Sitting of 30 April 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Designated Ports
    1. Mr. Roger Casale: What representations he has received concerning designated ports status. [39107]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Interested parties have until 15 May to comment on the Government's proposals to establish a system of designated ports for landings of fish made by vessels over 20 m. We shall then consider the representations received before any final decisions are taken.
    Mr. Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that in this, as in many other areas of European regulation, it is not so much the Commission's policy as the enforcement of policy by member states that is the real issue at stake? The present Government recognise that distinction. The previous Tory Government's failure to do so left them and the British fishing industry up the creek without a paddle.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right to say that, although we are pressing for stronger Europewide enforcement, we have a responsibility in our country to ensure that our fleets abide by the regulations. We have had difficulties on the black fish issue. The proposals on designated ports demonstrate that the Government intend to take the issue seriously.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In Fleetwood in my constituency, the idea of designated ports has been widely welcomed, but there is concern that the restrictions will apply to the British fleet, but not to European vessels fishing in the area. Can the Minister give cause for hope by reassuring me that the scheme may be extended to include foreign vessels?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a very serious point. The creation of a system of designated ports is a national measure, taken by us as an individual member state, to deal with a national issue of
    440
    enforcement. United Kingdom vessels are free to land abroad, as they always have been. However, we are pressing for increased and more effective Europewide fisheries enforcement, and we know that our proposals for designated ports are attracting the interest of other European member states. That measure may well be taken forward across the Community.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister acknowledge the general unease in the fishing industry? Every problem in the fishing industry is answered with increasing bureaucracy, and there is a failure to tackle the industry's fundamental underlying problems, associated with the common fisheries policy and the drive to make British fishing waters part of a common resource, to be shared with all other nations on the basis of equal access.
    Mr. Morley: We have debated common access previously, and the hon. Gentleman knows that, in our view, the principle of relative stability takes precedence over the issue of common access. On bureaucracy, unfortunately, in an industry where regulation is inescapable, and where there have been enforcement problems—problems within our own UK fleet—we must have regulations that are enforced fairly and properly.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend accept our assurances that the creation of a system of designated ports is an effective way in which to tackle the pressing problem of black fish? However, will he remember that it would be iniquitous if the hours of landing at those designated ports—of which Grimsby will be, I hope, the foremost and the prestige designated port—were restricted by the hours of work of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials? Fishermen need to be able to land whenever they have to, and if they are buffeted by weather and bound by very difficult conditions, they need the opportunity to land 24 hours a day.
    Mr. Morley: I can confirm that Grimsby is one of the ports that has been designated. The hours of landing are designed to reflect traditional landing patterns in those ports and, I acknowledge, to ensure that sea fish inspectors are available when boats unload. However, consultation is continuing, and my hon. Friend's arguments can certainly be considered.

    Food Standards Agency
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the procedures for the (a) accountability to Parliament of the Food Standards Agency and (b) authorisation of its funding. [39108]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Food Standards Agency will be accountable to the House through Health Ministers, and will be required to lay its annual report and accounts before Parliament. Its chief executive will be the accounting officer, who may be called before the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I preface my question by thanking the Minister for ringing me this morning to apologise for answering one of my written questions

    441
    about the agency late? Does he agree that the paramount duty of the Food Standards Agency will be to reassure the British public that British food is among the safest in the world, if not the safest in the world? is it not, therefore, important to get the structure right from its inception? As I understand it, the agency's remit will include both enforcement and policy making with respect to the safety of British food. That could become oppressive in the absence of proper democratic accountability.
    Will the Minister consider setting up a separate part of the organisation to deal with enforcement, possibly along the lines of an enlarged Meat Hygiene Service? There could then be a separate policy-making section as well. As the agency will primarily be responsible for food safety, does the Minister agree that its funding should come mainly from the public purse?
    Mr. Rooker: On the latter point, we said in the White Paper that we would issue a separate consultation document on funding. I intend to issue the consultation paper at about the same time as we publish a draft Bill, which I hope will be well before the summer recess.
    The hon. Gentleman's first point was covered in many of the consultation responses—well over 1,100 of them—that we have received. His points are valid; we shall debate them in the House, in the Select Committee and in the Standing Committee. Ultimately, the House must be in control. The legislation, approved by the House, will set out the guiding principles to which the agency will work; it will not be able to create its own agenda.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: My hon. Friend has suggested when the draft Bill may be published. Will he assure the House that there will be adequate time for the Select Committee and others fully to discuss the proposals?
    As there have been some criticisms in respect of the funding arrangements, can the Minister assure us that there will also be adequate time for people to express their feelings about the part of the Bill dealing with funding?
    Mr. Rooker: The answer to both questions is yes. There will be adequate time to debate this important policy initiative. We must get it right from day one. Given the problems that this country has experienced in the past with food safety policy and enforcement, we cannot afford to get it wrong this time: too many people are watching what we are doing.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: We welcome the Minister's assurances, but does he recognise that there is a major transitional problem? There is continuing controversy over issues such as antibiotics in food and beef on the bone, and Ministers and their advisers still do not enjoy the public confidence that they should, largely as a result of their predecessors' behaviour. Would it not be possible to set up the agency now on a non-statutory, advisory basis? That might at least give it the credibility of some independence from Ministers.
    Mr. Rooker: That is not the right way to go. I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says about a lack of confidence. However, in the past 12 months, we have made decisions and issued announcements to the effect that, from now on, brand names will be used in the results
    442
    of surveys on pesticides residues and veterinary medicines residues. We are also publishing brand names for the results of the programme of chemical surveillance of food contaminants; and we are publishing every month the hygiene assessment scores of every red and white meat abattoir in the country. In short, we are becoming much more open and transparent about food policy than Governments have ever been. We hope that that will help to restore confidence.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. David Chaytor: What assessment he has made of the impact on consumers of the current CAP reforms. [39109]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): We estimate that the lower support prices proposed by the European Commission would mean that UK consumers would save around £1 billion a year, equivalent to a 2 per cent. reduction in retail food bills.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend. I also congratulate the Government on their work to reform the CAP. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the net effect of the CAP over many years has been to cut jobs in rural areas, to reduce the diversification of wildlife and to encourage the dangerous intensification of agriculture? Can he assure the House that the Government will continue to press for reforms that adopt an integrated approach to rural areas, stressing rural development, the rural economy and environmental protection? What plans does he have, in particular, to encourage more farmers to switch to organic farming?
    Dr. Cunningham: On the latter point, I have already announced an interim package of measures to bring more assistance to organic farming, and to fund more research. That has been welcomed by the Soil Association and others. I had the pleasure to be the first Agriculture Minister in this country ever to address the Soil Association's annual conference, which was one of the many omissions of the previous Administration over 18 years.
    As for wider reform of the CAP, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must seek to free our farmers from some of the worst restrictions imposed on them by the CAP, to enable them to be more competitive and to take advantage of global markets. We must also transfer resources away from such things as headage payments, and towards environmental support and investment in rural economies.
    Mr. James Paice: I congratulate the Minister on 12 years of occupancy—[Laughter.] I mean 12 months. I have obviously been listening too much to the Foreign Secretary. Let me congratulate the Minister on his 12 months in office.
    Will the Minister confirm that in those 12 months, the prices of nearly every agricultural product have fallen considerably—beef by 10 per cent., sheep by 34 per cent., milk by about 20 per cent. and wheat by 21 per cent.? Next week's threatened further 2.5 per cent. revaluation of the green pound will cost the industry another £70 million or £80 million. How much of that has been

    443
    of real benefit to the consumer? Will the Minister admit that his first 12 months of stewardship of agriculture have led to the biggest agricultural crisis for decades?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am overwhelmed by the hon. Gentleman's prognosis, but underwhelmed by his inaccuracy about what has happened. As the Select Committee on Agriculture has confirmed to the House, the biggest crisis to hit agriculture this century was the BSE crisis bequeathed to the Government and the country by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that consumers will, more than anything, welcome greater localised supply, particularly of organic products? Will he join me in condemning the United States Department of Agriculture's redefinition of organic food? Will he ensure that the European Union, as part of its reforms, sets its own standards in this area?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes. We shall certainly safeguard the very high standards required of organic produce in this country. We shall do much more than the previous Administration to promote the growth of organic farming. We inherited from that Administration a contribution of only 0.3 per cent. of organic farming in this country, the worst record of any Government in the European Union. We shall do much better than that.

    British Beef
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What measures he is pursuing to promote the sale of British beef. [39110]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Government have continued to support various initiatives to help restore confidence in beef and, therefore, promote consumption. As a result, the latest figures show that household consumption is back to 85 per cent. of the 1995 level.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that I was asking about British beef, not beef consumption in general? I welcome efforts to promote British beef, but butchers in my constituency are complaining that in order to label beef British, they must pay a fee to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Moreover, and unfairly, a family butcher has to pay the same fee as a supermarket does. When will the Ministry bring fairness and reasonableness to that situation?
    Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the beef labelling scheme, he should stand up and say so. That scheme is a major European initiative, and we want people to be accredited. Some 8,000 retailers have been accredited by 80 separate independent organisations. If the scheme is to work and the consumer is to believe that the information on the label is accurate—it includes the age of the animal, sometimes its tag number, the sex, method of slaughter and where the animal was reared and slaughtered—there must be independent accreditation. That independent accreditation will come not from my Ministry, but from the independent accreditation authorities.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Is the Minister aware that there is one sure way in which to
    444
    assist British beef producers, and that is by taking advantage of the succulent British beef steak that is being served in our Terrace Cafeteria today? I assure him that it is beautiful. If, however, he wishes to avail himself of some wonderful fresh fish, lightly battered, which was brought in by British trawlers, he should visit the Dining Room tonight where he may also have some golden chips and lovely mushy peas.
    Mr. Rooker: Like the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), my hon. Friend refers to a particular aspect of British beef. He understands the position in terms of the Government's promoting a product in line with the guidelines set out by the European Union. We are unique in our publication of the hygiene assessment scores of abattoirs and meat-cutting plants in this country. That does not occur anywhere else in Europe. I encourage retailers and retail butchers to make it clear to customers that they are purchasing beef and other meat that comes only from abattoirs with high hygiene scores. That is how the customer knows that it is British beef.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In view of the fact that the Government fell flat on their face in the Selkirk sheriff court—and it was a very welcome ruling—would it not make sense, politically, commercially and in terms of public health and the consumption of beef generally, to pull the plug on the outstanding legal case that the Government are pursuing south of the border? In so doing, they would enable people to make their own assessment of the billion-to-one risk associated with eating beef on the bone. Every register of public opinion on the matter has revealed that people believe that the Government are wrong and that the courts, increasingly, are correct.
    Mr. Rooker: For two days running this week, I have seen letters in the Scottish press supporting the Government's position.
    Dr. Lewis Moonie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, to date, 24 people have died from new variant CJD? Will he confirm also that we are not yet aware of the incubation period of the disease, and therefore we cannot at present identify how many cases there might be—it could be hundreds, tens of thousands or even more? Therefore, will my hon. Friend assure the House today that the Government have no intention of being deflected from their purpose of maintaining the ban on infectivity in meat by the stupidity of the Opposition or other political parties, or by the mendacity of the press?
    Mr. Rooker: I have not forgotten—and I have received letters from the general public that confirm it—that the night we debated the beef on the bone regulations and I read to the House the clinical symptoms of new variant CJD, I was laughed down by the Opposition.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is the Minister aware that Airtours, one of the leading package holiday firms in this country, has a policy of serving only Argentinian beef for its in-flight meals?

    445
    Is that not a scandal at a time when the beef industry is under severe pressure? Will the Minister make urgent representations to Airtours to lift its ban on British beef?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, it is a disgrace. There is no justification for that policy and if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I shall follow up the matter.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is it not the case that any course of action other than banning beef on the bone would have meant repeating the same old mistakes that the previous Government made? We have seen what happens when reports from medical officers are swept under the carpet or dismissed. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it were left to the public, various experts would appear on the media, week after week, arguing that beef on the bone was or was not dangerous, and there would be a protracted period in which confidence in beef would dramatically fall? The Government's swift action did not dent confidence in beef, and beef sales did not fall significantly.
    Mr. Rooker: I agree with my hon. Friend—any sensible person would. The House should think about what the headlines would have been had we been the first Government knowingly to allow BSE infectivity into the food chain.
    Mr. Robert Key: Will the Minister and the House share some good news with me, and join me in congratulating a company in my constituency called Pure Organics? The company was almost put out of business by BSE, but has come good. In Brighton recently, it won the organic award at the Brighton natural products show with its magnificent and innovative products—"Meaty Hoolas", "Barmy Bangers" and "Veggie Beanies". It has become a winning company, which illustrates how British food producers can adapt from crisis to success.
    Mr. Rooker: I am more than happy to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the undoubted success of that company in his constituency. Perhaps an early visit is called for.

    Beef Export Ban
    6. Mr. Dennis Canavan: What progress he is making on ending the export ban on British beef. [39113]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): The European Union Agriculture Council agreed in March to allow exports from Northern Ireland to resume under the export certified herd scheme. The Commission is now preparing a proposal for a date-based export scheme, which would apply across the whole of the United Kingdom and permit the export of beef and beef products from animals born after 1 August 1996.
    Mr. Canavan: Although I welcome the approval of the export certified herd scheme for Northern Ireland, has our presidency of the European Union led to any indication of exactly when the total ban on UK exports will be
    446
    lifted? Once the new cattle traceability scheme has been introduced in September this year, can we expect the ban to be lifted before the end of the year?
    Dr. Cunningham: I hope that the Commission, which is in charge of the timetable on this matter, will bring a proposal before the Standing Veterinary Committee of the European Commission next month. It will then be for that committee to determine whether the scheme is acceptable. If it decides that it is not, the matter may then come to the Council of Agriculture Ministers for a final decision. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that my ministerial colleagues, officials in the Ministry and I are making every possible effort to expedite those decisions. The cattle traceability scheme will be operational later this year. The important point about the date-based scheme is that it would apply to all animals throughout the United Kingdom born after 1 August 1996. However, existing restrictions, such as the over-30-months scheme and other schemes to safeguard the public, would remain in place, at least for the moment.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister will recall that when we met him a few weeks ago, we pressed for a date-based scheme. To that extent, we welcome the progress that has been made. When the matter is considered in the Standing Veterinary Committee towards the end of May, will he know whether all our partners in Europe agree with that procedure? If that committee gives the go-ahead, will that mean that, by the autumn, the ban could be lifted?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. That is the accepted procedure and there can be no deviation from it. Whether every member state is happy with the proposal remains to be seen. If the scheme is approved, it will be the beginning of the end of the ban on exports of British beef.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: At Question Time yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), and at Question Time the previous Wednesday, the Prime Minister struck a note of cautious optimism. He said that there was a reasonable prospect of success at the May standing committee. Will my right hon. Friend throw a little more light on that?
    Dr. Cunningham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to be cautious, because it is difficult to predict the outcome as we have to convince a qualified majority of the member states of the European Union to support the scheme. We are doing everything we can to maximise that support. Like the Prime Minister, I am cautiously optimistic. In the meantime, we shall do everything possible to persuade our partners to support the scheme.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In the past 12 months, whenever I have raised the issue of extra help for Britain's beef farmers, the Minister has chastised me for making such an overgenerous suggestion. He prays in aid the size of the public spending limits that he inherited. Will the right hon. Gentleman assist me and the House by telling

    447
    us what the public spending limit was that he inherited, what the outturn was, and what his plans are for the current year?
    Dr. Cunningham: Notwithstanding what we said when we came into office, we have provided an extra £155 million for the livestock industry.
    Mr. Jack: The Minister does not know what public spending limit he inherited and cannot tell us what the outturn was. Let me help him. He should have spent £139 million more than he has done. His target for next year is an underspend of £46 million compared with the figures that he inherited. Does he agree that farmers will regard that as a rip-off, and will feel that the Ministry has failed in its duty to support fanning at such a difficult time? Will he reconsider spending for the current financial year and ensure that he spends up to the public spending limit that he inherited to make certain that the help we left for farmers reaches them?
    Dr. Cunningham: That is total and absolute rubbish. The right hon. Gentleman is comparing estimates. From the little that we can glean from his almost incoherent presentation of the facts, he is referring to Intervention Board expenditure, not to MAFF's budget. That is further evidence of his failure to grasp the reality of what is going on.

    Tree Planting
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the co-ordination between his Ministry and other relevant Departments on tree-planting initiatives. [39114]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Forestry Commission is the department for forestry in Great Britain. I am satisfied that it co-ordinates effectively with other relevant departments on tree-planting initiatives.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that a good way in which to celebrate the millennium would be to encourage people, families and organisations to plant trees in co-ordination with local authorities and community forest projects? Does he also agree that now would be an opportune time to start planting? This year marks the 25th anniversary of the "Plant a Tree in '73" campaign, in which some of us played a modest part. Will he give a special message of encouragement to the Tree Council, which was established to maintain the impetus for tree planting given by the 1973 campaign?
    Mr. Morley: I am happy to support the Tree Council. I agree that planting trees would be an appropriate way in which to mark the millennium. In my home village of Winterton, a millennium wood has been planted by the local community. MAFF has asked for an English forestry initiative to expand forestry in England.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend encourage more tree planting in derelict mine areas, which contain contaminated land? If those vast areas of
    448
    dereliction could sustain tree planting, it would do the communities a power of good. They lost so much when the Tory Government devastated the mining industry.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I can give him the assurance that we are having discussions with the Forestry Commission to establish how we can plant on those very areas.
    Mr. David Curry: When the Minister is considering co-ordination, will he look at the co-ordination between his Ministry and its regional offices? Farmers wishing to submit applications for aid schemes—including tree planting—sometimes approach a regional office and, if they have made a mistake, are given informal advice. They are sometimes invited to fill in a new form. On occasion, however, when the forms come to the central department and are checked, the advice is repudiated, and the farmer is not given what he was led to believe he could have.
    Will the Minister consider issuing a code of guidance for regional offices, so that they react similarly to similar circumstances, and so that farmers know that, if they make an informal approach, what they are told—in good faith and with the best of intentions—will stick? This is a small but persistently irritating point.
    Mr. Morley: I was in the Nottingham regional office yesterday, talking to staff. I am confident that the advice farmers receive—they very much appreciate the devolved system of regional advice centres—is accurate and generally works. If the right hon. Gentleman can give examples of apparent failure, and wishes to write to me, I shall be only too pleased to look into the matter.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: What steps he is taking to ensure that CAP reform increases job opportunities in rural areas. [39115]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): Increasing job opportunities in all areas, including rural areas, is a key priority for the Government. We will take account of that priority in the negotiations on CAP reform.
    Mr. Tipping: Is not the most effective way of creating new jobs in rural areas to ensure that Departments work together? Will that not ensure that planning, training and support for small businesses are used effectively? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the present departmental structures and agencies are not necessarily organised in the best possible way?
    Dr. Cunningham: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's first point. That is why the Government have instituted reviews across Departments, including a review of countryside and rural policy. As for matters involving reorganisation and responsibilities in Whitehall, some of those are under discussion. The Select Committee on Agriculture also had some recommendations to make, but it is too soon for us to announce any conclusions.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that, by cutting hill livestock compensatory allowances by £35 million this year, he has damaged job prospects in upland areas? Can he explain why the British presidency has not yet done more to reform the common agricultural policy during the six-month period?
    Dr. Cunningham: I was delighted to see that even the hon. Lady smiled when asking the second part of her question. She must know that the detailed proposals for reform of the CAP were published only last month, and that I immediately called a special additional Council meeting for Agriculture Ministers to begin discussing those proposals straight away. Moreover, we had already prepared detailed official working parties, so the proposals went straight into detailed consideration by member states. I assure the hon. Lady that there has been no delay on our part.
    As for the first part of the hon. Lady's question, she will recall that in December we announced an additional £85 million of support over and above last year's level for farmers, particularly those in less-favoured areas. Since that decision, we have announced that the Government will fund, with an additional £70 million, items including the start-up costs and the first year's running costs of the cattle traceability scheme.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the new jobs in rural areas will undoubtedly be in tourism and that tourism, especially in the hill country, will mean that we have to preserve the present balance and not destroy those things that attract people to such areas?
    Dr. Cunningham: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we must look increasingly for additional opportunities to improve farm incomes, which means providing farmers with help and support for a variety of developments, including, where possible and where farmers wish it, involvement in tourism. If, as my hon. Friend says, we as a nation wish to preserve the nature, heritage and environment in our countryside and environmentally sensitive areas, we as a nation must find better ways to pay for that preservation than we have found hitherto.

