consumer confidence in beef. As a result we have seen significant increases in the level of beef consumption. Every effort is being made to have the export ban lifted and that should see a further improvement in prospects for the industry. Nevertheless, the beef sector remains in long term structural surplus and reform of the CAP beef regime is essential.

  CELTEC
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's inquiring into CELTEC and its associated holding companies. [17929]

  Mr. Hain
  Copies of the letter which I sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) on 29 October pursuant to her question of 11 July,Official Report column 629, have been placed in the Library of the House. The letter encloses a note by my officials on the investigations made into the various allegations received. Subject to checking of the final accounts of Hightown Holdings and its subsidiary companies for the financial year 1996–97, these investigations have found no evidence of loss or impropriety in the handling of public funds.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what safeguards he has put in place to ensure the debts of CELTEC's associated companies do not become a charge upon public funds. [17930]

  Mr. Hain
  CELTEC has associated undertakings with "The Careers Company" and "Careers Plus", the Careers Service Companies for North West Wales and North East Wales respectively. CELTEC's liability is limited to £ 1 in each case.

  CELTEC also has a trading relationship with the subsidiary companies of the Hightown Holdings Group— Alkemy and Business Advance. CELTEC is currently negotiating the integration of Alkemy and Business Advance Functions into the TEC by means of a Business Transfer Agreement. This will involve the acquisition by CELTEC of defined assets and liabilities of both companies. Welsh Office officials will not approve the transfer unless CELTEC acquires sufficient assets from those companies to cover any liabilities transferred. This should ensure that any liabilities do not become a charge upon public funds.
  640
  It is also intended that, following the planned transfer, the Hightown Holdings Group will then be wound up with any residual assets, after all liabilities have been met, being transferred to the TEC.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each regional selective assistance offer made to former privatised utility companies in Wales. [17955]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There have been none.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the urban development grants made by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation since its inception by(a) year agreed and (b) amount agreed. [17956]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  This is an operational matter for the Corporation and I have asked the Chief Executive to provide the information my hon. Friend has requested; a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Safety
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) research and (b) opinion surveys his Ministry has conducted to determine the current level of public confidence in safety of (i) British, (ii) European, (iii) non-European produced food and procedures for dealing with food safety issues. [17533]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  My department has a research programme into the management of risk which has examined public perceptions of food safety risk. We also take note of other relevant opinion surveys.

  Safe Food
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Ministry's definition of safe food. [17532]

  Mr. John Cunningham
  The Food Safety Act 1990 makes it an offence to sell food which is injurious to health; unfit for human consumption; or so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption.

  Milk Development Council
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the impact of proposed tax changes for non-profit making research organisations on the Milk Development Council. [18066]
  641
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has drawn to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade our assessment of the potential impact on the Milk Development Council of the proposed changes to the guidelines on granting exemption from corporation tax to scientific research association.

  Aeron Valley Creameries
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on Milk Marque's acquisition of Aeron Valley Creameries; and if he will make a statement. [18065]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has received representations from the Dairy Industry Federation and from a major UK dairy company.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the consideration of dietary supplements by(a) the Codex Alimentarius Committee, (b) the European Commission, and (c) the Committee on Toxicity, indicating his Department's policy in respect of each body. [18124]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses is in the process of drawing up guidelines on supplements containing vitamins and minerals. The current draft, which addresses a number of issues, including the setting of maximum vitamin and mineral content of supplements, is due to be discussed again in September 1998. Codex standards and guidelines are advisory and it is for individual Governments to decide what use, if any, they wish to make of them.

  In June of this year, the EU Commission issued a discussion document on the possible harmonisation of national controls on vitamin and mineral supplements and foods with added vitamins and minerals. This reviewed the current situation and presented for consideration various issues relating to the control of these products, including the question of the need for establishing maximum limits on their vitamin and mineral content. It made no proposals for action on this or on any of the other issues covered. Nor did it commit the Commission to bringing forward proposals for legislation. A copy of the UK's response has been deposited in the Library.

  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemical in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) have not considered dietary supplements as a class of products but have provided advice on the safety of supplements containing vitamin B6. After reviewing the data from scientific literature, the COT advised that the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law should be limited to a maximum of 10 mg per daily dose. The Government has accepted this recommendation. A copy of the statement issued by the COT is already available in the Library.

  In each case, the products being considered are those sold as foods: products classified as medicines are not affected.
  642
  The Government's main concern is to ensure the safety of dietary supplements sold under food law. In the case of the Codex guidelines and the EU discussion document, we have argued that any controls should be based on safety considerations. The proposed controls on supplements containing vitamin B6 are wholly consistent with this policy.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to introduce a ban on the sale of unpasteurised milk; and if he will make a statement. [18039]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have initiated public consultations on a proposal to ban sales of raw cows' milk for drinking in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Such milk is already banned in Scotland. These consultations have no effect on sales of unpasteurised cows' milk for further processing.

  I cannot predict the outcome of public consultation. We shall take careful stock of the responses before proposing how we wish to proceed.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures exist for the monitoring of unpasteurised milk. [18040]

  Mr. Rooker
  All production holdings and processing establishments are inspected regularly to check milk is produced hygienically and to monitor compliance with the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995, as amended.

  Enforcement authorities monitor the microbiological status of unpasteurised milk at all stages of distribution and check the conditions under which the milk is handled and packaged. Samples of milk from all registered sellers of unpasteurised cows' milk are officially tested on average on two occasions each year.

  Processors themselves are required to monitor and control critical points in the production and packaging of unpasteurised milk.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms are currently selling unpasteurised milk; and what is the volume sold each day. [18041]

  Mr. Rooker
  The majority of milk producers sell unpasteurised milk for further processing. Statistics are not collected and so the exact number of these is not known.

  Production statistics for raw cows' drinking milk are not collected.

  There are currently 578 registered producers of raw cows' drinking milk in England and Wales. Production, in some cases, is known to be linked to seasonal demand.

  Production of raw cows' drinking milk is thought to be in the region of 1,000 litres per day.

  Israeli Goods
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions he has had with food retailers marketing goods labelled "Made in Israel" on measures to verify their attribution; [17543]

  (2) what response he has made to the representations from the government of Israel on alleged abuses of the preferential rate applied to fruit juice imports; [17544]

  (3) what plans he has to stop abuses of the preferential rate applying to fruit juice imports from Israel. [17541]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to her on 26 November 1997, Official Report, column 544.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance will be given to students beginning courses in 1998 lasting longer than three years towards the cost of their tuition fees for the additional years. [17866]

  Dr. Howells
  Under our plans, students from lower-income families resident in England will have the whole of their tuition fees paid for them in the fourth as in the previous three years, whilst others from middle-income families will have part of their fees paid, depending on an assessment of their parents' spouses' or own income. Medical and dental students in their fifth and subsequent years will have their fees paid.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what(a) net and (b) gross parental or household income level English students will be required to pay full university tuition fees. [17862]

  Dr. Howells
  The rates for student awards and loans, and the associated contribution scales, for academic year 1998–99 have not yet been determined.

  It is therefore not possible at this stage to give precise figures about contributions to tuition fees in the 1998–99 academic year. However, had tuition fee contributions been in effect in academic year 1997–98, English students with a residual (ie net) parental income after allowable deductions of about £26,500 would have been assessed as due to pay the full £1,000.

  It is not practicable to give precise individual figures for the equivalent gross income at which the full £1,000 fee will become payable in 1998–99, as this will depend on the circumstances of the family concerned. However, because it may not be immediately clear to prospective students and their parents what is meant by "residual income," we have illustrated the sort of gross family income above which the full £1,000 will be payable. In 1998–99 it will be about £35,000 a year.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of financing tuition fees for the fourth year of study for English domiciled students studying at Scottish universities. [17861]
  644
  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 162.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 362, if he will list the certificate, diploma or other academic awards comparable to a first degree which will be subject to the new arrangements for student support in autumn 1998. [17953]

  Dr. Howells
  A list of these courses is not maintained centrally.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Transnational Corporations (Code of Conduct)
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress her Department has made in establishing an international code of conduct for transnational corporations in developing countries. [17753]

  Clare Short
  We are working with the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments on initiatives aimed to introduce codes of conduct for transnational corporations. We are considering whether the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, at present covering operations in OECD member countries only, should extend world wide when they are revised next year.

  I have recently approved a grant for the Ethical Trading Initiative which will bring together a group of development NGOs, major private sector interests and non-profit organisations in the UK in a joint effort to produce a set of ethical guidelines for businesses.

  Aid Programmes (Audit)
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes she proposes to make in the methods used to audit aid programmes. [17746]

  Clare Short
  Our audit of our aid delivery systems is continually under review but there are no current proposals for improving the methods used by my Department to audit aid programmes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Laser Pens
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to ban or impose restrictions on the sale and use of laser pens. [13353]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: I met Trading Standards Officers on 23 October to discuss the safety of laser pens. Heriot-Watt University was asked to test these products. The results were available to me on 28 October. I immediately issued a press notice urging Trading Standards Officers to remove all dangerous laser pens from sale.
  645
  Laser pens in classes 3a, and 3b and 4 as classified in BS EN60825, part 1, 1994 would present an unacceptable risk when used by the general public and are unsafe under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994. Those supplying them to the general public could be prosecuted.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount of money underwritten by the ECGD for defence equipment has been claimed by manufacturers, but not recovered from the Governments of(a) Venezuela, (b) Jordan, (c) Kenya, (d) Egypt and (e) Algeria. [15981]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 November 1997]: The amounts of money paid in claims but not yet recovered for guarantees to defence ministries are as follows:

  £ million

  Venezuela

  Fully Recovered

  Jordon

  214.4

  Kenya

  27.3

  Egypt

  52.5

  Algeria

  97.8

  Export Licences
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications are outstanding; and how many have been outstanding for more than(a) one month, (b) three months and (c) more than three months. [16320]

  Mrs. Roche
  At 18 November, a decision had not yet been taken on 2,306 applications for new individual export licences received since 2 May 1997. These are broken down as follows:

  Applications received between 2 May 1997 and 17 August 1997

  Applications received between 18 August 1997and 17 October 1997

  Applications received between 18 October 1997and 18 November 1997

  Standard individual export licences

  447

  835

  869

  Open individual export licences

  75

  54

  26

  However, this information should be considered in the light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 256–58.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on ministerial responsibilities in her Department. [16355]
  646
  Mrs. Beckett
  Ministerial responsibilities in my Department are as follows:

  MINISTER FOR TRADE AND COMPETITIVENESS IN EUROPE

  Lord Simon of Highbury

  Lord Simon is a Minister of State in both Treasury and the DTI.

  Responsible for internal EU issues including business preparations for EMU the European single market, enlargement and plans for the UK Presidency of the EU; for the co-ordination of EU issues generally within the DTI; and for insurance.
  Chairman of the inter-departmental taskforce on competitiveness in Europe. Attends the Internal Market Council. Responsible with Lord Clinton-Davis for DTI issues in the Lords.
  Responsible jointly with Ian McCartney for corporate governance, corporate affairs and relations with the City of London. Lord Simon has specific responsibility for corporate governance.

  MINISTER FOR COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

  Nigel Griffiths MP

  Responsible for competition and consumer affairs and investigations. Supports John Battle on environment issues. Responsible with Mr. Battle for the Competition Bill.

  Responsible for the Insolvency Service.

  MINISTER FOR SMALL FIRMS, TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Barbara Roche MP

  Responsible for small firms; Business Links; regional policy; Regional Selective Assistance; Structural Funds; communications and information industries and deregulation within the DTI. Attends the Industry and Telecommunications Council. Supports Ian McCartney on inward investment, and Lord Clinton-Davis on trade and export matters in the Commons.

  Responsible for the Radiocommunications Agency.

  PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY.

  The right hon. Margaret Beckett MP

  Overall responsibility for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Special responsibility for competitiveness and science and technology.

  MINISTER FOR TRADE

  Lord Clinton-Davis

  Responsible for the export promotion of goods and services, including oil and gas projects, and for overseas investment and international trade policy; Projects Export Promotion; export control and non-proliferation issues; and the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Attends the GAC on trade policy matter.

  Responsible jointly for DTI business in the Lords.

  MINISTER FOR SCIENCE, ENERGY AND INDUSTRY

  John Battle MP

  Responsible for the Office of Science and Technology; the British National Space Centre; technology and standards; design and innovation. Attends the Research Council.
  Responsible for the Competition Bill (with Mr. Griffiths); manufacturing and services, including engineering, automotive and metals, consumer goods and services, chemicals and biotechnology, and aerospace. Takes an over-arching view of Information Society issues. Also responsible for energy and energy policy including electricity, nuclear fuels, oil and gas, energy technology, renewables and industry sponsorship aspects of the Oil, Gas and Petrochemicals Supplies Office; and for environment issues. Attends the Energy Council.

  647

  MINISTER OF STATE

  Ian McCartney MP

  Responsible for the labour market; inward investment; and the Post Office. Attends the Social Affairs Council.

  Responsible jointly with Lord Simon for corporate governance, corporate affairs and relations with the City of London. Mr. McCartney has specific responsibility for corporate affairs.

  Responsible for the Employment Tribunals Service, Patent Office and Companies House.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the responsibilities of(a) the Minister for Trade and (b) the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry. [16525]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Minister for Trade's responsibilities are for the export promotion of goods and services, including oil and gas projects, and for overseas investment and international trade policy; Projects Export Promotion; export control and non-proliferation issues; and the Export Credits Guarantee Department. He attends the GAC on trade policy matter.

  He is responsible jointly for DTI business in the Lords.

  The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry's responsibilities are for small firms; Business Links; regional policy; Regional Selective Assistance; Structural Funds; communications and information industries and deregulation within the DTI. She attends the Industry and Telecommunications Council. She supports the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), on inward investment, and Lord Clinton-Davis on trade and export matters in the Commons.

  She is responsible for the Radiocommunications Agency.

  Formula One Racing
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the number of job losses which would result from the withdrawal of Formula One racing in the United Kingdom; and if she will provide a breakdown of her estimate. [16939]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: There are no official figures for employment in the motor sport industry. However, about 8,000 jobs are believed to depend on the supply of equipment and services related to Formula One. Many of these jobs would be at risk if Formula One were to withdraw from the United Kingdom. There would also be an unquantifiable adverse effect on the whole motor sport industry, which is estimated to provide around 50,000 full-time jobs.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in respect of which sections of the Treaty of Amsterdam his Department contributed to the drafting. [17009]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: The United Kingdom position on the draft Treaty of Amsterdam was reached after consultation between relevant Departments.

  Late Payments Green Paper
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will place in the Library a copy of all responses to her Green Paper on Statutory Interest on Late Payment Debts. [17441]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 24 November 1997]: In line with recent guidance from the Library of the House, we will place in the Library a schedule of all responses received except where the author has specifically requested that we do not publish their response.

HEALTH

  Dental Amalgam
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has conducted into the toxic effect of mercury in dental amalgam. [16859]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department is advised by an independent Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). In 1986 the COT conducted a review and concluded that the use of dental amalgam is free from the risk of systemic toxicity and only a few cases of hypersensitivity occur. Similar reviews by national and international expert bodies have reached the same conclusions. COT is currently preparing an updated opinion.

  Sussex Ambulance Service
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the funding procedures for the pension scheme of the Sussex Ambulance Service; what contributions are provided by the(a) employees and (b) employers; what is the median age of retirement for ambulance men; and what assessment he has made of the structure of the fund relative to the retirement profile of the service. [17213]

  Mr. Milburn
  In common with all other National Health Service employees the Sussex Ambulance Service personnel are eligible to join the NHS Pension Scheme. The scheme is based on a notional fund assumed to be invested entirely in gilts.

  The Government Actuary reviews the fund at quinquennial intervals. Factors such as the scheme's retirement profile form part of his valuation reports in which he recommends an appropriate rate of employer contribution. Currently this is 4 per cent. of pensionable earnings.

  Employee contributions are levied at the rate of 5 per cent. for manual employees and 6 per cent. for non-manuals.

  The median retirement age for ambulance men is not known because within the valuation data they are included with other employment groups. The scheme's normal retirement age is 60.

  Kidderminster Hospital
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed at Kidderminster hospital
  649
  (a) as doctors or consultants, (b) as nursing staff, (c) providing domestic services and (d) in other capacities. [17178]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information that is available is shown in the table.

  National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Service staff directly employed by Kidderminster Healthcare NHS Trust asat 30 September 1996

  whole-time equivalents

  Kidderminster Health Care NHS Trust

  Medical staff

  90

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff1

  540

  Support staff in the hotel and property area of work

  80

  Other staff

  530

  All directly employed staff

  1,230

  Notes:

  1 Excludes learners who are counted within "Others".

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 61, on community pharmacists, when he plans to publish the Department's evaluation of the pilot projects and his proposals for promoting best practice among community pharmacists. [17176]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department is keen to make better use of community pharmacists' skills where this is cost effective.

  The funding of these pilot projects is a part of that commitment. We will consult with representatives of the profession about any proposals for additional pharmaceutical services.

  We have not made any decisions yet about whether or how the project results will be given wider dissemination.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what methods Ministers intend to take account of differing rural and urban needs when reviewing applications for health action zones; [17252]

  (2) if health action zones can apply in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [17251]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health Action Zones will include areas of pronounced deprivation and poor health and will, therefore, be targeted at those parts of the country where health inequalities are greatest. We will look to identify those bids, whether from urban or rural areas, that promise to have the greatest impact in delivering measurable and sustainable improvements in the health of the public and in the outcomes and quality of services.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost of reprogramming 650
  or replacing computer systems in the NHS which are not millennium compliant; and if he has issued guidance to health authorities on how the expenditure involved should be kept within existing budgets. [17434]

  Mr. Milburn
  The likely cost to the National Health Service of ensuring that systems are millennium compliant is difficult to forecast accurately. Guidance has recently been issued to Chief Executives in the NHS outlining the action they are expected to take to deal with the millennium problem. Much of the work required is likely to be funded from budgets already allocated to supporting NHS information management and technology needs.

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the co-ordination of services to deal with the problems of young people addicted to heroin and other similar drugs. [17238]

  Ms Jowell
  The current drugs strategy "Tackling Drugs Together" makes young people a priority. On 25 November three new documents about young people were launched by the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse following consultation with the Department and service providers. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was present and endorsed the documents. They outline the need for services which are appropriate for children and young people, which take a holistic approach, and which have staff with appropriate training for working with young people. They also provide detailed information about good practice, models of services and information about critical success factors. All three documents emphasise the necessity of inter-agency partnerships to deal with the problems of young people who misuse drugs.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatments are available from the National Health Service for heroin and other opiate addictions. [17239]

  Ms Jowell
  A wide range of treatment services is available through the National Health Service ranging from substitute prescribing to intensive residential rehabilitation. The Department of Heath does not have a central record of services provided. It is for health authorities to determine what services to commission from the NHS and voluntary agencies according to their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were seen by(a) acute and (b) community mental health services in each health authority in each of the last five years. [17385]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally. Between June and September 1997, approximately 640,000 people were receiving care from specialist mental health services but there is no breakdown centrally of the type of care provided to these patients. Data are available on specific services but these will involve an element of double counting since some patients will have received more than one service or, in the case of hospital in-patient episodes, have had more than one episode in hospital. The table shows figures for England for the last five years for numbers of in-patient finished consultant episodes, first attendances in the year at out-patient clinics, first contacts in the year with
  651
  community psychiatric nurses and first attendances in the year at National Health Service day centres. These figures are published for hospital trusts in the following publications:

  Ordinary and day cases admissions, England, Financial year 1996–97

  Out-patient and ward attenders, England, Financial year 1996–97

  NHS day care facilities, England, Financial year 1996–97

  Patient care in the community, community psychiatric nursing, summary information for 1995–96, England.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Contacts with NHS services for mentally ill people: 1992–93 to 1996–97

  England

  Thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Finished consultant episodes

  233

  236

  237

  240

  239

  First out-patient attendances

  238

  254

  257

  271

  285

  First contacts with community psychiatric nurses

  406

  475

  493

  530

  1566

  First attendances at NHS day centres

  92

  105

  97

  100

  99

  Sources:

  KP70, KH09, KC57, KH14.

  Note:

  1Provisional.

  Winter Funding Initiative
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority the amounts allocated to each social services department under the winter funding initiative. [18123]

  Mr. Milburn
  Details of individual agreements between health authorities and local authority social services departments are not held centrally. However, initial estimates indicate that, nationally, between £35 million and £40 million of the additional resources made available to meet winter pressures in 1997–98 will be transferred to social services departments.

  Pig Organs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the dangers posed by viruses in pig organs identified for possible use in pig-to-human transplants. [17778]

  Mr. Boateng
  "Animal Tissue into Humans", the Report of the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation, published in January 1997, concluded that there was insufficient knowledge of the risks associated with the transmission of infectious 652
  diseases, including viruses, for clinical trials involving humans to be ethically acceptable. Research into these and other relevant issues is continuing.

  The Government is advised by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) on these issues and on the acceptability of any application to undertake trials in xenotransplantation involving humans. Any application will be expected to include a full assessment of the microbiological risk of any proposed procedure. Within the United Kingdom we will allow clinical trials involving humans to take place only if and when we are satisfied that the risks associated with such procedures are acceptable. The UKXIRA will take the latest evidence available into account in its advice. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens is also working with the UKXIRA on microbiological issues involved in xenotransplantation.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Imutran concerning the transplantation of organs from pigs to humans; and if he will make a statement. [17779]

  Mr. Boateng
  The United Kingdom biotechnology industry is at the forefront of international research and development into xenotransplantation. The views of industry are important to the development of a regulatory structure and have been formally sought through consultation exercises. The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, established to advise on and oversee developments in xenotransplantation, is in contact with Imutran, and other companies in the field, and has visited some of Imutran's animal facilities. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Jay of Paddington, at Imutran's invitation, recently visited its facilities during which she was advised of the developments in its work.

  NHS Vacancies
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts and health authority non-executive positions fell to be filled on 1 November; how many were filled on that date; and how many are currently vacant. [18051]

  Mr. Milburn
  Five hundred and seventy non-executive appointments to National Health Service trusts fell to be made by 1 November. Two hundred and eight had been made by that date. Eighty-five vacancies remained on 26 November.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant posts there are currently by region for(a) hospital doctors, (b) general practitioners and (c) nurses. [17391]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information on vacant posts by region is as follows:

  (a) National Health Service hospital and community health services: doctors vacancies in England at 30 September 1996:

  England

  Number

  Northern and Yorkshire

  180

  Trent

  130

  Anglia and Oxford

  110

  North Thames

  350

  South Thames

  160

  653

  (a) National Health Service hospital and community health services: doctors vacancies in England at 30 September 1996:

  England

  Number

  South and West

  120

  West Midlands

  110

  North West

  260

  Special hospitals

  10

  Total

  1,410

  Source:

  The Medical and Dental Workforce Census 30 September 1996.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are whole-time equivalents rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Totals may not agree due to rounding.

  3. Vacant posts are not collected for all grades—the figures above cover the following grades: Consultant, Staff Grade, Senior Registrar (including Specialist Registrar), Registrar and Senior House Officer.

  (b) Information relating to general practitioner vacancies is collected by the Medical Practices Committee. However, this does not include regional data comparable to that above.

  (c) Figures on vacancies for Hospital and Community Health services nurses and midwives are collected by the Office of Manpower and Economics and published in the annual reports of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine. Copies of these documents are in the Library.

  NHS Staff
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of those NHS trust and health authority members, in post on 30 October, who are no longer in post because they failed to comply with the terms of his Department's guidance to regional health authorities relating to(a) political allegiance and (b) personal allegiance to the NHS. [18050]

  Mr. Milburn
  The only guidance issued by the Department on political allegiance and personal allegiance to the National Health Service is that contained in the information pack sent to all applicants for posts on trust and health authority boards. The guidance makes clear that candidates must have a strong personal commitment to the NHS but a candidate's political activity will not be a factor in their appointment. New candidates and those applying for reappointment are considered against all the criteria set out in the information pack.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric beds have closed in each year since 1980–81. [17386]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department does not collect information on bed closures.

  Data are, however, collected centrally on the average daily number of available beds. These figures are shown in the table:

  Average daily number of available beds in mental illness wards in National Health Service hospitals in England, 1980 to 1996–97

  Year

  Mental illness

  1980

  87,396

  1981

  85,436

  1982

  83,831

  1983

  81,786

  1984

  78.911

  654

  Average daily number of available beds in mental illness wards in National Health Service hospitals in England, 1980 to 1996–97

  Year

  Mental illness

  1985

  75,866

  1986

  72,402

  1987–88

  67,127

  1988–89

  62,999

  1989–90

  59,290

  1990–91

  55,239

  1991–92

  50.278

  1992–93

  47,308

  1993–94

  43,532

  1994–95

  41,827

  1995–9

  39,477

  1996–971

  37,624

  Source:

  DH form SH3—1980 to 1986.

  DH form KH03—1987–88 rds.

  Note:

  1 The return was revised and included a count of NHS managed beds in residential care. Several trusts reclassified beds previously counted as mental illness beds in hospitals, and counted them as residential. These figures are not included in the table. The average daily number of mental illness bed days in residential care is 1,155.

  Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the shortfall in nurses in each specialty. [17387]

  Mr. Milburn
  In submitting evidence to the 1998 Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, the Department said there was growing evidence of work force pressures in mental health, nursing in the larger conurbations and specialist nursing posts in areas of high dependency care.

  In addition to the comprehensive collection of work force information to support national workforce planning, the National Health Service Executive is running a quarterly survey seeking information about recruitment and retention difficulties and examples of good practice across a sample of trusts. This will provide more systematic information on work force pressures across England.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the payments made to GP fundholders in each region in each year since 1990–91 in(a) management allowances and (b) computer costs.[17388]

  Mr. Milburn
  Available data on general practitioner fundholders' management allowances (PFMA) since 1990–91 are set out in the tables, which distinguish PFMA (general) from PFMA (computing).

  The PFMA (general) coverage was increased in 1995–96, to include an element for the running costs of fundholding computer systems, which had previously been paid separately.

  PFMA (computing) was introduced as a separate component of PFMA in 1996–97 to cover the costs of purchase or lease of fundholding computer systems. Up until April 1996 GP fundholders received reimbursement for these computer costs via the Statement of Fees and Allowances. As a result, audited information is not held

  655
  centrally which identifies GP fundholding costs. However, estimates of moneys allocated to support GP fundholding computing costs from 1991–92 to 1994–95 are also shown.