    Agricultural Support
    Mr. Robert Walter: What assessment he has made of the EU Commission's proposals for national envelopes as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy. [39116]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We welcome the principle that member states should be allowed to target a proportion of agricultural support in accordance with national priorities. We need to ensure that the UK's share of moneys allocated to that exercise is fair and appropriate.
    Mr. Walter: That is a slightly disappointing answer, because the danger of national envelopes is that the European Union will become an even less level playing field. Will the Minister assure us that, if that scheme were to come into existence, national envelopes would not be
    450
    used as a substitute for existing national programmes of support, which would mean that farmers would not receive any additional support from those national envelopes and would leave British agriculture in an even less competitive position?
    Mr. Morley: Conservative Members face a dichotomy on issues of that sort: on the one hand, they argue for maximum subsidiarity and, on the other, when there is an opportunity for member states to have more flexibility and autonomy in the way in which European funding is spent, that causes them concern. We are aware of the danger of the approach in terms of distortion of competition and we shall take that danger seriously.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Will not national envelopes encourage the farming industry to accept the realities of life which they are so reluctant to accept, which are that the markets for many existing products are diminishing and that farmers must diversify into areas for which there are better markets and which will employ more people? Those areas are organic farming—we currently import most products—flax growing, coppicing and the growing of fuel crops.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the idea behind national envelopes is to move away from direct production support, which is one of our objectives as a Government, and instead redirect money toward environmental and socio-economic support and support for alternative crops of the sorts which he mentions.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Given that previous CAP reforms have often served to increase both the volume and complexity of the forms that British farmers have to fill in, will the Minister have a word with his officials and tell them that farmers who openly admit errors, honestly committed and arising from simple misunderstanding, should not be penalised when they make representations to Ministers to ask for the facts to be corrected? In that way, farmers will not lose out, as happens time and again when they honestly admit having made a mistake.
    Mr. Morley: The rules on penalties for farmers who make a mistake in filling in forms are European Union rules, so we have limited flexibility in that respect. However, we are giving consideration to the issue.

    Agrimoney Compensation
    Mr. Richard Livsey: When he will provide agrimoney compensation for British farmers. [39118]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): As already announced, the Government have decided to draw down some £85 million of agrimonetary compensation to the beef and sheep sectors. To date, 95 per cent. of that aid has been paid. This is the first occasion on which a UK Government have paid such aid.
    Mr. Livsey: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the current strength of the pound is having a disastrous

    451
    effect on agriculture. What discussions has he had with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the EU Commission to obtain agrimoney compensation, especially as there is to be a revaluation shortly? If he is not prepared to secure that, what will he do to prevent the imminent bankruptcy of many livestock farmers in the west and north of Britain?
    Dr. Cunningham: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has conceded, we recognise that the strength of sterling is causing problems in the economy. However, having taken the decision, which the Liberal Democrats welcomed, to establish the Monetary Policy Committee, we must await its decisions on such matters.
    As for agrimonetary compensation, I shall set out the figures which the hon. Gentleman, with his distinguished record in farm management, probably already knows: we have already used 75 per cent. of the agrimonetary aid we could pay to beef producers this year and 95 per cent. of what we are allowed to pay to sheep farmers.
    Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. Gentleman now be honest and admit that more money was available for help in the past year? The Red Book shows, on page 49, that you underspent by £139 million—that is £139 million less than the Conservative Government budgeted for. Will you now be more accurate—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should say, "Will the Minister now be more accurate?"
    Mr. Townend: Will the Minister now be more accurate than he was in answering the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)?
    Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman stayed calmer in posing his question, he would be able to reflect on the inaccuracy of what he says. He refers to Intervention Board figures, not MAFF figures.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How many appeals he made against sentences considered to be too lenient in 1996 and 1997; and if he will make a statement. [39138]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): In 1996, the Law Officers referred the sentences imposed on 70 offenders to the Court of Appeal for their sentences to be reviewed under the provisions of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. All those references have been heard, and sentences were increased for 51 offenders. In 1997, the sentences of a further 70 offenders were referred to the Court of Appeal for their sentences to be reviewed. Of those references, sentences have been increased for 43 offenders; six references have yet to be heard.
    Mr. Llwyd: What procedures are being adopted to take account of the views of the victims of crime? I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that that is an important component in ensuring that justice is seen to be done.
    The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I can refer sentences that appear to me to be unduly lenient, but I take into account the impact on victims—I regard that as important—and the danger to the public. Those features can result in sentences being increased—indeed, very long terms of imprisonment can be imposed under the Act.
    Mr. Brian White: Is the Attorney-General aware of the consequences of lenient sentences on the many agencies that are trying to improve estates and make them safe? Lenient sentences can give rise to despair, and even cause more crime, as they lead people to believe that we are not serious about tackling crime. The Government must tackle lenient sentences as a key aspect in creating a safer Britain.
    The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is of the utmost importance to ensure that life is made as safe as possible for all our people and that, in many estates, that poses an even greater problem for a whole host of reasons. He must know, however, that I cannot refer lenient sentences full stop; I can refer only unduly lenient sentences within the parameters laid down by the Court of Appeal in the decisions that it takes from time to time. I personally consider these matters and, if I do not, my noble and learned Friend the Solicitor-General does.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many people in his office are currently working on matters relating to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [39139]
    The Attorney-General: The conduct of the criminal investigation into the Lockerbie tragedy is in the hands of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, as is the conduct of the on-going litigation before the International Court of Justice. However, officials from my office are involved in consideration and discussion of the matter as appropriate.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of yesterday's Adjournment debate, can the third most ancient Member of Parliament in parliamentary terms ask the second most ancient Member of Parliament in parliamentary terms whether, as a distinguished lawyer and Queen's Counsel, he is bothered that the investigation should have gone on for 10 long years? Are not crucial witnesses such as Vincent Cannistraro, Buck Revell and Oliver North naturally getting older and older? Would any trial be meaningful without their presence?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that I can accept my hon. Friend's comment that he and I are the most ancient Members of the House. I have known my hon. Friend for more years than anyone else in the House. He is the third most senior member and I am the second—perhaps that description would be more appropriate.

    453
    I am aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in this subject and I have, in all seriousness, read the account of yesterday's debate in the House. However, the concern identified in my hon. Friend's question to me today is not one on which 1 can properly comment. It is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who has conduct of the prosecution and, ultimately, for the court that tries the case.

    Mr. Alan O'Connor
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the failed prosecution in Leicester Crown court on 20 January of those charged with assaulting Mr. Alan O'Connor. [39140]
    The Attorney-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman has received a helpful and full explanation from the Director of Public Prosecutions about this case, where the early handling of the investigation presented particular difficulties in relation to the identification evidence. These should have been addressed sooner than they were by the Crown Prosecution Service in this case. More generally, the CPS and Leicestershire police have set up a working party to consider such problems and to produce guidance to assist investigating officers.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful for that sensible response from the Attorney-General. Does he accept that a case such as this—where two defendants were apprehended at the scene of a serious assault, where 11 witnesses came forward at the time, having seen the defendants assault my constituent, and where the defendants had blood on their shoes from kicking my defendant—undermines public confidence in the whole legal system, not just in the CPS? Will he tell the CPS in Leicestershire to reopen the case, as it was never heard in court?
    The Attorney-General: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's great concern. I have read his letters to the DPP and I have also read the replies. I do not wish to become unduly involved in this or any other case, as that would be contrary to the procedure laid down by my predecessor, Lord Havers. These are matters for the DPP.
    I can assist the hon. Gentleman by repeating what the DPP has told me, because I asked to be informed following the hon. Gentleman's representations. First, it was a group identification carried out by the security staff and no steps were taken to prevent witnesses from talking among themselves. As I understand it, no identification was made by the victims—they failed to do that. The Court of Appeal has laid down specifically, and warned, that there is a difficulty in relying on this type of group identification. Indeed, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, passed under the previous Administration, codes of practice were laid down and must be adhered to, to ensure that there is fairness.
    What went wrong in this case was that the initial identification was carried out wrongly. It was pointed out by the CPS more than once that there could be some sort of failure. Unfortunately, the CPS did not pursue the matter and ensure that the police gave an opportunity to other witnesses to see a proper parade, which would be admissible in the court and which would form part of the evidence. That is a matter of deep regret and the DPP has made her position quite clear and apologised to the hon. Gentleman.
    454
    As regards the blood on the shoes, that was not a direct and unassailable piece of evidence. All it showed was that one of the defendants was in a position approximate to where the incident occurred, and no more.

    Criminal Investigations
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What responsibilities he has to ensure that criminal investigations are not unduly prolonged. [39141]
    The Attorney-General: Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor I have any powers or responsibility for the investigation of alleged criminal offences. The conduct of criminal investigations is a matter for the police, who have a general duty to investigate allegations as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the interests of justice.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. However, he will know that, in some other common law jurisdictions, police investigations that have dragged on for a very long time are called in, perhaps after 12 months, for review by an independent body, to ascertain the reasons for that delay. Given the Attorney-General's responsibility for the Serious Fraud Office—where investigations can roll on for years and years—and the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others about police corruption, in which investigations may be put on the back burner by serving police officers, would not such an independent review body be a very useful safeguard?
    The Attorney-General: This matter could well be considered. However, my hon. Friend—who I know has looked into the matter—will understand the difference between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The principle underlying establishment of the CPS was to separate the investigative process from prosecution. The situation is not the same in the SFO. Moreover, matters concerning the police are for the Home Secretary. Delay at any stage in investigating alleged criminal offences is a matter that can properly be taken into account by the CPS when considering a decision on whether to prosecute. Furthermore, the courts may take account of delay in all instances in which a case is made of abuse of process.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: With regard to the Attorney-General's wider responsibilities for the enforcement of the law, does he agree that, in a civilised society, it is precisely when feelings are running very high that enforcement of the rule of law is at its most important? Although no one in the House would approve of the fact that someone who has committed an appalling crime should seek to profit from it, is it not the case that, when the court has made an order to seek to protect the innocent in those matters, everything should be done to ensure that that order of the court is not set at nought? Will the Attorney-General liaise with the Lord Chancellor and others involved in the matter to ensure that the innocent are protected when the courts intended them to be protected, and that they do not become the victims of either press frenzy or mob rule?
    The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. I agree also that the rule of law is of paramount importance specifically when feelings and passions are running as high as they are in that specific instance. The official solicitor is the child's guardian ad litem and is responsible for taking whatever action is necessary in the child's interests. I shall certainly take into account the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments and draw them to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I share concern for the welfare of young people. Whenever anonymity is at stake, one must do what one can to ensure that it is preserved. I am sure that the official solicitor will take into account the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What new proposals he has to increase the proportion of successful prosecutions of cases brought by the CPS; and if he will make a statement. [39142]
    The Attorney-General: In the past six years, approximately 98 per cent. of defendants prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in the magistrates courts were convicted. That figure includes defendants who pleaded guilty. The corresponding figure for Crown court cases is just over 90 per cent. However, such statistics in themselves are not comprehensive indicators of performance. My hon. Friend will be aware that this Administration have established a review of the Crown Prosecution Service under the chairmanship of Sir Iain Glidewell whose terms of reference include scrutiny of these matters.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Will he advise the House what action his Department is taking in respect of co-ordination and
    456
    co-operation between various prosecuting departments to prevent any errors and confusion that may arise due to the lack of co-ordination with prosecutors? Will he also take action to ensure that we speed up the rate at which outstanding cases are brought to court so that people can have the satisfaction of knowing that justice will be done?
    The Attorney-General: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised this matter, because it is sometimes forgotten that there are a number of different prosecuting agencies. I became aware of and concerned about the issue not long after taking office. In the past, poor co-ordination may have occasionally caused a problem. However, in February, I introduced the prosecutors convention which promotes a closer working relationship between all major Government prosecutors who are signatories to the agreement. It provides a structured approach to co-ordinated decision making and, whenever possible, the timing of any joint public announcement of the final prosecution decisions. I regard that as a major improvement.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Is the Attorney-General concerned about the low rate of successful prosecutions in rape cases? Does he have any plans to work with the Home Secretary to improve the quality of evidence available to the Crown Prosecution Service through the use of specialist facilities for rape victims?
    The Attorney-General: Rape cases have particular difficulties. They are not as easy as many other cases to prosecute so that there is a finding of guilt, particularly when the issue—as it frequently is—is consent. The Crown Prosecution Service is always deeply aware of the need to ensure that the best possible evidence is made available to the court so that the jury can reach a fair and proper verdict, but in my experience there are frequently difficulties in such cases.

Kosovo
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Howard(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Kosovo.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question.
The crisis in Kosovo is of increasing concern. Since the Contact Group last met, we have received reports of numerous incidents involving fighting between the Yugoslav Army and Kosovar Albanians. The number of Yugoslav security forces in the province increases daily. Last week, Belgrade claimed that its soldiers had killed 17 members of the Kosovar liberation army, who they said were among 200 armed men crossing the border with Albania.
The reality is that President Milosevic continues to choose violence and repression over dialogue. The increase in the number of heavily armed soldiers, tanks and artillery pieces in the province, and the repression that they are imposing on the Kosovar people, are a direct block to any political solution. It is difficult to have any confidence that the Yugoslav army is acting proportionately and in observance of human rights. Although a large number of alleged terrorists have now been killed, no terrorist has yet appeared before a court and Milosevic has still not offered a meaningful dialogue, including the international involvement requested by the Contact Group.
When the Contact Group first met to discuss Kosovo on 9 March, it spelt out a 10-point action plan for a return to stability and also adopted four sanctions against the Belgrade Government. Action has now been taken on all the measures that can be adopted by the international community.
Last Monday, at the meeting of the General Affairs Council, we committed all the countries of the European Union to a ban on Government export credit to Belgrade and a ban on visas for certain members of the Yugoslav Government.
The United Nations Security Council has now carried a resolution imposing an arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Both the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union have stepped up their monitoring activities in Albania and on its border with Kosovo. The European Community monitoring mission has been deployed within Kosovo. The Contact Group has fulfilled its commitment to meet representatives of the countries of the region to seek their views and to reassure them of our commitment to stability throughout their region.
Although the European Union, the OSCE and the United Nations have fulfilled each of the measures recommended by the Contact Group, it is a matter of deep regret that President Milosevic has taken few of the steps demanded of him by the Contact Group.
It was against that background that senior officials from the Contact Group countries met yesterday in Rome to assess the performance of President Milosevic. They had
458
been tasked to measure it against benchmarks set at the meeting that I chaired in London. They were united in their assessment that he had failed to meet those benchmarks.
Yesterday, therefore, the Contact Group agreed to implement a freeze on the funds held abroad by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of Serbia. We also agreed that, on 9 May, if there has been no change in Belgrade's approach, we shall take action to stop new investment in Serbia. I must tell the House that Russia alone in the Contact Group has so far dissociated itself from those further measures.
I hope that the House will join me in sending a clear message to Belgrade: that the international community is united in rejecting violence, the abuse of human rights and the denial of legitimate political expression.
Equally, we are united in calling on the Kosovar Albanians to renounce terrorism and to engage in political dialogue. No quarter can be given to terrorism, but the fight against terrorism must not become an excuse for widespread repression. We do not support independence for Kosovo, but we believe that its present status must be enhanced through meaningful autonomy. We are therefore determined to promote political dialogue on an enhanced status for Kosovo between Belgrade and Pristina as the only course that is likely to produce a stable, peaceful outcome.
We have set out a clear choice for President Milosevic. If he chooses peace and reconciliation, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia can be accepted into the family of democratic nations of modern Europe. If he chooses repression and ethnic confrontation, he will himself condemn his country to deepening and continuing isolation. I am sure that the whole House will join me in urging him to choose peace and reconciliation.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his reply and I associate the Opposition with his concluding remarks and his condemnation of repression and violence.
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that more than 150 people have been killed in Kosovo in the past two months alone? On 7 April, I asked him to take a lead in urging that observers be stationed in Kosovo, on pain of increased sanctions against Serbia. He referred in his reply to the presence of the EU monitoring mission. Will he tell us more about its activities? How long has the mission been in Kosovo? How many members does it have? Are they allowed to operate without let or hindrance? Do they have free access to the parts of Kosovo that they want to visit?
Has the Red Cross continued to visit or monitor the area? What progress has been made on the extension of the mandate of the UN force on the border between Macedonia and Serbia, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) requested on 7 April? The Foreign Secretary told the House on that occasion that he was exploring with Albania and other neighbouring states how they might be provided with similar security and reassurance. Can he tell us what progress has been made in achieving that objective?

459
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what confidence he has that the measures announced yesterday will be effective and what action he proposes to take if they do not have the effect that he and the whole House want them to have?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement of support for the position taken by the Government and by the international community. It is an important signal to Belgrade that those there should understand that there is unity, not division, in the attitude of the international community.
The tragedy of Kosovo is that I am not able to confirm how many people have been killed. The figures for the past week have come from the Belgrade authorities. We have not been able to obtain any independent verification of them. I can say only that, from the figures that we have, the number killed certainly exceeds 100 and is most certainly far too high. Each one of the deaths is a cause for regret.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about monitoring. The European monitoring mission that has been deployed in Kosovo is technically attached to Belgrade. It has extended its remit and practice to provide controls in Kosovo. Our understanding is that, by and large, it has had a fair degree of ability to operate in the populated areas in Kosovo. I should add that, as a result of a decision of the Contact Group, every EU country is encouraging its embassy in Belgrade to send its staff on monitoring missions and provide a presence in Pristina and Kosovo. I should like to pay particular tribute to the defence attaché at our embassy in Belgrade, who has regularly toured Kosovo, often at considerable risk.
The Red Cross has deployed to Kosovo. My understanding is that it is continuing its presence there. The truth is that none of us has monitors in the remote mountainous regions where recent clashes took place. Such regions are, by and large, accessible only by the kind of military vehicle that the Yugoslav army has deployed.
On the issue of UNPREDEP—the UN preventative deployment force on the border with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia—I am pleased to say that there is a consensus at an international level that its mandate must be extended. The best way of doing that, and what is the best mix between an UN mandate and a NATO presence, are under discussion, but I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am confident that we shall be able to extend that remit.
The OSCE monitors are now deployed in Albania. They and the European Community monitoring mission regularly visit, from Tirana, the border with Kosovo. We continue to be in dialogue with the Albanian Government as to how we can improve monitoring and observance of their border with Kosovo.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what confidence I have in the response of President Milosevic. I must say that I would be unwise indeed to express any confidence in President Milosevic's behaviour. I met him shortly after the crisis began, at the very beginning of March, and I very much regret to say that he did not appear to show any understanding of the importance that the international community attaches to this issue. Nor did he appear to recognise that, if he wishes to defuse the growing difficulty of violence with Kosovo, the way in which to do so is not by escalating the violence but by
460
promoting political dialogue. I therefore cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman any assurance on behalf of President Milosevic. I can, though, assure him, and President Milosevic, that the international community will continue to show determination and resolve in giving priority to bringing the issue to a peaceful, not a violent, conclusion.
Mr. Donald Anderson: At the London conference that the Foreign Secretary convened, by skilful diplomacy, he kept a substantial degree of unity among the outside powers. We now understand that Russia has dissociated itself from the present range of measures. How does my right hon. Friend read that Russian position? It could be quite dangerous if Russia were, for example, to go beyond a technical dissociation and supply arms and other materiel to the Yugoslavs. How significant is it that Russia has dissociated itself from what was a common position?
Mr. Cook: Russia cannot—nor, for that matter, can any other country—now provide military equipment or materiel to the Government in Belgrade without being in defiance of a UN Security Council resolution for which Russia itself voted. On the arms embargo, I expect Russia to abide by the agreement that it gave to the Contact Group and the resolution it supported at the UN. It is a matter of regret that Russia has decided not to participate in some of the wider economic sanctions which have been applied. There is undoubtedly a risk that that division in the international community, and the practical support it may offer from Russia to Belgrade, could give heart to President Milosevic in ignoring the strong signals sent by the international community.
Although it can be difficult and frustrating working through a Contact Group in which there is no ready unanimity, it is much better that we preserve that forum as the basis for dialogue with other countries, such as Russia, which may not immediately share our approach to the situation to bring them on board as often as we can—as we did with success on the arms embargo. Finally, I note that, although Russia has not chosen to support the specific sanctions, it is frank and open in sharing our assessment of the situation in Kosovo and the need for international action.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it not clear that an already explosive situation in Kosovo is likely only to deteriorate further unless the Milosevic Government abandon their provocation towards the ethnic Albanians and, in particular, their defiance of international opinion? What is the Foreign Secretary's assessment of the possible consequences for the fragile and tentative gains made in Bosnia if the unrest continues?
May I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman the proposals that I made earlier this week in a letter, one of which he has almost accepted—that the UN force on the Kosovo-Macedonia border should be strengthened? The Foreign Secretary has said that its mandate might be extended, but it is essential that the force should be strengthened. In view of the apparently favourable attitude of the Albanian Government, should not a NATO force be established to screen the Kosovo-Albania border? In addition, the Russian Government may not wish to associate themselves with all the conclusions of the Contact Group, but should they not, none the less, be

461
asked to persuade Mr. Milosevic to draw back before it is too late? Finally, without in any way endorsing military action, should not NATO officials be asked to study how the alliance's resources might best be used to preserve human rights and to maintain stability throughout the region?
Mr. Cook: On the last point, we remain in close dialogue with our NATO partners. We have examined what may be the best form of the continuing international military presence on the border of FYROM with Serbia. Exactly what that mix would be, and quite who would be best placed to ensure the right level of presence, is under discussion. I can guarantee that it will be extended and appropriate to the perceived threat and task for that force.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised an important aspect of the current crisis—it is not confined simply to Kosovo, and the growing tension there can spill over elsewhere. It would be a deep tragedy if the mounting tension within Kosovo were to put in reverse the hard-won gains made within Bosnia. As the House will know, I recently addressed the assembly of Republika Srpska in Banja Luka. The change in politics there under the Administration of Mr. Dodik has been quite remarkable. The greatest source of hope for the future within Bosnia is if we can build on that to achieve reconciliation between Serb, Bosniak and Croat. We are determined to make sure that that is not put into reverse, and we are looking to see how we can make sure that the border of Bosnia is also secured. I totally echo the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening thought. The great tragedy of the current situation in Kosovo is that President Milosevic is now the best recruiting sergeant for the Kosovar liberation army.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend has painted a grim scenario. Should we not be actively preparing for military intervention, if only for humanitarian reasons, so that a catastrophe similar to the previous catastrophe in Europe can be avoided?
Mr. Cook: I understand the concern that prompts my hon. Friend's question. We discuss with our partners possible responses that may be needed. Previous experience has suggested that military involvement purely for humanitarian purposes would work only where there is acceptance by the host Government. At present, there is no prospect of that. The way forward is political dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. That is the objective of the international community, to which we shall work. We must weigh carefully any suggestion of a military presence against the consequences of it elsewhere in the region. They would not always necessarily be peaceful, nor welcomed by all of the countries in the region.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Foreign Secretary has made welcome remarks about the tightening of sanctions. The reality is that sanctions appear to have had little effect on Milosevic; if anything, they deepen the nationalism in Serbia, although we should go ahead with them.
The key issue is the spread, and the risk of the spread, of the conflict to other parts of former Yugoslavia. The Government still do not appear to be doing enough to
462
press for an increased military presence in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is welcome that existing forces are to have their life extended, but is he pressing for a substantial increase in those forces and, if so, what level does the Foreign Secretary think is appropriate to offer an effective deterrence to possible Serb aggression in Macedonia?
Mr. Cook: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point, and then deal with his first point.
We must weigh carefully the purpose of the force on the border of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Its purpose is to provide a clear signal of confidence to the Government in Skopje and a clear signal of our concern to Belgrade, to make sure that it understands that concern. The great majority of the troops on the border are American. The number on the ground is much less of an important signal to Belgrade than the fact that they are American. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make sure in our discussions, which are active at present, that whatever force is deployed will be appropriate to the task and the purpose of the force.
The hon. Gentleman made a fair point when he drew attention to the need for care so as not to drive the population of Serbia back behind President Milosevic, especially given that, over the years, more and more of them have shown a tendency to differ from him. When I was last in Belgrade, I met a number of young people who were associated with the independent radio network. Their views were as cosmopolitan, as pluralist and as forward-looking as those of young people in any other capital of Europe.
It is important that we send a signal to those of alternative views within Serbia that there is an alternative future for it: if President Milosevic and the Government in Belgrade responded to the offers and demands that we are making, we should be willing to work positively with Serbia. It is important that we send that signal if we are to maximise the courage of those who want to speak out against President Milosevic, rather than maximise Serbian support behind him.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend rightly talks about the need for conversation between Pristina and Belgrade, but, as President Milosevic has just had a massive referendum result, which would seem to cement him into his position, and the Albanians in Kosovo will talk only if there is an international presence at any talks, there seems to be an impasse.
Although we encourage my right hon. Friend and the Contact Group to get such talks going as soon as possible, is there not a case not only for strengthening the presence in Macedonia on the border but for putting in an international force on the Albanian border to show the determination of the international community that what is happening in Kosovo will not extend to other countries, where there could be a conflagration if signs and demonstrations are not made in respect of defending the Albanians in Kosovo?
Will my right hon. Friend give more detail of the presence at the feast of which there has been little discussion—the United States Government? What is their attitude, and are they giving a lead, as they have in the Balkans where Europe has failed in the past?
Mr. Cook: We remain in close contact with our colleagues in the United States and we work closely with

463
them in co-ordinating the position that we take to the Contact Group. It would be fair to say that all that I have expressed from the Dispatch Box today would be entirely shared by Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State. I hope to discuss those matters and others with her when she is in London this Sunday evening.
My hon. Friend referred to the referendum result. That massive referendum result seems to be a classic illustration of the maxim that if one writes the question one will get the answer that one wants, and in that case—[Interruption.] Our questions were entirely fair and received a perfectly fair and honest reply. I do not think that even those Conservative Members who are indulging in hilarity would defend the question as drafted by President Milosevic. We have no problem defending our questions, nor have the people who voted in large numbers for them.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need for international facilitation for the talks between Belgrade and Pristina. Those talks will happen only if there is some degree of international involvement. That is why we have recommended that Felipe Gonzalez, the representative of the President of the OSCE and of the EU, should have his mission accepted in Belgrade and should be allowed to start work there. We are willing to facilitate those talks and we believe that that is the best way in which those talks can start.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the international community, through the Contact Group, had information and intelligence that the situation in Kosovo was likely to deteriorate before violence took place there? Will he undertake an examination of how the Government use intelligence and information in order to spark Contact Group action and sanctions against members of the international community, such as President Milosevic, in advance of violent happenings when the Government have information available to prevent such things happening at the time, rather than wait for violence to happen and for us then to appear to be driven by our television screens?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware of any specific intelligence of the character to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we have responded rapidly and robustly to the developing situation. Within two weeks of the violence, we had the first meeting of the Contact Group which applied the first four sanctions. We now have in place an arms embargo and a number of economic sanctions. That compares and contrasts favourably with the international community's record back in 1991 at the first break-up of the former Yugoslavia when it took almost a year to apply any sanctions. We are now in a position where we have to review whether those measures are sufficient and whether others are required, but no one could fairly accuse the Contact Group or the EU of not responding with speed on this occasion.
Mr. John Home Robertson: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the disproportionate and oppressive deployment of Serb forces in Kosovo. Without necessarily drawing any conclusions, will he take this opportunity to confirm that NATO has the capacity to maintain effective and accurate surveillance of those forces?
Mr. Cook: NATO, and our partners within NATO, have a capacity to maintain surveillance, but the
464
mountainous region near the border between Albania and Kosovo is a difficult terrain and our information as to what is happening on the ground is not as full as we should wish it to be. We shall obviously try to obtain the best information that we can and to act upon it, but we are dealing with a difficult Government who operate under a cloak of secrecy, and a mountainous terrain where surveillance is difficult.
Mr. John Randall: Do the British Government have evidence of any material aid coming to the Kosovar Albanians from outside, whether it be from the Republic of Albania or any other country, or a fundamentalist Muslim group?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman asks a question about our intelligence information and he will understand why I cannot respond to it. We seek to understand as best we can from where support is coming. As best we know, the bulk of support that is reaching the Kosovar liberation army comes from fund raising throughout Europe. There is no great secrecy about that.
Mr. John Austin: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's very firm statement, but does he agree that the unity and resolve of the international community are essential if two dangerous messages are not to be sent? First, if it fails, President Milosevic will be reinforced in his view that he can oppress the people of Kosovo with impunity. Secondly, if the view takes root among the people of Kosovo that the international community is unable to protect them, it will undermine the peaceful approach that President Rugova has adopted, which so far has enjoyed the majority support of the Kosovar people. Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, if all that fails and Milosevic chooses the path of repression, the only solution will be to recognise the rights of the people of Kosovo to self-determination?
Mr. Cook: I must first respond to my hon. Friend's last point. If by self-determination he means a right to independence, I have to say that no voice in the international community supports independence for Kosovo. We must be very much alive to two features when we handle that question: the consequence throughout the rest of the Balkans of such a development and the extent to which what we do would undermine one of the principles that we are trying to apply throughout the Balkans—the inviolability of international borders.
The rest of my hon. Friend's question is perfectly fair and is, indeed, political common sense. If President Milosevic continues on the present path, he will make it much more difficult for the present political leadership of the Kosovar Albanians to maintain their standing pursuit of peaceful reconciliation and peaceful progress. I believe that President Milosevic is fortunate in the leadership of the Kosovar Albanians, who have rejected violence as a means forward, and I am pleased to say that the very large participation by the Kosovar people in the parallel elections there showed their own rejection of the boycott demand of the Kosovar liberation army.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that elements of the British Army will

465
be undertaking an exercise in Macedonia? What does he believe that they will contribute to stabilising the current crisis?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware of that, and I am not in a position to say what the Ministry of Defence may be doing on that. We maintain close contact with those who are in UNPREDEP, and we would certainly not necessarily shirk our own participation.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: If the sanctions and embargoes outlined by my right hon. Friend today persuade President Milosevic to engage in genuine political dialogue with the ethnic Albanians, does he anticipate former Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez playing a role, analogous to that so ably performed by Senator George Mitchell, in the attainment of a tolerable accommodation between the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians?
Mr. Cook: Let me first respond to the previous question and say that I am advised that there has been British participation in a long-standing NATO exercise within the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. To respond to the question that has just been put to me, yes, we do see a clear role for Felipe Gonzalez's mission. Whether the type of detailed role that my hon. Friend suggests is one that Mr. Gonzalez, or someone working with his mission, would carry out is a matter for discussion and to be elaborated.
Tragically, we are a long way from that, because we have yet to obtain agreement from President Milosevic that he will receive Mr. Gonzalez's mission. If President Milosevic wishes to take the first step of bringing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia back into the international community and modern Europe, I urge him to accept as soon as possible that the way to do so is to enter into dialogue with those who are appointed to represent it by the international community.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's measured tones, but does he find it not only regrettable but ominous that Russia would not associate itself with the Contact Group's decision late last night? If he casts his mind back to the time of the conflict in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, he will recall that many arms, and material and other forms of support, came from the Russian Government or from sources within the Russian Federation. What hope can he give today that sanctions will be more effective now than they were in 1992?
Mr. Cook: As I told the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) earlier, I can make no confident prediction as to what President Milosevic's response will be. Certainly, if the international community is going to be obliged to assert its will through sanctions, those sanctions will take time to have their effect. Nevertheless, neither the hon. Gentleman nor the House should underrate the extent to which we have put in place a formidable array of sanctions. They include: a ban on Government credit for exports; a ban on investment in the privatisations of President Milosevic; and, unless there is a change by
466
9 May, a ban on investment. We are also imposing a freeze on his Government's assets. We have chosen measures that will hit the Government and President Milosevic, not the ordinary people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Those measures are considerable and they will have a serious impact on the functioning of that Government.
Mr. Harry Barnes: When economic sanctions helped to change the situation in South Africa, they had the support of the African National Congress, which spoke for the mass of the people there. Has there been any equivalent response in Yugoslavia, or in Kosovo among the majority Albanian population? Do they support sanctions which, in the end, will affect the ordinary people as well as the leadership of the Yugoslav regime?
Mr. Cook: As far as we are aware, all the steps taken by the Contact Group have had broad support from the leadership of the Kosovar Albanians. Kosovo's economy is quite distinct from that of Belgrade, so I do not believe that the measures that we have adopted have given rise to any tension on their part. The point was made when I last reported to the House that there is some anxiety among the neighbouring countries that we should avoid trade sanctions that would hit them as hard as Belgrade. That is why we have chosen a range of economic sanctions targeted on Belgrade, not on friendly neighbouring countries.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the inconvenient reality that, without the support of Slav Russia, the rest of us can whistle in the wind as long as we like without being able to influence President Milosevic? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Foreign Secretary replied that the Russians had said that they wanted international action. What exactly do they want; what do they think should be done?
Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend's concluding questions might not be better addressed to Mr. Primakov. I can tell him that, through our dialogue in the Contact Group, we have persuaded Russia—not with any initial enthusiasm on its part—to sign up to the international arms embargo. That is an important gain, given Russia's powerful historic role as a supplier of weapons to the former Yugoslavia. It is true that it would greatly assist the impact of the measures that we have adopted if Russia were an enthusiastic participant in them; but I cannot accept the implication of my hon. Friend's opening comment—that, without Russia's support, we should not try to do anything. It is important that we do all that we can; Europe was an important source of much of the investment and many of the export credits that were going to the FRY. Europe therefore can have a serious impact through the economic sanctions.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: While the flaking away of Russia was regrettable, was it not also highly predictable, and did it not strengthen the need for the rest of the Contact Group to remain unanimous in its resolve to stand up to Slobodan Milosevic's nationalist

467
aggression? Is it not now time to accede to the Albanian Government's requests for troop deployments on their border with Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: As I have said in responding to several hon. Members, we have consulted our partners on this issue. The House should not underrate the extent to which the European Union and OSCE actively monitor the border between Albania and Kosovo.
On whether Russia's departure, or defection, on those measures was inevitable, I can say only that we shall have an opportunity to discuss that again in a fortnight's time when all the Foreign Ministers of the Contact Group will be in London for the G8 Foreign Ministers' meeting. We shall also take up many of those points again with Mr. Primakov.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Much of the media that cater for the Albanian ethnic population have been closed by direct acts of violence or by the actions of a corrupt judicial system. One newspaper was punished by a judge for printing, accurately, a headline reading, "15 Albanians killed", which he irrationally said should have read, "15 terrorists killed". Will the Government act to replace Albanian radio stations that are now silent with alternative stations broadcasting from outside Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: I shall first respond to my hon. Friend's question, then share in the premise that led to it. Technically, it is not easy to do what he suggests in the terrain between Albania and Kosovo, and there are also serious issues of political sensitivity about beaming radio stations from Albania into Kosovo. Having said that, I do not in any way dissociate myself from my hon. Friend's opening remarks. One of the tragedies of the situation within the federal republic is the way in which there is no genuine freedom of expression, particularly for the broadcast media. There is an absence of freedom of expression in Kosovo for Albanian language broadcasting stations. We continue to press the Government in Belgrade on that, and, although alternative subjects should not be ruled out, we should not avoid recognising that the primary responsibility lies with President Milosevic. He must be brought to grasp the fact that, in a modern Europe, freedom of expression for broadcasting stations is an essential part of a free and democratic state.