  Practice Fund Management Allowance by RHA in England— 1990–91 to 1995–96

  £000

  Regional health authorities

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,082

  2,343

  4,466

  6,040

  8,254

  14.859

  Trent

  425

  1,356

  3,432

  6,279

  8,003

  11,647

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,015

  2,210

  4,816

  7,212

  9,278

  13,163

  North Thames

  287

  944

  2,115

  3,364

  5,558

  12,511

  South Thames

  515

  1,500

  3,139

  6,262

  9,354

  16,504

  South West

  724

  1,708

  3,377

  5,315

  6,921

  11,537

  West Midlands

  334

  1,412

  3.288

  6.466

  9,233

  15.067

  North West

  856

  1,997

  3,987

  6,663

  8,205

  14,377

  >England

  5,238

  13,470

  28,620

  47.601

  64,806

  109,668

  Practice Fund Management Allowance by NHS Executive RO in England—1996–97 and 1997–98

  £000

  Regional office

  1996–97

  1997–98

  General

  Computing

  General

  Computing

  Northern and Yorkshire

  17,886

  2,175

  19,186

  294

  Trent

  15,953

  1,350

  15,439

  0

  Anglia and Oxford

  13,771

  1,200

  13,853

  294

  North Thames

  21,193

  1,850

  22,130

  420

  South Thames

  18,937

  1.425

  19,486

  0

  South West

  15,389

  2,800

  16,258

  0

  West Midlands

  18,070

  650

  18,034

  63

  North West

  19,371

  1,325

  19,633

  294

  England

  140,564

  12,775

  144,019

  1,365

  Source:

  1990–91 to 1995–96: annual accounts of Family Health Services

  Authorities.

  1996–97: FDL(96)35 and FDL(96)42, revised slightly.

  1997–98: FDL(97)32.

  Note:

  Data for 1990–91 to 1994–95 presented on Regional Office boundaries.

  Estimated spend on Information Technology to support GPFundholding by Regional Health Authority inEngland— 1991–92 to 1994–95

  £000

  Regional health authorities

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2,099

  3,093

  2,129

  2,717

  Trent

  1,337

  2,949

  2,395

  2,662

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,446

  1,989

  2,144

  1,894

  North Thames

  836

  1,809

  1,665

  1,819

  South Thames

  1,812

  2,371

  3,028

  2,659

  South West

  2,117

  1,747

  2,088

  1,906

  West Midlands

  1,152

  2,371

  2,413

  3,129

  North West

  824

  1,725

  2,643

  2,060

  England

  11,623

  18,054

  18,505

  18,846

  Source

  Estimates taken from FIS4 returns by FHSAs.

  Bed Occupancy Rates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the bed occupancy rates for(a) acute, (b) psychiatric and (c) care of the elderly wards for each of the last 10 years. [17389]
  656
  Mr. Boateng
  Figures on bed occupancy were collected in 1996–97 for the first time since 1986. The information is based on broad ward type and is contained in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England: 1996–97", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Data for 1986 were collected on a different basis and are not directly comparable. The figures were 75 per cent. for the acute specialties, 85 per cent. for psychiatric and 89.2 per cent. for geriatric.

  Cancelled Hospital Operations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital operations were cancelled by(a) quarter and (b) region for the last 10 years; and how many of these were (i) hip replacements, (ii) cataract operations and (iii) heart bypasses. [17390]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of operations cancelled on the day they were due to take place, or after patients had arrived in hospital is available in the Library. This goes back to 1994–95, the first year that data were collected. Details of the type of operation are not recorded centrally.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health when he will publish his proposals for the independent inspection and regulation of domiciliary care. [18122]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government intend to publish a White Paper in the spring of 1998 outlining proposals for the independent inspection and regulation of domiciliary care.

  Paedophile Treatment Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of paedophile treatment centres, with particular reference to the Faithfull Foundation's Wolvercote Clinic. [17536]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following two studies published by the Home Office include an assessment of treatment programmes for sex offenders who are in the community: "Community-based treatment for sex offenders: an evaluation of seven programmes" (1994) and "Does treating sex offenders reduce offending?" (1996). Both are in the Library. The effectiveness of the treatment programme now running at the Wolvercote Clinic, which receives Home Office financial support, is currently being evaluated for the Home Office by the researchers who wrote the 1994 study.

TREASURY

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on future public expenditure planning. [16603]
  657
  Mr. Darling
  The Government have set up a Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) to examine all areas of Government spending. New public expenditure plans will be announced after the conclusion of this review.

  Financial Services (Regulation)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which(a) EU and (b) G8 countries have a single regulator responsible for every aspect of financial services. [16604]

  Mr. Darling
  Within the EU and G8 countries only Sweden presently has a single regulator for financial services.

  The Government's proposed regulatory reforms based around a single regulator, the Financial Services Authority, will therefore make the United Kingdom a world leader in financial regulation amongst the major financial centres.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to help business prepare for a single currency. [16606]

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to prepare for economic and monetary union. [16599]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Government are committed to ensuring that British business is well equipped to take advantage of the introduction of the euro in other member states from 1999. We have set up a new Standing Committee, the Members of which include the President of the CBI and the President of the British Chamber of Commerce, alongside the existing Business Advisory Group, to co-ordinate and press forward the preparations agenda. I will be publishing a summary of the Advisory Group's findings early in the New Year.

  I have also arranged for the Treasury to publish a practical guide on EMU for business, and 55,000 copies have already been issued to a wide range of businesses.

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from business about preparations for the single European currency. [16611]

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to help business prepare for the use of the euro in the period before the United Kingdom joins economic and monetary union. [16616]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston).

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the introduction of economic and monetary union. [16618]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed).
  658
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is pursuing to ensure that the United Kingdom economic cycle is harmonised with other potential EMU countries; and when he estimates that this aspect of convergence will be achieved. [15765]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's pre-Budget Report describes a range of measures designed to promote economic stability and achieve high levels of growth and employment. The policies set out there will contribute to the settled period of stability which is needed in order that Britain will be in a position to join the single currency, should we wish to, early in the next Parliament.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how will(a) exchange costs and (b) fluctuations in the rate of the pound against the euro be dealt with when the use of the euro in the United Kingdom is permitted in the period prior to the United Kingdom becoming a member of the single currency. [15925]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is currently possible to use foreign currencies for an extensive range of activities in the United Kingdom. After 1 January 1999, this facility will also apply to the euro. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced publicly that, as with the dollar today, firms will be able to file company accounts, issue shares, have bank accounts and pay taxes in euro.

  However, the Government consider that use of the euro is likely to be more widespread than with other major foreign currencies. We are considering steps that the Government might take to ensure that British firms are able to use the euro as effortlessly as possible where it makes commercial sense and they choose to do so. This includes, for example, developing with the banking sector a "seal of approval" so that firms and individuals can recognise those banks which offer reliable information and allow customers to bank in euro without paying high charges.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 November 1997,Official Report, column 98, what research his Department has undertaken into the ease with which the euro currency symbol will be distinguishable from that for sterling where physical display of coin or note is not involved. [17277]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury has not carried out research aimed specifically at the ease with which the euro currency symbol is distinguishable from the pound sterling symbol. However, through the work of the Business Advisory Group, we are involved with business and consumer groups to discuss how the changeover to the single currency could be made with minimum confusion, were the United Kingdom to join the single currency.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the changes in interest rates since 1 May. [16607]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I increased interest rates by ¼ point in May. On 6 May I gave the operational responsibility for setting interest rates to the newly formed
  659
  Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Since then, the Committee has raised rates by a further 1 percentage point in four equal stages.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of interest rate rises since 1 May on average personal disposable income. [16610]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Interest rates are set by the Bank of England in order to achieve the Government's inflation target, taking account of all relevant economic indicators.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on trends in interest rates since 1 May; and what is his policy on interest rate levels. [16613]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Since May, interest rates have been increased by 1¼ per cent. to 7¼ per cent. In the new framework for monetary policy, the Bank of England has the operational responsibility for setting interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his responsibility for interest rate levels. [16615]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  In the new framework for monetary policy the responsibilities are absolutely clear. The Government's role is to set the economic objectives and, in particular, the inflation target. The Bank of England's role is to take the operational decisions to meet the inflation target. The Government are satisfied that the new monetary policy arrangements will deliver long-term price stability, and prevent a return to the cycle of boom and bust.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecasts he has evaluated on the prospects for long-term interest rates. [16617]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Long-term interest rates have fallen in recent months, partly reflecting the fall in inflation expectations that arose as a result of the introduction of the new monetary policy framework.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effect of EMU going ahead in Europe on interest rates in the United Kingdom. [16621]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I have received many representations on economic and monetary union and my statement on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–604, has been widely welcomed in this country and in the rest of Europe. Official interest rates in the UK are set in order to achieve our inflation target.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about his welfare to work strategy. [16608]

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with industry about his welfare to work strategy. [16619]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The participation of employers is crucial to the success of the welfare to work initiative. Since I launched the New Deal for unemployed people at 660
  a business breakfast at No. 11, the Government have had extensive contacts with a wide range of employers— nationally and locally—in small firms and large—and in every sector of the economy and every region of the country.

  The response and good will have been extremely encouraging. Sainsburys, Tesco, BT, Lloyds Bank, Ford, Rover, Marks and Spencer, Unipart, WH Smith—and many others—are coming up with ways that they can help the New Deal.

  They realise that helping the unemployed people move from welfare to work is in the interest of business as well as the unemployed people themselves. It is only by helping to improve skills and employability, that we can address the long-standing weaknesses of our economy and allow businesses to thrive.

  Financial Services Authority
  Miss Mcintosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he made of financial regulation in other countries when drawing up his proposals for the new Financial Services Authority. [16609]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government are aware of the approaches to regulation taken in other countries but are working to develop the best solution for the United Kingdom. Our plan is for a modernised and harmonised system of financial regulation based around a single regulator, the Financial Services Authority. The reforms will make the United Kingdom a world leader in financial regulation.

  Inflation
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of higher than planned inflation on the real value of public expenditure plans in(a) the current and (b) the next financial year. [16614]

  Mr. Darling
  Public expenditure planning is carried out on a cash basis. The plans announced in July for the Control Total will be adhered to. Departments need to keep a tight grip on their pay and other costs in order to provide the best possible services to the public.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of his inflation target regime. [16623]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I am satisfied that the new monetary policy arrangements will deliver long-term price stability, and prevent a return to the cycle of boom and bust.

  Charities
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he proposes in respect of the tax treatment of charities. [16620]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A review of Charities' Taxation was announced in the Budget. A public consultation document is due to be published in spring 1998, and a consultation process will follow. It is too early to say what the outcome of the review will be.

  Dividend Tax Credits
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on those shareholders who have no liability for income tax of his decision to end their eligibility for dividend tax credits from April 1999. [16622]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  All relevant factors were considered when deciding whether shareholders should continue to receive payment of tax credits on their dividend income, including the position of those individual shareholders who are not liable to tax. Given that pension providers and most UK companies are no longer entitled to payment of tax credits on dividends paid on or after 2 July, it would not have been sensible to leave part of the incentive for companies to distribute profits through a payable tax credit to other investors. Nevertheless, tax credits will continue to be paid to non-liable individual shareholders until 1999, when they will have the opportunity to switch into Individual Savings Accounts, which will provide a tax-favoured environment for savings.

  Fiscal Policy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new fiscal measures he is taking to assist business. [16624]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Government are committed to a tax system that encourages employment opportunities and work incentives for all; promotes savings and investment; is fair and is seen to be fair. This is good for the UK and for UK business. The level of taxation on business in the UK is the lowest of any major EU economy and lower than the OECD average.

  The Pre-Budget Report presented to Parliament on Tuesday launched a pre-Budget debate on the policies needed to deliver high and stable levels of growth and employment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced further reform of corporation tax including another 1p cut in the main corporation tax rate and the abolition of advance corporation tax in 1999 together with a move to quarterly payments by larger companies. The spring Budget will include measures to reform capital gains tax to promote long-term investment.

  International Trading (Internet)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of potential losses of tax revenues due to international trading on the Internet. [16612]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are examining the tax implications of international trading on the Internet in close consultation with other Governments, at OECD and in other forums, and with the business community. The Government's objective, shared with our trading partners, is to ensure that tax revenues are protected without inhibiting the growth of trading on the Internet.

  Insurance Industry
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the advantages of establishing a single professional body for the insurance industry under his review of financial services regulation. [17941]
  662
  Mrs. Liddell
  Our planned reforms will create a single statutory regulator for the financial services industry. We have no plans to set up other bodies in this area.

  Departmental Payments
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the league table of Departments' payment performance. [18471]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Departments' performances in paying invoices within the agreed credit terms, or 30 days where no such terms exist, for the period 1 June 1996 to 31 March 1997 are contained in the following table:

  Government Departments' (including agencies) payment performance 1996–97

  Departments

  1995–96 Percentage

  1996–97 Percentage

  National Investment and Loans Office

  100.0

  100.0

  Privy Council Office

  0.0

  100.0

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  99.6

  99.9

  Defence, Ministry of

  99.9

  99.4

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  93.3

  99.0

  Land Registry

  0.0

  99.0

  Office of the National Lottery

  89.0

  98.0

  Office of Fair Trading

  96.0

  98.0

  Office of Water Services

  1—

  98.0

  Ordnance Survey

  91.0

  98.0

  Trade and Industry, Department for

  93.0

  97.9

  National Savings Department

  99.2

  97.6

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  98.7

  97.4

  Exports Credit Guarantee Department

  0.0

  97.3

  Government Actuary's Department

  0.0

  97.0

  Serious Fraud Office

  92.0

  96.9

  Health and Safety Executive

  93.8

  96.8

  Crown Prosecution Service

  94.3

  96.7

  Welsh Office

  95.0

  96.7

  Office of Telecommunications

  94.0

  96.0

  Registry of Friendly Societies Commission

  96.0

  95.9

  Public Record Office

  0.0

  95.8

  HM Treasury

  86.0

  95.6

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  97.4

  95.4

  Treasury Solicitors Department including Law Office Department

  0.0

  95.3

  Inland Revenue

  92.3

  95.2

  Northern Ireland Departments

  96.6

  95.2

  Forestry Commission

  86.0

  95.0

  Office of Gas Supply

  99.8

  95.0

  Social Security, Department of

  96.0

  95.0

  Office for Standards in Education

  0.0

  94.0

  Royal Mint

  0.0

  93.0

  Home Office

  91.0

  92.9

  Health, Department of

  95.2

  92.6

  International Development, Department for

  90.0

  92.4

  Education and Employment, Department for

  —

  92.2

  Education

  75.2

  —

  Employment

  97.8

  —

  Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions:

  Environment

  92.0

  92.2

  Transport

  90.3

  91.4

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  83.0

  91.8

  Crown Office, Scotland (including Lord Advocates Department)

  0.0

  91.5

  Culture, Media and Sport, Department for

  91.0

  91.1

  Charity Commission

  88.8

  90.6

  Lord Chancellor's Department including Public Trustee Office

  93.9

  90.6

  National Statistics, Office for

  88.0

  88.7

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  0.0

  88.6

  663

  Departments

  1995–96 Percentage

  1996–97 Percentage

  Cabinet Office (including Office of Public Services)

  84.0

  88.4

  Customs and Excise

  94.0

  86.0

  Scottish Office

  94.0

  83.6

  1 Under Department of the Environment. The figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not directly comparable due to differences in the method of calculation.

  The figures for 1996–97 cover a 9 month period from 1 June 1996, from the introduction of the revised method of calculation.

  The figures for 1996–97 overlap those in the interim table published on 17 December 1996. This table covers a 9 month period to allow closer comparison to future full year tables.

  Questions on individual department's results should be addressed to the relevant department.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current progress on the Tax Law Rewrite Project. [18472]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tax Law Rewrite project aims to bring clarity to our direct tax legislation, making the tax system more accessible to taxpayers and their advisers. The project is continuing to make good progress, and the publication today of a Technical Discussion Document testing how well the rewrite techniques work on complex legislation is a further step towards a clearer and more user friendly tax system. Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  I am keen that anyone with an interest takes this opportunity to comment on the rewrite techniques being used. Consultation with all those involved in taxation is the key to successfully producing a clear and logical structure for tax legislation.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the impact on herd valuation of(a) the reduction in payment rates and (b) the introduction of a maximum weight limit for all cull cows through the over 30 months scheme. [18064]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. The Inland Revenue has no business need to assess this and has not done so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the additional costs which would arise from the use of wind-chill factor on cold weather payments if payments in respect of properties not affected by wind-chill remained the same. [14940]

  Mr. Denham
  This option was among a number which have been considered. Full details are contained in the Building Research Establishment's report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the lone parents who received initial letters as part of the New Deal pilots were in receipt of income support three months later. [14736]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: The New Deal for Lone Parents will fulfil the Government's commitment to help lone parents to get off benefit and into work. The programme is currently running in eight areas in England, Scotland and Wales. The New Deal for lone parents will be rolled out nationally from October next year.

  The programme was launched on 21 July. In the period to the 10 August, 2,672 lone parents had been invited to participate in the programme. Of these, at the 10 November, 2,421 were in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will set out, in respect of the calculation that lone parents are on average –50 per week better off in work than on benefit,(a) the sample size, (b) the proportion of lone parents in the sample with zero child care costs, (c) the proportion with positive receipt of child maintenance, (d) their average ages and (e) their average travel-to-work costs. [18053]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The average £50 a week "better off figure refers to the additional income in work lone parents currently on Family Credit are likely to receive over and above the corresponding estimate of their out of work incomes.

  The figure is based on the 1994 PS1 survey of lone parents, updated to take into account recent benefit changes.

  The sample size was 375, of which 79 per cent. were not paying for child care. 37.5 per cent. received child maintenance and their average age was 35. The average travel-to-work costs were £4.93 per week.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for how many of the 433 lone parents who were helped to obtain jobs by the New Deal pilot scheme she currently has information on the amount by which they were better off in work; and what was the average gain for these people. [18097]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Up to the end of October, 542 lone parents had been helped into work in the first eight areas of the New Deal for Lone Parents. Lone parents can ask for in-work "better off calculations obtained by New Deal Advisers from the Integrated Benefit Information System (IBIS). This system provides estimates of the likely entitlements to in-work benefits such as Family Credit, but we do not know the amount by which they are actually better off in work. The evaluation of the programme includes a quantitative survey of a sample of participants in all eight areas of the scheme which will collect systematic information from lone parents on how much better off they will actually be in work.

  Research has shown that most lone parents want to work and the New Deal will provide the opportunities to do so. The advantages of work for lone parents are in terms of not only financial gain but improving self-esteem for the parent and providing a more positive role model for the children.

  Industrial Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was recouped from accident victims' compensation in respect of industrial disablement benefit in each of the last three years. [16396]

  Mr. Denham
  Reform of the Compensation Recovery scheme took place on 6 October. The compensator is now liable for the repayment of benefits paid as a consequence of an accident, injury or disease. The reforms also mean that compensation for pain and suffering will be paid to the victim in full.

  The administration of the Compensation Recovery Unit is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew Dismore, dated 26 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much was recouped from accident victims' compensation in respect of Industrial Disablement benefit in each of the last three years.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The overall amount of Industrial Injuries Disablement benefit recouped from both accident and disease victims, in the last three financial years, is given in the table below:

  Financial year

  Amount recovered £million

  1994–95

  12.5

  1995–96

  16.4

  1996–97

  28.9

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  In the first half of the current financial year £9.4. million has been recovered.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of families who would receive mobility component disability 666
  living allowance if children under the age of five years were assessed and their mobility needs in the same way as DLA care component recipients. [17235]

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

  If the current entitlement conditions for receipt of the mobility component were to be extended to children under the age of five an estimated 40,000 children might benefit.

  Notes:

  The figure is highly speculative.

  Source:

  Department of Social Security Analytical Services Division.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons who receive DLA mobility component are aged between 65 and 80 years. [17236]

  Mr. Denham
  As at 31 August 1997, there were 370,000 people aged between 65 and 80 receiving the mobility component of disability living allowance.

  Disability living allowance is available for people who become disabled before the age of 65. Once awarded there are no upper age limits and benefit continues for as long as the disabled person continues to satisfy the conditions of entitlement.

  Notes:

  Ages go from 65 to 80 inclusive.

  Source:

  Department of Social Security Analytical Services Division— 5 per cent. data.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what methods she monitors the efficiency of cross-agency working to combat social security and child maintenance fraud. [17237]

  Mr. Denham
  The efficiency and effectiveness of cross-Benefits Agency/Child Support Agency working are monitored in a variety of ways and at a number of levels. These include quarterly meetings of senior officials of both agencies, regular meetings of operational and headquarters staff, and the recording and analysis of management information.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.):The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prison Overcrowding
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What further measures they have in mind to eliminate overcrowding in prisons and to prevent the deterioration of daily regimes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the prison population this year has been consistently rising. The resulting levels of overcrowding are jeopardising the provision of constructive regimes targeted at tackling offending behaviour, to which the Government are committed. In recognition of these difficulties, the Government have provided the Prison Service with an additional £43 million this year and next to provide additional places and support regimes. We have also set in motion a number of measures intended to reduce overcrowding. From 1st October we introduced plea before venue which will not only speed up the court process but should also have a significant effect on the prison population. In addition we are committed to providing effective and tough community punishment in which the courts and the public have confidence in order that a better balance may be achieved between the use of custody and other disposals. Last week I announced to your Lordships our intention to introduce home detention curfews for prisoners nearing the end of their sentences. These will provide a way of managing the transition between custody and living in the community.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his most helpful reply. Is he aware that I welcome in particular what he said about a more balanced penal policy and about non-custodial sentences? Will the Government provide resources for those community supervision programmes which have been shown to be effective, and will they impress on sentencers the urgent necessity to make more use of them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his general support. The figures are grave. The most up-to-date information I have is that the prison population is now the highest ever recorded—63,788.Of course we want to adopt a flexible armoury in dealing with offenders, bearing in mind in particular that public protection is the important overarch, as I have said on previous occasions. We need to have flexible remedies for differing offenders and differing offences. One of the tasks that the Home
1082
Secretary has put his mind to is considering the allocation of resources between custody and alternative methods of dealing with people in the community.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Lords, does my noble friend agree that probably the most effective way of reducing overcrowding is to reduce recidivism? That depends largely on the effectiveness of the Probation Service. In view of the answer which my noble friend has just given, does he agree that more resources for the Probation Service would be money well invested?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is part of the thinking behind the review which the Home Secretary has in hand of the relationship between the Prison Service and the Probation Service, because in a sense they are both labouring in the same vineyard. My noble and learned friend is absolutely right. Recidivism is a significant feature of the custody statistics. We believe that, to stop recidivism, we need to go to the very heart of matters; namely, re-examining the youth justice system.
Lord Lane: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that probably the only practical way of reducing the danger of an explosion in the prisons is by generous use of amnesty; namely, the release of prisoners—probably non-violent prisoners—long before their due release date?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may personally welcome the identity of the questioner since I frequently appeared before him in happier times—I ought to say as an advocate rather than as a defendant. The Government do not believe that amnesty is a proper way to deal with these matters. We have introduced the managed return from custody into the community. We believe that wholesale amnesty has difficult constitutional implications, not least with regard to the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord accepts that building can play a part in dealing with the problem of prison overpopulation. He will accept that we built quite a large number of new prisons, particularly under the private prison programme which his party opposed when they were in opposition. Can he confirm that the Government have now agreed to an expansion of the private prison programme?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we found no practical alternative in dealing with the situation which we inherited other than to continue, first, with some contracts that had already been let; and, secondly, to expand the programme. We are not able to afford ourselves the luxury of putting political dogma before practical consequence. I am sure your Lordships will find that to be an extremely refreshing change.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, while security is of vital importance, does the noble Lord agree that if staffing levels do not allow adequate work and education opportunities for inmates, even security suffers through general institutional tension?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate. What I said earlier was not that security is the overarching determinant but that public safety is. Public safety depends on a proper civilised regime in prison, not least in trying to equip prisoners to return to a productive and fruitful life. Developing education and skills, with proper staffing levels, is extremely important in that context.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said earlier, how can he defend the Government's plan to cut the Probation Service?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what I said earlier, I think—if I did not, there will be plenty to assist me in correction—was that the Home Secretary had it in mind to review carefully the relationship between the Prison Service and the Probation Service. That is a step of common-sense utility. I should have thought that it might reasonably be welcomed by all Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in the light of overcrowding and the cut-back in the budget, does the Minister agree that prison, so far from working, is now established to be a very expensive way of making bad people worse, as previous Home Secretaries have said? If he agrees, what steps will the Government take to re-educate the public in that direction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have heard the citation on a number of occasions that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse. As with all truisms, it has a grain of truth in it, but it is not an entire answer to the total question. The blunt fact is that some people have got to be kept in prison because they are a danger to the public.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That being so, no responsible Home Secretary is simply going to let people out.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are far too many people on remand whose cases are put off for a variety of reasons? What measures do the Government intend taking to cut down that waiting time and thereby let out more people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The over-representation of those on remand in the prison system is a gross blot. We are already putting remedies in hand. We shall introduce specific time limits for juvenile offenders who will be speedily dealt with. We are encouraging the courts to resist applications for adjournments. We hope that within a year or two we shall be able to point to a very significant advance in the time between arrest and the final disposition of a particular offender. I entirely agree with the sentiments put forward by the noble Baroness.

European Central Bank: President
3.11 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support any particular candidate for the presidency of the European Central Bank; and, if so, whom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Maastricht Treaty makes it clear that only member states which are participating in EMU are involved in the appointment of the president of the European Central Bank.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he then confirm that, as long as we are out of the economic and monetary union, we shall not have a British member of the six-man executive body; we shall have no representative on the governing council; nor, if the article by the French Finance Minister in today's Financial Times is to be believed, shall we have any representative on the informal council in which first-wave EMU members will co-ordinate their economic policy? Under those circumstances, is it not really a danger for Britain that, as long as we are not in the European Central Bank, we shall suffer from decisions of that bank which will affect us, while we shall have no part in the making of those decisions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that as long as we are not members of EMU we shall not be members of the executive board or the governing council. The noble Lord is ahead of me in his reading of the Financial Times. My understanding is that the general council exists to cover both the "ins" and the "outs" and covers relationships between the two, and also that we shall be represented on that council. As regards the question of what decisions are being taken, a great number of them are already either incorporated in the treaty or have been taken by the European Monetary Institute, of which we are members.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, while I appreciate that the Government do not intend to join the euro at this stage and that they will not have any say in who will become president of the European Central Bank, perhaps the Minister can share with us whether in general terms, if the Government were in a position to influence the matter, they would prefer a German banker who believed in sound money or a French banker who did not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a good try, but I am not in any way going to respond to the noble Lord's invitation to me to exhibit xenophobia. As I understand it, the choice is not between a German banker and a French banker, but between a Dutch banker and a German banker.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in any event the question is to some

1085
extent academic because the real decisions are taken every month, a fortnight before every Council of Ministers' meeting, by France and Germany meeting under the provisions of the Franco-German Treaty of 1963?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am constantly being tempted. I have been tempted into xenophobia and now I am being tempted into a conspiracy theory. I shall not follow my noble friend down that road.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sure that the question is neither xenophobic nor one of conspiracy. The noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Renton, put their fingers on something which is of fundamental importance to this country. Therefore, is my noble friend aware that if what they say has any remote connection with the truth— and I believe that it does—there are enormously serious consequences for this country in our laggardness in getting involved with EMU? Those of us who try to be as supportive as we can of the Government are placed in great difficulties when we see the most important decisions facing this country, of which we have just had a very good example, still being left to others and we revert to what has always troubled us—namely, our propensity to complain in the future about things we could do something about now.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in terms of the original Question, I believe that our inability to take part in the choice of the presidency of the European Central Bank is a relatively small price to pay. But of course my noble friend is perfectly entitled to widen the debate and I always enjoy it when he does. We have taken the view, which was reported to Parliament and debated there on 27th October, that there are sound economic reasons—notably the need for sustainable economic convergence—which make it impossible for us to join EMU at the outset.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if Europe is run by a Franco-German partnership, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, alleges, it is not due to any treaty of 1963 but to the persistent detachment of Britain, which he so strongly advocates, but which I hope—not yet with total confidence—this Government are in the process of correcting?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no intention of getting involved in a debate between the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. As regards the more important matter which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, raised, I am delighted to hear, because I believe he is right, that we are showing a very different attitude towards Europe from that of our predecessors. We are the first Government to say that there are no constitutional bars to our membership of European monetary union and that we intend to enter it in due course.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the UK presidency comes at a crucial moment where a spare seat by rotation could be considered. Can the Minister say whether it is wise to have the influence of politics over single currency monetary authorities, which would arguably impact its credibility? If so, what measures can be introduced to deflect such a circumstance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I understand the noble Viscount's question. If he is referring to the executive board or the governing council of the European Central Bank, it is indeed open to those bodies to keep spare seats available at the outset. But we have no indication as to whether or not they intend to do so.
Noble Lords: Next Question! Lord Longford! Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, we took nearly nine minutes on the first Question. We have now reached 16 minutes and I believe that we should move on.

Prisons: Education Expenditure
3.18 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the expenditure on education in prisons in 1995-96 and 1996-97; and what will be the expenditure in 1997-98 and 1998-99.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can provide figures on how much the Prison Service has spent on education in past years. But the service can only estimate what it will have spent this year and what it will spend next year. That is because responsibility for deciding how individual prison budgets should be allocated to elements of the particular regime, including education, and other purposes lies with each governor. Governors buy education provision from local education suppliers on a monthly basis. That allows them to vary the amount of education they buy according to need.
Against that background, I give your Lordships the following figures for Prison Service expenditure on prisoner education: £36,956,000 in 1995-96; £34,481,000 in 1996-97. The service estimates that in 1997-98 it will have spent £36,266,000.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I venture to ask the much respected Minister whether he will allow me to share his obvious discomfort at giving such a distressing Answer? Is he aware that this country is said to be—I am glad to think that it is—richer than ever and we are getting richer and richer, but we are also given to understand that our prison population is increasing? Am I correct in saying that the amount that is spent on education in prisons is decreasing in real terms? Can the Minister provide any conceivable justification for that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, discomfort is always in the eye of the beholder and I do not feel at all

1087
discomforted or uncomfortable. With due deference to our predecessors, I must say that the recent fall has to be measured against the earlier rise in such spending of almost 21 per cent. between 1993 and 1995. Of course, we shall never reach a situation where we have funds available for every worthy cause. We are trying to establish and maintain a constructive, civilized prison regime which—I cannot emphasise this too strongly—this Government believe must include re-education and reskilling for the outside world.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in any civilized approach to penal policy, the biggest challenge of all is the rehabilitation of prisoners, and that in terms of prisoners' rehabilitation it is difficult to think of a higher priority than education? Therefore, can my noble friend reassure us that the Government are committed, as resources permit, to giving education within the prison system the priority that it deserves?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that question. Rehabilitation is enormously important, as I indicated a few days ago, and that is why we are intent on introducing the tagging scheme, which will give those prisoners who are serving between three months and four years and who are within two months of the end of their incarceration the opportunity to return to the community. That is an important aspect of rehabilitation. I can absolutely confirm that, when the resources are available, we intend to tackle these long-lying, deep-seated problems in the prison regime, but we cannot do everything overnight.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that expenditure on education in the Prison Service is devolved to individual governors, can the Minister tell the House what variation there is in such expenditure between the different establishments and whether the Home Office conducts any research about the outcome of the differential education expenditure in our prisons?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are intending to appoint a director of regimes at prison board level, with assistant directors responsible for different components of the prison system. One of those assistant directors will have specific responsibility for regime services. We would expect those assistant directors to be in place not later than January of the coming year.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important services in preparing prisoners for their release, whether early or not, is the Probation Service? Does the Minister share the concern of many in that service that the fluctuations in expenditure on that service by prison governors have been as unpredictable and as difficult to deal with as those relating to the education of prisoners?
Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, I believe that I touched on that question earlier when answering
1088
supplementary questions arising from the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I venture to repeat that the Home Secretary has in hand a review of the relationship between the Prison Service and the Probation Service, because we believe that both work towards a common purpose. Co-operation between the Probation Service and the Prison Service on a fuller and more integrated basis should be seriously considered.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the Minister realise that what he has said will cause enormous pain to everyone involved in education, both in prisons and out of them? Does he also realise that this matter will be pursued relentlessly until we get a better Answer?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I accept the latter proposition—that the matter will be pursued relentlessly. Indeed, we welcome that. Any question relating to prison resources is respectfully answered. However, I do not believe that what the Home Secretary is doing in a multi-faceted attack on the problems of crime and criminals causes pain except to those criminals who may be adversely affected by it.

The Coal Industry
3.24 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy for the future of the coal industry.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the Government's objective is to have secure, diverse and environmentally sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. Coal has a part to play in meeting that objective. Since taking office, we have taken several steps to ensure a fairer competitive market for coal.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware of the consistent reports that up to eight of the remaining 24 deep mines in this country are likely to be closed within the next few months, leading to 5,000 redundancies? If those reports are correct, what will the Government do about it? Furthermore, although the noble Lord has referred to the role which the Government would like coal to play in their energy policy, no announcement has been made of the details of that policy or of how coal can play that role if the rate of closures to which I referred earlier proceeds apace.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as a result of the privatisation legislation, the Government's role is very limited. My honourable friend the Minister of State who deals with these matters, Mr. John Battle, has been engaged in constant discussions with representatives of both sides of the industry. The noble Lord suggests that we have done very little, but I remind him that we have already taken action to challenge unfair subsidies in Europe—a rather important matter; we have set up a review of the pool to ensure that coal is not priced out of

1089
the market; we have challenged gas contracts to ensure that the markets are not unfairly weighted against coal; we have had the fossil fuel levy to ensure that unfairly supported French nuclear power does not have too unfair an advantage, and we have challenged the advantage gained by the nuclear industry. We are seeking a level playing field. My honourable friend has therefore achieved a not inconsiderable record in only six-and-a-half months. I am aware of the difficulties confronting the industry, but perhaps I may add that it is for the main company concerned to sort out such problems.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that we welcome the initiatives that the Government have taken with regard to unfair subsidies and unfair competition, particularly from Germany and Spain, but can he tell us what response there has been from the Commission and the national governments concerned? Is my noble friend aware that this country is developing a reliance upon future supplies of gas from parts of the world which cannot, and will not, be described as stable and that the case for coal still remains inadequately answered?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, formal complaints have been lodged over this matter. Indeed, the previous government failed to do that although the problems affecting coal loomed very large during their period in office. These matters are being investigated by the Commission, but such things take time. We have had very little time to deal with these matters but we shall continue to be alert to unfair subsidies. We are very much aware of the other matter to which my noble friend referred, but it leads to a much wider question which I do not propose to pursue at this stage. I am, however, fully aware of my noble friend's continuing interest in the coal industry.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the Kyoto Conference that it is a priority of Her Majesty's Government to save the United Kingdom's deep-mined coal industry?that. The balance that has to be achieved is how we can best advance the interests of the coal industry?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it comes ill from—
Noble Lords: Answer!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I shall answer. It comes ill from the noble and learned Lord to question something to which his own government, through the right honourable John Gummer, were very much devoted. There seems some inconsistency there—not surprisingly.
With regard to our position at that conference, I have made it clear, as have the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, that our intention is to achieve a proper balance. We have to take account of the dangers affecting the world's environment. It would be a complete abdication of responsibility if we failed to do
1090
that. The balance that has to be achieved is how we can best advance the interests of the coal industry within the framework that I have announced this afternoon.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as recently as 22nd October I was told in answer to a parliamentary Question that coal use would remain significant in the future? Does my noble friend agree that that means there must be a United Kingdom coal industry, if only for security of supply? The question of subsidies has been mentioned on two or three occasions. Is my noble friend aware that Germany and Spain have no intention whatever of obeying the European Union on this matter? Therefore, is it not quite feasible and recognisable that we in this country should take the same view, at least for a period?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not believe that the conclusion drawn by my noble friend, who has taken a very keen interest in the coal industry for many years, is correct. It is our intention to attack the unfair subsidies in those other countries, and we have taken action in that regard. We shall press the Commission vigorously on the matter. Referring to subsidies to RJB in particular, that company is extremely well endowed and is hardly an ailing concern. The company has made considerable profits over the past two years in particular and has paid its directors vast emoluments. I believe that it should look to its shareholders rather than the taxpayer to take some part in all this.

Royal Assent
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act,
Local Government (Contracts) Act,
Plant Varieties Act.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the youth justice White Paper. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the year 2000 date change problem.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I also inform your Lordships that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday 18th December. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. The House will return on Monday 12th January.

Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley: moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
LEGAL AID
(" . Legal aid shall be available for proceedings under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee almost began to debate Amendment No. 63 last Monday. However, following the very wise intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who suggested that that was not necessarily the right time to debate such important matters in a major constitutional Bill, it was agreed to defer consideration of this particular amendment until this afternoon. I am grateful that we have this opportunity so to do. I hope that without too much trouble we shall complete this Bill today and get through the remaining amendments. Certainly, we on these Benches will give every possible assistance to achieve just that.
I have tabled this amendment purely as a probing amendment in order to put to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a number of questions relating to legal aid and the Human Rights Bill. I detailed some of those questions when the noble and learned Lord was putting his wig back on as we were discussing the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I repeat them now. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us a little more about what he said in his speech in Cardiff. Bearing in mind that that speech was made in Cardiff, I should be grateful to hear more in this Committee. Can he also say a little more about the separate fund amounting to £4.5 million that he proposes to establish for human rights issues? Will that apply only to England—which I understand is as far as his writ runs on legal aid—or will it also apply to Scotland, or will there be a separate fund for Scotland?
Can the noble and learned Lord say something more about the Green Paper? I have asked about Scotland. Can he inform the Committee about the arrangements for criminal actions as opposed to civil proceedings? I imagine that different arrangements will have to be made. As to the Green Paper and its timing, since I first asked these questions on Monday I notice that the noble
1092
and learned Lord has tabled a Motion for Tuesday, 9th December to take note of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the reform of civil justice and legal aid. I presume that he will prefer to address a number of the issues which I have raised then. I also presume that that means the Green Paper will come out some time between now and 9th December. There would be little point in having a debate without the Green Paper. In the meantime, can the noble and learned Lord expand a little on the legal aid issues that I have addressed in terms of how they relate to the Human Rights Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I strongly support this amendment on behalf of my party. I shall be brief because I recognise that there will be another chance to discuss this matter on 9th December. We support the proposition very strongly. In the absence of a human rights commission the right to legal aid is absolutely essential as a method of bringing human rights convention cases to court. The alternative of conditional fee agreements is wholly unsatisfactory in relation to proceedings for breach of convention rights, because often damages may not be sought at all or when they are awarded they may very well be small. In those circumstances, the practicability of conditional fee arrangements, which may work perfectly well in other circumstances, really does not exist. I should very much welcome an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that there will be a method by which public funding can be obtained for deserving cases involving a breach of convention rights.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall respond to the probing amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as best I can, but he recognises that there will be ample opportunity to discuss these matters on Tuesday, 9th December. At present legal aid is available for criminal cases, judicial review and virtually all other proceedings in the courts, except defamation. As such, if the Bill were enacted here and now legal aid would be available on the current terms in nearly all proceedings brought under the Bill.
The reforms of legal aid that I have announced. in relation to which the Government will go out to consultation—I shall describe that more fully in a moment—especially moving to a system that can better control its price and what it is spent on, will allow us to ensure that, in future, proceedings relating to rights under the Bill receive their fair share of the money available.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn reminded this place both on Second Reading and earlier in Committee that I am giving serious consideration to Sir Peter Middleton's proposal that there should be a separate fund for public interest cases, including those involving rights under this Bill. I said in my Cardiff speech on 18th October that I believed it right in principle to make special arrangements for cases that raise issues of wider public interest and that I intended to consult about the details.
When making his proposals Sir Peter had in mind test cases involving novel points of law that were likely to produce an important precedent. But there are other

1093
criteria which could bring such cases within the scope of public interest; for example, cases that could bring some specific benefit to a wider group of people. So it is important, first, to define what we mean by "public interest cases". Having done that, we need to consider the best means of ensuring that they can be litigated. Sir Peter proposed a special fund, but there may be other options. We should also think about how best to make use of the expertise of bodies like the Public Law Project, Justice, Liberty and the Child Poverty Action Group. All of these matters require detailed consideration, and it is right that government should consult as widely as possible before reaching firm conclusions.
I have never promised a Green Paper. The noble Lord is not right about that, but I do not think that that matters much. The point that I make, and repeat, is the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams on Second Reading. We cannot deal with the details or the fine-tuning until consultation has been carried out. I am planning to issue a consultation paper early next year, but my officials have already begun informal discussions with various interest groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a point about the inappropriateness, as he sees it, of conditional fee agreements for claims under the Bill, which he says might generally involve no or little damages. That is a matter that we shall also be taking into account in consultations.
Lord Henley: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will address—I do not believe that I caught it—the questions I asked about Scotland and whether the fund he is considering will cover Scotland as well or whether there will be a separate fund for Scotland.
The Lord Chancellor: My responsibility does not extend to Scotland, so I was addressing the position for England and Wales, which are within my responsibility. I shall write to the noble Lord about Scotland.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. I apologise for misunderstanding him. I thought there was to be a Green Paper. I understand now that it is to be a consultation document which will come out some time in the new year. We will take note of that and what the noble and learned Lord has to say on 9th December when, I am happy to say, it will not be me responding on behalf of the Opposition but one of my noble friends who is slightly more learned in the law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I understood what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, but there is an important distinction to be made. At the moment we are borrowing to satisfy our present wants. We are borrowing a vast sum of money. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer bore down valiantly on the scale of public borrowing, and the present Chancellor is valuably following him in that course. Nevertheless, we are borrowing money to satisfy our present wants. That
1094
is money that will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. We should be spending borrowed money only on projects which inure to the benefit of our children and grandchildren.
In a recent finance debate, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, took an austere view. He would only allow borrowed money to be spent on investments. I venture to think that education and training are equally justifiable. But when one turns to legal aid there is another important distinction to be made. At present, the headline figure for legal aid is £1.6 billion—an enormous sum. The net figure is probably somewhat less, but it will still be at least £800 million and probably considerably more.
A good deal of that expenditure cannot possibly inure to the benefit of our children and grandchildren. Some can: the public interest cases which are identified in the Middleton Report, to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred, and many cases which will invoke human rights by virtue of the Bill. I venture two things: first, I regard the no win, no pay expedient to obviate the cost of the impact of cuts in legal aid to be deplorable. I said so when it was introduced by the previous government. I venture to repeat that now. In view of our forthcoming debate, it is unnecessary to go into detail, but there is an alternative which covers the same ground as the no win, no pay project; that is, the scheme produced by the Bar Council, following proposals by Justice and various other bodies, including the Conservative Lawyers' Association.
I would ask my noble and learned friend to devote his attention to that and to put behind it the same energy and mental power which has obviously gone into the framing of the Bill. We are in danger of multiplying our avenues for channelling legal aid. Surely what has been said today reinforces the pleas that were made on Monday for a human rights commission, with its agenda suitably framed. It could channel the appropriate funds to appropriate projects which invoke human rights by virtue of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I understand it, as a matter of procedure, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has asked the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. Although we all recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has strong views on this matter, that seems to be the Question before the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
PARTY LITIGANTS (SCOTLAND)
(" .—(1) In Scotland, no proceedings may be brought under this Act by a party litigant except with leave granted in accordance with this section.
(2) In Scotland, no proceedings brought under this Act may be continued by a person who, since the raising of the proceedings, has become a party litigant unless, since he has become a party litigant, he has obtained leave granted in accordance with this section.
(3) Leave to bring or continue proceedings under this Act may be granted by a Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland appointed for that purpose by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
(4) The decision whether to grant leave under this section shall be made by the Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland appointed for that purpose and he shall—

(a) if he considers that the documents mentioned in subsection (5) below disclose that the litigant has probabilis causa in relation to any alleged infringement of a Convention right which he seeks to invoke, vindicate or plead grant leave; and

(b) in any other case refuse leave, and give reasons in writing for the refusal.

(5) The documents referred to in subsection (4) above are—

(a) a draft of any writ which the party litigant proposes should be lodged in the proposed proceedings to enable the party litigant to attempt to assert any Convention right, or, as the case may be, a copy of any such writ already lodged in proceedings begun at a time when he was not a party litigant; and

(b) a full written statement condescending upon the character and circumstances of the alleged violation of the Convention right which the party litigant seeks to found upon in the proceedings.

(6) In this Act "party litigant" means a person who, at the material time, is not represented, in the proceedings or for the purpose of raising proceedings, by a person who enjoys a right of audience in the Court or before the Tribunal or other body in which the proceedings are to be raised or, as the case may be, are pending.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Members of the Committee who study the Marshalled List with a keen interest will appreciate that initially the amendment was tabled only in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord cannot be here today and has invited me to support the amendment and to move it before the Committee. He apologises for his absence, but is engaged in judicial business in Scotland. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 92.
The purpose of the amendments is to draw attention to a problem which is causing an increasing level of concern to judges in Scotland, in particular to high court judges, as they seek to assess the implications of the Bill on the work of the courts—in particular, the impact of Clause 7. Their concern, which I understand, is that some cases involving party litigants (as we refer to them in Scotland) occupy long periods of court time. That has consequences for other litigants whose cases must be postponed as a result or who must wait longer for their cases to be allocated a hearing. The amendments have been seen by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, the Lord President of the Court of Session, who fully supported the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in tabling them and seeking the Government's response to the problem.
Experience in Scotland is that in recent years party litigants have come before the courts in increasing numbers. In some instances, their cases are one-off disputes with individual local authorities or a government department. However, in other instances a controversial piece of legislation, such as the poll tax legislation, or a controversial new project, such as the new Skye bridge, has increased their numbers. As their numbers have increased so has the volume of court time which their cases have taken up.
Some party litigants have points of great substance. All tend to have a considerable knowledge of the facts of the particular case. If they also identify substantial points of law many advocate their arguments with great skill and a considerable measure of success. Those who are less able receive in Scotland, as no doubt in England, every possible assistance from the judge and any lawyer who may be appearing for another party. Such cases are not the problem faced by the Scottish judges.
The problem relates to those party litigants whose cases have no substance. As was mentioned on the first day of Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, some cases are less meritorious than others. Unfortunately, when party litigants are concerned, cases without any discernible merit raised in a lower court are taken on appeal to an appellate court and consume a considerable amount of court time. The problem is that the party litigant concerned soldiers on with his case with no prospects of success, arguing irrelevant points of law, not understanding the factual issues which arise and, unfortunately, resistant to any guidance or assistance which the judge is able to give.
Many such people would qualify for legal aid if there were merit to their case, but because in many instances they are engaged in a crusade, some strike one as litigating as some form of hobby. They resist any guidance to see a lawyer and the suggestion that they should apply for legal aid. As a result, in some instances the courts are becoming unnecessarily bogged down.
Some Members of the Committee may believe that it is no hardship for judges to have to sit and listen to such individuals, many of whom have suffered in one way or another, and that it is part of a good system of justice to hear them out with as much patience and courtesy as possible before dismissing their applications or refusing whatever motion for damages or declarator order they may make. Some people may believe that judges have to do that. However, the problem is that in doing so there is an unfortunate knock-on effect on the court timetable.
The view that has been represented to me is that, in days when the courts, like all public bodies, are under financial constraint and increasing pressure from members of the public and others to provide a good service to litigants, to shorten the waiting time for a final hearing and to resolve cases as quickly as possible, the party litigants are frustrating those objectives to an undesirable extent. They are causing others to incur unavoidable delay.
The amendments have been tabled against that background. It is believed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and his colleagues that the proposal would be of assistance. In Scotland, as opposed to the practice in England, there is no requirement for leave to be sought in applications for judicial review, nor is there any time limit within which such applications can be brought. The judges believe that measures along the lines proposed, which are designed to provide a screen or sift to enable a single judge to reject at the outset an application which plainly has no reasonable prospect of success, would merit serious consideration. In other parts of court procedure in

1097
Scotland—for instance, in connection with criminal appeals—there is a sifting procedure which has achieved a reduction in the number of cases going to a court hearing and consequently a speeding up of the cases which proceed.
The judges inform me that they fully accept that the amendments may not be the best or the only way of addressing the problem. I can see a measure of difficulty with the precise detail of what is put forward. However, the issue is raised because it is causing serious concern and I hope that in reply the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will explain the Government's reaction to the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Members of the public are aware of the problem as a result of reading newspapers. Groups and individuals can cause problems as described. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate tell the Committee whether such a problem exists south of the Border? If so, perhaps the Government will consider the amendment with a view to widening the provision.
4 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): Perhaps I may first deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I understand that in England, as in Scotland, there are occasionally problems with party litigants. However, I understand that those problems are dealt with by the judges and the lawyers concerned. It is a question of the judges managing the cases properly. I do not understand there to be a serious problem in England because the judges do manage the cases.
I have listened carefully to the argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord in support of the amendments, which I note have effect only in Scotland, as the noble Baroness observed. However, the noble and learned Lord has failed to persuade me that, by accepting the amendments, I should not discriminate to an unacceptable extent against a party who chooses, for whatever reason, to represent his own interests before a court or tribunal in Scotland. That would be so even if it fell to the tribunal adjudicating on the convention right in question to assess the merits of a party litigant's claim.
The entitlement to vindicate one's legal rights in person is fundamental to our legal system and is, indeed, specifically entrenched in the case of criminal proceedings, in Article 6 of the convention. The effect of these amendments would be to impose a significant hurdle in the way of a party who chooses to avail himself of his right to appear on his own behalf when no similar obstacle is put in the way of the represented party. The requirement for application to the Court of Session as opposed to the tribunal adjudicating upon the convention right merely increases the size of that hurdle. It would be particularly unfortunate in the criminal courts in that a defendant would be unable to use his rights without leave.
I should like to give your Lordships a practical example of the discriminatory effect of these amendments. If a convention right became an issue in
1098
proceedings before an industrial tribunal, a party representing himself would be put to the considerable trouble and expense of seeking leave from the Court of Session to continue to represent himself when arguing the convention point before the tribunal. Delay, too, would be inevitable. I am sure that the Committee will agree that delay is in no one's interest. At the same time another party, who might be represented before the tribunal by a trade union official who would have a right of audience before that tribunal, would not need to seek leave. That would be patently discriminatory.
I understand fully the noble and learned Lord's concerns and the concerns of the judges that there is a risk that the courts will be burdened with spurious claims in respect of convention rights which might not have been raised if the party making the claim had access to legal advice. I cannot, however, accept the proposition that the way to deal with such claims is to create a system which favours the represented party by creating a barrier for the unrepresented. The unrepresented party, after all, is in need of greater assistance than the represented party in vindicating his rights and it is my understanding that the courts in Scotland and tribunals sitting there have a long and honourable tradition of support to the litigant who chooses to appear in his own behalf. Indeed, opposing counsel has a duty to draw to the attention of the court cases and authorities in favour of the opponent, particularly when the opponent is unrepresented. The creation of obstacles which only the party litigant is required to surmount would not be consistent with that fine tradition in Scotland.
In addition, I should mention that there is already a mechanism in place which enables the Lord Advocate to seek to have access to the civil courts by a vexatious litigant restricted, and this can be used to ensure that leave is required in the case of persistent litigants in convention cases as in any other case.
There are three further points that I wish to make. The first relates to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that in Scotland, unlike England, there is no need for leave of the court to present a petition for judicial review. The noble and learned Lord is correct to say that, but there is an exception. If a party litigant wishes to present a petition for judicial review, he requires to obtain the consent of the court to lodge the petition. Therefore, there is a requirement of leave in the case of a party litigant in that situation.
The next point that I wish to make is that the amendments are contrary to the Government's stated policy of "bringing rights home". They would make it more difficult for a person to enforce his rights in our domestic courts, in that he would be able to do so only if he were legally represented unless the Court of Session separately conferred a right on that person, a right which he has in any event.
Finally, as I observed at the outset, the amendment relates only to proceedings in Scotland. The position of a party litigant in Scotland does not differ significantly from the position in England and Wales. The imposition of such a burden on parties in Scotland alone would be discriminatory between the two jurisdictions.