Business of the House
4.11 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week is as follows.
MONDAY 4 MAY—Bank holiday.
TUESDAY 5 MAY—Remaining stages of the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 6 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill (first day).
THURSDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
FRIDAY 8 MAY—Debate on Hillsborough on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week is as follows.
MONDAY 11 MAY—Second Reading of the Competition Bill [Lords] (second day).
TUESDAY 12 MAY—Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill (second day).
WEDNESDAY 13 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 14 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill.
Debate and motions on modernisation of the House of Commons.
FRIDAY 15 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The House may wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun recess on Thursday 21 May until Monday 1 June. I should emphasise that those dates remain tentative, as the legislative burden on the House has increased as a result of the peace process in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Shephard: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement, for giving the business for two weeks and for the advance notice of the Whitsun recess. I know that the business for the second week is provisional, as the Leader of the House pointed out, but could she perhaps re-examine the timing of the debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons? She and I have been in touch about that matter and she knows that there is a difficulty on our side. We shall be accommodating, but I know that she will do her best to see what might be done.
The House will recall the right hon. Lady's answer last week when I asked whether we might have a debate on foreign affairs. We have just had the benefit of the presence of the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber in

469
response to a private notice question from the Opposition. We appreciate the pressure of business on the Government—although that is largely a matter of choice for them.
Following the publicity at the beginning of the year about Britain's presidency of the European Union, it seems curious that we have not heard more from the Foreign Secretary about that matter and about his ideas for an ethical foreign policy. I ask again that the right hon. Lady gives parliamentary credibility to the Government's expressed enthusiasm for the EU presidency and their new ideas for foreign policy by arranging a debate.
I repeat my request of last week regarding the publication of the registration of political parties Bill. The publication of that Bill was promised on 9 April in the other place, and it was claimed that the legislation would appear shortly after Easter. It is true that we are still in a period that could be loosely regarded as being shortly after Easter, but, as I said last week, the publication of that Bill and knowledge of its contents are necessary to our consideration of constitutional matters that will come before the House in both the Scotland and Wales Bills.
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on the financing of party political advertising? I have written to her about the disclosures in The Independent newspaper of 24 April that Labour Members of Parliament were apparently advised that they could claim the costs of party political briefings from the Fees Office. The House will be glad to have the right hon. Lady's confirmation that that was a try-on, that it is not an appropriate cost for the taxpayer to meet and that her colleagues have been advised accordingly.
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate with Treasury Ministers so that we may hear whether they agree with figures produced by the House of Commons Library that, after a year of Labour government, the average family is £1,000 worse off?
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on ministerial responsibility, particularly regarding ministerial replies to letters from hon. Members? In the past, the right hon. Lady has, understandably and correctly, asked for specific examples. Sadly, I have two myself—both concerning the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister took from 27 January to 28 April to answer a simple query about sugar beet and, to date, despite repeated direct requests to his private office, he has found himself unable to reply to a letter that I sent on 7 February.
I cannot imagine what the Minister can be doing with himself. It is not as though he cares to participate in debates concerning his Ministry, which must save some time. I do not imagine that his job is very different in substance now from what it was when I did it. I hope that the right hon. Lady will take up those rather gross examples with her right hon. Friend. They cannot possibly accord with the image of themselves that the Government wish to convey.
Mrs. Taylor: I start by thanking the right hon. Lady for her opening remarks. She pointed out that the second week's business is always provisional, which is one of the reasons why we have had to alter next week's business.
470
I know about the real difficulties that the right hon. Lady has with the date on which we have scheduled the modernisation debate. However, we are extremely short of time. The right hon. Lady understands our difficulty, and I know that she wants the debate as much as I do. I cannot promise to reschedule the debate, but 1 shall undertake to look at it and do what I can.
I do not think that it will be possible to have a debate on foreign affairs before the Whitsun recess, but I hope that the situation will ease somewhat in the summer. We have extra legislative burdens because of the welcome progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, and the whole House would want us to make progress on those matters.
I hope that the Bill on the registration of political parties will be published shortly. The right hon. Lady knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has kept Opposition parties informed of our plans, going back to February and again this month, and he has invited comments to ensure that both sides of the House play a part in the drawing up of details.
The right hon. Lady suggested that the Labour party was asking its members to pay for party political briefing out of Fees Office money. I reject that interpretation of what was happening. There may have been some confusion over the precise nature of the service that was being suggested. Labour Members do not do, and have no intention of doing, anything other than abide by all the rules of the House.
We have had some extremely good debates on Treasury matters this week. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury have shown how much average families will benefit from the Budget. Having spent three days on that subject, there is no need to debate it further.
As for ministerial responses to answers, I shall look at the two specific examples that the right hon. Lady mentioned. I do not know whether she was here during MAFF questions earlier today to raise them directly with the Minister, but she is aware that many Departments have had a substantial increase in the volume of correspondence and, by and large, most Ministers reply to letters within the time guidelines that are laid down.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern about the handling of compensation claims by former miners suffering from lung disease and especially from the illest and oldest who seem to be excluded from compensation terms? Will she make arrangements at least for an appropriate statement to be made to deal with those matters, which are of considerable concern to many people?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a statement on that, but I know that my hon. Friend has a long-term interest in that problem, which particularly affects his constituents. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is aware of his concerns today.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House confirm that this morning outside the House the Home Secretary made a statement—a remarkable statement—in which he admitted that his officials had for many months been aware of the Mary Bell controversy,

471
yet Ministers were not briefed on the issue? Will she confirm that that statement was made and explain why, yet again, an important statement has been made outside the House instead of to the House?
May we have an idea of when we shall receive some guidance from the Government on their attitude to the wider issues of media ownership and media behaviour? I am thinking not just of the predatory pricing issue, which can be raised when we debate the Competition Bill the week after next, but of the serious issues that now arise. None of us wants to impose censorship, but we need guidance from the Government on their attitude to the extent to which the newspaper and media industries should be self-regulatory and exercising self-discipline. I have in mind the hypocrisy over cheque-book journalism, which was exposed yet again today, and incitement to commit breaches of the peace. The way in which the local and national media have been inciting people to act as lynch mobs is totally unacceptable. May we please have an early debate and a statement from the Home Secretary?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises important and sensitive issues. Any statement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made would have been extremely carefully worded and factual. He would not have gone behind the back of the House.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there will be a chance to raise the issue of media ownership when we debate the Competition Bill. I do not propose to find time for a wider debate in the near future in Government time, but next time the Liberal Democrat party has an Opposition day, it could consider that subject.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate, perhaps not in the immediate but in the not-too-distant future, on Home Office prison policy, particularly overcrowding in prisons, which has now become intolerable? Prison conditions are described as appalling at best. The test of a society is how it treats its prisoners, and we seem to be failing in that at the moment.
Mrs. Taylor: We have important legislation before the House on crime and disorder, to which those issues are relevant. I cannot promise an early debate on the aspect of the criminal justice system to which my hon. Friend refers, but it is Home Office questions a week on Monday.
Mr. Peter Brooke: May I constructively ask the Leader of the House to consider making a statement on the increasing tendency of Ministers to use mechanical signatures when replying to letters from hon. Members? Leaving aside the conflicting claims of courtesy and modernisation, it is not currently clear whether such practice is a general Government policy, which would have standard and universal conventions, or a series of private initiatives by individual Ministers.
Mrs. Taylor: It is not a general Government policy, and I do not think that it happens a great deal.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exchanges that we had on Monday regarding the important White Paper on tackling the drugs problem were no substitute for a debate? None of the
472
Back Benchers who took part in those exchanges had had a chance to read the White Paper. It is amazing that we have gone through an entire year without a debate on this important matter. She may argue that Back Benchers can apply for a debate, but I have done so every parliamentary week of the year and have failed to secure one. We must have a chance to debate this important subject now that the Lisbon monitoring group has said that Britain has the worst problem of illegal drugs of any country in Europe.
Mrs. Taylor: I sympathise with my hon. Friend if he has been trying to secure a debate on drug issues. There have been some Adjournment debates on drugs in this Session, and hon. Members had an opportunity to air their views on the White Paper on Monday. I was pleased with the general support that the House gave to our approach to tackling the drugs problem.
I understand the need for a debate, but I am not sure about the precise timing. We are under great pressure on time, but I would give the matter sympathetic consideration. It may be better to have such a debate in a few months, when more outside bodies have been able to consider the White Paper. We could then determine how policy was progressing.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: In Agriculture Question Time today, the Minister would not admit to the fact that the Government's White Paper on public expenditure shows a £139 million underspend. Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement to clear up the confusion that afflicts an industry that has been badly affected? It is all the more important because the same source of figures shows a £46 million underspend for next year.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot find time for such a statement, although there will be a debate on the common agricultural policy in the not-too-distant future. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said earlier.
Mr. Ernie Ross: On the comments by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), surely the point that my right hon. Friend should consider is whether Ministers read the correspondence and whether they make every effort to give a helpful, precise and concise response quickly. The fact that a mechanical signature has been used is not the key issue. Does she agree that it is more important that the Minister has read and dealt with the contents of the correspondence?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand that, in the case to which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) referred, he received a personal assurance from the Minister that he had read the correspondence.
Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): As we are to debate economic and monetary union for only about two hours, will the right hon. Lady allow us another debate next week? If she is not prepared to do that, will she apologise for the shortness of time available this afternoon, given that a massive decision will be taken next weekend on EMU and that there are two important House of Commons reports before us?
Mrs. Taylor: No, I will not. The arrangements for today's debate were agreed through the usual channels,

473
and we undertook not to arrange for any extra statements today. It was, of course, a private notice question from the Opposition that curtailed today's debate.
Mr. David Winnick: Many of us hope that, when we debate the Competition Bill on Monday week, we shall be able to support the Government on the pricing of newspapers. Is my right hon. Friend aware that at leat some of us consider it wrong for one newspaper, The Times, to be priced so as deliberately—there is no other way of describing it—to undermine other broadsheets?
Mrs. Taylor: I think the House is well aware of the issues involved in the Bill, and the defective nature of the amendment tabled in another place; but there will be plenty of time in which to debate those issues on Second Reading.
Mr. David Curry: The Leader of the House will know that, in the past few months, the Government have published no fewer than six detailed papers on the future of local government, as well as consultation documents on regional planning and regeneration. However, not one of them has been the subject of a statement in the House. As everyone has been consulted, should not the House also be consulted? Will the right hon. Lady arrange an extensive debate on this crucial issue?
Mrs. Taylor: Of course it is right for hon. Members to have an opportunity to feed in their ideas as part of the consultation process. It is open to any hon. Member to approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has done that.
A number of documents are out for consultation. They are interrelated, and it is up to any hon. Member who wishes to feed in ideas to write to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend pass my warmest congratulations to the Lord Chancellor—who has been getting a bad press recently—and to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department? Earlier this week, they decided to publish in the Official Report the earnings from legal aid of some Queen's counsel who can earn up to £200,000 a year from the public purse. Given that tomorrow, in the House of Lords, another intake of 50 Queen's counsel will be sworn in, wearing their breeches and silver-buckle shoes, is there not a case for an early debate on the legal profession generally? That would allow Labour Members and, indeed, Opposition Members to express their concerns.
Mrs. Taylor: We have had debates on legal aid recently. I will of course pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to the Ministers involved, but those congratulations may be slightly muted, because this is not the first occasion on which such information has been made available; the previous Government made it available.
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that one of the most important
474
decisions that the House and the country will have to take concerns our whole approach to economic and monetary union. Is it not a scandal that the House will have only two hours in which to debate that issue this afternoon?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the hallmark of this Government is contempt for Parliament? This is not a parliamentary debate; it is a parliamentary soundbite. It is hardly surprising that the BBC is reducing its coverage of Parliament, when the Leader of the House and the Labour Government treat this place like a senate of Lilliput.
Mrs. Taylor: I have already answered that question. All that the hon. Gentleman has done is diminish the time for the debate even further.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on animal welfare, following the RSPCA's recent report on the appalling increase in the number of animal cruelty cases? Many of those cases have occurred in my county of Nottinghamshire, which is one of the worst counties in the central region in that regard. The debate is made even more necessary by the failure of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), which was blocked by an Opposition Member last Friday.
Mrs. Taylor: I know that there is concern about the blocking of private Members' Bills and the anonymous way in which it can be done. We support effective animal welfare legislation, and the courts have the power to take action against people who ill treat animals. The RSPCA report is extremely timely and I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought it to our attention, but I cannot promise him a debate in the near future.
Mr. Phil Willis: I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1275.
[That this House notes with great concern the comments of the Chief Inspector of Schools who in a speech to the right wing think-tank Politeia claimed there was no evidence that schools are underfunded and further claimed that teachers were wasting too much time in meaningless activities; believes that local education authorities require significantly increased levels of capital and revenue resources to address the funding crisis in United Kingdom schools; and further believes that the Government should censure the Chief Inspector of Schools and ask him to consider his position.]
In view of the extraordinary statement by the chief inspector of schools, who said that our schools did not need any more money, but seemed only to need better management—a claim which was supported by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—will the right hon. Lady confirm that it is now Government policy that our schools do not need any more money? In that case, will the Secretary of State come to the House and make a statement?
Mrs. Taylor: The comments of the chief inspector show that he does support the Government's strategy for raising standards in schools. He said that we were on the right track in increasing capital funding for schools and developing a fairer system of distribution. However,

475
he did make the point that the quality of teaching is paramount and we would all agree with that if every child is to be able to get a first-class education.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on Canada? One of my reasons for asking is that I noticed in the Daily Mail last Friday that the Conservative party was considering changing its name to the Progressives. Its counterpart in Canada is the Progressive Conservative party and, bearing it in mind that in the last election in Canada that party was reduced to holding three seats, might not such a debate help the Conservatives here in their deliberations?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's excellent suggestion, but I cannot find time for such a debate, especially next week.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on local government and local government funding, to give the Deputy Prime Minister an opportunity to come to the House to apologise to those who live in the Preston part of my constituency? Some of those people have had their wages increase by 2.5 per cent. and others have had their real wages decrease this year; at the same time, the council taxes imposed by the local authorities, both of which are Labour controlled, have gone up by 14 per cent. at a time when they are cutting back on services and threatening to take away concessionary bus passes from 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education. Is not that a scandal and will not a full day's debate on the issues allow such scandals to be exposed?
Mrs. Taylor: That gives me the opportunity to remind the House that Labour councils charge the lowest council tax averaged by council. The average council tax in Labour authorities is £590, in Tory authorities it is £626 and under the Liberal Democrats it is higher still. It would be tempting to hold such a debate, but we have debated those matters in the past and I cannot find time to debate them again in the near future.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Many hon. Members will find it amazing that the right hon. Lady manages to give the impression that our being here asking her questions somehow damages a debate on EMU. That destroys the whole process of parliamentary democracy.
May I reinforce the urging of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that we should have a debate on foreign policy as soon as possible? Not only are we waiting for a statement in the next two or three months on the strategic defence review, which is supposed to be foreign policy led, although we have no idea what the foreign policy baseline is, but we have been promised a debate on NATO enlargement, which is an issue of fundamental importance to the security of this country. May I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that the
476
Foreign Secretary is able to come and give us a view on British foreign policy, instead of the bits and pieces we have heard over the past year?
Mrs. Taylor: I have already answered a question about foreign policy; I acknowledged it, but said that there cannot be a debate in the near future. On other occasions, I have said that we need to look at the issue of NATO enlargement. I am beginning to wonder whether Conservative Members want to discuss EMU today, or whether they all want to repeat the same questions in order to avoid that debate.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Prime Minister stated on 4 June 1997 that the criteria for monetary union should not be
"fiddled or botched in any way"—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 386.],
will the right hon. Lady find time for the Prime Minister to make a statement next week to explain why he has changed his mind? Why does he now believe that, to join the single currency, Britain should have to satisfy the Maastricht convergence criteria, but that other countries, which do not qualify, can fiddle, fudge and botch while he stands idly and impotently by?
Mrs. Taylor: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is wasting time in asking that we should have next week the debate that we shall move on to in a few minutes.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: You are no doubt aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as all hon. Members should be—that bits of this country disappear into the sea every year as a result of coastal erosion. That is becoming the problem of the millennium, as local authorities, which have the job of protecting our coastline, find that there are not sufficient grants to do so. The Bellwin formula is the appropriate funding mechanism, but it makes funds available only for emergencies, such as the recent floods in the midlands, not for the on-going daily problems of coastal erosion. I have applied for an Adjournment debate many times, but does the right hon. Lady consider the matter sufficiently important to make time available for a full debate on the problems of coastal erosion throughout the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue which obviously concerns him. I am sorry that he has not been successful in securing an Adjournment debate. There are far more applications for Adjournment debates than Madam Speaker can grant, but I encourage him to keep on trying. In the meantime, I remind him that Department of the Environment Question Time is next Tuesday.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady find time in the near future for a debate on the serious allegations about financial impropriety at the centre for the unemployed and in local government in Kettering? To assist such a debate, will she make public the findings of the inquiry into those allegations by the Labour party national executive committee?
Mrs. Taylor: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Orders of the Day

  Economic and Monetary Union
  [Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 7424/97, and the Explanatory Memorandum on that document submitted by HM Treasury on 30th May 1997, on the Annual Report of the European Monetary Institute for 1996; Fifth Report from the Treasury Committee on the UK and Preparations for Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union (HC 503-I, II and 111).]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We must now move on to the main business of the day—the motion on economic and monetary union. I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I must also announce that the 10-minutes rule will apply throughout the debate.
  4.42 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7161/98 and 7188/98 consisting of reports from the European Monetary Institute and European Commission in accordance with Article 109j of the Treaty.
  Tomorrow, under the United Kingdom's chairmanship, European Finance Ministers will meet to complete their recommendations on monetary union. After the introduction of monetary union, the euro area will account for about 20 per cent. of the world's output—about the same as the United States. It will be one of the world's largest importers and exporters. It will take nearly 50 per cent. of British exports, absorb more than 40 per cent. of British overseas direct investment and contribute more than 30 per cent. of foreign investment in the United Kingdom. British jobs and growth, therefore, depend on Britain and the euro countries working well together—and that, in Britain's interest, we shall seek to achieve.
  This debate, on the eve of the decision-making meetings, allows me to bring the House up to date on the reports on economic and monetary union from the European Monetary Institute and from the European Commission, and on the timetable that follows. It allows me to inform the House of the decisions that member states propose to take, and of the new declaration on budget discipline, economic reform and employment that will be issued by Finance Ministers this weekend. It also gives me the opportunity to state the Government's position on all these matters.
  I shall first explain the timetable that is being followed. Tomorrow night, the Economic and Finance Council will make its recommendation to Heads of Government on which member states fulfil the necessary conditions to join the single currency. On Saturday, the European Parliament will meet to consider the Council's recommendations. Heads of Government will then confirm which member states fulfil the necessary conditions—they will do so on the basis of a qualified majority vote. In the evening, a special meeting of Finance Ministers, with the central bank governors, will meet again and announce bilateral conversion rates for those currencies entering economic and monetary union.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall make some progress, and then let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
  478
  Those decisions will mean that, when markets open on 1 January, exchange rates between joining currencies and the euro will be fixed. I remind the House that all those procedures were agreed in the Maastricht treaty, which was negotiated by the Government of which the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and his Conservative colleagues were part. Whatever the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House, as so much of our trade will be in the euro area, it is in Britain's interests—and in British business interests—that the euro countries and Britain work together in future. That is why we have sought, under Britain's presidency of the Union, to ensure that the procedures are as orderly and smooth as possible.
  Mr. William Cash: In a reply that the Prime Minister gave me yesterday, he clearly said that 1 should refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer questions relating to political union that arise from EMU. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government believe that there are no constitutional implications or bar to economic and monetary union?
  Mr. Brown: Every time the hon. Gentleman speaks, I have to thank him for his assistance—without his work, we would not have done so well at the general election. He should refer to the statement that I made to the House in October, when I set out both the constitutional issues and the economic arguments for joining.
  Mr. Cash: No you did not.
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman would listen, he would perhaps learn something—he certainly has not been listening for the past few months. I told the House in October that, of course, the single currency raised constitutional issues and that, in any case when such decisions are made, there is a pooling of sovereignty. I also said, however, that we believed that the economic benefits of joining could outweigh those constitutional issues. I pointed out that the economic advantages of joining included the removal in the euro area of the cost of currency transactions, a reduction in speculation and a reduction, over time, in long-term interest rates as the single market worked more effectively.
  The question that the Conservative party still has not answered is this: if the economic benefits of joining are proven, why do so many Conservative Members insist on our refusing to join even when joining is in the national economic interest?
  As president of ECOFIN, we have now assembled the responses of member states to the two reports on EMU from the EMI and the Commission, as well as the response to the Commission's recommendations. On 27 March, the German Government stated their support for the recommendations, and last week they were supported by all the main political parties in both their Houses of Parliament. On 22 April, the French National Assembly approved by a substantial majority the French Government's position to support the Commission's recommendations on the 11. In turn, in recent weeks, Italy; the Netherlands, which had previously expressed some doubts about individual candidates; on 7 April, Ireland; then Belgium, Austria and Luxembourg, whose Parliament was unanimous, supported an EMU of the 11 recommended countries. Yesterday, the Finnish