1099
As I hinted earlier in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the position can be resolved by the judges managing cases. It is for the judges to take control of cases which come before them. If they perceive that people are abusing process, it is a matter for them and the remedy is in their hands. They can take steps to ensure that cases are conducted properly before the courts.
I hope that on further consideration and in the light of my comments, the noble and learned Lord is now persuaded that he should seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his very full response to the amendment. I know that everything that he said will be read with great interest by the senior judges in Scotland.
I should like to think that up until now they have done everything they can to manage cases to the best of their ability. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord and I, in the course of our careers, have appeared against party litigants and we did all that we could to assist.
As I observed earlier in this Committee stage, there is less of a warm welcome for this Bill north of the Border than may be apparent here. As is reflected in this amendment, there is some concern in relation to the practical impact on the courts. Picking up from what my noble friend Lord Henley said on the last amendment and what I said on Monday night, I hope that, before long, the Government will be able to tell us all in Scotland which courts will have jurisdiction to entertain those proceedings and what the legal aid position will be, since that may well help the court in addressing the problems which lie behind the amendment.
In the meantime, however, in the light of the very full response for which I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Power to take remedial action.]
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 6, line II, after ("rights") insert ("and either—

(i) the period within which an appeal may be brought against the relevant judgment has expired, or

(ii) no further appeal lies to a British court from the relevant judgment").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a comparatively short amendment which seeks to introduce into Clause 10 a requirement that before a Minister of the Crown or Her Majesty in Council could pass to the making of a remedial order following upon a declaration or declarator of incompatibility in terms of Clause 4, the period for appealing against that declarator would require to be expired or no further appeal to a British court from the judgment giving that declarator could exist.
The purpose of the amendment is relatively simple. It is to restrict the use of remedial orders following upon a declarator or a declaration and prevent it being used if there is any possibility of the judgment of the court being successfully appealed against. In terms of the Bill, as is clear from Clause 4, it will be competent for courts in both England and Scotland, and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter, to grant declarator which could then be the subject of appeal to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. It takes some weeks, and in many instances some months, for those appeals to be completed. It would be unfortunate in the extreme if, following upon a declaration being granted, a remedial order was then proceeded with if the decision of the High Court in England or the Court of Session in Scotland was to be overturned and the legal justification for proceeding with the declaration evaporated.
I readily accept that, when a declaration is granted, the Government and their legal advisers would no doubt consider the situation most carefully before passing to exercise the powers which are to be found in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill. Nevertheless, there is an argument that we should do all that we can to ensure that there is no unnecessary conflict between the courts, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Government. It is against that background that I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely understand the concern which lies behind the amendment, which was amply described by the noble and learned Lord; namely, what if the relevant Minister seeks to initiate the fast-track procedure in response to a declarator or declaration of incompatibility, only to find that the declaring court is overturned or varied on appeal? We believe that such a situation would be most unlikely to arise in practice because it is a discretion that the Minister has to introduce the fast-track procedure. I would find it hard to envisage circumstances in which the Government would want to exercise the power conferred by Clause 10 before the appeal process had been concluded.
Nevertheless, I recognise the concern behind the amendment. Perhaps I ought to take the matter away, consider whether a limitation of the kind suggested should be made on the face of the Bill—but I am bound to say that, as at present advised, it may not be—and also consider whether the present drafting might need a little attention.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine: moved Amendment No. 66A:
Page 6, line 13, after ("Rights") insert ("made against the United Kingdom after the coming into force of this section").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment partly as a probing device. During the debates that I have listened to in our Committee proceedings, I have been struck by how many speakers have claimed to be the first lay

1101
person to address the Bill. My own claim might be that 1 am the only lawyer speaking about the legislation who can claim, in the context of the Bill, to be a lay person. The Government may feel that consultation about the terms of this Bill has been going on for more than 20 years, both inside and outside Parliament. But I would make a different claim and say that, in view of the way that the Bill is going to affect every man, woman and child in this country, especially those who may find that they are being challenged by public interest groups on the ground that they are public authorities, effective consultation has been minimal and inadequate.
To date, the only reply to that point has been that it is up to lawyers to get themselves up to date and understand the workings of the convention very thoroughly. I should point out that that is not much help to a body which unwittingly finds, before it has had a chance to take legal advice, that it is being challenged by public interest groups on the grounds that it is a public authority.
I find myself at the foot of a very steep learning curve, and about my amendment I would say that it addresses, first, whether Clause 10(1)(b) should apply retrospectively to allow an administration to find grounds for invoking the fast-track procedures in order to comply with the findings of the Court of Human Rights which were made before this clause will come into effect. I do not know when the clause is expected to come into effect, and perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. However, if paragraph (a) cannot operate retrospectively, then paragraph (b) should not. But that is not my main point.
The wording of the subsection is such that a United Kingdom administration could invoke the clause in respect of any finding of the Court against the United Kingdom, however long ago made. In addition—and it will not have escaped notice that my amendment thrusts in two directions—findings against other member states of the Council of Europe, whenever made, whether before or after the coming into force of this clause, may tempt an administration to take the short-cut, fast-track way through Parliament by saying that the finding of the Court against another country, perhaps made some years ago, shows that a provision of our legislation is incompatible with our obligations under the convention.
The Notes on Clauses tell us that paragraph (b) applies to adverse decisions in United Kingdom cases. When the Minister replies, it is possible that he will tell us that this is clearly provided for in the Bill and that there is no question of any other interpretation applying. I gain the impression that that is indeed what he is going to tell the Committee.
Under the clause, the Minister does not have to show that he is legislating to fill the gap in our human rights legislation pointed to directly by the finding of the Court, which the United Kingdom is bound by treaty to fill. He merely has, having regard to any finding of the Court, to decide that a provision of our legislation is incompatible with one or more of our obligations arising from the convention. I suspect that a Minister, if allowed to do so, could made such a decision perfectly
1102
reasonably on frequent occasions. All I would suggest is that he should not be allowed to take the fast-track if he did so.
In the case of legislation intended to make our laws comply with a specific finding of the Court against us, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the administration carrying out an audit and carrying other statutory amendments on the back of the fast-track procedure beyond those required by the finding of the Court of Human Rights. That possibility is illustrated by the Chahal case and the recent passage through this Chamber of the Special Immigrations Appeals Commission Bill. I need not go into the details, but my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Anelay of St. Johns referred to the fact that the Bill went further than was required in order to respond to the Chahal case.
Yesterday in another place that Bill received its Third Reading and, because of amendments made in that place, it still has to return to this Chamber for further consideration. My honourable friend Mr. Clappison, looking ahead to the arrival of the Human Rights Bill in another place, pointed out that this was one more reason why it was most important that the Houses of Parliament should be able to give the fullest possible attention to amendments to human rights legislation, which should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and debate and, indeed, be susceptible to amendment.
I see no reason to question the good sense of legislating outside and beyond the strict requirements of a finding of the Court against us, wherever appropriate. I also realise that the Government, were they to have introduced the legislation necessitated by the Chahal case after the coming into force of this Bill, might not have used the fast-track procedures. I say that they "might not", but I do wonder. The temptations facing an administration, when it is a question of by-passing or marginalising Parliament, are hard to resist.
It seems to me that Clause 11 of the Bill gives wide powers to an administration to legislate beyond what is required by a specific finding of the Court of Human Rights, and that paragraph (b) of Clause 10(1) of the Bill needs further scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: In my party we see some force in that part of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, which restricts the operation of the fast-track procedure to decisions made after the coming into force of the clause. What we take issue with is that part of the amendment which restricts the fast-track procedure to decisions made against the United Kingdom. It is clear from the existing provisions of Clause 10 that if,
"it appears to a Minister of the Crown … that, having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights, a provision of legislation is incompatible with one or more of the obligations of the United Kingdom arising from the Convention",
the fast track procedure under Clause 10 applies. It would certainly appear that that would apply to a decision not only given against the United Kingdom but against another country too. Indeed it is perfectly appropriate and reasonable that it should.

1103
What is the position if the judgment given against some other country shows that some provision of United Kingdom legislation is clearly incompatible with the European convention? The position then is that the Minister will have two options. He can either proceed in the ordinary way by primary legislation, which will require finding a place in the queue—and that may well be difficult—or he has to wait until someone in this country sees fit to litigate, or seeks to litigate, exactly the same point in the European Court. At the end of that proceeding he will then, but only then, be able to make use of the fast-track procedure.
Indeed it is quite possible that the petition of an applicant in that position to the European Court might be held to be inadmissible because the law had already been clearly established by the previous decision against a different country. It certainly seems to us that where a decision against another country makes it clear that some provision of United Kingdom legislation is incompatible with the convention, the Minister in those circumstances should be entitled to consider whether to make use of the fast-track procedure, and do so if he thinks fit.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As I had understood the provisions of Clause 10(1)(b) with the benefit of the Notes on Clauses, the policy of the Government is that the finding referred to is a finding against the United Kingdom. If that be the case, I suggest to the Minister who is to reply to this amendment that the speeches we have just listened to from the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Goodhart, make it clear that another construction of the clause is possible. I readily accept that. There clearly is some doubt about this. This may be another clause which merits some further consideration.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for his careful exposition of what lay behind the amendment. However, I must dissent from his proposition that there has not been consultation on this Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated quite plainly that their doors were always open throughout the summer. Having been involved on various occasions, I assure the Committee that there was consultation with regard to anyone who wished to put forward a view, whether orally at a meeting, at a further meeting or in protracted correspondence.
On the substance of the amendment I quite understand the purpose, which is to restrict Clause 10(1)(b) to findings of the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving the United Kingdom. It would also make it clear that the remedial order power could not be used in respect of findings pre-dating the coming into force of Clause 10. I shall address those points separately.
On the first point it is conceivable that Parliament might want to amend United Kingdom legislation following a court ruling in a case which did not involve the United Kingdom. For example, there might be a finding in a case involving the Republic of Ireland
1104
where the Irish legislation was in similar terms to ours and it appeared that our legislation might be incompatible with convention obligations. Apart from such a case, we find it difficult to envisage a situation in which a Minister might consider that a Strasbourg judgment in a case against another state—not the United Kingdom—made it appropriate for him to seek to use the remedial order procedure to amend United Kingdom legislation. I am therefore prepared to take this point away—as has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon—to consider whether we ought to put it beyond doubt that the power under Clause 10(1)(b) should relate only to United Kingdom cases. I believe that deals with the first point which was explained so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
On the second point, we think that it is implicit that the power to make a remedial order does not extend to cases where the Court finding pre-dates the coming into force of Clause 10. Clause 22 makes express provision for the circumstances in which another provision of the Bill—Clause 7(1)(b)—may apply to acts committed before it comes into force, and that implies that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, the Bill should not have retrospective effect. However, as we said at the outset of our deliberations on this Bill, we are eager to see whether it can be improved consistent with the scheme of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. I am perfectly content to consider before the next stage whether this measure should be made clear on the face of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will find that response helpful. On the basis of that response, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: I found what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said a full response and one that was helpful to the Committee with regard to the points that I raised. I shall read what he has said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 6, line 15, at end insert—
("( )Within a reasonable time following a declaration of incompatibility under section 4, a Minister of the Crown shall make a statement to Parliament giving reasons as to whether or not he will exercise the power conferred by subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who very much regrets that he is unable to be here today. This amendment has the relative merit of being more or less self-explanatory. It requires a Minister to make a statement,
"giving reasons as to whether or not he will exercise the power conferred by subsection (2)",
of Clause 10. Clause 10(2) states,
"If a Minister of the Crown considers that, in order to remove the incompatibility, it is appropriate to amend the legislation using the power conferred by this subsection, he may by order make such amendments to it as he considers appropriate".
That is the bare bones of the matter, but a Minister should be required, first of all, to consider whether he will exercise that power with reasonable speed. He

1105
should then proceed to announce that decision, whether favourable or not, and he should give reasons for it, again whether favourable or not. That is more important when his decision is unfavourable.
As it is, in the absence of any provision such as is contained in Amendment No. 67, it appears that there is no time limit on the Minister's obligation to consider that there is no action required on his part. He is not required to announce that he has decided not to take any action. There is no requirement for him to give reasons for not taking action, or indeed for taking action if he decides to do so. The result is that, first of all, there will be a lengthy period of uncertainty for the applicant, who will not know whether the Government will take action under the fast-track procedure or whether it will be necessary for him to take the case to the European Court in Strasbourg in order to obtain a judgment from that court that the United Kingdom Government are in breach of their obligations under the convention.
Secondly, there will be no opportunity for Parliament to be informed of the Minister's decision and there will be no possibility of debating that decision in the absence of any reasons being given, even if it is informed of that decision. In those circumstances, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seriously to consider introducing a measure which specifies in more detail the obligations of the Minister in exercising his powers under Clause 10(2). 1 beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that a declaration of incompatibility would be likely to happen extremely rarely and would be taken with considerable gravity. It is part of that gravity that Parliament, the litigant, the courts and all other interested parties should be entitled to know at the earliest possible moment the response of the Minister concerned to such a declaration: what he is likely to do; whether he is likely to do anything and, if not, why not?
I am sure that with the present noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack there will be no difficulty on this point. But I hope that we are making legislation which may last a century or longer. In those circumstances we cannot predict which Ministers may be in charge of its enforcement and application. There have been cases where responses of Ministers have been remarkably dilatory. A few moments ago—noting the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in his place—I was reminded of a Motion he carried in this Chamber in 1995. It called for changes to regulations in social work training for probation officers. He carried that Motion in this Chamber by a considerable majority. The Home Secretary received the response from the electorate before the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, received a response from the Home Secretary. I do not think that that gave the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, a great sense that he had been taken with the seriousness that he deserved by the Home Secretary.
It would be easier to engage in an informed discussion about a certificate of incompatibility. Occasionally informed discussion may be needed. If the
1106
Minister were prepared to kick off that informed discussion by coming to Parliament and saying what he thought about the matter and what he proposed to do about it, it would be in the interests of justice.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not think that there is any fundamental difference between what has been said in support of the amendment and the Government's position. It is a case of how one achieves the desired conclusion.
The noble Earl rightly reminded us that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had told noble Lords that we anticipated that the declaration, or the declarator, would be, first, important—that is why we have limited it to the higher courts—and, secondly, very rare. There is sometimes a danger of over-legislation. The Bill is perfectly simple in scheme, and we look at what might happen in practice were there to be a declarator of incompatibility. The Government would need no prompting either from inside or outside Parliament to come to a decision. I do not think that it is factually correct to suggest that there would be no opportunity for questioning or for debate. From my experience at this Dispatch Box, which is quite limited—it feels longer, and there is no remission for good conduct!—I do not find anyone backward in coming forward, as they used to say in the days of my youth, about questioning Ministers.
I do not believe that this is a real mischief which needs to be on the face of the Bill as a matter of legislation. If the Minister is dilatory he can be asked questions either by a Member of Parliament on behalf of an aggrieved victim or potential victim, or by Questions for Written Answer in either House, and by Questions or debates in this House. We have come to this conclusion as a matter of judgment. One does not need to legislate for every conceivable circumstance. We believe that the legitimate pressures outside Parliament and the focused pressures within both Houses of Parliament are sufficient to direct the Minister's attention to the question if he needs any direction.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may add a few further words. I agree that there is a power to question Ministers. Let me remind the Minister of another Motion which was carried in this House. On 6th July 1992 there was a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, about board and lodging in bed and breakfast accommodation. The power to question the Minister was exercised when he failed to respond to that Motion. The year 1992 is quite some time ago, but nothing has happened yet.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal briefly with that point. The position would be no different if the amendment were carried. The amendment simply requires the Minister to come to Parliament and answer questions. It does not require him to follow a certain course of action. Therefore the net result would be exactly the same.
Lord Goodhart: The answer by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has not wholly covered the

1107
situation of the applicant who is faced with a potentially long delay if there is no obligation to bring forward a decision and to announce reasons for it. However, in the circumstances, I do not press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 6, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) After a declaration of incompatibility has been made the Minister may grant such relief to the person in whose case the declaration was made or to any other person as shall seem to him just.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is short and simple. It is in the nature of a probing amendment. I can put the substance of it within a few minutes.
The heading to Clause 10 is,
"Power to take remedial action".
Amendment No. 67A and the amendments grouped with it seek to provide the opportunity for the Minister to take remedial action, which is full and effective by way of remedy, rather than the limited activity provided for in Clause 10. The Minister should be able to grant such relief as he considers just and appropriate to the person who is party to the proceedings in which the declaration or finding of incompatibility has been made; and indeed to any other person who a Minister considers is similarly affected. I seek to inquire why remedial action is as limited as it is in this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Amendments Nos. 67A and 70 give the Minister a discretionary power to award compensation to a claimant where there is a declaration of incompatibility. Under Clause 8, such a claimant is not eligible for compensation or damages because there is no finding that there has been an unlawful act. Clearly a declaration of incompatibility is not a finding that there has been an unlawful act.
It is desirable that a power to award compensation should exist. It may well be that in the circumstances there is power to make an ex gratia payment in exercise of the prerogative but it is surely better to give that power a statutory basis. It will of course still remain discretionary.
Amendments Nos. 69, 75 and 78 are required through the failure to incorporate Article 13 of the convention. That has already been discussed. New legislation introduced under the Clause 10 procedure must clearly provide an effective remedy for victims; otherwise it will simply not be doing its job. Amendment No. 78 is added because it is for the victim that the remedy must be provided. That is a different situation. For example, an interest group should be able to raise the question of convention rights. There is no question of an interest group seeking a remedy for itself. The remedy must be a remedy for the victim. Therefore I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider the
1108
amendments which are grouped together in order to clarify what is not sufficiently clear in the legislation as it stands.
The Lord Chancellor: In speaking to Amendment No. 67A, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 75 and 78. I appreciate that these amendments are of a probing nature. Amendment 69 would explicitly provide that the power to amend legislation by means of a remedial order should include the power to make amendment so as to provide effective remedies for victims of an unlawful act.
There are several difficulties in making remedies of this kind subject to a statutory provision in the manner proposed. First, the amendments could extend the scope of remedial orders wider than is desirable. The specific purpose of these orders is to put right incompatible legislation. It is for this purpose that we have concluded that the power to amend primary legislation by order is necessary. The amendments proposed would bolt on remedies for individuals of a wholly different character from remedies which are designed to put right incompatible legislation to make it compatible. Individual remedies do not naturally fit into that. The amendments would open up the prospect of legislative amendments being made by order under the Bill but having a much wider extension than the present drafting of the Bill permits.
As at present advised, we think that that would create too sweeping a provision. It would threaten the ability of the Minister to consider whether and to what extent a retrospective remedy was required by the facts of the case; and it would threaten the sovereignty of Parliament, since any order for its approval would be bound to contain such provisions. It is no answer to point to the words,
"such amendments as may be appropriate and necessary".
We believe that in practice those words would entail a presumption that a remedy would always be necessary.
We think it more appropriate for decisions on what remedy should be given to individuals affected by a particular act to be taken by the Government in light of the individual circumstances of every case—and they will vary infinitely. There are existing ways in which this could be achieved. For example, should it be thought necessary for a remedial order affecting the legislation to take effect from a date earlier than that on which the order was made, this will be possible under the Bill; Clause 11(1)(b) so provides. This will not of itself provide a direct remedy to individuals affected by the legislation which has been retrospectively amended; but, following the order, it may be open to them to seek such a remedy. In addition to these powers in the Bill, there are prerogative powers which can be exercised and other ex gratia actions that could be taken to grant remedies in appropriate circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 67A and 70 take a slightly different approach. They suggest making explicit the power of the Minister himself to grant a remedy, in addition to and alongside a remedial order remedying an incompatibility in the legislation. This is not necessary unless the intention is to broaden the means available to

1109
the Minister. It is not clear what kind of power it would be. There is a danger that the prerogative would to some extent be superseded by this statutory provision. We think it unwise to tinker with the prerogative without being clear about what the impact would be.
For all those reasons, we are not persuaded that the proposed amendments are beneficial and we invite noble Lords to consider withdrawing them.
Lord Ackner: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very full explanation, which I should like to consider with a view to returning to the matter, if necessary, on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 67B:
Page 6, line 16, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
("( ) If a Minister of the Crown considers that, in order to remove incompatibility it is appropriate that legislation should be amended, he may—

(a) as regards primary legislation, introduce an amendment bill in either House of Parliament; and

(b) as regards subordinate legislation, make a draft order containing the proposed amendments, which order shall be laid before Parliament and subject to approval by resolution of each House.").

The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment and the grouped amendments that Clauses 11 and 12 do not stand part of the Bill is straightforward and simple. It is to remove the fast-track procedure under which it is proposed to amend primary legislation by Order in Council and to retain the traditional parliamentary process for amending primary legislation which has served us so well for so long.
This amendment to Clause 10, which is concerned with remedial action to assimilate the convention with our domestic law, retains Clause 1(a) where a declaration of incompatibility under Clause 4 has been made in our courts. It also retains Clause 10(1)(b) where a decision of the European Court of Human Rights has given rise to incompatibility. However, subsections (2) to (5) relating to the fast track are removed. If the amendment were to be accepted by the Committee, Clause 11, concerned with remedial orders, and Clause 12, concerned with procedure, cannot stand part of the Bill.
The machinery proposed for the implementation of the fast track under Clause 10, subsections (2) to (5), Clause 11 and Clause 12 disturbs the delicate balance which separates the powers of the legislature from those of the judiciary. It is without the constitution as it has so far evolved, which has as yet not adopted this novel approach to law-making—an approach which is not necessary, satisfactory or sound. There was no reference to this fast track in the Labour Party Manifesto; there is no mandate for its introduction.
The amendment to which I speak is a procedural one which in no way challenges the principle of the Bill. Incorporation of the convention without any direct
1110
assault on the sovereignty of Parliament to provide a domestic remedy in our courts is wholly acceptable. The means proposed for implementation by the fast track is not acceptable. It is only the proposed means of procedure which the amendment calls into question.
Members will appreciate that the Bill, and the amendment, are of vast constitutional importance to every one of Her Majesty's subjects and to every institution within the realm whose functions are of a public nature. In the light of last Monday's debate on Amendment No. 40, in the name of my noble friend, Lady Young, it is apparent that all institutions whose functions are of a public nature are subject to the fast track unless it is established to the satisfaction of the courts that the exercise of a particular function was of a private nature. The question whether the function of the institution was of a public nature and whether the exercise of a specific function was of a private nature would be decided on the facts of each case. It is not clear where the burden of proof on either question would lie.
In the course of debate it became apparent that this fast-track procedure was of concern to the established Church and to other religious institutions, for the set of rights and obligations to be incorporated had explicit and implicit moral overtones. The right reverend Prelates, the Bishops of Exeter and Lichfield, observed that the decisions of the Synod, albeit ethical, had the quality of primary legislation and were not of a private nature.
In the context of the fast-track procedure, the Committee will be aware of the sixth report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, in particular paragraphs 22 to 25, concerning resort to Henry VIII powers. My noble friend Lord Henley sought an assurance from the Lord Chancellor that he would abide by the recommendations of that all-party Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord declined to give any such assurance. However, in opening a debate it is hardly appropriate to stray into the area of storm-tossed seas of contention and so I pass on.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor conceded that,
"A power to amend primary legislation by (Order in Council] is not a power to be conferred or exercised lightly".—[Official Report, 3/11/97; col. 1231.]
As yet no justification has been advanced for so doing. On Second Reading reservations were expressed by many noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Kingsland explained why the means of incorporation were of critical consequence and concluded in a closely reasoned exposition why the fast track failed to afford proper parliamentary consideration for future legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—I am delighted to see him in his place—expressed reservations as to the effect of the fast track on substantive law; as to calling upon judges to undertake functions normally suitable for Parliament and as to the interpretation of vague phrases in the convention in concrete cases. He referred to vague phrases such as "private life" and "family life", not defined in the convention. Reference has already been made to "public authority" where the

1111
incidence of fast track is left open, without any statutory exclusion, to be decided by the courts on the specific facts of each case.
It is no easy task to amend primary legislation to reflect declarations of incompatibility on the facts of concrete cases; to assimilate and thereby achieve compatibility with the convention. Law-making on the hoof, in particular in these circumstances, has inherent incalculable hazards. Is it not better to take time to get it right? Has not due parliamentary process that very propensity? As part of such process no doubt a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, chaired by a noble and learned Lord with other noble Lords and noble and learned Lords as members, could report on the form an amendment to primary legislation should take to reflect the judicial declaration of incompatibility. That would be an invariable source of guidance for both Houses in the interests of the country.
One must be realistic. It is idle to seek accommodation on this amendment. The gulf is too wide. But the Committee may wish to consider in due course whether, in the light of this debate today, any justification has been advanced for the abrogation of due parliamentary process for the amendment of primary legislation. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Brougham and Vaux): If Amendment No. 67B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 68 to 77 inclusive.
Lord Goodhart: In the course of the debates on the Human Rights Bill—this is the third day of debate on the Committee stage—many important amendments have been discussed and ultimately withdrawn. Examples of those are the debates on standing and on the Human Rights Commission. But there can be no question but that the debate which arises on Amendment No. 67B and Clauses 11 and 12 as a whole, is the most important debate that will take place during the Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made clear, it is a direct frontal attack on the fast-track procedure.
We on these Benches strongly support the fast-track procedure. We do not do so without criticisms. For example, we tabled Amendment No. 81 in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. We believe that the proposals that appear in paragraph 24 of the sixth report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation which recommend that there should be some form of procedure which would enable a remedial order to be amended during the course of its passage through Parliament, deserve consideration.
Some of us would have preferred a stronger provision than the fast-track procedure. It would have included a power to invalidate previous statutes on the grounds of incompatibility and to declare current and subsequent statutes to be invalid on grounds of incompatibility in the absence of some such provision as the "notwithstanding" clause that exists under Canadian legislation. However, we on these Benches accept that that is perhaps a bridge too far. We accept the proposal
1112
in the Bill for fast-track legislation as an ingenious compromise between what may be described as the maximalists and the minimalists.
The situation which will arise when there is a declaration of incompatibility is this: the Government will be under pressure—indeed, they are effectively bound—to take action under the European Convention of Human Rights unless they choose deliberately not to take action in order to provoke a challenge, as they are entitled to do, requiring the applicant to go from the courts in the United Kingdom to Strasbourg. In the absence of that action the situation will be that a declaration of incompatibility has been made by the courts. The Government will have accepted that there is an incompatibility. What then are they to do?
The provision will be doomed. Everyone will know that it is doomed. However, if the Government have to introduce primary legislation, that legislation will have to take its place in the queue. We know that there is frequently a considerable time lag in bringing new legislation before Parliament. Therefore, it may take a considerable time—it may take months—to bring primary legislation before Parliament. That primary legislation may be the subject of debate as it may involve a controversial issue. In those circumstances. it seems reasonable to us that there should be a speedy procedure to bring a remedial order before Parliament and change the law to the extent—and no further—that is required to correct the incompatibility. In those cases we believe that a fast-track procedure is wholly appropriate. We therefore oppose Amendment No. 67B and we shall support the proposal that Clauses 11 and 12 stand part of the Bill.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Goodhart has just said. I merely wish to add a few more points. The Committee knows that I am no friend to Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was right to raise a debate on this issue. I think the Committee would expect me in the case of any normal Bill to be supporting such an amendment. But this is not a normal Bill. Indeed, I can think of only two Bills that have reached our statute book with which I would compare it. The purpose of the Bill is to receive another system of law. I shall not say "a foreign system of law", because I will not describe anything largely drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as a foreign system. However, it is a system of law which, though we have been bound by it already for nearly 40 years, has not yet been received into our domestic law.
The only two parallels that come to mind of Acts of Parliament which received another system of law, both of which I mentioned at Second Reading, are the Act of 1554 restoring the jurisdiction of the Papacy and the European Communities Act 1972. In the 1554 Act, the different systems of law were applied in different courts, so there was no need for any such procedure. In the 1972 Act, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, who, like me, was no friend to Henry VIII powers in any of their ordinary forms, chose to use a Henry VIII procedure even more sweeping than the one we have

1113
here. That, I am sure the Committee will realise, is something the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, would not have done lightly.
Here we have a very sensible attempt to ensure parliamentary scrutiny together with an immediate reception. It is possible that by adoption of some of the suggestions advanced by the delegated powers scrutiny committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could even further improve what is already an extremely good idea. That would make the case which I have already argued even easier to argue in future and would be a great asset. But since the intention of Parliament is to receive another system of law and to ensure that that system of law passes into our domestic law, I do not see how that can effectively happen without some kind of fast-track procedure such as is laid out in the Bill.
I would not say that the Government have got it absolutely perfect, because practically nothing ever is, but I think they have done very nearly as well as could reasonably be expected. I congratulate them, and like my noble friend, I shall support the clause in the form in which it at present stands.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I seem to remember that I have been on the receiving end of his tongue on a number of occasions when in the past I have brought before the House Bills that contained the very Henry VIII clauses to which, as he says, he normally and so often objects. It is undoubtedly true that this is, as the report of the delegated powers scrutiny committee makes clear, a Henry VIII power of the utmost importance. It is therefore right that we should consider very carefully whether it is right and proper that there should be such a procedure in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Campbell has put forward the case—it is one which we on these Benches support—that on this occasion such a power is not appropriate. It is proper that Parliament should be entitled to examine the issues properly by means of primary legislation. I remind those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, say that that could lead to considerable delay that it is possible to get legislation through both Houses of Parliament very quickly where there is a will. In the very rare cases, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put it, where there was a declaration of incompatibility, I am sure that there would be the will to achieve that legislation and to get it through as quickly as possible.
I appreciate that the delegated powers scrutiny committee does not go so far as saying that it would be inappropriate to have secondary legislation to achieve that. However, it went on to suggest that if there were to be secondary legislation as a means of achieving the fast-track procedure the House might wish to consider whether there is a case for developing a new procedure to scrutinise such orders, modelled on that for the second stage of parliamentary scrutiny of deregulation orders. I should like to come back to that point when we deal later with the group of amendments to which I have my name. However, before we get to that, the Committee should consider carefully whether secondary
1114
legislation should be used at all and whether we should not, as my noble friend Lord Campbell put it, consider the case for proceeding by means of primary legislation.
As I said earlier, I believe there is a case for using primary legislation. Primary legislation can be made to operate quickly and without delay should all the parties—I am sure all the parties would be of this view—so wish it. We have all seen primary legislation proceed quickly through both Houses. There have been occasions when legislation has proceeded through both Houses in less than 24 hours but has still been considered and has still been amendable in a way that the procedure recommended by the Government at the moment is not. For those reasons, I support my noble friend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was not able to speak on Second Reading and so was not able to make this point. I would have done it then if I had been able to do so. This is an enormously important issue in that it involves without question a diminishing of the role of Parliament. I am interested that we have not heard anything so far from anyone sitting on the Benches behind the Government. I am surprised to hear the Liberal Democrats say that they are so keen to get the incorporation of the convention into our law that they do not mind if ordinary people are not made aware of what is going on, which is what they are actually saying when one thinks about it.
The primary legislation that may be changed has gone through all its stages in both Houses. If it is one of the controversial issues which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said it might be, the public have probably been made very aware of what the law is. We all know that secondary legislation is whipped through without a great deal of public attention. We can discuss it. but we either accept it or not. What would happen if one House accepted it and the other did not in this case? I am not sure. I should know what the procedure would be, but there would be problems. The public will not know what is going on.
The European Convention on Human rights is framed in a broad way to suit the member states for whom it was originally designed. It is much more similar to the legislation of some other member states of the European Union, for example, than it is to our legislation. But in order to incorporate it into our law we shall have to make detailed changes because that is the way our law works. That will be done by the fast-track procedure. which is the Henry VIII way.
That worries me very much as an individual. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord replies he will be able to justify this matter in simple terms to me because long words will not make the matter clearer. It concerns what ordinary people are going to know about the changes that are made in their name by Parliament in response to a broadly framed convention, through making detailed changes to our law which will affect everyone. I look forward very much to hearing the Government's reply.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may seek to justify my attitude in support of the fast-track procedure. I have some experience of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, which was introduced by the previous

1115
administration through the Hong Kong administration in the late 1980s. Under that Bill it was possible for the judges to strike down incompatible legislation altogether. That, of course, was in a society where democracy was very much in its infancy and where there were not the same safeguards of elected representatives such as we have in this country. It had the overwhelming advantage of giving an immediate remedy to the person who was the subject of the particular piece of legislation which was incompatible with the Bill of Rights.
For example, I recall that immediately the judges struck down as incompatible certain presumptions which had been inserted into the drugs ordinance, which bore down harshly on individuals who were charged with offences under that legislation. Similarly, the judges took the opportunity to strike down the equivalent of what we knew in this country as the "sus" laws, where a person was arrested in the street merely because a police officer suspected that he might be about to commit a crime. That was an immediate solution and advantage to the person who was affected by that legislation. The judge could deal with it then and there.
What is proposed in the current Bill, as we discussed earlier this afternoon, is that the victim should have no such immediate remedy. Amendments were moved to that effect a moment ago but they were withdrawn. The Government have indicated that they do not believe in incorporating in this Bill a remedy for the victim who raised the issue and obtained the declaration of incompatibility. However, it means that there are other people who may be affected by that legislation, which is incompatible. It can cover a wide area. It is not just the criminal law; it may involve the tax laws, with people incurring liabilities to pay large sums of money. It may cover all sorts of areas of the law which very much affect the individual. Therefore, an immediate remedy for other potential victims of incompatible legislation is required.
In his usual excellent way, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has raised a very important issue. But the introduction of primary legislation to amend incompatible legislation involves delay in getting it into the programme. The fast-track procedure means that potential victims can be given an immediate remedy. It is for that reason that I justify the fast-track procedure, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, as an in-between stage, between the judges having the power to strike down legislation immediately and the delay involved in introducing fresh primary legislation. We have here a compromise which is well thought out and which deserves our support.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: I do not wish to take a position in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I hope that the Committee will be patient while I repeat a question that I put in relation to Amendment No. 40 on Monday. It is simply to ask for an assurance that the Government recognise, as regards the proposed workings of the Bill, that it is a
1116
unique position concerning the making of laws for the established Church, namely, that all the work and its stages is done in the General Synod. It is then presented to Parliament to be scrutinised by the eccessiastical committee. It is not debated on the Floor of House unless Members desire that. That is an almost unique way of making law for a particular part of the country's constitution. I know that attention will be given by the General Synod to the progress of this Bill, which it became aware of only earlier this week, as far as it affects the established Church. It would be helpful if the Government could give recognition to the procedure which is part of our constitution.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may very briefly respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. She reproached these Benches for not letting people know what is going on. But the noble Baroness was talking as though the Bill were introducing new legal obligations. These matters have been our legal obligation for 46 years. Should there be a declaration of incompatibility, it would put me, in my parliamentary capacity, in much the same position as I would be in in my personal capacity were a judge to discover that, for some technical reason, my marriage had been invalid. I would of course go straight off and do it again! I would not feel the need to tell everybody what was going on because I would assume that they knew already.
The Lord Chancellor: It is entirely right, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others have said, that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, should bring this important point for discussion before the Committee. However, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right, I suggest, when he says that in substance this is a direct frontal attack on the fast-track procedure. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said during a Committee stage last week that he was concerned with the end rather than the means. I am sure that the noble Lord himself would be the first to acknowledge what his end is as regards Clause 10. He has already signalled that he intends to oppose it, and this amendment, if it were carried, would achieve the same end but by different means. In that sense I believe that the noble Lord would be constrained to agree with me if I were to describe it as an intended wrecking amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and other Members of the Committee on his Benches for saying that they strongly support the principle of the fast-track procedure. I welcome that. I fully appreciate that there will be amendments which they will be supporting, aimed, as they will argue, at strengthening or improving the fast-track procedure.
I am conscious that the noble Earl. Lord Russell, is traditionally hostile to Henry VIII clauses. His hostility is well known and, perhaps I may add, "without peer". It is for that reason that I particularly welcome his support. I remind the Committee that before any remedial order is brought before your Lordships for your consideration, it will have been preceded by a reasoned judgment of a higher court—perhaps the very highest court—which will have made the declaration of

1117
incompatibility. The legislation in question will have been scrupulously analysed, the point identified and the need for the declaration made as clear as the higher court can make it. Therefore, in a sense this is first-class briefing material so that your Lordships may focus your attention on the need for the order. That is an important reason for regarding this use of the Henry VIII clause as a legislative development which is sensible and designed to serve, not hinder, parliamentary sovereignty.
I now speak having been chairman of the Queen's Speech and Future Legislation Committee for the past seven months. I am acutely conscious of the pressures on the legislative programme. This is a very extended legislative programme and the next legislative programme will be similarly very extended. There will be competitive bids. Priorities will have to be determined by the committee that I chair. I am afraid that when I hear it said that it is easy to get something into the legislative programme if the will is there, I feel that that does not respond to the realities of a legislative programme which is inevitably under pressure.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for intervening. I do so with the utmost respect because he knows that I am an amateur on such matters. However, is he absolutely sure that he is not putting the interests of Parliament and the business managers in front of the need of the people of this country to understand the changes that are to be made in the law? I entirely understand the noble and learned Lord's point I can imagine the pressures—but surely we should be vigilant about this. Is the noble and learned Lord quite convinced that that is the case?
The Lord Chancellor: I am absolutely convinced that this House will be well informed of the need for change by the fact of the judgment of the higher courts which will set out the need for change. I venture to suggest that the purpose of a remedial order is to give Parliament the earliest possible opportunity in a considered way to remedy an incompatibility between a statute passed by Parliament (in all probability, inadvertently) and the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a party. Far from trenching on parliamentary sovereignty, I think that that gives Parliament the earliest legislative opportunity to remedy in a focused way an incompatibility which was probably the product of parliamentary inadvertence, not intention.
I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Amendment No. 67B would remove all but subsection (1) of Clause 10. It would therefore destroy the mechanism of remedial order which we have put in place. Paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment provides that if there is incompatible primary legislation, an amendment Bill may be introduced to remove the incompatibility. That seems to have no point at all because the Government could introduce a new Bill irrespective of any powers in this Human Rights Bill.
Paragraph (b) provides that in the case of incompatible subordinate legislation, a draft order to amend that legislation may be made subject to the
1118
affirmative resolution procedure. As the paragraph provides no specific powers to amend primary legislation, which would need to be amended in order to remove the incompatibility of inevitably incompatible subordinate legislation (because it is consequential upon an incompatible provision of the parent legislation), it too serves little purpose. Its only effect would be to supersede other provisions in parent statutes which may allow for a procedure less onerous than the draft affirmative resolution procedure. So, we cannot accept the amendment because, in substance, it wrecks.
Perhaps I may advise the right reverend Prelate that, of course, we recognise the unique position of the established Church and if any question ever arose—I venture to suggest that it is highly unlikely—of making remedial orders touching upon ecclesiastical legislation, I regard it as inconceivable that government would do that without first elaborately consulting the Church. I would have thought that the better course would be for the Church itself to do that which I am sure that it would want to do if any of its legislation had been held incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights—that is, for the Church to amend its measures itself, subject to parliamentary approval. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we would always be solicitous of the interests of the Church.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested that in our previous discussions in Committee right reverend Prelates had expressed concern about the fast-track procedure. I am not aware that they have done so. Their concern was with the definition of "public authority" in Clause 6. The right reverend Prelates had expressed an interest in that because of the interests of the Church, but not in the fast-track procedure. Legislation will be subject to the fast-track procedure, not institutions. Of course, institutions will be affected by the legislation once altered by remedial order, but where it affects their interests, they will have had the fullest notice because of the preceding argument in the courts. I am sure that that will be drawn fully to the attention of any public bodies that are likely to be affected, culminating in what I think will be a rare happening, the making of a declaration of incompatibility by a higher court. For all those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I shall be brief and I hope that I shall not be thought discourteous if I do not refer by name to every noble Lord who has spoken. At least it comes as no surprise that noble Lords on the Liberal Benches took what they called "an in-between position".
Perhaps I may assure the Committee that this is not a wrecking amendment, as was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That term is loosely used on all sides of the House at times, but this amendment simply is not a wrecking amendment. It accepts the principle of the Bill, so, technically, it cannot be a wrecking amendment. It opposes the proposed

1119
means—the fast track procedure—and in that sense it is a wrecking amendment, but in parliamentary terms it is not.
The noble and learned Lord raised some technical objections. So be it. This is DIY drafting. I had no assistance and inevitably the wording is defective. However, that is not the point. This is Committee stage and I am arguing for a principle. The question is whether the substance of what I seek attracts your Lordships. I am not worried about technical deficiencies—I could not put them right anyway; I should have had to get a parliamentary draftsman to do it. The noble and learned Lord knows that perfectly well. He is no more a draftsman than I am.
I asked whether there would be any justification for introducing this entirely novel system of law making. I asked myself whether it would be claimed that there was a need for haste. If so, what is the hurry? Would the Government say that it was a matter of administrative convenience? If so, I would have wanted the order of that convenience. However, the noble and learned Lord came out with it with total honesty, as he always does. He said that the reason was the pressure of legislative programmes on the committees that he had to chair. I say to the noble and learned Lord in all amity that that is no justification at all for altering the whole system of changing the law. I agree that it may suit the Government but it is no justification. I have heard no justification advanced for the adoption of this new process for amending legislation. I remind the Committee that on the say-so of a Minister of the Crown by Order in Council primary legislation is amended. There is no due or proper consideration by Parliament. Your Lordships will be aware that an Order in Council cannot be amended.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As the noble Lord will appreciate, Clause 10(2) provides that:
"If a Minister of the Crown considers that, in order to remove the incompatibility, it is appropriate to amend the legislation using the power conferred by this subsection, he may by order make such amendments to it as he considers appropriate".
It is only where the legislation is itself made by Order in Council that Her Majesty in Council may amend the legislation by Order in Council.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That I appreciate, but the primary legislation is amended by alternative procedures; namely, affirmative resolutions of each House. All noble Lords are aware of what happens on such occasions. Nobody is here anyway. It is a single-stage procedure and there is no substantive debate. The matter is dealt with in a manner which, quite frankly, is wholly inappropriate given the way in which primary law should be amended. I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
I have been perfectly frank. No bridge can be put across this gulf. In the circumstances, I think it right to seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 67B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Lindsay, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas, L.

Biddulph, L.

Lytton, E.

Biffen, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brain of Wheatley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Milverton, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cadman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Chesham, L.

Northesk, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Onslow, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V.

Rawlings, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rowallan, L.

Dilhorne, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Downshire, M.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stockton, E.

Garel-Jones, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Granard, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Swansea, L.

Hemphill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ampthill, L.

Geraint, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Habgood, L.

Burlison, L.

Hanworth, V.

Calverley, L.

Hardie, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Haskel, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hayman, B.

Chandos, V.

Healey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hughes, L.

Desai, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Diamond, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dixon, L.

Hylton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Irving of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Elis-Thomas, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

1121

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kennet, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Longford, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ludford, B.

Serota, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sewel, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Simon, V.

McNair, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McNally, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Maddock, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Methuen, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Monkswell, L.

Weatherill, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Wharton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whitty, L.

Nelson, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Youth Justice: White Paper
5.43 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on youth crime which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I am today publishing a White Paper called No more excuses. This sets out the Government's new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales. It follows a period of intensive consultation which began when we were in opposition. In May I appointed a youth justice task force to advise me on this issue and in September and October I published three consultation papers.
"Reform of youth justice—to make good years of mismanagement and underperformance—is an urgent priority. In the past, the youth justice system has mimicked a bad parent, being indulgent one minute, unexpectedly harsh the next. These are just the faults which foster youth crime; and to compound them the system suffers from endemic delays.
"Many honourable and right honourable Members will have seen the problems in their own constituencies: children whose misbehaviour goes unchecked and escalates into crime; children who offend repeatedly without any meaningful
1122
intervention; and who come to court only for their cases to be adjourned, time after time. When they are finally sentenced, many simply receive a conditional discharge—no punishment, no chance to make amends for their crime; no action to tackle the causes of their offending.
"There must be no more excuses for youth crime. Before the election, we promised to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders as part of a fundamental reform of youth justice. This White Paper sets out how we will deliver those pledges. We will make a start through the Crime and Disorder Bill, to be laid before Parliament shortly.
"The aim of the youth justice system—preventing crime: one of the fundamental deficiencies of the youth justice system is that different agencies work to different, even conflicting, objectives. So, for the first time, the Crime and Disorder Bill will make clear that the principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by young people. All youth justice practitioners will be under a duty to take account of this aim.
"To tackle youth crime effectively, we must recognise that young people often start down the path of offending when they are very young. So the Bill will provide new powers to protect children under 10 from being drawn into crime. Local authorities—after consultation with the police and the community—will be able to set up local curfew schemes for the under 10s. And a new child safety order will help stop individual children under 10 from drifting into crime.
"Tackling the causes of youth crime: many factors draw young people into offending. Not attending school, through truancy or exclusion; having delinquent siblings or friends; coming from a family with multiple problems; and, for older teenagers, being unemployed—all increase the risks of juvenile criminality.
"The Government are taking action to tackle the causes of juvenile crime—by raising schools standards; by fighting truancy and under-achievement; by combating social exclusion; by helping families at risk; and by giving the young long-term unemployed a pathway from welfare to work.
"Families and responsibilities: we know that the single most important factor associated with youth criminality is the quality of a young person's home life—crucially, the relationship between parents and children, and the level of parental supervision. The parents of young people who offend or who are at risk of offending need particular support and guidance. They should also be made to face up to their responsibilities. A new parenting order will therefore require parents to attend guidance sessions and comply with requirements specified by the court to help them control the behaviour of their child.
"But families are about much more than preventing crime. They are the fundamental unit in our society, providing mutual care and support and helping to shape the values of future generations. At the Prime Minister's request, I am chairing a new

1123
ministerial group looking at wider ways of supporting families more effectively and promoting good parenting.
"Young people, too, should face up to the consequences of their offending. The rule of doli incapax can stand in the way of holding properly to account 10 to 13 year-olds who commit crimes. Young people of that age know that it is wrong to steal, vandalise or commit an assault. We will abolish this archaic rule to ensure that they are answerable for their offences.
"Final Warning: firm action is needed when young people begin to offend. But this does not happen at present. So we will replace repeat cautions with a new reprimand and final warning scheme to provide a consistent, graduated police response to youth crime, within a clear statutory framework.
"A final warning will normally trigger a tailor-made intervention programme with the offender and his or her family to tackle the causes of the offending. Once a youngster has had a final warning, the presumption will be that he or she will be charged with any further offence.
"Court orders: the Government will give the courts a wider range of powers to help change offending behaviour. Reparation and apology can bring home to young offenders the harm which their offending has caused. The Crime and Disorder Bill will provide a reparation order and make reparation available as a requirement of a supervision order. There will be a new action plan order providing an intensive programme of intervention with offenders and their families, combining punishment, reparation and rehabilitation, as an alternative to custody.
"Secure remands: custody is, however, necessary for the most serious and persistent young offenders; and for some young people it may be the only effective way of preventing offending while waiting trial. However, the courts' existing powers to remand young people to secure facilities are inadequate. The Crime and Disorder Bill will pave the way for powers for the courts to direct that 12 to 14 year-olds and 15 and 16 year-old girls who are charged with serious offences—or who have a history of absconding and offending on bail—are held on remand in secure local authority accommodation. The Bill will also enable the courts to direct that particularly vulnerable 15 and 16 year-old boys are held in local authority secure accommodation when a place is available, rather than remanded to prison.
"Detention and training order: for the minority of young offenders whose crimes require that they are sentenced to custody, public protection is best served if sentences and regimes work to change anti-social attitudes and behaviour and equip youngsters for a law-abiding life on release. The Crime and Disorder Bill will establish a new detention and training order in place of the current sentences of detention in a young offender institution and the secure training order. Detention under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 will remain available for 10 to 17 year-olds convicted of the most serious crimes.
1124
"The detention and training order will he made up of 50 per cent. custody and 50 per cent. community supervision, with provision for shortening or extending the custodial element to encourage young offenders to make good progress against agreed sentence plans. Orders will range in length from four months to two years and young offenders will be placed in the most suitable accommodation for their circumstances.
"Better structures: at the moment we do not have effective local and national structures to tackle youth crime. The Crime and Disorder Bill will rectify this, establishing local, multi-agency youth offending teams charged with planning and supervising community interventions. And to provide better national direction, the Bill will establish a new national youth justice board for England and Wales which will ensure consistent standards and monitor local performance. The board will also set and oversee standards for secure accommodation.
"Changing the culture of the youth court: I have spent a good deal of time over the past two years studying the operation of the youth court. Over the summer, I visited courts across the country and discussed problems and solutions with all those involved, including young offenders. Despite the obvious commitment of the people working in the system, the unavoidable conclusion is that it is simply not working. Offenders are rarely asked to account for themselves. They are bystanders in the process, at best bemused by the obscure theatre of the occasion. Parents are not confronted with their responsibilities; victims have no role; and the public is excluded. I am convinced of the need for fundamental change. We are already encouraging magistrates to allow victims into court to see justice done. And we will be asking youth court magistrates to use their discretion to lift reporting restrictions following a young person's conviction where this is in the public interest.
"I want to go further than this and integrate the best aspects of restorative justice into the youth court system. There has been a wide welcome for some remarkably successful schemes which bring young offenders face to face with the human consequences of their crimes. These schemes can bring significant reductions in re-offending. Victims too can benefit from this approach if they want to by telling offenders how the crime has affected them.
"Confronting young offenders with the damage they cause is in many ways much tougher than the present alternative. Today young offenders are spectators of legalistic, adversarial court proceedings and frequently hear lawyers making excuses for their offending. But with the restorative approach there is no way for youngsters—or their parents—to hide from their personal responsibilities.
"The White Paper proposes a radical new approach for young offenders coming before the youth court for the first time. First-time offenders pleading guilty would normally be referred after conviction to a youth panel. The panel would draw up a contract with the young offender and their parents which could last for

1125
up to a year and would tackle the causes of the offending. Under the contract, the offender would also be obliged to make reparation. If the contract were broken, the young offender would end up back in the youth court and could be sentenced for the original offence.
"These changes will require primary legislation. The Government will introduce this at the earliest suitable opportunity once the Crime and Disorder Bill has been enacted and in the light of comments we receive from this House and from those outside this House about the details of what we propose.
"Legal aid: currently there is no system of quality assurance to guarantee that legally aided lawyers in the youth court possess the right skills and experience for this work. Moreover, what they are paid depends on the length of time they take to complete cases, which can provide a perverse incentive and so adds to delay.
"The Government believe that a better approach might be for lawyers to provide services under block contracts. This would provide flexibility and a consistently high quality of legal representation. Contracts would discourage delay. Pilot trials will be run by the Legal Aid Board.
"Faster justice: delays in the youth court system impede justice, frustrate victims and only encourage more crime. A young offender who commits an offence today will have to wait on average until the middle of April to be sentenced. That is unacceptable. No parent and no teacher would wait that long to deal with misbehaviour by their children or pupils. Our first priority is to halve the time it takes between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders, ensuring rapid justice for those individuals from whom the public most needs protection.
"Before we came into government, information was never collected to show how long it took to deal with persistent young offenders. Over the past few months, we have been collecting this data. I can now tell the House that it takes, on average, 142 days—almost five months—from the date of first arrest to sentence, during which time the victim receives no justice and there is neither punishment nor intervention to prevent re-offending.
"With the Lord Chancellor, I took immediate action after the election to combat delays. Provisional data for last month show that the average time to complete young offenders' cases once they reach court is 60 days compared with 68 days last October. The average number of adjournments has also fallen. I welcome these improvements, but this is only the start. In those areas which have already introduced fast-tracking schemes, the results are clear. In north Hampshire, for example, since October last year the average time taken between charge and sentencing for young offenders has dropped from 133 days to 89.
"The Crime and Disorder Bill will provide for fast-tracking for all persistent young offenders. There will be mandatory time limits for all young offender cases but stricter limits for those involving persistent young offenders. The time limits will be backed by
1126
demanding performance targets. The Bill will also implement many of the recommendations of the Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice system, to streamline procedures, improve case management and so expedite justice for both juveniles and adults.
"Conclusion: one of the most depressing things about visiting this country's adult prisons is to hear how many inmates started offending as children. By nipping youth crime in the bud, we will be preventing today's young offenders graduating into tomorrow's career criminals. Our manifesto committed us to tackle youth crime and its causes. This White Paper sets out how we will do it.
"The measures which I have announced today should deliver a youth justice system which prevents youth crime, as well as punishing it; which deals directly with offending behaviour rather than simply processing cases; which reinforces responsibility; which delivers justice for victims as well as offenders; and which provides value for the taxpayer's money. I commend this White Paper to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for coming to the House—he was here already and will be here for some little time—and for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. There is much in the Statement with which we will agree and which we will find easy to accept. I could say that the Government have stolen our clothes, which could be described as a crime of a young government.
I have a number of questions, but there is much with which we can agree. I hope that when debating the legislation we will be able to offer our help and support where appropriate, but we shall wish to study the detail with great care. Perhaps I may say to the usual channels that I hope that before receiving the Crime and Disorder Bill we will have an opportunity to debate the White Paper. I have not yet seen it and I believe that a debate after having studied the White Paper will be more effective than the brief remarks one can make in response to a Statement of this kind. I very much hope that there can be such a debate.
We published our Green Paper, Preventing Children Offending, in March. It set out many proposals designed to intervene early, to prevent juveniles turning to crime by establishing new local groups, and by involving many different people within the community, including the parents. It also examined ideas for early identification of children most at risk of offending. That policy appears to have been followed by the Government in bringing forward their White Paper. For that reason, I look forward to reading it.
I wish to raise three points. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to respond to them, but if he is not perhaps he will write to me in due course. The first relates to a matter of detail, but it may be that I have misunderstood the Statement. At the end of the section of the Statement which referred to changing the culture of the youth courts, the noble Lord said that such changes would

1127
require primary legislation and that the Government would introduce that legislation at the earliest opportunity once the Crime and Disorder Bill had been enacted. Is it correct that the proposals in the White Paper relating to youth courts will not be included in the Crime and Disorder Bill but will be brought forward later? Would it not be possible to include them in the Crime and Disorder Bill, or would it be better to pass that Bill before proceeding to examine changes in the youth courts?
The second point relates to secure accommodation. The noble Lord made it clear that he expects that on some occasions, where appropriate, greater use will be made of local authority secure accommodation. It is some time since I was involved in a local authority, but I understand that they now have much less secure accommodation. Therefore, they would have to provide considerably more secure accommodation in order to cope with the demands of such children. Will help be given to local authorities to provide secure accommodation where necessary?
I appreciate that the noble Lord may have preferred notice of my third point, but I shall be happy if he writes to me on the subject. He will remember the new regime which we introduced for 18 to 21 year-old offenders. It is being piloted at the Colchester military corrective training centre and at the Thorn Cross young offender institution. It placed a heavy emphasis on discipline and training. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say how that regime is going, the degree of success it has achieved and whether the Government, who appear to have adopted a Conservative approach to these matters, will be prepared to continue with it.
Having given a general welcome to the Statement, I look forward to reading the detail in the White Paper and later in the Crime and Disorder Bill. I am sure that we shall have many late nights debating the detail of the Bill.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we, too, are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is no reflection on him that it was what one might have expected of a Second Reading speech on the Crime and Disorder Bill. Indeed, there were eight specific references to the Bill and, given speeches, briefings and previous Green Papers, there was nothing new. In those circumstances, I wish to save most of our comments of substance until the White Paper has been read and digested and until the Bill is before the House. In repeating what the Home Secretary said in another place. the noble Lord said that the Bill will be available shortly. Can he be more specific? Can we expect the Bill before the Christmas Recess? What possibility is there that it might begin in your Lordships' House rather than in another place?
We all agree that there is a serious problem of youth crime. I agree with the description of the problem in the Statement and in the White Paper. We must also agree that there is a need for innovation and a new approach. There are encouraging ideas in the Statement and the
1128
White Paper, even though they are not new. However, the whole House will wish to scrutinise the Bill carefully. We on these Benches will want to look particularly at local curfew schemes and the new parenting orders. Who will make the orders? I assume that it will be the courts, but it is not clear from the Statement and it is not clear from the text of the White Paper. We will also wish to look carefully at the argument that 10 year-olds should be answerable for their offences. That is not to say that there is not a problem. The paragraph dealing with that aspect is interesting, even philosophic, and we shall wish to scrutinise it carefully before committing ourselves in the way suggested by the Statement and the White Paper.
The White Paper and the Statement refer to the causes of juvenile crime. However, they are inadequate and we on these Benches will make clear that the causes of juvenile crime are not only those listed in the White Paper and the Statement but include inferior housing, of which there is still far too much in this country: the neglect of inner cities, which is plain to us all when we travel around the country; the problems of one parent families, which are due not only to the failure of responsibility; and the incidence of sheer poverty, which the whole House hopes the Government will do more to remedy than appears to be their intention.
I wish to ask the noble Lord two questions. The first relates to the anticipated increase in the number of young people on remand. What new provision is being made to accommodate them in acceptable circumstances? The second relates to resource implications. I understand that there is no proposal that the changes should be financed from the National Lottery. If there is no such proposal, what will the costs amount to and where is the money to be found? We would not be happy if it were to be argued that the money will be found from existing budgets.
I shall look in particular at the role of local authorities which are to be responsible for local curfew schemes. Those schemes are to be permissive rather than mandatory and, as I read the White Paper, no additional resources are to be found. Does the Minister believe that in those circumstances the schemes will be widely taken up? I hope that they will because, despite what I said earlier, the experiment is worth examining. But without the necessary resources is it a serious proposition? There is also the issue of further resources for the police and the courts. The Statement did not spell out the resource implications, but perhaps the Minister will help us now.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for the tone that they have adopted. I personally think it is much more fruitful if we can, together, recognise that we share common aims. In particular, the Crime and Disorder Bill contains a good deal of detailed material. If amendments are put forward which are designed to be helpful, I shall welcome them. We do not claim the monopoly on wisdom.
It is self-evident that not every idea in the Statement and the White Paper is new. The Home Secretary is intent upon drawing forward and together various strands. We do not claim to be the author of every single