  479
  Government confirmed their support. No member state, whatever the colour of its Government, has adopted a negative attitude to the Commission's recommendations.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way, as he said he would. Is he aware that the Bundesbank board is meeting today to decide whether to make public its concerns about the expansion of the single currency? It is concerned that countries such as Belgium and Italy will fudge issues because of the state of their public finances. Has the board now met, and what was its public statement on the single currency?
  Mr. Brown: The Bundesbank board met on 26 March, and it said:
  "As the EMI report shows, far-reaching convergence has been achieved in the European Union concerning the price criterion at a gratifyingly low level … Considerable progress has been achieve towards convergence during the past few years … Bearing in mind the progress in convergence which has been achieved in many member states, and after giving due consideration to the remaining problems and risks, entry into monetary union from 1999 appears justifiable in stability policy terms."
  I confirm that that was the opinion on 26 March. I do not believe that Mr. Hans Tietmeyer has changed his opinion over the course of a month.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way once more, but it appears that I am giving information to
  Conservative Members that they should have found out for themselves.
  Mr. Gill: These are serious matters, and some fateful decisions will be made this weekend. It is important to make those decisions on the basis of correct information. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that the statistics on Italy produced by the International Monetary Fund qualify the accounts by saying that the data include the underground economy? Were the data not to include the underground economy—fraud and criminal activity—the public debt to gross domestic product ratio would be nearer 157 per cent. than the 121 per cent. on which we are currently working.
  Mr. Brown: The Conservative party said that this weekend would never happen. Then it said that no country would ever reach the borrowing requirement figures. Then it said that it expected all sorts of countries to fall by the wayside. Now it says that Italy should not go ahead because it has a black economy—as do many other countries around the world. Measures are being taken in Italy and elsewhere to deal with that.
  The hon. Gentleman would never have predicted what Italy has achieved in its inflation, in lowering public borrowing, in long-term interest rates and in long-term rate stability. Instead of raising one issue—the black economy—the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that Italy has made substantial progress over recent years.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will give way once more, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: During the past year, the right hon. Gentleman has made much of the state of
  480
  Britain's public finances. As the position in Italy and Belgium is more than twice as bad as that in Britain, about which he constantly complains, how can he possibly think that Italy and Belgium will be suitable members of a single currency?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to make an important point. When we came to power, last year's borrowing deficit was £23 billion. The Italian deficit this year is set to be 2.5 per cent. There is a legal requirement—(Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked about public borrowing and I am answering. In Italy, the deficit is 2.5 per cent. this year. Mr. Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, has set a legal requirement for it to be 2 per cent. next year. On the debt:GDP ratio, the issue is not simply the level, but the direction—[Interruption.] Surely Conservative Members want accuracy on this matter. The treaty shows that it is a matter not only of the debt:GDP ratio but of the direction in which it is moving—
  Mr. Blunt: Is it going down?
  Mr. Brown: It is going down. It is set to fall by 4 per cent. over the next year. It has fallen over the past three years. Conservative Members should admit that I have the figures that they do not have.
  Mr. Peter Lilley rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will clarify the Conservative party's position on this matter. Is it still the position that the Conservative party would not join a single currency for two Parliaments or for 10 years?
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; I will answer his question later.
  Mr. Brown: Why not now?
  Mr. Lilley: Because I am asking a question. The right hon. Gentleman surely realises that I will be called to speak later, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the treaty requires the Council of Ministers to make a judgment on whether Italy and other countries are approaching at a satisfactory pace the 60 per cent. reference level for debt. I want to know the Government's view on how many years those countries should be allowed to reach that 60 per cent. reference level. What would be considered satisfactory?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman would not answer my question. It is about time that he clarified, for the country, the Conservative party's position. It has been clearly stated that the Conservative party wants to hold back monetary union for two Parliaments or 10 years.
  As regards Italy, the right hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out that the treaty refers not only to the debt:GDP ratio at a particular point in time but to the sustainability of fiscal criteria and therefore the direction in which that ratio is moving. The Italian debt:GDP ratio has been falling for the past three years—contrary to what the

  481
  hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) suggested. It will fall again next year. The Italian Government have made a commitment that, over the next three years, it will fall by 12 per cent. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden should take into account first, that Italian inflation is 1.8 per cent.; secondly, that public borrowing is 2.5 per cent.; thirdly, that Italy has met the necessary long-term interest rate criteria; fourthly, that Italy has met the exchange rate criteria; and, fifthly, that not only has Italy made a commitment significantly to reduce its debt:GDP ratio but, as I shall explain in a minute, Saturday's declaration of Ministers will lock countries into a course of fiscal rectitude that is absolutely essential for the future.
  I will not take lectures from the Conservative party about fiddling the criteria. When we came to office, we found that the public spending figures had assumed a spend-to-save programme of billions of pounds of savings that did not exist. They had assumed privatisation sales that could never have happened because they had never been planned. They had assumed a trend growth rate that had not been reached over the cycle. The Conservative Government had continually changed the criteria on which they would judge themselves for fiscal rectitude—from a balanced budget to a near-to-balanced budget. We will take no lectures on fiscal rectitude from Conservative Members.
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Mr. Brown: As I was saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way.") I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer my question. The country has a right to know whether it is still the Conservative party's position that it will not join a single currency for two Parliaments or 10 years. It is a very simple question requiring a very simple answer.
  Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that I did not quite catch the Chancellor's answer to my question. He has to make a legally important decision tomorrow night on whether or not to lift the existing excess deficit procedure from Italy. He can do that only by making a judgment on how many years Italy should be allowed to fulfil the requirement that it should return to the 60 per cent. reference level in a satisfactory time. He must tell the House how many years he would consider satisfactory.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman presents himself as some sort of lawyer interpreting—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Chancellor, but this is a serious debate which is not helped by barracking and shouting. It would be better conducted in a quieter mood.
  Mr. Brown: It is not a requirement of the treaty to reach a particular level within a particular time. The requirement is that, if the debt:GDP ratio is not met at a particular point in time, the direction in which it is moving must be satisfactory.
  Mr. Lilley: And the pace.
  Mr. Brown: Yes, and the pace.
  482
  I have said that the Italian debt:GDP ratio has fallen for the last three years and it is falling now. It will fall again over the next few years. Conservative Members have tried to find some issue that might unite them on European policy. They criticise the Italians, but they should take a more sensible view and look at Italy's achievements on inflation, interest rates and the debt:GDP ratio. They should recognise that, under the Italian plan for next year, public borrowing will be far lower as a percentage of national income than was the case when we came to office in Britain and inherited a Conservative borrowing requirement of £23 billion.
  We already know that, on Friday, member states intend to vote for monetary union to proceed.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.
  It is clear that member states intend to support the Commission's recommendations. Therefore, there will be 11 members of the new currency union. I should remind the House—Conservative Members might like to bear it in mind—that the vote will be taken on a qualified majority basis. The Maastricht treaty, negotiated by the previous Government, did not allow for a veto.
  I shall deal now with the Government's position on those matters—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, Conservative Members seem to be very exercised by these issues. They should perhaps reflect on the fact that we are debating events over the next few days that will significantly affect Europe, and that their behaviour in this debate will be commented on across Europe. Nevertheless, they cannot bring themselves to admit that—despite all they said about countries that would never meet the terms on public borrowing, inflation and interest rates—those terms have been achieved by all the applying member states.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.
  As for the Government's position, I should say immediately that—because of the importance that we attach to discipline, stability and economic reforms as preconditions for the high levels of growth and employment that Europe needs—we will work this weekend with our colleagues towards a new declaration, to be agreed by all Finance Ministers.
  First, the declaration will not only re-emphasise the importance of fiscal discipline in the stability and growth pact—with its deficit requirements, penalties and multilateral surveillance—but will reinforce it with a new declaration that will advance implementation of the stability pact in the all-important transition stages to economic and monetary union, helping to lock in the achievements of recent years and to build on them for the future.
  Secondly, this weekend's declaration will also go beyond the stability and growth pact, to emphasise the need for economic reform. As a result of a British initiative at York, economic reform is now established as the next big challenge facing Europe—including product market reform through effective competition policies, and vigorous pursuit of completion of the single market; capital market reform through measures to improve the

  483
  flow of investment funds to business—not least our proposals for reforming the venture capital industry; and labour market reform, including our proposals for employability and greater adaptability.
  After the European Monetary Institute's report, which stated that structural policies were necessary in most countries, a new commitment to economic reform measures—to help the European economy work better, and to help economic and monetary union work more successfully—will be included in the new declaration.
  Thirdly, the declaration that we will sign this weekend will reflect the importance that we attach to addressing the problem of unemployment if we are to make monetary union work more successfully. The declaration will therefore emphasise just how important it is to tackle unemployment not only by tax, social security and welfare reform but by measures for education and training, and the importance of ending social exclusion if we are to have both a successful single currency and a successful economy.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way.
  With the declaration, we are satisfied that we are making new and further progress in budget discipline and debt reduction, thus locking in greater stability; in employment, and therefore in the better functioning of the economies; and in economic reform.
  The new declaration will form the background to the decisions we take tomorrow and on Saturday. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the fact that that is happening.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.
  I shall deal now with the detailed reports of the European Monetary Institute and the European Commission assessing the convergence criteria not only over one year but over a period of years. The reports have been laid before the House, with a detailed explanatory memorandum.
  The European Monetary Institute report—which has been signed by all the central bank governors, including the Governor of the Bank of England—states that
  "The individual criteria are interpreted and applied in a strict manner"
  and concludes that
  "major improvements in terms of convergence have been seen in the Union."
  The report also states that
  "Overall progress in reducing fiscal deficits and debt ratios has generally accelerated",
  and notes the substantial progress that has been made to reduce inflation.
  In highlighting that progress, the Commission's report concludes and recommends that 11 member states have a sufficient degree of sustainable convergence to qualify them to join the single currency on 1 January 1999.
  The reports have to assess the progress made by member states on two matters. The first is legal convergence: whether national legislation, including the
  484
  statutes of national central banks, is compatible with the treaty's legal obligations and the statute of the European system of central banks.
  As the EMI report makes it clear, all candidates for economic and monetary union have made the changes—or are in advanced stages of introducing them, and therefore will have met them by the required date of 1 July—necessary to ensure that national legislation is thus compatible with the treaty and with the statute of the European system of central banks.
  The second assessment is on economic convergence—on whether applying states have achieved a high degree of sustainable convergence by reference to the treaty's four criteria, which are achievement of a high degree of price stability, exchange rate stability, convergence of long-term interest rates and sustainability of the financial position.
  On inflation, all candidates for the single currency had inflation below the reference value of 2.7 per cent. The European Monetary Institute concludes that all those countries' inflation performance has been consistent with price stability—which I hope Conservative Members will welcome—reflecting reductions in inflation achieved over a number of years. Average European Union inflation has thus fallen from almost 6 per cent., in 1991, to just over 2 per cent. last year.
  On exchange rates, all the candidates have achieved a high degree of exchange rate stability, which has in recent years been supported by reductions in inflation and in fiscal deficits.
  On long-term interest rates, all the candidates had interest rates below the reference value for the required period.
  The final treaty criterion is sustainability of public finances. As both the Commission and the EMI reports demonstrate, European countries have already made considerable progress in controlling their budget deficits. The average deficit has been reduced from a peak of more than 6 per cent. of national income, in 1993, to 2.4 per cent. last year.
  On sustainability of the fiscal position, I repeat that those countries with high debt ratios have already taken substantial action in recent years to reduce deficits. Those countries have primary surpluses, which means that their debts have been and continue to be on a downward path. They have now made significant commitments to reducing deficits further, thus keeping debt on a downward trend. One purpose of this weekend's declaration, which I have described to the House, is to ensure that those trends are maintained and locked in.
  The EMI report confirms that the United Kingdom is itself on course to comply with the medium-term objectives of the stability and growth pact, and notes that our fiscal position on deficits and on debt meets the Maastricht criteria.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: As I have already said, I will not give way.
  Taking into account the progress that has been made towards economic convergence on the basis of the treaty criteria, the framework for fiscal discipline provided by the stability and growth pact, the special commitments that have now been made by high-debt countries to reduce their

  485
  debt ratios, and the new declaration to be issued this weekend—which will affirm commitments to fiscal discipline, economic reform and employment—the Government will endorse the recommendation that 11 countries should join the single currency on 1 January 1999.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way once more, to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The Opposition's concern about whether the 11 countries forming the first group have met the criteria is based largely on our desire to ensure that the single currency is a success. Given that we will not be part of the Euro X committee, and the fact that the Chancellor—although he will be president this weekend—will not subsequently have the same influence, how will we be able, in the British national interest, to maintain our influence on the operation of the currency in future, to ensure that it is successful? Its success is so important not only to the European economy but to the British economy.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who had the courage to stay with the policy pursued by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament. He resigned from the Opposition Front Bench when he realised that that policy was changing because of a leadership change. He suggested that we will have a loss of influence because we do not belong to the Euro X committee, but the United Kingdom will be present in all Euro X committee meetings dealing with matters affecting all 15 European Union countries. We secured that agreement at Luxembourg, and that agreement will be followed through. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. It is vital that we make the necessary preparations outlined in our statement in October.
  I want to reaffirm to the House Britain's position on economic and monetary union. The Government are committed to the principle of joining the single currency, making a proper and balanced assessment of the economic benefits of joining, judging—as our economic tests do—not just the advantages and disadvantages of being in, but the costs and benefits of staying out and making the necessary preparation to join.
  It is the Government's judgment that, after a period of preparation, which should also be a period of stability without endless destabilising speculation, we should be in a position to make a decision early in the next Parliament and, if we were to recommend it, the British people would make the final decision in a referendum.
  That was the position that we set out in October and we will not be diverted from it, either by those who want to join early, regardless of the economic interest, or by those who never want to join even if it proves to be in the national economic interest to do so.
  We reject the Opposition's view that we should not enter a single currency for 10 years or two Parliaments. I am pleased to see that the shadow Chancellor does not feel it necessary to deny that.
  486
  In or out of the euro, preparing for its introduction is of vital importance and we shall be prepared. The Government are working closely with all business to ensure that when the euro arrives in Europe on 1 January 1999, British businesses benefit from it.
  I can say today that, from 1999, businesses will be able to use the euro in the United Kingdom for a wide range of activities from filing company accounts to paying taxes and issuing shares. From 1999, the United Kingdom banking system will have the capability to process payments in Europe for local and national businesses as well as for the international financial market. The Bank of England is leading euro preparations in the City of London.
  I am pleased that the Select Committee, to which I shall reply soon, supported the need for detailed and full preparations if we are to join and supported our proposal for a national changeover plan. We are committed to producing an outline of the national changeover plan in the coming year. Inside or outside the euro zone, British economic policies will continue being right for business and I am determined to ensure that Britain will be the best place in Europe from which to develop new business opportunities after 1999.
  The Government's constructive approach to Europe has brought to an end years of British isolation in Europe and years of ideological division at home over Europe during which Britain lacked either a consensus on Europe or a clear national economic purpose. Our position, which is right for business and supported by business, is the best for jobs and growth. It is best for Britain now and in the future and I commend it to the House.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, at end add:
  'but regrets the Government's failure to deliver on the Prime Minister's pledge to the House on 4th June 1997 that "the criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way", and also the Government's failure during the British Presidency of the European Union to press for a strict interpretation of the Treaty requirements governing the eligibility of member states to join a single European currency, with consequential damage to British manufacturing industry through the perceived weakness of the euro and the resulting strength of sterling.'.
  This weekend, European Governments will be making decisions that will have momentous consequences for the countries that may join the euro and for the United Kingdom. I shall make a case which I shall state very succinctly at the outset. First, I shall argue that
  "it would clearly be in the UK's interests, even if it does not join, to ensure that the choice of participants and any compromise reached on the Presidency of the European Central Bank are credible and consistent with the treaty's requirements".
  Those are the words of the Select Committee, and I whole-heartedly endorse them.
  Secondly, I shall argue that
  "it is our duty, as President of the European Union, to ensure that the criteria are properly obeyed".
  Mr. Gordon Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman is making statements of principle, will he clarify the position of the Conservative party on the single currency? Is it that it will not join for two Parliaments or 10 years? Will he

  487
  rescind the statement that he made yesterday to Mr. Naughtie on the "Today" programme that that has never been the Conservative party's position?
  Mr. Lilley: The words that I just uttered were those of the Prime Minister, which is perhaps why the Chancellor wanted to avoid them. I agree with the Prime Minister that, during Britain's presidency, the Government should use their influence to ensure that the criteria are properly obeyed.
  Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall answer the Chancellor's question in a moment.
  Thirdly, I shall argue that the Bundesbank is right to say that
  "additional firm and substantive commitments"
  are needed to ensure that Italy and Belgium achieve sustainable convergence and that the Government should argue, negotiate and, if need be, vote to achieve that end.
  The Chancellor wants to know our position on Europe. It is very clear. We believe that we should keep the pound in the next Parliament, because the structure and cycle of the British economy differ from those on the continent. Unless and until we have American-style labour mobility, wage flexibility and transfer of resources between states, a one-interest-rate-fits-all monetary policy would be damaging to Britain.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No. I am still answering the Chancellor's point.
  The Treasury Select Committee concluded that, even if the circumstances were to change, it would take at least five years and probably a whole business cycle to determine that. Therefore, it would be absurd to try to pretend that the criteria laid down by the Chancellor could be met, and could be seen to have been met, before the end of the next Parliament. That is why we believe that it is right to keep the pound and that is the logic of the Chancellor's position.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of the position that he has just explained is that, in the next 10 years, there are no circumstances or developments in the relationship between the euro and Britain under which the people of Britain might have the chance to express their judgment and assessment of the issues and weigh up the debate? He has said that there will be no circumstances in which the British people will be able to decide.
  Mr. Lilley: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view of the logic of my position, he is, in effect, saying that it is the logic of the Treasury Select Committee and the Chancellor.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: May we have a straight answer?
  Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor has had a straight answer. He refused to give me a straight answer to my question.
  Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the position of the Conservative party is not as he set out yesterday on the "Today" programme, when he said to Mr. Jim Naughtie:
  "10 years is a number picked from the air by you"?
  Will he confirm that the real position is the one that he stated on 5 October and referred to two Parliaments or 10 years? Will he confirm that that is the true position of the Conservative party and will he apologise for getting it wrong yesterday?
  Mr. Lilley: The two Parliaments, or essentially the next Parliament, is the commitment that we have made, for the reasons that I spelled out. That is a sensible policy. The right hon. Gentleman's own policy is incompatible—
  Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No. I must get on and address the issues involved in the debate.
  There are very good reasons for countries that are not in the European currency to be concerned about the decisions that are being taken this weekend. Decisions about the terms on which members join the euro, who joins and who runs the European central bank are important for Europe and for Britain.
  Mr. Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Lilley: No. I have not yet completed my point, so the hon. Gentleman does not know yet what it is.
  A soft euro would push the pound even higher, hitting exporters even harder and driving manufacturing into recession. In the long run, an unstable euro—or worse still, a failed euro, would not just be a disaster for member countries; Britain too would be hit by the wash. There are very good reasons for being concerned about the euro even though Britain remains outside, as it will have indirect effects on us.
  The Chancellor wants to bounce us into a single currency soon after the next election, if he gets the opportunity. A weak and unstable euro would then affect us directly, so he should be even more concerned than we are by the failure to apply the convergence criteria strictly. If he is serious about British entry into economic and monetary union, he is being quite extraordinarily irresponsible in taking such a relaxed view about the application of the criteria.
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No. I should like to make some further progress.
  Launching the euro is a bold and perilous venture. Virtually everyone has agreed that the less strictly the Maastricht convergence criteria are applied, the greater the risk that the venture will fail. Those criteria were included in the Maastricht treaty precisely to ensure that the euro would be strong and stable. The Government have repeatedly stated that they too believe that the criteria should be rigorously applied.