1129
idea. Some of the ideas have been discussed by people in the youth justice field for a very long time. The truth is, the discussion must come to an end and we must focus our resources on what we can do. No one in your Lordships' House would pretend that the youth justice system—the way we treat young offenders and the way we seek to stop them becoming the adult recidivists of tomorrow is at all effective.
The total cost of the White Paper measures to he taken forward in the Crime and Disorder Bill will be about £22 million. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is quite right to say that the local child curfew is expected to operate within existing resources. It is permissive—I should express that a little more gently: it is a matter for local choice and option. One would expect local authorities to use their resources as they think appropriate since not all local authorities have the same problem. We prefer to leave it to local authorities, since some have particular problems concerning young children while others do not experience the same problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me three distinct questions. Again, I am grateful to him, as always, for offering me the opportunity to write to him. There will be a need for further primary legislation beyond the Crime and Disorder Bill. That relates to a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. "Shortly" means before the Christmas Recess. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has the decency to smile because he often used to say, "shortly", followed by, "This Government are not complacent". I shall omit that statement, and say that "shortly" means before the Christmas Recess.
As regards secure accommodation, the previous government had made plans—I do not say that in any carping sense—which have not yet been fulfilled for reasons that may well be understandable. We shall consult carefully with local authorities, recognising that they have problems with resources. There are resources implications if we are to have secure accommodation in the local authority context rather than in the context of secure establishments, which are sometimes hundreds of miles away from a child's home. We bear in mind the important need for many young offenders, even if they have to leave their families, to remain in reasonable contact with the local community as far as is reasonably possible.
I have no up-to-date details on Colchester—not even the most assiduous and inventive official had thought that I might be asked that particular question. I shall take up the opportunity so courteously offered to me and write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is quite right to say that we must knit together those various themes—inferior housing, neglect of the inner cities, one-parent families and poverty. I do not believe that anyone with experience in that field could possibly dissent from what he said. That is why we regard the different schemes such as Welfare to Work as extremely important. It is not simply welfare to work for parents, but welfare to work for young offenders coming out of prison. That was part of the context that I tried to explain to the House in relation to the tagging system for the final two-month period of short-term sentences.
1130
The question of remand places is extremely important. It seems to us that there are two distinct aspects. First, there is the deeply worrying problem of 15 to I 6-year olds being remanded inappropriately; secondly, there is the counter side to that particular coin: some young offenders are undoubtedly being released into the community when they should not be. That is not a draconian or pre-Dickensian view. It is no favour to a child to let him out to run up a longer charge sheet, eventually to be dealt with inadequately and to gain a lasting impression that the law means nothing and the victim is of no account.
There is a philosophic underpinning to all that has been thought about by the Home Secretary and his colleagues for some time. We cannot simply have piecemeal remedies for what is a fundamental blight on our society. The noble Lord invited me to comment earlier about the problems of inadequates in prison, and prison being treated, for some, simply as a dump or dustbin. They are let out into society no better than when they went into detention, and quite often a good deal worse. We must adopt a fundamental approach in order to attend to youth justice and see to it that children do not just drift into crime.
The reason that specifics were included in the Statement, which did not include the aspects to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred, is that, statistically, it is plain—and a very dismal thought—that one can predict with a reasonable degree of scientific accuracy which children will become offenders on the indicators that we all know so well. The Home Secretary's Statement was pointing to those indicators as something to which we must attend. They are well-known to anyone who has had experience of Home Office affairs for some time.
Therefore, generally, I repeat that I welcome the offer of co-operation. I assure your Lordships that when amendments are put forward, whether they are probing or intended to reconstruct particular clauses, your Lordships will not find from me the response "Resist, resist, resist", if there is merit and value in the amendments put forward.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement of fundamental change that we have heard this afternoon, and in particular the extremely positive emphasis on alternatives to custody in which offenders and their families will be forced to face up to what is happening to them and to change, and be given an incentive to change in their own self-interest. As the Minister said, the present system has failed in terms of recidivism, and it must be given to few Front Bench spokesmen to bring forward a programme which simultaneously offers hope to young people and saves a great deal of money, at least in the longer term, for the Government.
I therefore express the hope that the Government will be able to find, from the £43 million referred to earlier, at least a modest amount in order to build on the existing scheme to which reference was made. For example, the scheme run in East Kilbride by NCH Action for

1131
Children has produced significant reductions in recidivism and has sent some youngsters back into that very deprived community with at least the intention and hope of leading a better life in future. I hope that possibly 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of that £43 million will be made available to local authorities and voluntary organisations in order to extend the provisions emphasised by the noble Lord and offer some help to youngsters and to the rest of us.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments by my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest. On a number of earlier occasions, he and I have discussed those topics on an informal basis. I must say that the £43 million is dedicated to dealing with the prison population and its present inexorable rise. Therefore it is not available for the ameliorative schemes that my noble friend mentioned. But if we are to save money in the Prison Service, which I believe is possible at some stage in the future, although not immediately, then of course the Home Secretary is determined to produce, in so far as he is able, within the usual budgetary constraints, money that is properly directed. There is no doubt at all that money properly directed means stopping offending, preventing offending and checking offending in its early stages.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the general thrust of the Statement and, in particular, what it says about reparation and rehabilitation orders. Will the Government study with care the recent report from the Howard League concerning juvenile girls in custody or in prison; that is, people in their teens under the age of 18? Will the Government also look at the whole question of crimes committed either by young persons who are in care or when they leave care?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord absolutely. I have read the Howard League report to which he referred, and in the context of reparation your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me for specific details of the Thames Valley scheme. I replied to the noble Lord so recently that that communication will not yet have reached his desk. Nevertheless, I hope that I have given him full details.
Reparation is extremely important because it has at least two aspects: one is practical and one is moral. The moral component is that the offender must recognise, not simply by the parroted plea of guilty, but much more fundamentally that he or she has done a deep wrong. It seems to us that contact with victims in a controlled and civilised way—and I stress contact where victims wish it—is of enormous value not only to the victim but to the offender. It has certainly worked extremely well on the pilot basis in Thames Valley.
One cannot fail to be concerned about the dismal life that so many children in care have. I have conducted investigations myself and reported on abuse in a children's home. No one who has even looked at the headline conclusions of Sir William Utting can think that we have discharged our duty properly over these
1132
many years. There is no doubt at all that the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is very real and one which partly reflects a proposition that is self-evident; namely, that children who are away from their parents need a good deal of care, sensitivity and trained attention, which so often has not been the case.

Millennium Compliance
6.22 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement on how government departments and their agencies are tackling the millennium compliance problem—sometimes called the "millennium bomb"—within central government departments and agencies.
"The problem is widely understood to pose serious and potentially catastrophic hazards in all organisations, in both public and private sectors, in every country worldwide. It affects mainframe and personal computers and any device containing a microprocessor chip that manipulates dates, including telephone equipment, lifts, air conditioning, lighting, clocks, timers and control equipment.
"Checking and where necessary correcting every system is a detailed, laborious process, and there is a fixed deadline for its completion. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is leading efforts to raise awareness of this urgent problem throughout the private sector.
"The principal responsibility for ensuring that systems are millennium compliant rests with individual departments. They are also responsible for ensuring that organisations in the wider public service sectors that they sponsor have the necessary guidance and information. My role is to co-ordinate activity in central government, assess progress and provide guidance. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in my department has produced comprehensive guidance for departments on how to deal with the problem. This is available publicly.
"Immediately after taking office I asked to receive, as soon as possible after 1st October, detailed and costed plans, showing how the departments and agencies were tackling the problem. My officials have now analysed those plans. On the basis of those plans I am now able to confirm that all departments and agencies have work in hand and scheduled for completion in time—many by December 1998, the majority by March 1999 and a small number later in 1999. Some departments will, in general, give priority to correcting business critical systems and may leave systems of minor importance until later.

1133
"The total estimated cost indicated in the plans is just over £370 million. Most of this will be spent in the current and next two financial years. That is less than some estimates but is based on careful calculation by departments and their advisers, and I have no reason to believe that it is not of the right order. But this is something that Ministers and I will monitor carefully.
"The Government's policy is that the cost will be met from within planned allocations, and the evidence from the plans is that almost 97 per cent. is so covered. Many costs will be accommodated in maintenance and system replacement budgets. In some cases, departments will bring forward investment plans and adjust their priorities.
"Guidance published by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency asked departments to consider whether staff shortages would inhibit progress. The plans as a whole do not suggest that this is a serious problem at present, but I shall keep a close watch on this. I have written to departments asking for further clarification and will ensure that that will be covered specifically in subsequent reports.
"Overall, my assessment is that we have established the measure of the problem and set in hand plans which are realistic and achievable. But the bulk of the actual remedial or replacement work is yet to be done, the timetable is tight and there is little margin for error. This is the challenge. The programme needs continuous monitoring, and I shall be checking progress regularly and report to the House on a quarterly basis starting next spring.
"It is also my intention that we should be open about the scale of the problem and our progress in dealing with it. I am therefore arranging for all the departmental reports to be placed in the Library of the House and published on the Internet; and I shall ensure that progress reports are also made available on a regular basis.
"Finally, I can announce today that we are re-inforcing and strengthening our effort in two significant ways. First, a ministerial group is being set up, under my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, to drive forward action to tackle the year 2000 problem across the public and private sectors. I shall be a member of that group, chairing a sub-group which will co-ordinate and drive forward the action for which central government departments and agencies are responsible.
"Secondly, we have asked Don Cruickshank, the chairman of Action 2000, to re-inforce this effort across both the public and private sectors by keeping in close touch with the ministerial group and advising on best practice from the private sector.
"I hope that this demonstrates the seriousness with which we take this problem, and the vigour of our approach to it. These efforts will be maintained."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement in this House. It is a Statement which I think I can say I welcome unreservedly. I personally have always called it the "millennium bug", but perhaps that invites confusion with Peter Mandelson, so the "millennium bomb" will have to do.
I am delighted that the Government are not just concentrating on their own problems but are taking in those faced by the private sector, and our economy as a result of the problems that the private sector faces. It seems akin to a public health problem: it is something from which we are all likely to suffer. If we do not do something about it generally, we may suffer serious national damage; and even if we do do something, we will expect individual companies to die, and unless we are careful people may also die. I am delighted to see that the Government are treating the issue with the seriousness demonstrated by the Statement. I am also delighted that they are showing realism as regards the extent and difficulty of the problem; that they are committed to openness; and that they are committed to a wholehearted participative approach by government and by senior people within government.
I have a few concerns which arise principally from the list appended to the back of the Statement setting out details regarding individual departments. It seems to me that some departments which are planning to be ready in March 1999, like the Employment Service, are likely to have substantial problems which may well cause great disruption. Any slippage from those dates will give us great cause for concern. I hope that the noble Lord can confirm that those target dates will be monitored carefully and that before the next report is made to Parliament—I understand that will be next spring—there will be some checking up on the reality of those target dates to make sure that they are not slipping and that the key services will be covered as it would cause a great deal of disruption if they went down at the end of 1999, or indeed perhaps earlier in 1999, as the millennium dates start to be entered into the computer systems.
It seems to me doubtful whether it is satisfactory that the Coastguard Agency, which has direct responsibility for human life, is waiting until mid-1999 to deal with its problems when a sum of £100,000 only is involved. They could surely be dealt with much faster than that. The Department of Social Security is waiting until September 1999 to deal with many of its systems. That allows little time for slippage. It should follow the example of the Ministry of Defence which is responsible for a great many more computer systems than the Department of Social Security, and which expects to get everything done by January 1999. That allows reasonable time for slippage with systems of that scale. I do not believe that the social security timescale allows for that. One must expect, from what it predicts, that there will be some disasters and some great inconveniences flowing from that.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is aiming for the end of September 1999. One likes to think that it is not that important these days, but that timescale is

1135
dilatory. The Treasury is aiming for the end of March 1999 with an estimated cost of only £100,000. Given how crucial the Treasury is, that is unacceptable. I cannot see why it cannot hasten that timescale a great deal. The Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue has given a date of the end of 1999. A day's slippage on that will put it into the black hole. Presumably it is being careless about this because the Valuation Office deals with taxpayers rather than the rest of government. Again, that cannot be acceptable. As I say, the Ministry of Defence, which faces the bulk of this problem—over half of it—seems to be doing well. The Office for National Statistics appears to be pretty dilatory, too. One way or another, there are some individual departments within this schedule which will bear watching.
I have one or two suggestions on which I should like to hear the Government's reaction. First, the Government will in the course of all these investigations discover a number of concrete examples of where the millennium bug would have caused problems. I hope that they will undertake to publish details of these in a central and easily accessible form so that people who fear that their similar systems may be affected can see the extent of the problem and what kind of systems are being infected. They may turn out to be publicly available programmes which have been bought by many people in the private sector. It is difficult for private sector enterprises to admit to this kind of fault. The Government have been courageously open about this. I hope that they will make their openness more accessible and individuals will not have to look through the individual reports of 100 or so different departments and agencies to find out what systems have gone wrong, if indeed—and it is not clear from the Statement—the reporting would extend to that.
Secondly, I hope that when they report next spring we shall have some indication from the Government whether they are satisfied with the progress being made in the major private systems which could have a major effect on the economy of this country. One thinks of telecommunications, banking and similar systems. I hope that the Government will be in touch with the major enterprises in those areas to assure themselves that those enterprises are not likely to cause problems for us all. I hope that they will also be able to cover such areas as the National Health Service—where there is a potential for severe threat to life—local authorities, fire and police, all of which must be facing problems in this area, and none of which are covered by this Statement. As a whole I welcome the Statement and congratulate the Government on it.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I take a personal interest in this problem as I was one of the instigators of the problem some 20 years ago when I was writing programmes when there was a different cultural climate in the computer industry to that of today.
Last year I asked a number of questions of the previous government as to how matters were progressing. I received suitably bland responses from
1136
them. Having looked at the documents which accompany the Statement, I, too, am worried about the anxieties which have been expressed on costs and timescales. I shall not go into them in such detail as the previous speaker but I wonder whether the costs have been reasonably assessed. I have heard costs suggested of a greater order of magnitude.
I believe that one of the major problems will be the lack of people with appropriate skills who are available to tackle this problem. Many of the systems involved are so-called "legacy systems" which were written many years ago. They used different computer languages and they used different people, many of whom, like myself, have now retired. There is a major problem in finding those with the skill base to tackle modern systems let alone these older systems with the amount of work that is involved. When one couples that with the amount of work that will be required to introduce EMU into the City systems, one sees there is a real shortage of skilled personnel to carry out that work in the timescale that is envisaged both for EMU and for tackling the millennium bug.
A major problem is posed by systems that no one knows anything about such as the "embedded systems" with micro processors which control all kinds of process plant. Again, many of those are ancient systems and the firms which created them may have gone out of business. Records may be scarce and there is also the question of having the resources to mend these systems. I think in particular of the air traffic control systems which I believe are largely now being replaced in this country but are perhaps more of a problem in other countries. There is a major difficulty in that area.
I believe that the private sector is a disaster area. Figures have been suggested of the order of £30 billion. Some firms, such as that which I used to work for, Rolls-Royce, were considering this problem seven or eight years ago. At that time its costs, on my reckoning, were something in the order of £ 1 million. Many firms are nothing like as advanced in their consideration. As the millennium approaches, we shall see more and more private sector firms in a catastrophic state.
The Minister has said nothing about local government. The same problems apply there. The previous Government suggested that systems would be available to local government to help support their conversion costs. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Perhaps the Minister will also comment on the skills and resources that the Government think are available countrywide to meet these requirements. It has been said that one should not fly between 30th December 1999 and 2nd January 2000. We generally welcome this Statement. I hope that the Government's figures are accurate both as regards timescales and costs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the reception they have given to this Statement. I do not think I have ever seen, either in government or in opposition, a Statement which was welcomed unreservedly on the Opposition Front Bench. I do not think that when I was in Opposition I ever welcomed a government Statement unreservedly.

1137
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was right to say that this is still a widespread and a difficult problem. He emphasised that point. He emphasised the need for realism as to the extent of the problem, and the need to recognise how difficult it is. As regards his comments on the completion dates given in the summary, I have some sympathy with what he said. I hope that I can reassure him. This is a summary, after all. It summarises by giving the end date for the final completion of the work in the appropriate department. If the noble Lord looks in the Library, he will see the detailed submissions which have been given by departments. He will see that I am holding in front of me about 50 pages. That is about a quarter of the submission from the Department of Social Security. The noble Lord commented in particular on the Department of Social Security, with a completion date of September 1999. As he will see when he considers the report, the DSS has been incredibly conscientious in looking at the extent of the problem not only centrally but in all of its agencies. It has costed, allowed for and given a timescale to the replacement of hardware, operating systems and application software. Even additional copies of manuals are provided for in the DSS submission.
When the noble Lord refers to completion dates at April 1999, he is right to say that it diminishes the scope for dealing with slippage. However, perhaps I may remind him that the previous government set a target date of December 1998 for all departments. Departments then wrote in to say, "We cannot test our financial systems by December 1998. We have to run them over a year end"; that is the end of March, beginning of April. Therefore, they could not complete their review of the problems and deal with them before April/May 1999. That seemed a reasonable answer and it was widely accepted.
I am not sure that I can answer the noble Lord about the coastguard agency. He is right to say that the Ministry of Defence has an extraordinarily large problem in that it has something like 20,000 different systems. Virtually every piece of equipment that it operates has some device in it which is susceptible to the millennium bug. All those points are well taken and will have the continued attention of Ministers and of the ministerial group which has just been announced.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked me whether we would be willing to publish concrete examples of the problems which have been found in central government so that we could give help to the private sector in dealing with them. That is exactly the purpose of the Action 2000 task force which has been set up under Mr. Don Cruickshank. It is not only to deal with the interface between the public and private sector but to make available the lessons from the public sector. I can therefore answer the noble Lord's question on that positively.
The noble Lord asked me whether in our quarterly report next spring we would be able to express our satisfaction or dissatisfaction with progress in the major private sector companies. I am not sure that we shall be able to do that. But that is again why we have the ministerial group under the President of the Board of
1138
Trade, who will be seeking to ensure that the private sector is not slipping as disastrously as the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, seems to fear.
I appreciate the point that the noble Lord makes. In 1958 as a programmer I was invited to approve the purchase of an Elliott 1301. I am glad to say that I advised my company against it because it would have taken a whole air-conditioned room to perform what can now be done with equipment I can hold in the palm of my hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, rightly drew attention to the problem of the lack of skills of people who know about the older systems. I suspect that the answer will not be retraining people in the older systems but replacing the equipment. Estimates of costs for dealing with the millennium bug are of two kinds: one is going into the systems and actually dealing with the problem by replacing the chips or rewriting the software, scrolling through thousands of pages of source code, I imagine; and the other is simply to advance replacements. In many cases, in particular with smaller systems, it must be more effective to advance replacements. The capital cost of that replacement equipment or software is not the total cost of the millennium bug. I believe that some people who are making estimates are confusing the two.
The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, asked me about local government. I can confirm that local government will be within the scope of the ministerial group which I have announced.
Above all, I wish to say this to noble Lords who have expressed concerns. The action we are taking is precisely because we believe those concerns to be justified. Nothing in information technology ever works the first time or on time. We must not expect it to do so. But we believe that we have now taken every reasonable precaution to set things in the right direction.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: Has a study been done into what ministries, first, created software in-house, secondly, contracted out the production of software, and, thirdly, purchased the software off the peg? The point is as regards the responsibility in cost which could be passed on to third parties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Government departments and agencies have for many years taken the advice of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency on the purchase and leasing of both hardware and software. Therefore that responsibility goes back a long way. I very much doubt whether there is scope for suing people for past mistakes, although if there is any failure among those who have guaranteed millennium compliance that would certainly be pursued.
The noble Viscount's question gives me the opportunity to say that since September 1996 all government purchases, whether of hardware, firmware or software, have been guaranteed by contract to be millennium compliant. That applies also to equipment or

1139
software which is bought off the government electronic computer catalogue (G.Cat) produced by the CCTA. That also is all guaranteed to be millennium compliant.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
6.48 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 10.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In substance this is a drafting amendment. I hope that it may be considered as an appropriate clarification of the duty of the Minister under Clause 10. It seems a little odd that if a Minister considers it appropriate to amend legislation, the Bill provides only that,
"he may by order make such amendments",
rather than, "shall" by order make amendments to it. The same point applies to subsection (4). I do not think that I can take the matter further. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may add one sentence to what my noble friend Lord Goodhart said and press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a little further on the degree of pressure on the Minister to move relatively quickly in the event of incompatibility. That is obviously the point on which we need reassurance.
The Lord Chancellor: The effect of the proposed amendment is made very clear by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It would replace the discretion of a Minister of the Crown to use the order-making power where he considers that appropriate to amend incompatible legislation with an obligation that he do so.
As I have made clear, we expect that the Government and Parliament will in all cases almost certainly be prompted to change the law following a declaration. However, we think that it is preferable, in order to underpin parliamentary sovereignty, to leave this on a discretionary basis. The decision whether to seek a remedial order is a matter for government to decide on a case-by-case basis. It would be wrong for a declaration automatically to lead to a remedial order. It would in effect be tantamount to giving the courts power to strike down Acts of Parliament if there were an obligation in all cases to bring remedial orders forward. This is a fundamental point on which it may be that we take a fundamentally different view from that of the noble Lord.
Lord Ackner: I intervene to invite my noble and learned friend's attention to the phrase,
"if a Minister of the Crown considers that, in order to remove the incompatibility, it is appropriate".
We have reached the stage of the Minister having applied his mind to the question and deciding that it is appropriate to amend the legislation. I cannot see where this is a question of the courts striking down. The
1140
Minister has considered the matter and reached a conclusion that the legislation should be amended. That being so, it surely follows that he has an obligation to do what he considers to be appropriate.
Lord Goodhart: I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It seems to me that the element of discretion is already there. The discretion lies in the Minister's power to consider whether it is appropriate to amend the legislation. It seems to me extraordinary to contemplate a situation where the Minister has come to the conclusion, in the exercise of his discretion, that it is appropriate to amend the legislation but then decides not to do so. I do not think that there is a fundamental disagreement. But that seems to me to be contradictory within the terms of the clause.
Lord Coleraine: I suggest to the noble Lord that there is no real contradiction. Having considered it appropriate to amend the legislation, the Minister might decide that the best course is to introduce a Bill and not use the fast-track procedure.
The Lord Chancellor: I have listened to the argument. I am not persuaded, but I shall take the point away and consider it.
Lord Goodhart: On that undertaking from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 6, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 71, I shall, with leave, speak also to Amendment No. 77. Both amendments are technical. They provide that the power to make a remedial order is to be exercisable by Her Majesty in Council in cases where the legislation which has been declared incompatible is an Order in Council, whether the order has the status of primary or subordinate legislation. Under the Bill at present the power may be exercised in this way only if the Order in Council has the status of primary legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 73 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The power conferred by subsection (2) may also be exercised where the provision in question is in subordinate legislation and has been quashed, or declared invalid, by reason of incompatibility with one or more of the Convention rights and the Minister proposes to proceed under section 12(1)(b).").
The noble Lord said: This technical amendment extends the circumstances in which a remedial order can be made to include those where the courts have quashed a provision of subordinate legislation because it is incompatible with the convention rights and in accordance with Clause 12(1)(b) a Minister considers that a remedial order needs to be made urgently without going through the draft affirmative resolution procedure provided in Clause 12(1)(a). This will only be needed in cases where the incompatible subordinate legislation is itself subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. In other cases (for example, orders subject to negative resolution or to no Parliamentary procedure) the Minister would be able to make an order under the parent legislation without first securing parliamentary approval and would not need to rely on the power to make a remedial order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert?—
("( ) If the legislation is an Order in Council, the power conferred by subsection (2) or (4) is exercisable by Her Majesty in Council.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Remedial orders]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale: moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("(including") and insert ("(but not").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 79 is grouped with Amendment No. 80, which raises the same point, and Amendment No. 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, which covers much the same ground.
Clause 11 states that a remedial order may contain,
"such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate".
I draw attention to the word "consequential".
Subsection (2) states:
"The power conferred by subsection (1)(a) includes—
(a) power to amend or repeal primary legislation (including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision)".
That obviously goes beyond consequential provisions. The amendment is to substitute for "including" the words "but not".
I can see why the power is desired. The declaration of incompatibility may have repercussions in other parts of the statute book. However, subsection (2) goes well beyond consequential provisions and is far too wide. We cannot have Henry VIII trampling through the statute book in this way.
I can see a difficulty in my two amendments. They may not be easy to reconcile with subsection (1) and, indeed, the whole section may well need to be recast.
1142
I prefer the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I shall leave it to her to make her case. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: If it is convenient to the Committee, I shall speak to Amendment No. 81. Let me add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, that many of us in this Chamber, and for that matter in another place also, have been concerned about the gradual spread of what are sometimes called "Henry VIII powers". It is noticeable in this Bill.
In the powerful report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, paragraph 23 said explicitly,
"This is a Henry VIII power of the utmost importance, which the Committee wishes to draw to the House's attention … We have noted the Lord Chancellor's statement to the House at Second Reading that the power can only be used under strictly limited circumstances. Without strict limitations, a secondary power of such potential width would be unacceptable".
The purpose of Amendment No. 81 is to constrain, as far as is reasonable, that issue of "potential width". Its phrasing is deliberately more flexible than the wording in the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in order to recognise the fact that it is sometimes necessary to amend primary legislation or to amend primary legislation in consequence of subordinate legislation resting upon primary legislation. We would not wish to prevent the Government from exercising such powers.
On the face of the Bill it seems to many of us that the constraints that the Government have to bear in mind in using these powers are not sufficiently explicitly brought out. It is with the purpose of both exploring the Government's intention and urging upon the Government the need to limit the power explicitly in the Bill so far as it may be feasible to do so, that my noble friends and I tabled the amendment.
I know the Committee is sitting late and I do not wish to hold it up. But I want to say that all Henry VIII powers are troubling precedents. In a parliamentary democracy Henry VIII powers are the route towards an executive power unconstrained by adequate discussion and debate in Parliament. It is with a view to balancing those two necessary interests—that of the Executive and that of Parliament—and with all goodwill towards what is proposed in the Bill that I have tabled Amendment No. 81. We look forward to hearing the Government's response.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may briefly offer a degree of support to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I prefer her approach to that of the noble and learned Lord. We expressed earlier and will express again later our anxieties about Henry VIII powers. It is therefore only right that we support any amendments that seek to limit that power. For that reason I support Amendment No. 81, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke following Amendments Nos. 79 and 80.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner: I too support Amendment No. 81.
Earl Russell: I too add a word in support of this provision. Amendment No. 81 is a tighter drawing of