  489
  Last July, the Chancellor told the Royal Institute of International Affairs:
  "there should be no fudging of the Maastricht treaty conditions."
  On that, at least, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister see eye to eye. The Prime Minister told the House:
  "the criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way. If they are, the answer is not to delay—the answer is not to proceed."—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 386.]
  Even the Foreign Secretary has taken time off from winning friends and influencing people around the world to weigh in against fudging. He said:
  "we have no intention of signing up if our final conclusion is that the criteria have been fudged."—[Official Report, 9 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 803.]
  We have a right to expect that the Government mean what they say, but we now know that those words were for home consumption. Words may be cheap for the Chancellor, but he is playing fast and loose with British jobs and businesses. Hard-working people are paying the price of his broken pledges. On this most important issue he has let down the British people.
  Mr. Gardiner: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about cheap words, I remind him of his own words of 8 May 1997, when he said that he thought there was
  "no point in making theological decisions about subsequent Parliaments".
  Does he recall those words and, almost a year to the day later, has he suddenly converted to a different way of theological thinking?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should get his quotations first hand, not from Walworth road. He would then realise that I was asked about the Parliament after next. Of course it is sensible for us to have a view about the next general election; we will have to have such a view in our next manifesto. However, I did not think that it was worth while committing myself, theologically or otherwise, to a view about the election after next.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has already had one go.
  Britain holds the presidency of the European Union. It is the Government's duty to ensure that the criteria are properly obeyed, yet they are doing nothing and have done nothing during the past four months. They have not uttered a single word of criticism about the Commission's recommendations that all 11 applicants now meet all the criteria.
  The Commission and the European Monetary Institute reports show that only four of the 15 members of the European Community have passed all the tests and met the strict reference levels in the treaty. Two of those four are Denmark and Britain, which are not even applying to join the single currency. The report shows also that two member states—Belgium and Italy—had levels of debt twice as high as those permitted by the Maastricht treaty.
  490
  It shows that two countries, including Italy, have not been members of the exchange rate mechanism for the full two years required by the treaty.
  The report shows also that some countries have needed temporary and spurious devices to get their deficits below the ceiling. The Bundesbank spelled out in its parallel report that
  "the deficit ratio of many member states in 1997 was influenced by measures with a temporary effect. These measures were on such a scale in Italy, for example, at 1 per cent. of GDP that they were instrumental in enabling it to meet the reference value of 3 per cent. of GDP."
  It would be interesting to hear from the Chancellor whether he thinks that a strict application of the rules would allow Italy to get away with raising a euro-tax and promising to give back 70 per cent. of the proceeds in subsequent years without taking account of that in the figures that it presented to the Commission. We might all like taxes that would end after a few years, but that does not seem to me to be a very strict application of the rules.
  The Government and the Chancellor have put forward a range of excuses for abandoning their pledge to insist on strict application of the criteria. Their first response was to deny that any real fudging is going on. The Chancellor claimed today that even countries such as Italy and Belgium come within the letter of the rules. There is a get-out clause for countries whose debt exceeds 60 per cent. of gross domestic product if, in the words of the treaty, the ratio is
  "approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace."
  Every country signed up to the 60 per cent. target in 1991—seven years ago. Since then, Italy's debt has not decreased; it has increased from 101 per cent. in 1991 to 122 per cent. In the three recent years, to which the Chancellor referred, in which it has declined from its peak, it has done so at an average rate of only 1 per cent. a year. At that rate, it will take six decades to reach the reference level. Is the Chancellor saying that approaching the reference level at a satisfactory pace means allowing Italy 60 years to do so?
  The good news is that the Italian Government have promised the Commission that they will reduce the ratio in future at a rate of 3 per cent. a year. They will need to achieve that rate year in, year out, without fail, for the next 20 years to reach the 60 per cent. reference level. Does the Chancellor consider that Italy is approaching the reference level at a satisfactory pace?
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Having said that Britain should not join monetary union, the shadow Chancellor now wants no other country to join. He is trying to construct a case for monetary union not to go ahead among 11 countries based on the debt to GDP ratio in Italy. I have pointed out to him—[Horn. MEMBERS: "What about Italy?"] Conservative Members should listen to these facts. First, inflation in Italy is 1.8 per cent., so it has met the criteria that many Conservative Members said that it would never meet. Secondly, long-term interest rates in Italy are now 5.2 per cent., so they have substantially decreased. Thirdly, the public sector borrowing requirement—the Government's financial position—is 2.5 per cent., and the Italian Prime Minister has promised me that it will fall to 2 per cent. Fourthly, the Maastricht

  491
  criterion was not that debt should be 60 per cent. of GDP, but that it should be 60 per cent. or satisfactorily diminishing.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a new Member of the House, may I ask whether the Chancellor's remarks constitute an intervention?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman, as a new Member of the House, that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) should realise that, because the primary surplus in Italy is 6 per cent., there is a current account surplus and the savings ratio is 15 per cent., debt will not be accumulated over the next few years; it is falling by 3 per cent. a year. The Italian Prime Minister has said that debt will fall by 12 per cent. over the next three years.
  Conservative Members should consider another point: the European Parliament today voted on the Commission's recommendations and the British Conservative group refused to support the shadow Chancellor's view.
  Mr. Lilley: It is my understanding that the British Conservatives abstained. One always knows when the Chancellor is in trouble because he goes into auto-rant mode for so long that he hopes that people will have forgotten the issue that he was supposed to be addressing. He has revealed that he still does not have a view on how much time Italy should be allowed to return to the 60 per cent. level. I do not mind what his view is, but he is a member of the Government and he will have to make a decision on that matter tomorrow evening. He should tell the House his position. Twenty years seems a long time for Italy to fulfil that criterion. I know that the Chancellor claims to be a long-termist, but that is carrying long-termism to extremes.
  Mr. Blunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what distinguishes debt from inflation and the PSBR is that inflation and PSBR figures can change substantially from one year to the next, but it takes a long time to deal with a huge public sector debt?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and much more to the point than the Chancellor could ever be.
  The Chancellor's next line of defence is to pretend that all the reports that have been published, including that of the European Monetary Institute—on Thursday, the Chancellor even claimed the same of the Bundesbank report—entirely endorse, without qualification, the entry into the euro of all 11 countries. That is not so. The EMI document is fundamentally factual and does not have to express a detailed affirmation of each country's overall standing.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: I did not say that the report endorsed entry of all 11 countries.
  Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor is backing off; he is saying that he did not say such a thing.
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both right hon. Gentlemen must sit down if I am on my feet. If the
  492
  Chancellor is to make sedentary comments, he cannot necessarily count on them not being challenged by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Is the shadow Chancellor giving way?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I am not, for the simple reason that the Chancellor spoke for the equivalent of four interventions in his last one.
  The European Monetary Institute expresses views on the sustainability of the debt position of each member state. This is what it says of Greece, which has been prevented from joining because it fails, among other things, the debt criteria. It has debt of 108 per cent. of its GDP. The report says:
  "Notwithstanding the efforts and the substantial progress made towards improving the current fiscal situation, there must be an ongoing concern as to whether the ratio of Government debt to GDP will"—
  then it quotes the treaty—
  "'be sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace,' and whether sustainability of the fiscal position has been achieved."
  That is fair enough; that is a clear rejection of the Greek position. The report uses exactly the same words for Italy; exactly the same words describe the Italian situation. The Chancellor cannot claim that the report endorses the countries that he wishes to enter without further change and fail to acknowledge that the report condemns them in the terms that it condemns Greece.
  The next line of defence to which the Government resort is to acknowledge that some of the criteria may have been fudged but to claim, as the Prime Minister did at the Dispatch Box the other day, that there is "a range of criteria", with the implication that it is all right to fail one or two as long as all the others are met. The European Monetary Institute does not accept that view. Its report says:
  "the convergence criteria constitute a coherent and integrated package and they must all be satisfied; the treaty lists the criteria on an equal footing and does not suggest a hierarchy".
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I will not.
  The criteria are being loosely applied, particularly to Belgium and Italy. That will weaken the euro. The Chancellor can argue until he is blue in the face that that is not so, but the foreign exchange markets give him the lie. They do not agree with him. They believe that a fudged euro will be a soft euro, and the euro will be fudged. That is why they have devalued all 11 currencies that are set to join the euro against those that are staying outside it. If the Chancellor does not believe that that is the reason for the moves on the foreign exchange markets, he should explain to the House what is.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way to the hon. Gentleman in view of Madam Speaker's request that we try not to go on too long.
  The Government's final line of defence is to admit that there might be fudging but to say, "Well, we shouldn't do anything about it because we wouldn't achieve very much

  493
  and we would make ourselves unpopular." That is what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box on 1 April. That is an abnegation of leadership; it is an admission that the Government have no influence.
  Others in Europe have not been so spineless. The French Interior Minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, recently warned that a fudged euro would be like the Titanic
  "sailing full steam ahead towards the pack ice. By the time we see the iceberg, perhaps it will be too late."
  That is from a member of a Government who are applying to join the institution.
  The Bundesbank qualified its reluctant agreement to German membership with a warning that Belgium and Italy need to do more to meet the criteria. It said:
  "with regard to the requirement of a sustainable financial position, however, serious concern exists in the case of Belgium and Italy. This could be eliminated if additional, firm, substantive commitments are given."
  Mr. Waigel, the German Finance Minister, has recently been touring European capitals, trying to persuade member states to sign up to a declaration committing themselves to accelerated debt reduction. The Chancellor revealed that that has finally come to fruition—although he has not put the matter before the House or respected the House by telling us what document he is to sign. Will he confirm that the document has been watered down in three successive drafts, no longer includes any timetable for Italy and Belgium to reduce their debt ratios and is not nearly as strong as the author himself would have liked?
  The British Government hold the presidency. The British Government should be taking the lead in these matters, not leaving it to France and Germany. The British Government should have been seeking additional, firm, substantive commitments to a timetable of debt reduction. After all, this is the Government who told us that they would take the lead in Europe. This is the Government who told us that they had won influence by signing up to the social chapter and committing Britain to the euro in principle. The sad truth is that they have got nothing in return for those concessions.
  As this week's edition of The Economist says:
  "Ecofin, the council of Finance Ministers, that the Chancellor chairs, has lately been the EU's most influential body. But Mr. Brown himself is one of its least influential members."
  The Government have won no influence for their concessions. Apparently, according again to The Economist, the only concession that the Chancellor has got out of his French opposite number is a free ticket to the World cup.
  Our Prime Minister claims that he is still taking the lead in Europe, but he does not tell his friends in Europe what he told the British people in his party's manifesto which was issued for the general election.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: On that very point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the manifesto on which the Prime Minister and he were elected, the Labour party said:
  "What is essential for the success of EMU is genuine convergence among the economies that take part, without any fudging of the rules."
  Why is the Prime Minister not prepared to say the same thing to our partners in Europe? Apparently, despite his well-known linguistic skills, translating those words into French seems to have been beyond him. He yields to the views of his partners; he has found that he can only pretend to lead if he agrees to follow. His idea of leadership is the same as the Duke of Plaza Toro, who led his army from behind because he found it so much safer. In the end, Britain will gain influence in Europe only if we have the courage of our convictions, if we put forward a clear, coherent and consistent view. That may make us unpopular in the short term, but it will win us respect in the longer run.
  Almost as important as the convergence criteria is the decision on who should be president of the European central bank. It was rather extraordinary that the Chancellor did not address that today. Unlike our Prime Minister, the French leader has no qualms about being isolated in Europe. The French do not mind being awkward and making themselves unpopular in the pursuit of French objectives. Although all the other member states agreed that Mr. Duisenberg should be president of the European central bank, the French have insisted on reopening the question. They have dug their heels in and demanded that their candidate, Mr. Trichet, should at least share the eight-year term with Mr. Duisenberg. But the Maastricht treaty is quite unambiguous; the chairman's term is set at eight years. That is to give him the necessary independence. To split the term in two would betray the intentions of that treaty.
  To follow a political fudge on membership criteria with another political fudge on how the bank is run would further undermine confidence in the euro. As president of the EU, the British Government should have ensured that the issue was resolved before now. Above all, they must now prevent a damaging compromise from occurring which betrays the treaty.
  The Government's failure to take a firm stand on these issues has done great damage. It has undermined confidence in the 11 countries set to join the euro, devaluing their currencies against the pound—which has contributed to the artificial over-valuation of the pound, which has undermined our exports and pushed manufacturing further into recession. The Government may deny that this is happening, but I was in the midlands yesterday, speaking to business men. They had no doubts that manufacturing is already in recession. That may not concern the Government, who do not care a fig about business and jobs, but manufacturers know that the high pound is a key factor. The bottom line is that more and more jobs will be lost in manufacturing as the months go by.
  Those business men and their employees will want to know why the Government are doing nothing to tackle the problem. What is at stake is not just the economic damage in the short term, or even the dangers of an unstable euro in the long run; it is the integrity of the treaty. It is crucial that treaties, once signed, are adhered to—that member states adhere to the spirit, as well as to

  495
  the letter, of the law. This country will rue the day it ever allows political expediency to override clear treaty commitments.
  At the end of the day, it was probably never realistic to expect the Government to take a stand against fudging. After all, the Government are based on fudge. They try to be all things to all people. They pretend that they can stick to our spending limits, yet still spend more on everything. They promise not to raise taxes, and then sneak them in by stealth. They said that they were in favour of joining the euro in principle, but then ruled it out for this Parliament in practice. Above all, they cannot oppose fudging the Maastricht test because they want to fudge their own tests later. That is why I ask the House to support our amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that the 10-minutes rule will now apply, and that constraint within that will be for the consideration of other hon. Members.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I shall be speaking primarily as the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, which published a report "The UK and Preparations for Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union", but I have my own views as chairman of another group, the European Movement. The Select Committee has differing views represented on it, from supporters of early entry, such as myself, to those in implacable opposition such as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  On the Select Committee, there is a substantial majority in favour of British membership of EMU but there is a significant minority against. Therefore, in the report there is no discussion of the pros and cons of entry; otherwise, we would have merely produced a majority-minority report. There is no discussion of timing; contrary to the speculative accounts which appeared before the report was published, and contrary to what the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has just said. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to actually read the report.
  The context of our report is that a big decision will be made this weekend on participation, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said. Bilateral conversion rates will be decided and the president of the European central bank selected, which makes it the virtual start of the third stage of the single currency—although it formally begins on 1 January. I agree with my right hon. Friend that substantial progress has been made in achieving the Maastricht criteria by all those who want to participate, as the Governor of the Bank of England told us. That confounds what the pundits said 15 months ago.
  The figures are now very good. Average inflation across the EU is 1.6 per cent. Average long-term rates are 6.1 per cent. The average budget deficit is 2.4 per cent. This is enormous progress, about which we heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. Of course there are weaknesses also, such as debt.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What about unemployment?
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman will have to make his own speech.
  496
  The deficit improvement will have to be sustained. Even so, overall progress has been so impressive that it is not surprising that the Commission will be recommending that the 11 members go ahead with the third stage. This weekend, the Heads of Government will almost certainly agree unanimously—in my view, they are right—that the 11 members should go ahead. The United Kingdom should support that decision—we are, after all, in the role of chair. As a non-participating member, it is inconceivable that we should stop a unanimous view by all other member states. Only non-serious politicians in opposition would suggest otherwise.
  Whether in or out, the euro will have a significant impact on our economy, and we note that. In the report, the best section is the part on preparation. There is strong support for the Government's policy on preparing the UK to deal with the coming of the euro, even while we are staying out. There is likely to be widespread use of the euro, not just in the City and the wholesale financial markets but in business as a whole—especially in the trading sector.
  Pilkington told us that it was converting its systems to use the euro because it will help eliminate differences in production costs. ICI told us that euro-liquidity will spread throughout the economy. Siemens told us that the euro would come through the back door. Siemens and British Steel said that they were anxious for UK suppliers to use the euro. Sainsbury and Marks and Spencer will accept euros from 2002. Substantial change will come about, and we ought to realise that. In the report, we backed the idea of a national changeover plan from sterling to euros so that we can proceed more quickly and efficiently once the decision is taken for the UK to join. It would be a guide for businesses now if they knew what was likely to happen later.
  I move now to the Chancellor's five economic tests. We have qualified already on all the main Maastricht convergence criteria; except the one on the exchange rate, because we have not joined the exchange rate. In his historic statement last October, the Chancellor announced some useful additional criteria for judging if and when Britain should join. He mentioned, in particular, sustainable convergence and flexibility, which the Committee agreed were very important. We should take them into account if Britain is to derive maximum benefit from membership. However, tests are only guides. When we decide to enter, a broader assessment will be required. In particular, we will need a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits not only of participation, but of staying out. That includes political, as well as economic, costs and benefits.
  The UK's decision will be made on the basis of a political and economic assessment of the balance of national advantage, which will include the Chancellor's five important tests. However, it will be broader than that. One sentence of the report has been wrenched out of context. We said that it will not be possible
  "to judge clearly and unambiguously either the success of EMU or answers to all of the Chancellor's five tests for at least five years. It will remain the case that the UK's decision will have to be made on political and economic assessment of the balance of national advantage."
  It is always better to read the sentence after the one that has been quoted.
  In a sense, we are stating the obvious. In hindsight, it might have been more helpful if we had used the words "for some time" rather than the words "five years",

  497
  although five years from this weekend, which is virtually the start of a single currency, is compatible with the Government's intention to be in a position to join early in the next Parliament. We did not make a judgment about the time of entry; we specifically decided not to take in the issues of principle, otherwise most of us would have said, "We want to join early," and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East would have written a minority report saying that he would never want to join. We did not say that, but we are saying that there are no scientific certainties, either about the success of EMU or about the Chancellor's five tests.
  Our position will have to be taken on a broad judgment about political and economic advantage for this country. It is my view and the view of many members of the Committee that we shall have to go in sooner rather than later, perhaps sooner than under the Government's current timetable. I predict that, from this weekend, events will move much faster than most people think, and certainly faster than the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden thinks.
  Pressures for us to join will build up, especially from business and particularly from those involved in finance and trade, which will increasingly deal in euros. There will be a big incentive to go the whole hog. Exchange rate instability for the pound may arise from the euro, which will be a handicap for British business and for the economy, and British business may miss the opportunities of a single market backed by a single currency.
  Last but not least are the political consequences of exclusion from EMU and the Euro X problem. The Labour Government have made a good start on their European policy and I agree with their ambition to play a leadership role in Europe, but that will be more difficult if we exclude ourselves, at least for the time being, from Europe's most important project, which will inevitably develop. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who described economic and monetary union as the most positive political and economic development this century.
  There will be a broad national and economic interest for us to join as soon as we possibly can. The Government should speed up preparations to join, including informing the British public about EMU and the advantages of joining sooner rather than later. The British people will decide on this momentous question, but we as politicians would fail in our duty if, by putting off the decision for too long, we disadvantaged our citizens and our country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Taylor.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Ian Taylor.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and I are almost identical, not only in our surnames. Therefore, there was a natural misunderstanding.
  This is a brief, but crucial debate. I shall make a few remarks, and I hope that I do not repeat those made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, with which I broadly agree.
  498
  I can endorse the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the shadow Chancellor, because, going into this weekend, it is vital that we understand the tensions for those countries that have not absolutely met the Maastricht convergence criteria, which are extremely sound Conservative economic principles that were rightly written into the Maastricht treaty. It is important to understand why such countries might not have conformed absolutely with the criteria, not to frustrate the whole exercise—I am sure that Conservative Members do not want to do that—but to ensure that the venture is a success.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, who said recently on the "Today" programme that it is not in the British national interest for the euro to fail. I would go further, and say that it is in the British national interest for it to succeed. If it were to succeed, it is logically in the British national interest that we join. If it is the British national interest that we join, we should join—the sooner the better.
  The Chancellor could and should make the situation clearer from the British point of view. If he had clarified the timetable and made more precise the plan which would have enabled this country to meet not only the absolute convergence criteria, but the running together of economic cycles, his Budget statement would have given a signal to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, which would probably have taken off the pound some of the pressure that it has been under since he sat down at the end of his Budget statement. Such clarification would also have suggested that Government policy during the rest of this Parliament, at least on the evidence that he has given, is not to join the euro, but to prepare to join. That would have had consequences for the running of the economy in terms of a fiscal balance and a monetary policy that would lead to a further reduction in our long-term interest rates to approximately those on the continent.
  Our long-term interest rates have fallen to about 6 per cent., but they have further to fall if we are to be ready to join the euro. That is a problem for the manufacturing community. We have a strong pound because it is thought that we are not going to join within a clear timetable. That is a criticism of the Chancellor, and I should welcome early clarification of how the economy is to be run to prepare for what he described in his speech as the probability of our entering monetary union in the early part of the next decade. I want him to be much more precise. That precision is essential in respect of our influence within the monetary union during the period that we are not a member. Our influence would grow if there were a feeling that we would definitely join.
  Concern has been expressed about what might happen in Italy or in other countries that are still coming to terms with the Maastricht convergence criteria. Other issues, such as liberal markets, the movement of people from one country or from one job market to another and the incidence of fiscal transfers within the stability pact and the European budget, will be crucial to whether the euro succeeds. Theoretically, it is not yet an optimal currency area. It therefore has politically to be made into that, and that will require brave decisions by the leaders of member countries. It is vital that we are part of that decision-making process: we firmly believe that we can contribute to the debate, so we should try to influence it in the direction in which we want it to go.