1143
the vires for the fast-track procedure. I support it for exactly the same reasons for which I opposed Amendment No. 67B; that the power is necessary for receiving another system of law. It should be clear that it is not necessary for any other purpose.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that there is any difference of approach in principle between those noble Lords who have spoken and the Government's stance.
It is clear from Clause 10(2) that a Minister will be empowered to make only such changes (apart from any consequential changes) as are appropriate to remove the incompatibility. As the Lord Chancellor said during the Second Reading debate,
"the power to make a remedial order may be used only to remove an incompatibility or a possible incompatibility between legislation and the convention."—[Official Report,, 3/11/97: col. 1231.]
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation noted the Lord Chancellor's remarks about the strictly limited circumstances under which the order-making powers will be used, and did not express any need for the amendments being proposed.
The Government's intention therefore is perfectly plain. I am bound to say that, having listened to the argument (always fatal) in particular relating to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—which, if I may say without disrespect, is designed to ensure that both the belt and the braces are worn on every appropriate occasion—we do not at present believe that there are inadequate safeguards. If reflection shows that there may be a case for a further safeguard, we will reconsider and return at a later stage.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for that assurance and simply add that, for some of us, the combination of belt and braces is extremely attractive.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I do not believe the noble Lord really met the point. We are all agreed that the fast-track provision—the Henry VIII clause—should not go wider than is required. But the noble Lord did not meet the argument that it does in this case, and it is not the only case.
The first way in which it goes far beyond what is necessary is in relation to the aggregation of the rule of implied repeal, to which we have referred on a number of occasions and to which we shall have to return on Report. In the meantime, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to bear in mind the famous words of Cromwell to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, "I beseech you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong".
I ask him again, with all the powers at my command, to look again at the argument for simplifying the measure—not going at all contrary to his scheme, which in general I support—by dealing with antecedent legislation by the use of the well-established and accepted rule of the repeal of inconsistent earlier
1144
legislation by a later statute. That is entirely consistent with the supremacy of Parliament, which I know my noble and learned friend is anxious to preserve.
As for this case, despite the kind and emollient words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, it goes far beyond what is necessary. What is necessary is what is defined by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her Amendment No. 81, which has now won general support. As I indicated, I prefer it to mine. However, on recommending Cromwell to both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 82 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Procedure]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley: moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 7, line 7, at beginning insert ("subject to the provisions of subsections (1A) to (1D)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 88 and 89. We come back to the Henry VIII power and, to some extent, we come back to the debate that we had earlier on the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. In my noble friend's case, he was going somewhat beyond what was recommended or suggested by the delegated powers scrutiny committee. We have put forward an amendment here which I hope will to some extent allow the Committee to consider whether a new procedure should be developed, as the delegated powers scrutiny committee suggested, to scrutinise such orders, modelled on that for the second stage of parliamentary scrutiny of deregulation orders.
I appreciate that it is not the same as that for those deregulation orders, but it is similar in effect in that the draft of any remedial order will be laid before Parliament for a period of 60 days. During that time anyone can make representations to the Minister about the order. When the order then comes into effect—this appears in Amendment No. 85—it would be for the Minister to make clear what representations he had received and also what changes he had made to the order as a result of those representations.
I have no intention of pressing the amendments to a Division today but it is certainly a matter I would want to come back to on Report, depending on the view taken by the Government. It is important that the House should have an opportunity to consider some process whereby amendments can be made to the orders before Parliament, as suggested by the delegated powers scrutiny committee.
At this stage in the proceedings I would not want to delay the Committee by digging out long quotations from noble Lords opposite when they were in Opposition about how they felt the Government should respond to reports from the delegated powers scrutiny committee. What I can say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that we always took very seriously indeed the advice given by the delegated powers scrutiny committee. The House was pleased that we did take that advice seriously.
I very much hope that the Government are prepared to take seriously the recommendations of the delegated powers scrutiny committee and that if they do not like our approach they will at least come forward with an approach which would allow the committee's recommendations to be made use of and, while still allowing a fast track procedure to operate, would allow both Houses to express their views on those orders and to make amendments where necessary. I believe that the amendments are relatively straight forward and simple and I do not believe that any further explanation is necessary. I certainly await with interest the Government's response. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has moved the amendment. He desires to know what the Government's thinking is. I shall proceed to tell him. But I should also say that we will ponder upon what he has said.
The effect of this group of amendments would be to alter the parliamentary scrutiny procedures for remedial orders contained in Clause 12. The noble Lord referred to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. He used that as the basis for the amendments because they are modelled on the first stage procedure for considering draft deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. In paragraph 24 of the report the committee states:
"the House may wish to consider whether there is a case for developing a new procedure to scrutinise such orders modelled on that for the second stage parliamentary scrutiny of deregulation orders".
There, if I may say so, I think the committee slipped. For "second", it should have said "first". The second stage parliamentary scrutiny of deregulation orders does not provide for the amendment of draft orders. It is the first stage that does.
We have considered that paragraph and the whole report with great care. The conclusion we have come to thus far is that Clause 12 of the Bill is adequate. In the present Bill remedial orders are limited specifically to amendments to legislation which are necessary to remove an incompatibility with the convention. The incompatibility will have been identified very, very precisely by a higher court or it will have emerged plainly from a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The cause of the incompatibility will have been very precisely identified. The remedial order will have the sole purpose of improving human rights by removing a closely defined incompatibility. We have therefore thought thus far that there is no need for an amendment-making mechanism.
In the last resort, if the proposed method of dealing with the incompatibility was considered by Parliament to be unacceptable, it would be able, under the existing terms of Clause 12, to withhold its approval to the order being made, or, in the case of an order made under Clause 12(1)(b), ensure that it ceases to have effect after 40 days. In practice, that would oblige the Government to make a fresh order.
1146
This does, as at present advised, seem to us to be a sufficiently strong form of parliamentary control and one tailored to the needs of the Bill. On the other hand, we will ponder what has been said on the basis that, although it is possible to get the remedial order wrong, the scope for error in the circumstances I have described is really so little that we took the view that the provision for amendment was not necessary in the particular situation we were addressing. Similarly, I doubt whether inserting a minimum period of 60 days before remedial orders can be made under Clause 12(1)(a) would have any beneficial effect. There might well be occasions when a much shorter period for considering a draft order would suffice. What we have in mind is that an unnecessarily long fixed minimum period would unnecessarily delay the making of a remedial order and, accordingly, the removal of incompatible provisions of legislation for the purpose of enhancing human rights. Nonetheless, I have said that we will ponder; and we will.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying on three occasions that the Government will ponder over my amendment. That is the best one can normally hope for from the Government at this stage of a Bill. He seemed to imply that he saw no need to have an ability to amend such an order as the courts themselves had identified precisely what the problem was and that there was no further need to refine the issue. That seems to be saying that Parliament itself is incapable of doing better than the courts. That is something that we would want to consider very carefully because in many cases I believe that Parliament itself could possibly make improvements whether in this House or in another place.
He also seems to be saying that there is no need to have the power to amend such orders because, in the end, this House or the other place could throw out such an order. I believe that the noble and learned Lord—and certainly my noble kinsman Lord Russell would know this very well—that it is not that easy, particularly in this House, to throw out an order. He knows the conventions under which we operate. But the same can also be said to be true of another place with a large majority and the power of the executive. Merely to say that there is no need to be able to amend the order because in the end the House can throw it out, is possibly not good enough.
I did say that I had no intention of pressing the amendment this evening. I also said how grateful I was to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing to ponder this matter. I look forward to hearing what he will say, or what he will communicate, to me between now and Report stage. However, it is a subject that we shall have to return to then. There might be a slightly modified amendment or we might want to deal with the comments about the 60-day period being too long. But it is certainly a matter to which I want to return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby: moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 7, line 7. after ("been") insert ("scrutinised and reported upon by the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament, and").
The noble Baroness said: I owe the Committee an apology because it might have been better if my two amendments had been grouped together with the earlier set of amendments since they are to some extent dealing with the same problem. Therefore, I shall be brief in my remarks.
I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to think adventurously and radically about this part of the Bill. At an earlier stage in our deliberations, and also at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord said that one of the intentions of the Government was to encourage—because they do not have the right to order that it should occur—the creation of a joint committee on human rights in the two Houses of Parliament. To many noble Lords that seemed an attractive idea.
I do not always sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, but I do so on this point. He has suggested the possibility of an amendment, which is not possible in the present affirmative order structure in any way. Might it be possible for the noble and learned Lord, when he comes to look at this clause again before we return at Report stage, to consider whether such a joint committee, as he has previously discussed, is an appropriate body for scrutinising these orders? I fully appreciate that many of them will be technical, but many of them will not arouse significant issues for amendment. If there were to be a joint committee on human rights which dealt with other and much larger issues, it would not be unreasonable for it to have this responsibility as well.
I draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to the way in which the European Communities Select Committee operates. It mainly deals with large scale issues of inquiries and reports, but it also looks at directives and regulations at every one of its meetings. I am very honoured to be a member of that Select Committee. Therefore one would have a form of scrutiny which can then be reported to the House and also to another place, in the case of its committee, if there is any real problem about an order.
I also very strongly recommend to him the thought that perhaps involving Parliament more in issues of human rights, giving it clear responsibilities, is not only a way of ensuring that human rights are more generally understood in the country, but also of recognising that Parliament itself could usefully discharge many functions that it is not currently asked to do. There is a great deal of talent and ability in both Houses of Parliament which remain to be tapped in the interest of trying to ensure that human rights are properly upheld.
The final and last point I make is that the significance of my amendments—here I make a different point to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley—is essentially that they would require a report to be made or for the committee to clearly indicate that it does not intend to make a report. The point of that arises from a deep cynicism on the part of somebody who has also
1148
been a member of governments. Alongside public expenditure, the hardest concession to get from governments is time. It is very dangerous for scrutiny to be absorbed by the pressures of time in the legislative timetable. The purpose of my amendments in effect is to give power to the committee to ensure that it be heard if it chooses to be heard. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was kind enough to offer me some sympathy so on this occasion may I reciprocate and say that I have a considerable degree of sympathy for this approach, which is not so very different from mine. It is allowing for a slightly greater degree of scrutiny and possibly allowing the committee to suggest adjustments to the particular order. It is a slightly new procedure that the noble Baroness is recommending. But bearing in mind the remarks made earlier by my noble kinsman Lord Russell about importing a new concept into our legal system, occasionally requiring a new approach, similarly this is an idea where a new approach might be appropriate.
If the noble Baroness would like to consider between now and Report stage alternatives to her method or mine that we might jointly pursue at that stage, I shall be more than happy to join her in that. As Members of the Government so often say, I can say that my door will be open throughout that time to approaches from the noble Baroness.
Lord Meston: I should also have arranged for Amendment No. 90 to be grouped with these amendments or the earlier ones. With all the opening of doors and pondering going on, it is probably going to be unnecessary for me to say much about Amendment No. 90 other than to invite the Government to look at it in the same light as they were looking at the previous amendments. It seeks to extend the time for parliamentary scrutiny of remedial orders and to extend to Parliament the power to disapprove such orders when they take effect in cases of emergency.
The fast track procedure will be desirable when speedy action is necessary to redress some individual or minority grievance of a serious nature, although in some cases the existing prerogative powers at the disposal of the Home Secretary may be sufficient.
It is important to emphasise that the fast track procedure should be regarded very much as an exception to the normal process by which rectification of United Kingdom law for compliance with the convention is made. They should not become simply a more administratively convenient and less time-consuming way of changing the law on human rights. The single stage of parliamentary approval is substantially less extensive than the various stages and length of time devoted to normal government Bills and otherwise. Therefore, it is particularly important that parliamentary scrutiny procedures are effective.
The amendment does not include any requirement for particular lines of consultation prior to such orders being made before Parliament or for any particular form of explanatory memorandum to accompany draft orders

1149
when they are laid. I support my noble friend Lady Williams in suggesting that an important corollary is that we have an assurance that there will be some form of parliamentary committee on human rights with terms of reference to include the scrutiny of remedial orders as well as future draft legislation generally, for compliance with the convention.
Earl Russell: I wish to add one point in support of each of these amendments. In Amendment No. 84 there is reference to "the appropriate committee". That might be taken to refer not only to a human rights committee, which I hope that Parliament will create in its own time, but also to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
The noble and learned Lord may say that this is unnecessary, but I can recall regulations being put before this House when the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had not yet considered them. The person on the receiving end happened to be the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I should like to congratulate her most warmly on her success in obtaining the Peer of the Year award, which is much deserved.
Members of the Committee: Hear, hear!
Earl Russell: Being a shrewd parliamentarian, the noble Countess threatened to divide the House against the Motion that the House be resumed, a condition precedent for considering the order at all. Having put the fear of God into the Government Benches, she then relented and decided that she had made her point. So I believe that this amendment is necessary.
On Amendment No. 90, I should like to touch on the point about 60 days. I take the noble and learned Lord's point that one may occasionally want to go faster, but there is a problem here. I take it that it is wide of the Long Title to table any amendment to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. However, there is a trouble in that Act. The "praying days"—the 40 days that we normally have—include judicial sitting days when this House in its political capacity is not sitting. During September there are quite a number of judicial sitting days when this House in its political capacity is not sitting, so on those occasions the "40 days" may present us with a difficulty. Perhaps that point should be borne in mind.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I desire the Committee to appreciate that we shall ponder ideas to determine whether we think that they are good. The whole scheme of incorporation of the convention into domestic law shows a great respect for parliamentary sovereignty. Other models would have shown less respect. That is why we rejected them. The principle now—that remedial orders must be made by Parliament, not by the courts—is accepted as part of our deliberations in this Committee. The question therefore becomes how to ensure that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny while recognising that the sooner that (consistent with parliamentary scrutiny) denials of human rights are remedied, the better. Our purpose therefore is to find the
1150
best balance. That is why I was good enough to say that I saw the force of the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on Amendment No. 83 and the other amendments grouped with it. We want to get the balance right and to ensure a proper role for Parliament. However, I want to express quite frankly why I have my doubts about the amendments.
First, I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Meston, a little. What I said very clearly before was that the Government favour a committee or committees. I did not say that there will be a committee. That is a matter for Parliament. I have a hesitation about an amendment which puts on the statute book the need for scrutiny and report by an appropriate committee of each House of Parliament in advance of knowing whether we shall have such a committee because that is dependent upon Parliament. I also have a concern that the very concept (even on the footing that we do have a committee) while good in terms of parliamentary scrutiny may be bad if it turned out to be an engine for delay in remedying human rights problems. One must balance all those points.
The Government obviously expect that Parliament would wish to give full scrutiny to any remedial orders, but the amendments would provide a committee or committees, which ex hypothesi do not yet exist, with an undefined period in which to carry out scrutiny and report. That means that there would be an undefined period of delay. Also, it is not normal practice for provisions of this kind to be set out in statute, and I am not convinced that it is appropriate for the Bill to set out what the functions of any parliamentary committee should be in this regard. I should have thought—I am open to counter suggestion—that if Parliament agrees to establish a parliamentary committee on human rights, which the Government hope that Parliament will do, its functions and powers could best be considered at that time.
I return to a point that I made earlier in the context of the previous grouping of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The noble Lord was inviting us to admit the possibility that a remedial order might either be wrong or be not as right as Parliament might be capable of making it, and therefore to be hospitable to the possibility of amendment. I should like to renew what I said previously, but in this context. It is important to remember that any declaration of incompatibility will be based on a fully reasoned judgment of a higher court. In practice, the point will be crystal clear. The remedial order will be intended to achieve no more and no less than is necessary to improve the incompatibility. Therefore, I seriously question—I invite those who have proposed the amendment also to question—whether there is much point in an undefined period for scrutiny, and therefore delay in removing an incompatibility which is causing a continuing denial of human rights. That is as frank an expression of my doubts as I can muster at this hour of

1151
the evening. We shall certainly ponder on the point, but in return I ask those who have posed the amendment also to ponder.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: In responding briefly, first may I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said and assure him that we shall ponder. Secondly, I am sure that he will fully understand, as will his noble friend, that our difficulty is that the joint committee was floated as a possibility without being in the legislation. I fully recognise that my amendment therefore relates to a possibility rather than to something that is a reality now, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will also understand that because of the timing of legislation it will be difficult to include such provisions in legislation once the committee has been formed.
As much as anything, the purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government to consider carefully whether such a provision might be within the terms of reference. I see no difficulty about including a limit to the amount of time allowed for scrutiny. That may be a matter on which I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about bringing the two together.
Finally, in our view, it is important that there should be (admittedly in the more extreme cases) the possibility of amendment. Our difficulty with the affirmative order is that that possibility simply does not exist. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 90 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead: moved Amendment No. 90A:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
STANDING ADVISORY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
(" .There shall be constituted a Commission to be known as the "Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights" to advise the Secretary of State on any matter related to the Convention.").
The noble Lord said: The proposed amendment and the new clause which resides therein is, I think, much more modest than the demands made by various interest groups in the past which have been inclined to stray into demanding that the Government should provide assistance, financial and otherwise, for individuals challenging decisions or rulings.
Having listened to many noble Lords speak on earlier amendments, I am now convinced of the need for the proposed body. It will become essential. In my view, we cannot safely proceed without such an effective link between the European Convention on Human Rights and a whole range of United Kingdom departments. These cannot be expected to establish their own advisory body and, if they did go down that road, there would inevitably be conflict and many areas of overlap between departments. The advisory body proposed in this new clause should be proactive in the preparation of advice and the identification of possible solutions before complainants sought recourse to the courts, with all the inevitable costs and delays.
The proposed standing advisory commission on human rights would make another valuable contribution by being available for consultation with departments in the preparation of their legislation. I am certain that that would avoid situations in which legislation could be effectively challenged immediately a Bill had completed all its stages and received Royal Assent. Departments would benefit enormously from the availability of advice from such an advisory body representative of broad streams of national life, as opposed to departmental Ministers and draftsmen being buffeted by unworkable demands which, if met, would themselves contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.
I do not have in mind the abolition of certain commissions dealing with limited aspects of human rights. It is possible that in time these may wish to merge with this United Kingdom standing commission on human rights. The present Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission could become a valuable element in the main body to which the Northern Ireland commission could and would make a very valuable contribution by reason of its long experience in dealing with the same issues which debates on the Bill have unexpectedly uncovered. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: We on these Benches have listened with great interest to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. We recognise the extremely valuable work that has been done in Northern Ireland by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in that Province. We wish to reserve our position on this amendment because, while potentially it is capable of doing good work, it is far less effective than what we wish to see; namely, a proper human rights commission as discussed in Committee on Monday. If such a human rights commission were established we would see the standing advisory commission as proposed in this amendment as part of it, or the human rights commission itself doing the work proposed in the amendment. However, we regard this not so much as half a loaf as a quarter of a loaf instead of the full loaf of the proper human rights commission that we wish to see.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My noble friend Lord Molyneaux has referred to the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I have had the benefit of meeting that commission on a number of occasions over a period of years. I have also had conversations with its chairman and secretary. I should like to pay tribute to the work of that commission, which has had to operate under extremely difficult circumstances involving emergency law, Diplock courts and direct rule which have had the effect of suspending much of normal democracy.
I was also very glad to have had the opportunity some time ago to be connected with an inquiry into human rights and responsibilities in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The fruit of that inquiry was published eventually in book form by Macmillan and edited by the late Sydney Bailey. One of its recommendations was that there should be human rights

1153
commissions not only in Northern Ireland but in Scotland, England and Wales. I should like to see any new body that may be created, whether as a result of this amendment or otherwise, having the power to look at individual cases as well as simply considering themes and subjects which bear on human rights, and to give advice to individuals. While I acknowledge the limited scope of this amendment, I give it my support.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, to whose work I readily join in paying tribute, was created by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 for a particular purpose which is not related to any purpose that we are discussing within this Bill. The commission was to advise,
"the Secretary of State on the adequacy and effectiveness of the law for the time being in force in preventing discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion and in providing redress for persons aggrieved by discrimination on either ground".
I say carefully that it is a much narrower function which is devoted to the problems of a particular part of the United Kingdom.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, proposes the constitution of a commission to be known as the standing advisory commission on human rights. Its purpose is to advise the Secretary of State on any matter related to the convention. That misses the point of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to enable people who believe that their convention rights have been violated to enforce those rights in domestic courts. Its purpose is not to create a statutory source of advice for the Government on whether they are acting compatibly with the convention. We do not believe that any such device would have any practical value or merit. It does not go beyond anything that can be done by a parliamentary committee on human rights. It would not be in the business of advising individuals; it would be limited to giving advice to the Secretary of State. The Government do not see the value or virtue of such a commission. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, having considered his suggestion with care, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether or not any parliamentary committee on human rights would be able to look at individual cases?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As has been agreed on all sides, what any parliamentary committee looks at depends upon its terms of reference. Its terms of reference are by definition a matter for another place and this place if either or both Houses wishes to have such a committee.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I fully understand the point that has been made by the Minister. He will have noticed that I was very careful not to model the proposed commission on the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission, for the simple reason that the world has moved on. It is true that that commission was set up in Northern Ireland in very different circumstances and for a very different purpose. But I am
1154
sure that the noble Lord will admit that in the course of all our debates in Committee on this particular Bill we have dealt with the very same subjects of racial equality, religious freedom and many other matters. If the present Bill had been in force when the Northern Ireland commission was set up, naturally its terms of reference would have been widened to include all those aspects.
I trust that, despite the Minister's rather discouraging response as opposed to the sympathetic response from other members of the Committee, in time the noble Lord and his colleagues will see the need for such a body. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Other rights and proceedings]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston: moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert?—
("( ) A court or tribunal which is required in any proceedings to consider whether or not any jurisdiction should be exercised in the United Kingdom or in another state shall have regard to whether, and to what extent, any party to the proceedings or any person under disability who is the subject of the proceedings may be affected by a denial or infringement of the Convention rights in such other state (whether or not that state is a signatory to the Convention).").
The noble Lord said: I hope that Amendment No. 91 is largely self-explanatory. It would require a court or tribunal exercising a discretion which required the consideration of competing jurisdictions—for example, whether to grant a stay of legal proceedings, or a sist as it is known in Scotland, or some other forum conveniens dispute—to consider the possible impact of an infringement of convention rights in the other jurisdiction. Most typically, it would require consideration of Article 6 rights—that is to say, whether there would be a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
It might also be used in the international child abduction cases in which application is made to a court in the United Kingdom to return a child to another country. The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 gives effect to The Hague Convention on the civil aspects of child abduction, but Schedule 1 to that Act, which contains the Hague Convention, omits Article 20.
Article 20 reads as follows:
"The return of the child under article 12 may be refused if this would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms".
Some of the considerations for a court in the United Kingdom in both Hague Convention and non-Hague Convention abduction cases may be as follows: how quickly proceedings concerning the child can be started and finished in the other country, whether the abducting parent will get legal aid to seek custody and to seek permission to remove the child again lawfully and whether he or she will be prosecuted upon return. These can involve European convention factors.
Article 20 of the Hague Convention was omitted from the schedule to the 1985 Act because it was considered unnecessary, given the other exceptions in the Hague Convention in relation to the mandatory return of children and because at that stage the terms of Article 20 had no clear meaning in English law. However, now that the United Kingdom is to incorporate the European

1155
Convention, I would suggest that in any case in which the courts of the United Kingdom are asked to consider exporting either litigation or people—which includes children—to other jurisdictions, regard should now be had to how such other jurisdictions measure up to European Convention standards. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment would require a court making a decision about jurisdiction in any proceedings and, in particular, addressing the question of whether jurisdiction should be declined or asserted, to have regard to the possibility of the denial or infringement of European Convention rights in the other rival jurisdiction, regardless of whether the other rival state concerned was a party to the convention or not.
What this amendment is essentially seeking to do is to use this Bill to give effect in domestic law to Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. The main provisions of that convention, but not Article 20, were brought into force in the United Kingdom by the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, under which the Lord Chancellor is the central authority for England and Wales.
That this is an important issue I do not question. I question, however, the appropriateness of using this Bill to address it. Regardless of whether it is in principle a good idea to give domestic effect to Article 20, I do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle in which to revisit this issue. The purpose of this Bill is rather grand. It is to give further effect in domestic law to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. Its purpose is not to give domestic effect to the provisions of any other international treaty.
Issues of jurisdiction are very complex. They are governed by a number of international treaties, and this Bill is not, in my submission, an appropriate forum in which to consider these contentious issues. After all, the amendment would apply, as I read it, not only across the whole range of family proceedings but also to litigation generally, including commercial proceedings. The implications are therefore extremely wide and we would want to give them much further thought before making the change proposed here. Our deliberations on this Bill do not constitute an appropriate forum for discussing these contentious matters. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I hope that he will not press this amendment.
Lord Meston: I will not pretend that I am not a little disappointed by the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I suggest that this is an appropriate Bill because this is the moment at which we are incorporating the convention and the message should be going to all the courts exercising any jurisdiction in this country that European Convention factors should now be considered among other factors in a wide range of jurisdictions.
Although I accept the point that this is an important issue and a complex matter and one that is certainly wider than The Hague Convention point which I mentioned in explaining the amendment, it is
1156
unfortunate that we shall have to wait until the introduction of other legislation which might be considered more appropriate. I would hope that some further thought could be given to this point before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage; meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Colville of Culross: On this Motion I seek a word of clarification from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Last week I asked him how courts such as the Crown court were to take account of the jurisprudence which comes from Strasbourg. He has written me a letter, which I received this morning. I showed it to my colleagues at court at lunchtime today and it was greeted with enormous interest by them, as it contains a number of most positive and constructive methods whereby we are all to be informed or to have available to us the jurisprudence which has arisen and will continue to arise. I thank him for that.
I suggest it is of sufficient interest to warrant rather wider dissemination than simply being in the form of a letter to me and three other Members of your Lordships' House. I welcome very much what the noble and learned Lord said about that.
Since I understand that it is the intention of the Government that the rights enshrined in the covenant should permeate throughout the entire judicial system, I now want to ask him when these rights may be used in the courts. I give an example of this, looking at Clause 13. One of the matters that tends to arise in a criminal trial—it does not happen very often, but it is quite important when it does—is the question of abuse of process. If there is an abuse of process and the court so holds, the trial does not proceed at all. The matter is stayed and the prosecution goes no further. Of course, if there is an abuse of process, it is highly desirable because it means that no further money is spent. there is no necessity for any appellate procedures but, most particularly, the defendant is let out of his misery because he knows where he is straightaway.
In 1992 the Court of Appeal said that many of the matters which tend to be raised by way of abuse of process can be solved as the trial proceeds. Of course, the Court of Appeal is perfectly right. However, there are two matters which arise under the European Convention: they are in Article 6.1 and Article 6.2. They are fundamental when it comes to consideration of abuse of process. The parts of the convention with which I am concerned are these: first of all, the question of delay and, secondly, the presumption of innocence.
Unlike most of my colleagues, I have the advantage of having been able to look at your Lordships' Library to see what it is that Strasbourg has said. In a case in 1995, it dealt with both those matters. It dealt with—I believe that it dealt with it on many other occasions—the question of delay, and, also, for the first time, it dealt with the presumption of innocence. The court itself held in a case called Allenet de Ribemont v. France that

1157
authorities other than the court itself may say things by way of pre-trial publicity which so undermine the fairness of the trial that the presumption of innocence enshrined in the covenant is breached.
In our terms, that would be an abuse-of-process argument. Indeed, it has happened in recent times more than once. It may be the press, it may be someone in the police, it may come from all sorts of sources, but the issue that is being raised before the trial has even started is whether the defendant will be able to have a fair trial, and whether a jury can be properly empanelled, which will not have been so prejudiced in its ideas that a fair trial is impossible.
That is the type of thing that has to be dealt with in any event. The domestic jurisprudence has been built up to guide judges so as to be able to come to a conclusion about it one way or the other. What I am asking the noble and learned Lord is: will the courts at that stage be able to take account also of the jurisprudence that has come from Strasbourg, because I believe that they should do so? If they cannot do it at that stage, if a trial cannot be prevented on the grounds that an analogous case has arisen at Strasbourg. and been pronounced upon, and that the court should take account of that, we shall spend a great deal of time and money, and we shall put defendants through a great deal of tribulation before the Court of Appeal finally decides the matter. I ask the noble and learned Lord: when can we take account, in the Crown court, for instance, of the deliberations that have come from Strasbourg, because I believe that Clause 13 should say, and perhaps it does:
"A person may rely at any stage of any proceedings on a Convention right"?
Then it would go on as before. If it means that, I am content. I ask the noble andlearned Lord to clarify the point, and, I hope, confirm that I am correct.
8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 13(1) provides:
"A person may rely on a Convention right without prejudice to any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom".
The purpose of that provision is to ensure that the Bill gives but does not take away. A person may rely on a convention right, but he may also rely on any other right or freedoms he enjoys under the law.
Clause 13(1) relates back to Clause 7(1)(b) which provides:
"A person who claims that a public authority has acted … in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—

(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or

(b) rely on the Convention right or rights … in any legal proceedings".