  499
  The Chancellor missed the point about Euro X, which is not that it will meet comfortably with those who are not members, but that, by being outside it, we shall not be at the heart of decisions or share the management of the economies of member countries with the management of ours. That issue is about not only national interest, but understanding how the national interest can be improved by working with other countries that are part of the currency zone.
  There will be a huge impact on this country, which too many hon. Members turn their backs on: 80 per cent. of our home market will have a single currency, virtually from this weekend. To compete with 80 per cent. of our home market, we shall take a currency risk while those countries will not. Many companies will take a consequential decision about where their investments should be if they suspect that our stay outside currency union will be extended beyond a certain period.
  I want precision in the timetable so that, as Sir Richard Sykes said in his evidence to the Treasury Committee, investment decisions are not affected because people think that our period outside will be prolonged. Many companies that are active in this country are beginning to change their investment decisions, certainly at the margin.
  I welcome the Chancellor's clarification today—he only touched on the matter briefly, but I think that it was clarification—that the euro will be acceptable in transactions in Britain. I welcome it largely because that is what will happen anyway and it is better that we understand that.
  Again, I put pressure on the Chancellor. What is his clear policy for preparing Britain's public services to utilise the euro? It is not possible just to say that companies can prepare and file their returns in euros. What transactions will the public services be prepared to do in euros and what preparation has the Inland Revenue made to match the demands of industry during the period when we are out? Those are crucial questions which will face Britain in the near future.
  The big part of the debate is the public view, which I accept is negative to the euro at the moment, but negative because it now believes that all the costs in relation to the euro would occur if we went in. Yet, in a short time, it will be clearly seen that the political and economic costs of being out are substantial. No Chancellor will ignore the calculation of those costs. They are political costs, not least in the fact that, for example, if we were in a single currency zone, our sensitivity to volatility of currencies would be reduced from the high level at which it is at the moment to a low level, bearing it in mind that 50 per cent. of our trade in goods and services is with the rest of the euro zone.
  A single currency would obviously benefit British industry. The cost to it of being out will be considerable. It would have a severe effect on our influence on global trade, which is vital if Britain is to continue its high propensity to import and export. It may well be that it will reduce our impact within the now Group of Seven, but it may well, de facto, be the group of three in the not-too-distant future. In addition, we shall have no influence on what will rapidly become the second reserve currency in the world. There are problems in being a reserve currency, but that will be the fact, largely because of the propensity to import and export of the existing euro zone and the fact that debts will be converted into the
  500
  euro. Those are huge issues. They are not issues which can be debated in the House in less than two hours; they are issues that will be debated in the country.
  I urge all hon. Members to recognise that we cannot reduce the issue to the simple chant of sovereignty, because there are sovereignty issues which are related to the degree of influence of the British Government, Labour or Conservative. Those are the issues where, ultimately, our influence leads to the improvement in well-being of the British people.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The decision that will be taken by 11 countries in Brussels this weekend will be a momentous one—momentous for them and momentous for the future of Europe. There are fundamental objections to the single currency, on grounds of democracy and economics. The creation of a single currency, the abolition of national currencies, the setting up of the European central bank, and the entrenching in treaty of the ridiculously called stability and growth pact mark a substantial transfer of power from democratic Governments and Parliaments to undemocratic, bureaucratic and largely unaccountable institutions.
  Some will agree and some will disagree, but a single currency is another step in the march towards a centralised European state. That state already has a flag, an anthem, citizens, a Supreme Court, an Executive, a Parliament and, after this weekend or by 1 January, it will have a single currency and a central bank. Before long, who knows, the centralised state will seek to levy taxation centrally and in its own right.
  The Chancellor did not mention the choice that will be made this weekend of the presidency of the new European central bank. The shadow Chancellor did. Much of the talk will not be about sovereignty or the transfer of democratic power; much of the talk at the tables, in the margins, at the dinners, will be about who will be the new president of the European central bank. Who will be the high priest, the Caiaphas, of this new monetary temple? Meetings are already taking place, faxes and telephone calls are going around, communiqués are being drafted and redrafted by some of the finest minds in Europe, and, no doubt, there will be a showdown or two before Monday when the final decision is taken. All that will be to decide whether the new Caiaphas should either be Herr Duisenberg, the candidate of the Germanic Pharisees, or Monsieur Trichet, the candidate of the Frankish Sadducees. Like the Pharisees and the Sadducees, we are assured that they are both strict, but in different ways.
  Who cares who wins that contest? It will make no difference. The new champion, once he, or perhaps she—I am told that a Finnish lady is coming up pretty fast on the inside; I do not know, but I expect that it will be a man—slips into the back seat of that long Mercedes carrying a copy of the wretched treaty of Maastricht, will make no difference at all. The president of the central bank will be bound by the words, paragraphs, protocols, clauses and preambles of that wretched Maastricht treaty. The priority will be price stability, price stability, price stability.
  The poor president of the central bank will have to find that magical rate of interest which, apparently, will apply to 11 different countries, some with different economies,

  501
  some with different cultures, some whose economies are converging and some whose economies are diverging. He will have to find one magical rate of interest to cover all those countries. I am told that Eddie George does not want to be a candidate. Considering the difficulty that poor Eddie has in fixing a rate of interest for poor little Britain, I can well understand his reluctance to be drafted for that particular job.
  However, one group of people may not care who will be president. It might be the group of young German youths who, in Saxony last Sunday, voted for a nasty and evil neo-Nazi party. The real surprise to me was not that they voted for that nasty neo-Nazi party, but that they voted at all. It seems that perhaps there was a vestige, somewhere among these young people, of a belief that a vote counts. Perhaps in the Germany of before 1 January 1999, even in the inclusive politics of Germany, a vote counts. Certainly after 1 January 1999, a vote will count for a lot less. Inclusive politics will then have been entrenched in treaty and the young men who voted in Saxony will be outside the tent.
  There will be no hope of change from the central bank. The poor old president will be studying his pie charts and graphs trying to find that magical rate of interest. Price stability does not guarantee low unemployment. The Germans know that, because they have price stability and high unemployment. The Japanese are rapidly learning that, and they have an excess of price stability and increasing unemployment. Therefore, the central bank will not assist those poor youngsters from Saxony. There is no hope from the European budget, because that is only 2 per cent. of GDP at the moment. A far greater European budget is needed to compensate for the loss of economic sovereignty for the different countries of the EU.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  There is not much hope either from the German national Government. Once the core of stability and growth of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and all the strictness and orthodoxy of the high priests have been visited on the German Government, they will have no money to spend in east Germany, Saxony or anywhere else.
  Those young people have no hope of doing what their American counterparts might do—simply getting on a Greyhound bus and travelling from Chicago to Atlanta, or from Detroit to Denver, to find a job. There is no hope of that for the poor, misguided youngsters from Saxony who voted for the Nazi party. Sadly, the problem is not confined to Saxony, or to east Germany, but exists in most of the member countries that are seeking to sign up to the euro.
  It seems that the European Union still lives in its own inflexible and undemocratic world of treaties, lawyers, bureaucrats and high contracting parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the Schuman plan and the extremely authoritarian European Coal and Steel Community. Now we have the Delors plan and the extremely authoritarian European central bank. Nothing much changes in the European Union—except, occasionally, the words.
  502
  However, the world has changed since the 1950s and 1960s, because the world outside is now a global economy, and I do not believe that the inflexibility and rigidities of what will be decided over the weekend fit into that world. I believe that, just as business must be flexible, Governments and constitutions need flexibility, because that is the only way that they can meet the storms that will be created by the global economy in which we live.
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the euro a miss this weekend. I commend them for their wisdom. I hope that their wisdom lasts a long time.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is not usually my habit to question the Chair, but I am surprised that the Chair has decided that it is necessary for the House to hear the voice of the two Conservative parties and the two Labour parties, on this issue of all issues, before they hear the single voice of the Liberal Democrats. If that is to be the pattern of future debates, I wonder whether the seating arrangements should be reorganised, and the Standing Orders of the House rewritten, to account for the fact that there are two Conservative parties, two Labour parties and one united Liberal Democrat party.
  The debate is about something that many hon. Members on both sides of the House said would not happen. The single currency is going to happen; and, in Britain, on an issue dominated to date by philosophical and theoretical arguments, it is about to become a very practical issue at last. Yet the Government have allocated just a couple of hours for the House of Commons to consider economic and monetary union—the biggest issue of economic policy that this country will face in the 20th century—and, in spite of their protests, the Conservative Opposition agreed to it because, as is obvious, the longer they have to speak, the more divisions will be exposed to public view. That is also true of the Government.
  Instead of deciding and preparing, Britain is sleepwalking into its economic future. For the time being, the Government are happy to hide behind their magnificently contrived fudge of "five economic tests"—measures of Britain's readiness to join the single currency which are so elastic that they could stretch to the planet Vulcan and back.
  Preparing for EMU should mean more than simply sending out a few thousand leaflets to businesses every six months. It means taking a decision, securing popular support, preparing the economy to make EMU a success and then shaping monetary union in Britain's interests.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Yes.
  Mr. Bruce: No, unfortunately not—according to the Government's game plan.
  Let us start with the decision itself, and let us be honest about the balance of the argument. No one is suggesting that, on day two of the single currency, we shall all be cleaning our teeth in champagne. There will be up-front costs of introducing the new currency.
  Not many people spend their time travelling through the 15 countries of the EU, changing their money back and forth into different currencies until bank charges

  503
  gobble up 50 per cent. of their cash, and that is not the core issue. However, in the view of the Liberal Democrat party, the long-term gains of joining the single currency will be far greater than the short-term costs.
  A single currency will help our firms to trade, by reducing risks and instability, and membership of the single currency will almost certainly mean lower interest rates in Britain—probably, between 1 and 2 per cent. lower than would otherwise be the case. That is worth, very practically, between £300 and £600 a year to the average mortgage payer; thousands—if not millions—of pounds a year to businesses; and billions of pounds to taxpayers as a result of lower debt charges. The single currency is also likely to bring gains from greater price competition, lower transaction costs and higher inward investment.
  What action should we be taking now to prepare Britain for the single currency? The first move should be an early referendum, in this Parliament, because a change of such magnitude should be made only with the explicit approval of the people, and because, without a clear decision—this is fundamental—no proper planning can be done by business or Government. People will not spend hundreds of billions of pounds to prepare for something that they are not sure will happen, or—if it does—when it will happen.
  Once a referendum has been fought and won, the Government need to promote a series of "docking proposals" to ensure that the single currency can be introduced successfully. The Government's first step must be to comply with the conditions for joining the single currency. Some of those are essentially technical, such as longer terms of appointment for Bank of England officials. However, the most fundamental point is that a period of exchange rate stability is likely to be necessary before an irrevocable locking of exchange rates.
  However, I contend that, once the decision to join is taken, that task would become far easier than it would be now. Markets would immediately bring down United Kingdom interest rates, and sterling would converge towards a likely monetary union joining level. We have had evidence of that in the markets. Therefore, given the political commitment to join, and wide bands of acceptable fluctuation, there is no reason why Britain should have any difficulty in stabilising the pound at an acceptable level before entry.
  Fiscal policy would have to operate in relation to monetary policy in order to converge UK and euro interest rates, so that, at the moment of docking, they were at broadly the same level. That is the convergence which we need to secure. To facilitate that process, the Government should now provide for half-yearly convergence reports, which I suggest should be jointly presented to the Treasury Select Committee by the Treasury and the Bank of England.
  What about our economy within the single currency? Is there enough flexibility within the single currency area to make EMU work effectively? I believe that the fears have been much exaggerated by the critics, who draw attention—I heard one of them shout from the Back Benches—to disparities in unemployment within Europe, and decry the loss of national monetary flexibility. In Britain, however, unemployment rates range from some 0.9 per cent.—in the Wokingham constituency, interestingly—to more than 18 per cent. in inner Birmingham.
  504
  Presumably, the logic of the red-blooded, Euro-sceptic, right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) would lead to different currencies and monetary policies within the United Kingdom. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has moved on from his fantasies about becoming the 51st state of the USA, which seems to be his ambition, and will be pushing for a central bank of Berkshire, which could set an interest rate perfectly attuned to the local economy. That, I fear, is the logic of his position.
  There are actions that we could take to introduce greater flexibility. First, we could make our economy slightly less sensitive to interest rate changes by encouraging a move to fixed-rate mortgages of, let us say, 10 to 15-year duration. Secondly, we need to consider a larger role for fiscal policy as an economic stabiliser—something that has fallen out of fashion as a result of some poor recent economic management and the political fixation about lower taxation. What if we could frame a better fiscal stabiliser, not by taxing people more but by, let us say, varying contribution rates to a compulsory pension scheme, or varying tax reliefs on existing pension schemes?
  Thirdly, we could facilitate labour mobility through pension portability and the mutual recognition of qualifications. Finally, we should be doing more to shape monetary union in our own interests. We should be arguing for more fiscal flexibility for countries with responsible amounts of public debt, such as the UK. We should also press for a European central bank that is more accountable to the people of Europe through the European Parliament.
  While others design and build, as they are doing this weekend, Britain dithers on the touchline. While we delay, we are being left out of key economic decisions that will be taken by the Euro X committee, and ultimately by the central bank. Those decisions will directly affect our domestic rates of interest and exchange rates, but no British representative will have any influence on them.
  If the Government are, in principle, in favour of joining monetary union, are they not aware of the enormous risk of delaying entry and leaving its timetable so vague and imprecise? I suspect that the Chancellor's attempt to build stability at home and win economic influence abroad is undermined by a Prime Minister with his eyes too much on the latest opinion polls and too little on the main chance for Britain. Being a populist Prime Minister certainly makes him popular, but it may also make him duck the leadership decisions that are necessary to bring about the right results for the United Kingdom.
  If the Chancellor wants to secure the economic stability to which he says he is committed, he should knock on his Downing street neighbour's door and insist on reopening the Government's single currency policy immediately.
  The sad fact is that the Government have got themselves into this position by accident. We all know that the Chancellor's preferred position was to take an early decision on entry; but that was unfortunately leaked to the Financial Times, with consequential effects on the markets which clearly demonstrated what the benefits would be. As a result, an embarrassed Government sent Charlie Whelan round to the Red Lion pub with his mobile phone, to have a pint of beer and to spin the argument in the opposite direction. The Chancellor then

  505
  came to the House and gave us his economic tests—and his decision that we would not decide on entry within the lifetime of this Parliament.
  Once monetary union is established, it will become more apparent as each day goes by that Britain's interests demand a decision in this Parliament. A Government who fail to take that decision will have failed the British people and the British national interest.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Roger Casale: We are on the eve of a watershed in post-war European affairs, and there can be no more fitting commemoration of the stunning Labour victory of a year ago than that a Labour Prime Minister should preside over a meeting of the European Heads of State, which will decide which countries will participate in the euro. Those Heads of State will know that our Prime Minister is committed to making the euro a success. There can be no more important decision in Europe today than the decision on which countries will take part in the third stage of monetary union. That decision will be made tomorrow at a meeting presided over, in good faith, by a Labour British Prime Minister.
  The meeting is crucial to the future of Europe because the third stage of monetary union will represent a massive deepening of European integration in advance of a widening of Europe to the east. It is vital to the future of Europe that European monetary union be a success. Monetary union is also important to safeguard the gains from European integration made in the past. The previous Administration were strong advocates of the single market. Surely Conservatives recognise, as we do, that the single currency will underpin the economic gains of the single market.
  Yet by tabling their amendment, the Conservatives seek to scupper the successful launch of the euro. That is why it is important to state in this debate the positive case for the euro and further monetary integration. The countries that want to sign up to EMU are not doing so just because they have passed the convergence test, important though that is. They are doing so because they can see the positive economic gains that will flow from membership of the single currency. If a common market is good for Europe, let us have a common market that is as complete as possible. In that common market we have a common measure of length, the metre, a common measure of weight, the kilo; and we will soon have a common measure of economic value as well. The justification for the euro is as strong as it was for the single market itself. The removal of transaction costs—changing from one European currency to another—will be a major boost to consumers and to the European economy.
  The justification for monetary integration and the euro goes far beyond the narrow though important aim of completing the single market. Since 1969, European leaders have striven to find a system that could bring back some of the stability that was once provided by the Bretton Woods system of exchange rate parities. When that system broke down at the time of the Vietnam war, because it was abandoned by the Americans who had created it and whose dollar was its cornerstone, European leaders looked around for an alternative. That was when the plan for a European currency—the Werner plan—was launched: ironically, at The Hague summit of 1969.
  506
  Over the past 30 years, the search for the stability necessary to make that project a reality has proved elusive. As a result, we have lived through a generation, from the oil crisis onwards, of high inflation, persistently high unemployment and high and rising Government debt. Throughout this period the national economies of Europe have proved themselves incapable of managing major international shocks of this kind on their own. A single monetary policy and currency will help them to do so, and we should wish them well.
  The euro is the essential element in preparing Europe for the rigours, the pressures and the challenges of global competition. Just as my party has had to, the Conservative party should face up to that challenge. The euro represents a unique opportunity to integrate Europe in the global economy, perhaps as the most powerful economic player on the world stage. At a stroke, the establishment of the euro will see off the currency speculators. At a stroke, the euro will challenge the dollar as the international reserve currency. And at a stroke, we shall have shifted the balance of world economic power in favour of Europe. That is why the euro can and must succeed.
  Although economic arguments will be to the fore in tomorrow's discussions, I should emphasise that the implementation of the euro will require political commitment too. It is economically justified, but it will need political commitment to succeed. That commitment has so far been shown to the greatest extent by Germany, which stands ready to give up the independence of the Bundesbank; which action, if carried out, will be the greatest contribution that that country has made to post-war Europe. It will secure Germany's European credentials once and for all. Italy and France may also be able to make such a commitment, and Britain should show the rest of Europe our political commitment to making the euro work, too.
  By creating a single currency, we are not creating a single language, identity, culture, or any of the other spectres feared by some Conservative Members. Indeed, Europe has distinguished itself by its diversity, which will continue. But we will be creating a strong base for continued co-operation in Europe, for lasting peace, and for macro-economic stability. Those may secure for Europe a leading position in the world economy, on which basis I commend the reports to the House.
  6.28 pm
  Sir Michael Spicer: It would be nice to join in the ebb and flow of the debate, but given the scandalous shortage of time that we have for it, I shall confine myself to probing the Government on their exact position on entry to European monetary union. Apparently, the position as restated today is that they want to go in, subject to the economic tests, and subject, presumably, to the Maastricht criteria. However, their position looks increasingly incredible in both respects, and especially so after this debate.
  Let me deal first with the Maastricht criteria by giving the House a flavour of what was said about them when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was questioned by the Select Committee on the Treasury. I shall—perhaps at