So a person can rely on the convention rights concerned in any legal proceedings. Next of course, any court or tribunal must take into account the judgments, decisions, declarations, or advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights because Clause 2(1) so provides.
It appears to me that it is for the court in question, and for individual judicial decision in any particular case, to decide when the point, based on convention law, is to be
1158
adjudicated upon. It is a matter to decide in its discretion whether the argument that is put before it, based on the convention, is one upon which it should decide, as, for example, a preliminary issue at the outset.
Nothing I shall say on the Motion that Clause 13 stand part should be relied upon as standing in the way of the court's discretion within its own independent sphere to decide when it is appropriate, in particular proceedings, to adjudicate upon a convention point.
Clause 13 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Derogations]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("order made under subsection (1)(b)") and insert ("designation order").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 96. These are, again, technical drafting amendments. They replace references in Clause 14(5)(a) and Clause 15(5)(a) to an order made under subsection (1)(b) with references to a designation order. That is consistent with the use of the phrase "designation order" in Clause 14(4) and (6) and Clause 15(4). It is also shorter. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Reservations]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("Schedule 2") and insert ("this Act").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a technical amendment. It amends Clause 15(5) so as to ensure that if a designated reservation is withdrawn, the Secretary of State can make the required consequential amendments to the Human Rights Act itself so as to remove what would otherwise have been an otiose reference to the designated reservation in Clause 15(1)(a). At present Clause 15(5) allows that only in relation to references to a designated reservation in Schedule 2 rather than the Bill as a whole. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("order made under subsection (1)(b)") and insert ("designation order").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Appointment to European Court of Human Rights]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner:moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 10, line 4, leave out from ("judges)") to end of line 6.
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 98. The amendments relate to Clause 18 which deals with the appointment to the European Court of Human Rights of judges of this

1159
country. The amendment is a cry for clarification. If one looks at subsection (4)(a), it provides, in relation to Court of Appeal judges and mutatis mutandis in regard to other judges:
"a Lord Justice of Appeal or Justice of the High Court is not to count as a judge of the relevant court for the purposes of section 2(1) or 4(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981",
which deals with the provision for the maximum number of judges. That is all straightforward. The subsection continues:
"nor as a judge of the Supreme Court for the purposes of section 12 of that Act (salaries etc.)".
My next amendment relates to subsection (6) which provides:
"The Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State may by order … make such provision with respect to pensions payable to or in respect of any holder of a judicial office who serves as a judge of the Court as he considers appropriate".
I seek clarification. Section 12 of the Supreme Court Act is referred to in subsection (4)(a), which is the subject matter of my first amendment. It is an important section. It deals with the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court. Section 12(3) provides that:
"Any salary payable under this section may be increased, but not reduced, by a determination or further determination under this section".
I do not understand—I am sure that it is my fault and I apologise in advance—why Section 12 of the Act is removed in relation to any Lord Justice and subsequent judges who are transferred or appointed to the Court of Human Rights. Nor do I understand, if a judge is transferred, what protection he receives in regard to his salary. Can his salary be reduced from that which he is entitled to receive as a Lord Justice? Can his pension be interfered with? Subsection (6)(a) enables the Lord Chancellor to:
"make such provision with respect to pensions…in respect of any holder of a judicial office who serves as a judge of the Court as he considers appropriate".
Pensions are merely deferred salary. If the pension he determines is less than the Lord Justice, for example, is receiving, Section 12(3), which has hitherto protected the judge from any reduction in his salary, no longer operates.
My amendment merely seeks to obtain from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor an assurance that a transferred Lord Justice, or any other judge who is qualified for the Court of Human Rights, cannot as a result of the transfer find himself being paid less either by way of salary or by way of pension than he enjoys in the office which he holds. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly reflect on the observations of the noble and learned Lord, but I shall endeavour to satisfy him here and now. Section 12 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides that judicial salaries, once determined, may not be reduced and are to be paid from the Consolidated Fund.
The purpose of the provision to which the noble and learned Lord calls attention is to be helpful and beneficial to the judge. It is to modify the existing law, which involves that a serving judge should have to
1160
resign his office if elected to the Strasbourg Court. We want him to remain in office as a High Court judge of the High Court, if that is what he is. Therefore, to that extent the provision is beneficial.
We take the view that obligatory resignation might well dissuade potentially good candidates from coming forward when the office of UK judge to the Strasbourg Court has to be filled. So far so good. A consequence of the change is that we disapply for the duration of his service in Strasbourg the provision under which a judge is entitled to receive his United Kingdom salary. That is because he will be paid by the Council of Europe the generous sum of 1,100,000 French francs, tax-free, per year. That is about £114,000 at current exchange rates.
I entirely appreciate that the noble and learned Lord tabled his amendments in order to receive an explanation of the intention behind the provisions. However, if his amendments were accepted, the effect would be that the judge would be paid not only, by public service standards, a handsome salary tax-free to be received from the Council of Europe but also his United Kingdom salary, even though he was not performing his duties as a United Kingdom judge. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would be the first to agree that that would be too much of a good thing.
If it is accepted that the judge should not be paid both salaries, subsection (6) is necessary in order to allow suitable pension provision to be made. That will be made, but I am not yet in a position to inform the Committee what precisely the arrangements will be. They are under consideration. I hope that with that explanation the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I am not sure where we have arrived. I understand the explanation. I had assumed that it might well be financially advantageous to the judge to transfer to Strasbourg, and I have never doubted the ability and enthusiasm of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, consistent with his obligation to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, to ensure that their emoluments are not reduced. But I do not find any of that protection reflected in the statute. That is why I have underlined the amendments which would cause the Government to focus on the point.
I am not wedded to the amendments. I would not be the first to resist the judges' salaries increasing substantially. Therefore, I shall be grateful if my noble and learned friend will confirm that if I withdraw my amendment he will agree to look at the wording of the provision so as to ensure that the protection of the judge, particularly in Section 12(3), which provides that his salary cannot he reduced, will be continued.
The Lord Chancellor: I will certainly look at the provision. But the noble and learned Lord understands the point that the judge cannot be paid two salaries and that he is receiving a substantially larger salary, tax-free, in Strasbourg. The noble and learned Lord's amendments would entitle the judge to receive both salaries and would disable me from making suitable

1161
arrangements as regards his pension. The right outcome is that he should have one salary and not two and have suitable provision made for his pension, balancing what is suitable against the amount of the salary which he will be receiving from the Council of Europe. It is to the latter that I am currently attending.
Lord Ackner: I thought I had made it clear that I am not wedded to my amendment. My amendment was merely to bring up short the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor against this particular situation. I do not expect the judge to receive two salaries. I do not urge that. I want to ensure that he receives the protection which he has at the moment.
There is nothing in the legislation, nor would I expect it, to say that when he goes to Europe, he will be paid more and it will be tax free. I am told that that is what is hoped to be the position but it may all change. The situation in Europe may oblige some radical alteration in the emoluments of a judge. I hope it will not occur but it is quite possible that it will and there is absolutely nothing in this legislation which protects him. Nothing in this legislation says he will be paid tax free and certainly there is nothing in this legislation which says that he will receive £10,000 more than he receives at present. I do not expect it to be in this legislation.
But I expect to find in this legislation the protection which I find in Section 12(3). If protection of that kind can be put into this clause, then I am quite content. But the amendment was not intended to be an amendment which I sought to have accepted. It was merely to oblige the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain the position, and I am grateful that he has done that. But, unless there is something in the Bill itself to protect a judge from having his salary reduced, then he has not met my point.
I thought that he was going to reflect on that—it may be that the current word is "ponder" and I am putting it too high—when he rose to address the Committee. Perhaps he will confirm what is the position.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly go so far as to say that I shall reflect further on what the noble and learned Lord has said. But what I said is perfectly clear. The judge's office as a High Court judge will continue but he will not receive the remuneration associated with that office while he is not carrying out the duties of that office. The office will continue but he will not be entitled to the remuneration of that office precisely because he will not he rendering the services which are the quid pro quo for the salary.
He will be choosing to following that course by entering into an agreement in terms of the conditions of service in Strasbourg which are clearly set out in a resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. That is a public document and the salary which he will in fact receive, tax free of the equivalent of £114,000 per year at current exchange rates is what the salary will be.
1162
As to the pension implications, I have said to the noble and learned Lord that I shall be considering those and I am in the course of doing so. But I am not in a position to say anything further now.
Lord Ackner: I still do not understand why it is so repugnant to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say that the judge will not receive less than he obtains from his current office. That is clearly what the noble and learned Lord expects to be the case but he will not bring himself to enunciate that fact. Perhaps Pepper v. Hart is worrying him, I know not. But he has agreed to reflect on my submissions and I am content that that will occur. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Statements of compatibility]:
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("to the effect that") and insert ("giving the reasons why").
The noble Baroness said: I can move this amendment briefly. I congratulate the Government on, in this particular case, requiring that a statement be made when new legislation is put forward. We see that desirable word "must" in the drafting of Clause 19. On these Benches, we are extremely pleased to see that.
I must say that a moment of inappropriate merriment overtook me when I looked at the original drafting of Clause 19, which refers to the Minister of the Crown making statements,
"to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
My mind went back to a number of Ministers, somewhat unclear about what they were doing, who did indeed rather vaguely wave their hands in the air and make statements to the effect of this or that with no great precision, no great clarity and no great helpfulness to the House.
Therefore, from these Benches, we propose Amendments Nos. 100 and 102 in an attempt to persuade the Minister to be rather more clear as to what he says in his statement. We wish him to give the reasons for his statement of compatibility or non-compatibility as the case may be.
In doing so, we reflect recent recommendations stemming back as far as the Franks Committee of 1957 and the Justice All Souls Report under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Patrick Neill, both of which strongly recommended the advantages of giving reasons in the making of law and in the administration of law.
Therefore, it seems to us that the amendments which we are here proposing and in the current mellow and friendly mood of the noble and learned Lord and his noble colleague, we hope that they will readily concede this, because it is simply a recognition that Ministers of

1163
the Crown are capable of clarity and I have no doubt that Ministers of this particular Government are more than capable of clarity.
Finally, I argue that the amendment has the great advantage of obliging the Minister to think through the statement he makes because he must give his reasons and answer to them. From these Benches, we commend the amendments to the Government. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Committee will appreciate that this Bill could have gone through without any Clause 19 at all. In its present form, Clause 19 is a demonstration of the Government's commitment to human rights. I appreciate that the amendment provides that a statement is not enough and it must be a statement backed by reasons. I shall address that on its merits but I suggest that Clause 19 in itself is a very large gesture, as well as being a point of substance, in favour of the development of a culture of awareness of what the convention requires in relation to domestic legislation.
And so, by requiring the Minister in charge of a Bill to give a statement about its compatibility, we are underlining our commitment to undertaking further pre-legislative scrutiny of all new policy measures. The noble Baroness will appreciate that, if there had been no such provision in the Bill, that might have given a quieter life for Ministers. Also, where the Minister states that he is unable to make a positive statement about the Bill's compatibility, that will be a very early signal to Parliament that the possible human rights implications of the Bill will need and will receive very careful consideration. Therefore, a statement giving the Government's conclusions, whether positive or negative, on the status of the Bill will go a long way towards the achievement of those aims. Therefore I ask the Committee not to underestimate the significance of what is already there.
Of course, Parliament will wish to know the reasons why the Government have taken whatever view they have taken. Therefore, I can understand why these amendments have been put forward. But the reasoning behind a statement of compatibility or the inability to make such a statement will inevitably be discussed by Parliament during the passage of the Bill. Of course it will be; and it will be discussed thoroughly.
I believe that a debate in Parliament provides the best forum in which the Government's thinking can be fully explained. In those circumstances, therefore, I require a great deal of persuasion that a written statement on the face of a Bill, setting out the Minister's reasons, would add anything of real value.
In principle, the idea of the equivalent of written argumentative essays on the face of Bills does not appeal to me. Debate in the Chamber on such issues will inevitably take place and that, surely, is the natural forum for ascertaining the Minister's reasons and having him develop them so that Members of this Chamber can test by question and debate the sufficiency of the
1164
reasons. Is there any real need to clutter up the face of the Bill with a statement of reasons? I beg leave to doubt it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should perhaps point out to him that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 102A, which requires a written statement. I am moving Amendment No. 100 and speaking to Amendment No. 102, which only require that the reasons are given to Parliament in exactly the way that the noble and learned Lord outlined as part of a Minister's statement, so that Parliament may in fact more precisely and more relevantly debate the issue. I simply commend that to the noble and learned Lord, not because I am trying to create difficulties for the Bill; indeed, I strongly accept what he said about Clause 19. It is a very important part of the Bill, not a minor part. It is a very long step forward. I strongly commend it.
I have tabled the amendments so as to bring the legislation in line with the Franks Committee and the Neill Report. It is a further example of an attempt to try to elicit from governments of all colours and of all times the reasons why they do what they do. That is the spirit in which I move the amendment, not in a spirit of trying to create many requirements for written reasons which I, too, see no reason for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("his") and insert ("Her Majesty's Government's").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, perhaps I may, for the convenience of the Committee, speak briefly to Amendment No. 103, which also stands in my name. I wish to make clear the reasons behind the amendments. I appreciate that Amendment No. 103 is not grouped with the one that I have just moved but, in view of the hour, I think it would be convenient for me to speak to both at the same time. The amendment has been tabled with a view to seeking to assist in making Clause 19 work when it in fact becomes law.
The first point to make is that, when, in the future, Parliament comes to discuss a new Bill, it will, with the greatest respect to individual Ministers, not really be concerned with the view of that individual Minister; it will be concerned with the view of the Government as to whether the provisions of the Bill which are to be debated are compatible with convention rights. That issue is essentially a question of law. It is inconceivable that, in most cases, the view will be the personal view of the Minister concerned. It will be the view of the Government informed by such legal advice as they will have taken, whether from Law Officers or from any other quarter. In effect, it will be the duty of the Minister to adopt that view and incorporate it in the statement which is

1165
to be given. If Amendment No. 103 were accepted, the suggested wording would then be incorporated into the statement which the Minister would then be required to repeat in this Chamber on Second Reading.
I invite Members of the Committee to picture the scene in a year or two when this Government, or possibly another, introduces a Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, sitting in his usual place in the Chamber. A statement will be made by a lay Minister in the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights. If I am not mistaken, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would probably have something to say about it; indeed, he might conceivably have been involved in a case which touches upon the issue. In that situation we would have a most unusual discussion between an expert on the law and a layman whose knowledge was informed by an opinion of Law Officers whose existence he could not acknowledge—that is, the existence of the opinion, not that of the Law Officers—and the contents of which he could not disclose.
I suggest that it would be sensible to make clear on the face of the Bill the fact that it is the Government's view which is important. When such statements are to be debated, as they surely are, the Government may also wish to think about how the existing convention relating to the advice of Law Officers will be applied. As a Question earlier this week disclosed, a Minister can be placed in a very difficult position when he cannot mention the existence of the advice and yet he is, in effect, being asked to defend a legal opinion. On that basis, in the hope that the amendment will be accepted as a constructive one and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not used up all his pondering facilities, I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that Amendment No. 103 was grouped with Amendment No. 99. The latter has, fortunately, come and gone but it is only sensible for me to deal with both amendments for the convenience of the Committee. Amendment No. 101 would not cause a great change to the Bill; it would simply replace "his" with "Her Majesty's Government". However, we believe that it is an important matter and one which is entirely consonant with what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said about the importance that we attach to Clause 19.
Our scheme plainly puts responsibility upon the individual Minister who has charge of the Bill in either relevant place. He is given the particular responsibility of enuring that the policy accords with convention rights. His is the duty and his is the responsibility to answer to this Chamber or the other place. We believe that to be the correct focus and that is where it presently stands. Of course, the Minister would be answering on behalf of Her Majesty's Government as, by convention, Ministers answer Questions not on behalf of their own
1166
departments but on behalf of the Government generally. We believe that the responsibility is so particular that it ought to be left as it is.
Amendment No. 103 would require a Minister to repeat a written statement that he had made about compatibility by way of a statement to the Chamber of which he is a Member, either before or during the Second Reading of a Bill. The answer is quite plain. Acts of Parliament do not usually—indeed, not at all—regulate what a Minister will or will not say to Parliament. What one needs here is, first, responsibility attached to the sponsoring Minister; and, secondly, the opportunity for questions.
The former Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said that Ministers would not be able to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Of course, I have summarised what he said. but I do not accept that view for a moment. If a Minister is to be remunerated, at whatever modest level, he ought to know his brief before he comes to the Chamber.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: For the sake of the record, I should point out that I did not quite put it in the way outlined by the Minister; namely, that the Minister concerned would not be able to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. However, having had to deal with the noble Lord on occasions, I am sympathetic to the view which has been expressed. I fully accept that the intention is to make the Minister concerned personally involved in the matter and, although I intend to withdraw the amendment, I hope the Government will reflect on the problem of a lay Minister having to defend a view of the law in the face of the difficulties to which I referred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 103 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Orders under this Act]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 105 to 108:
Page 11, line 3, at end insert—
("(1A) The power to make rules (other than rules of court) under section 2(3) or 7(8) is exercisable by statutory instrument.").
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("such") and insert ("statutory").
Page 11, line 4, leave out (" 16") and insert (" 16(7)").
Page 11, line 8, leave out (" 18(5)") and insert (" 18(6), or to which subsection (1A) applies,").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these Amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 105 to 108 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("section 21(1) of").
The noble Lord said: This is another tidying up amendment, if I can describe it in that way. This amendment widens the amendment to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 made by Clause 21(5). This is needed because there are provisions of the Bill other than the definition of subordinate legislation in Clause 21(1)(to which Clause 21(5) currently refers), for example Clause 3, which a Northern Ireland court might regard as affecting the status of Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Short title, commencement, application and extent]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson: moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 12, line 26, after ("the") insert ("Additional").
The noble Lord said: I have drawn the short straw in that I have to move this important amendment at the end of a long day when the Committee is understandably hungry and possibly wants to go home too. I shall try to be brief. The Short Title of the Bill at the moment is the Human Rights Bill. Whether by accident or by design—I am sure it is the former—this is a propagandistic title. Faced with this title, the sort of voter who reads only the tabloids and watches only commercial television could be forgiven for being persuaded that prior to 1st May 1997 the United Kingdom was in a state of semi-tyranny compared with the liberal paradise to be found on the Continent of Europe.
The Members of this Chamber, Members of another place, those who have a university education and broadsheet readers in general are well aware that this is the reverse of the truth and that Britain, with its Magna Carta, jury system, equality before the law, its House of Commons with power to refuse to vote funds to the Monarch, the Glorious Revolution and so on, has always been—despite many imperfections—far freer than almost any continental nation. Most of those people know that the Soviet Union had rights written in black and white into its constitution right through the Lenin terror, the Stalin terror and the enduring Gulags and that it is the underlying attitudes and instincts of a nation's people that count just as much as what is written on paper. They know too that most people from third countries would far rather find themselves in the hands of the British police than the French police, whatever the theoretical safeguards in France.
Moreover, the title as it stands may give the public the impression that the rights conferred by this Bill are so comprehensive that nothing more needs to be done, ever. Of course we know better. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights is weak on property rights, as the European Court's judgments on the confiscatory aspects of the 1977 Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act demonstrate. This is not
1168
surprising as the convention was formulated in the late 1940s when western Europe was going through a decidedly socialist phase.
I contend that we need a more honest and accurate title. I suggest prefacing the word "human" by the word "additional" for two reasons. First of all the Bill introduces a few totally new rights, but secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights that cannot be enforced or which could be enforced only with great difficulty are only theoretical rather than actual rights. Theoretical rights that become actual ones as a result of the provisions of this Bill are effectively therefore additional rights. However, I am not wedded to the word "additional". Some Members of the Committee might prefer the word "enhanced" or something else altogether. I await with interest the comments of the Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it will be a little while before this country is a liberal paradise, but we are working on it. I understand the point that he makes but unfortunately parliamentary precedent is against him. Since I have been in this Chamber we have had more education Bills and more local government Bills than I can count, but none of them has ever been described as the additional education Bill or the additional local government Bill. I think there is a good case for following normal parliamentary practice.
Viscount Colville of Culross: If it is going to be anything it ought to be the some additional human rights Bill because one of the things it does not do is to incorporate the provisions of the international covenant in its entirety. Although this country has ratified it, we have not adopted the first optional protocol and therefore the rights of the citizens are confined to those matters that are in the European as opposed to the international convention. There are some important matters in the international convention which are not reflected in the European one.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the Bill is actually doing, surprisingly, is to be found, amazingly, in the Long Title which is to give,
"further effect in domestic law to rights and freedoms",
which the United Kingdom is already obliged to secure to people in its jurisdiction by dint of its ratification of the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that if we call it a Human Rights Bill that is propagandist. May I suggest that if it is an additional human rights Bill, that would he additionally propagandist?
Lord Monson: I thought there might be some comments from the Conservative Benches but they have decided to opt out, as so often happens these days. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was absolutely right: parliamentary precedent dictates excessively short titles and therefore very often excessively confusing titles. It is a pity that we cannot break the precedent for once. Perhaps we could start a new trend to have titles which are more explanatory of the

1169
legislation which they embrace. However, realistically, this is probably not the moment to do this. I also take the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which I think is a perfectly valid one.
I, of course, have no intention whatsoever of trying to press this amendment at this time of night. Nevertheless I invite the Committee to ponder the possibility of altering the title. I shall not proceed on my own but if anyone else cares to join me at the next stage I shall be delighted to have their support. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Articles]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Lloyds TSB Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Plant Varieties Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to he printed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before nine o'clock.

  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Republic of Congo: Angolan Intervention
  Republic of Congo: Angolan Intervention
  Israeli Bombing of Iraqi Civil Nuclear Facility, 1981
  Israeli Bombing of Iraqi Civil Nuclear Facility, 1981
  Iraq: Security Council Resolutions
  Iraq: Security Council Resolutions
  UNSCOM Teams Operating in Iraq
  UNSCOM Teams Operating in Iraq
  Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East
  Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East
  Weapons of Mass Destruction, Israel
  Weapons of Mass Destruction, Israel
  R v Gloucestershire County Council ex parte Barry
  R v Gloucestershire County Council ex parte Barry
  Scotland: Openness in Local Government
  Scotland: Openness in Local Government
  Scotland: Local Government
  Scotland: Local Government
  Government Information Service
  Government Information Service
  Royal Naval Division Memorial, Greenwich
  Royal Naval Division Memorial, Greenwich
  Drink Drive Controls
  Drink Drive Controls
  Waste-derived Compost
  Waste-derived Compost
  Water Quality
  Water Quality
  Access to Work Scheme
  Access to Work Scheme
  Coercive Population Policies
  Coercive Population Policies
  Forced Abortions: US Policy
  Forced Abortions: US Policy
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Hull Resettlement Project: General Manager
  Hull Resettlement Project: General Manager
  Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure: Dr. Davies' Report
  Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure: Dr. Davies' Report
  Male Homosexuality
  Male Homosexuality
  Unaccompanied Minors Detained at Campsfield House
  Unaccompanied Minors Detained at Campsfield House
  Polish Citizens: Entry to UK
  Polish Citizens: Entry to UK
  Religious Discrimination
  Religious Discrimination
  Fire Safety Legislation: Consultation
  Fire Safety Legislation: Consultation