  507
  random—pick out the questions that I asked the Chancellor. I asked:
  "When the question comes up at the Council of Ministers on 2 and 3 May as to who should be the members of the first wave of the single currency, will the British Government be taking a strict view or not of the Maastricht criteria on compliance?"
  The Chancellor replied:
  "I think it is important that the Maastricht convergence criteria are looked at very carefully … As I say, I am not going to get in a position of prejudging individual countries or prejudging what might be decided."
  The discussion goes on for a column or so, and then I ask:
  "If they do not meet the criteria, will it be the position of the British Government … that there should be a veto on their accession?"
  The Chancellor replied:
  "It is very important that we look very carefully at these convergence criteria and the reports."
  I continued:
  "I think it is extraordinary that you cannot give us a yes or no."
  He replied:
  "Let us wait and see the figures."
  And so it goes on for another column or so in this rather frustrating way.
  The figures are now available, and we have heard a great deal about them during this debate. They show that Italy and Belgium are missing the criteria by 100 per cent. Contrary to what has been said, there are signs that Italy's deficit is rising rather than falling. Much has been said about falling within the criteria, but that deficit looks as if it is going the other way. The Maastricht criteria do not seem to matter much, at least to the Government.
  Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Michael Spicer: No, I cannot possibly give way at this stage.
  The Maastricht criteria appear not to matter, as we shall see over the weekend. However, I want to put one specific question about the criteria to the Government. It is the same question put by the Treasury Committee in its report: must we go back into the exchange rate mechanism for two years before we decide on whether to apply properly for the single currency?
  Let me now turn to the economic tests which the Government have set themselves for entry to EMU. The principal test is the convergence test. Let me again give the House a flavour of what was asked on that by—again at random—me. I asked the Chancellor:
  "How many cycles do you think we have to wait for before we know whether we are in sync?"
  He replied:
  "I think it could be earlier than that",
  to which I asked:
  "Earlier than what?"
  He said:
  "You were suggesting that somehow we have to wait 20, 30 or 40 years."
  I replied that I had not, saying:
  "I was asking a question … This is a very easy question. If you are trying to get your cycle in sync with somebody else, you must go through at least one cycle to make sure whether you are in sync, surely?"
  508
  He said:
  "I do not accept that."
  So, the Government do not accept that we have to be in sync over a cycle to meet the convergence criteria, but in its report the Treasury Committee was quite tough on the point, saying that it wanted not only convergence criteria but more detail of what could be involved, including mortgages, pension funds and all the factors that make different cycles. The truth is that the gaps in the cycles are widening, which makes one question whether the Government are serious about their economic tests.
  So serious is the question that the Treasury Committee—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) may not like this, but it is a Labour-controlled Committee and some of its members are loyalist members of his party—included the five-year test.
  Mr. Radice indicated dissent.
  Sir Michael Spicer: He said today that he did not like that. I shall check it in Hansard tomorrow, but he said that he thought in retrospect that he should not have included the five-year test. However, that is what is in the report.
  The Committee has stated that there should be at least a five-year period to assess the convergence test. The irony is that just as the Government are apparently backsliding on the economic test, the business community is beginning to wake up to the fact that it could be rather important and that entry to EMU—certainly premature entry—could be very serious indeed for business.
  The European Research Group will publish a paper in several weeks' time, which will be signed by more than 100 chairmen and chief executives of public companies, stating that from an economic point of view, and taking into account the tests, they do not think it is appropriate to join. The main thrust of their arguments is that it will be bad for interest rates, and that because we are not converging as economies, the cycles that we would face would be dominated by the cycle of the German economy, which is the size of those of Britain and France put together. German interest rates would effectively determine our own, and that would not be appropriate to our country.
  Secondly, exchange rates will be inappropriate because exchange rates are properly determined by market conditions, and that is the one thing that will not happen under a single currency.
  Above all, EMU will be bad for taxation in this country. I remind hon. Members who have not had a chance to read our report of the evidence of the Governor of the Bank of England. It said:
  "if structural differences persisted 'you could have difficulty in getting a single monetary policy which is appropriate for the area' … if there was not the pressure to generate flexibility, which would often resolve these tensions, that would give rise to pressure for fiscal transfers, there would be that great political debate … The tensions could take the form of 'pressure for some countries experiencing long-term unemployment and stagnation to have fiscal redistribution on a larger scale and there will be great resistance to that.'"

  509
  That means, in simple language, which the Governor was too polite to use, a massive central taxation system.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Michael Spicer: I cannot; I am sorry.
  Mr. Clarke: He did not say that.
  Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous member of the Committee, obviously has not read the report. The Governor used the words that I have just quoted. The Chairman of the Committee said that political factors matter as well as economic ones. The point is that the economic tests are a condition that have to be met. They are not a sufficient condition as it is, of course, true that political factors will have to be taken into account, but the Government cannot have it both ways: if they set economic tests, they must abide by them, but the inference that must be drawn from what they are doing is that they will not do so. The whole process is a sham and we should oppose it at every points.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I express a minority view, although perhaps not as much of a minority view as people imagine? We should go in, even at this, the 11 th hour and 59th minute, at the first stage. If one knows that one is going to catch a train, is it not wise to catch it at the point of departure rather than run along the line and try to catch up with it once it is in motion?
  I believe it is a historic mistake not to go in at the first opportunity and I end by asking this question: will the Minister give us some inkling about what the price is of not joining?
  6.39 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): This is a very short debate.
  Mr. Jones rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must sit down when I am speaking. It had better be a point of order, because I shall be very cross if it is not.
  Mr. Jones: I need to raise this point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some parties whose members wish to contribute have not been represented in the debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will please be seated. That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Linlithgow had clearly intended to make a fuller speech:
  510
  the brevity of his remarks illustrates the fact that this debate is too short. Many of my hon. Friends also wanted to contribute to potentially one of the most important debates that will take place during this Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow used the usual metaphor of trains leaving stations. The Opposition always like to know where the train is going before we board it. It has been clear throughout the debate, and throughout our contemplation of this subject, that although the Government are committed in principle to relinquishing the national currency, they have no clear idea why they are doing so or on what terms they should do it.
  It is clear beyond doubt that, this weekend, the European Union will embark irrevocably on economic and monetary union, which is an event that, in some ways, is more far-reaching than the founding of the Common Market. It is without historical precedent: it is unknown for monetary union to go ahead before the achievement of political union. Consequently, huge risks are involved. At least in the early years, there will not be the centralised organs of a European Government—a federal budget and so on—that are needed to run a currency. Therefore, it has always been recognised that, at the very least, participating member states must first achieve a high degree of economic convergence, including a harmonised level of Government debt and deficit.
  That was written into the treaty during the Maastricht negotiations in 1991. The provisions are binding on all member states, and treaty law ranks ahead of national law. Therefore, it is common ground in all member states, in all institutions of the European Union, and, I think, in the House, that this hugely ambitious project can work only if the treaty provisions are applied strictly, literally and completely. If they are not, damage will be done not just to countries in the euro zone but to neighbouring countries such as Britain. Presumably, that is why, on 5 January this year, the Prime Minister said:
  "We have got to apply the rules absolutely scrupulously".
  We agree. My hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) and all parties in the House agree with that. Our question is: why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer colluding in a fudged and fiddled treatment of those entry criteria? The answer is that EMU is viewed elsewhere as being primarily a political project. The economic facts have been made to fit the political case, so questions of deficits and interest rates are somehow secondary. The European Commission, which should be the guardian of the treaty, is a committed party to monetary union. It is an advocate of monetary union; it is not neutral. Therefore, the presidency of the European Union—which is Britain for this half-year—must enforce the rules "scrupulously", to use the Prime Minister's phrase. If we do not, damage will result not just in the European Union generally but in this country specifically.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I am sorry, but there is too little time.
  How can the rules be applied scrupulously when two countries have more than twice the permitted level of debt? How can the Italian debt level of 122 per cent.

  511
  be judged to be "sufficiently diminishing"—to use the language in the treaty—when it has increased since the 1991 Maastricht terms were agreed? How can it be sufficiently diminishing when, according to the Italian Government's own highly optimistic forecasts, it will take another 20 years to reach the permitted level? The Chancellor did not answer when we asked him about that. Perhaps he genuinely has not worked out the terms of his fudge: perhaps he does not know how he will square the circle on that one this weekend.
  Hon. Members have described many other one-off accounting fixes that were specifically ruled out in the treaty. At the Dublin summit in December 1996, the supreme decision-making body of the European Union said:
  "It is equally important that … government financial positions in particular are sustainable and not affected by measures of temporary effect."
  Yet France just squeaked in to the 3 per cent. permitted deficit level via a one-off accounting fiddle whereby it took 37 billion francs from France Telecom last year. That is outlawed under the terms of the Dublin summit, but France has done it and there is not a squeak of criticism from the chairman of the committee that is to make the momentous decisions.
  This Government have failed politically—and it is not just the European Union that will suffer. Member states collectively, but particularly the committee presidency, must ensure that the treaty language is applied strictly. The German Government have desperately sought additional commitments from member states. At last week's ECOFIN, Mr. Waigel, the German Finance Minister, desperately launched a new draft declaration on budgetary consolidation. It is a last-minute fix, but at least the Germans are trying. What is the Chancellor doing to help? Why must it be left to the Germans to try to salvage something from the wreckage of the treaty provisions?
  The Chancellor has five tests that he will apply to the United Kingdom to help him decide whether we should join monetary union in due course. The Treasury Committee criticised those tests as being unclear and subjective. It asked why the Chancellor applied those tests to this country as a reason for keeping us out, when they are a reason for letting everyone else in. The Chancellor is breaking his own entry criteria tests as well as the treaty rules. The muddle and incompetence are made worse by the Government's failure to resolve the dispute about who should be president of the European central bank. That issue has been drifting on for months and it is doing great damage to the perception of the euro in world markets, because no one knows what the bank's future monetary policy will be.
  The Treasury Committee observed that damage would be caused to this country by an unstable and weak euro. That is already happening. Sterling is a currency of refuge. Markets do not like what is happening on the continent—they do not like the fudging and the fiddling—so they are buying sterling. The strength of sterling is already causing unnecessary damage to manufacturing industry, farming and the exporting industries, as revealed by the yawning trade gap. The Government are responsible because they will chair the crucial meetings this weekend. Instead of serving the interests of member states, they are betraying them by colluding in a policy that puts political expediency before economic facts. Europe and the British economy will pay a heavy price for that.
  6.48 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): This has been an interesting debate. It started with a degree of manic passion across the House, which quickly became manic depression when the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rose to speak. We had a lesson in leadership from the Liberal Democrats, which was amusing in itself. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) then read out his speech to the Treasury Committee, which gives a new meaning to the phrase "vanity publishing". We should be grateful that at least he did not try to mimic the voices of those present at the time.
  We are on the eve of a significant moment for Europe. This weekend, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will chair key meetings to decide which countries should join the single currency on 1 January 1999. This year—one year on from the general election—a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Labour Prime Minister are respected and admired, as distinct from their Conservative predecessors, by our partners in Europe. We all remember the shame that this country experienced because of the Conservative Government's performance.
  Let me reiterate that the UK Government believe that a successful single currency would be in the interests of Europe and of Great Britain.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: I have no intention of giving way. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) did not give way to my hon. Friends, and a number of points were made in the debate which I wish to answer.
  The Government believe that a successful single currency will lock in monetary and fiscal stability, and provide a competitive boost to European business. The rest of Europe now knows that the UK Government share the objective of a successful single currency. We are the first United Kingdom Government to declare themselves in favour of the principle of a single currency. We look to the future because we do not have to keep looking over our shoulders to see what is happening on the divided Benches behind us.
  May I take up some of the points made in the course of this debate? The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) eventually made a rather petulant speech. I must point out to him that we shall not join in the first wave because our economy has neither the necessary convergence with the rest of Europe nor the necessary flexibility for it to be in our economic interest to do so. We want the single currency to succeed. For the British Government to enter a single currency when we believe that it would not be in our interests would damage the single currency. We shall take decisions based on the best interests of the UK economy.
  The official Opposition have already made it perfectly clear that, even if it were in Britain's national economic interest, they would not join a single currency. Would that be for five, 10 or 60 years? Their ideological or theological differences matter more to Conservative Members than Britain's national economic interests.
  We heard a considerable amount about Italy, although we did not hear quite as much about what Opposition Members think about Britain's position in relation to a single currency. I want to look specifically at the position of Italy. The treaty is clearly not hard and fast.

  513
  Conservative Members should be well aware of that, as it was they who signed it. The treaty makes it clear that the debt level, which is part of the excessive deficit position, is open to interpretation, and it has been rightly interpreted in the past. When the Conservatives were in government in 1994, ECOFIN, which included the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), decided that Ireland did not have an excessive deficit when its debt stood at 96 per cent. In 1996, the Council reached the same conclusion about Denmark when its deficit stood at 72 per cent., so some consistency from Conservative Members would have been appreciated.
  I reiterate the point in relation to Italy: the deficit over the past four years has been much smaller, at only three points, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out. The Italian Government's draft budget was announced earlier this month and is currently being debated before the Italian Parliament. It makes it clear that the Italians are aiming to bring the debt ratio down by 3 per cent. a year over the next four years. Those figures must be put into context. Italy has been running a primary surplus since the early 1990s and its overall deficit is forecast to remain on a declining trend, below 3 per cent., with a current account surplus.
  I wish to make an extremely important point: we must make clear the significance of sustaining debt reduction for all EU member states, but especially those with high debts. That fits in very much with UK domestic policy, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that we are working with other member states towards a declaration that re-commits European countries to continued fiscal discipline through the stability and growth pacts.
  As well as the criteria that we shall discuss this weekend, it is of critical importance to the success of the single currency that there is structural reform. EMU will require economic reform, and this Labour Government have led the debate in Europe on that. Attention to the supply side will determine the employment and productive capacity of Europe's economies. It is only by undertaking reform that we can ensure that EMU works and is in our national interest.
  The hon. Member for West Worcestershire asked about the exchange rate mechanism. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that we have no intention of rejoining the exchange rate mechanism.
  Sir Michael Spicer: You have to.
  Mrs. Liddell: It is perfectly clear from the European Monetary Institute reports published in relation to EMU that we do not have to. Finland and Italy are two cases in point. The exchange rate conditions can be interpreted flexibly. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, because I know of his interest in these matters, that ERM will become a different beast after the establishment of a single currency zone. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said time and again: we do not intend to rejoin the ERM.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Lady confirm that she disagrees with the Treasury Committee report, which says:
  "the Commission and EMI reports indicated that Sweden was not considered to have met the criterion because it had not participated in the ERM at all."?
  514
  If Sweden is excluded on that ground—otherwise it would have been forced by law to join—why would we be allowed to join, as we did not voluntarily join the ERM?
  Mrs. Liddell: I regret having given way to the right hon. Gentleman. I did so because of his position in the House. He should read the EMI report, because he has quoted selectively. The decision on Sweden relates to the position of its central bank.
  May I return to the substantive points that hon. Members made in the debate? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the cost of not joining a single currency. That question goes to the heart of this debate. The cost of not joining is being out of sync with the rest of Europe, and cutting ourselves off from the global opportunities that will be available to us, from the removal of transaction costs and from an opportunity to work in concert with our European partners. That is why the Government have said that if it is in Britain's economic interests to join a single currency, we see no barrier to our doing so.
  However, it would not be right to join in the lifetime of this Parliament, to a large extent because of the position that we inherited from the previous Government. Conservative Members try hard to pretend that the events of last year did not happen, but one of the most illuminating factors that the Government experienced on 2, 3 and 4 May was to see the fudges of the previous Government and the extent to which they were prepared to play politics rather than take into account the nation's interests.
  The British Government have an opportunity tomorrow, as we have had over the past year, to enable member states to maximise their potential for the benefit of every European citizen. We have won the respect of the other member states, which is particularly important given the shameful behaviour of the previous Government. I am proud that tomorrow and on Saturday I shall see these momentous decisions being taken. I am also proud to be part of a Government who are enabling this country to prepare for entry into EMU and who will decide when it is in Britain's national economic interest to join.
  I urge the House to support the motion and to wish the Chancellor and the Prime Minister well at the summit over the weekend.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 287.

  Division No. 265]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cash, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bercow, John

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clappison, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Brady, Graham

  Collins, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Colvin, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  515

  Cran, James

  MacKay, Andrew

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Madel, Sir David

  Day, Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Faber, David

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Prior, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Randall, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Robathan, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Green, Damian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  Horam, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Townend, John

  Johnson Smith,

  Tredinnick, David

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trend, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Tyrie, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Viggers, Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Walter, Robert

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wardle, Charles

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Wilshire, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Yeo, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. John Whittingdale.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blackman, Liz

  Allan, Richard

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brake, Tom

  Banks, Tony

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Barnes, Harry

  Breed, Colin

  Battle, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Bennett, Andrew F

  (Dunfermline E)

  Benton, Joe

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  516

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Burden, Richard

  Hancock, Mike

  Burgon, Colin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Burstow, Paul

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hinchliffe, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, Jamie

  Home Robertson, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Caton, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Chaytor, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Chidgey, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Corbett, Robin

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cotter, Brian

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Cox, Tom

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cummings, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kidney, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Denham, John

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Drew, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Livingstone, Ken

  Etherington, Bill

  Livsey, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lock, David

  Field Rt Hon Frank

  Love Andrew

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Follett, Barbara

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McDonnell, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McIsaac, Shona

  Galloway, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNulty, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McWilliam, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mallaber, Judy

  Goldings, Mrs Llin

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gorrie, Donald

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  517

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Mitchell, Austin

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moore, Michael

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

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Oaten, Mark

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pickthall, Colin

  (Dewsbury)

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Timms, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Touhig, Don

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Truswell, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Radice, Giles

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rammell, Bill

  Tyler, Paul

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rendel, David

  Wallace, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Webb, Steve

  Rooker, Jeff

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Roy, Frank

  (Swansea W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winnick, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wise, Audrey

  Sawford, Phil

  Wood, Mike

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wray, James

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 35.

  Division No. 266]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Borrow, David

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Banks, Tony

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Barnes, Harry

  (Dunfermline E)

  Benton, Joe

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Browne, Desmond

  518

  Burgon, Colin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Kidney, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Cann, Jamie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Casale, Roger

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Caton, Martin

  Laxton, Bob

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Lepper, David

  Church, Ms Judith

  Levitt, Tom

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Clelland, David

  Love, Andrew

  Clwyd, Ann

  McAllion, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  McCabe, Steve

  Coleman, Iain

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Cooper, Yvette

  McDonnell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Cox, Tom

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Cranston, Ross

  McNamara, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  McWalter, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Denham, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Dobbin, Jim

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Doran, Frank

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Drew, David

  Michael, Alun

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeldy)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Etherington, Bill

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mudie, George

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Flynn, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Follett, Barbara

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Olner, Bill

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Gardiner, Barry

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Gerrard, Neil

  Pickthall, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Pike, Peter L

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Plaskitt, James

  Godsiff, Roger

  Pollard, Kerry

  Griffiths, Jane (Readings E)

  Pope, Greg

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Pound, Stephen

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Hoey, Kate

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Radice, Giles

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Rammell, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Hurst, Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hutton, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Roy, Frank

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Sawford, Phil

  Jamieson, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Skinner, Dennis

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  519

  Spellar, John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Watts, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wise, Audrey

  (Dewsbury)

  Wood, Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wray, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Brake, Tom

  Keetch, Paul

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Breed, Colin

  KirKwood, Archy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Livsey, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Moore, Michael

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Oaten, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Rendel, David

  Chidgey, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cotter, Brian

  Salmond, Alex

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

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

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hancock, Mike

  Tyler, Paul

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Wallace, James

  Harvey, Nick

  Webb, Steve

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Mr. Adrian Sanders.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7161/98 and 7188/98 consisting of reports from the European Monetary Institute and European Commission in accordance with Article 109j of the Treaty.

  Scotland Bill (Programme)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Order [13th January] relating to Scotland Bill (Programme) be further amended—

  (a) in paragraph 2, by leaving out 'at Ten o'clock' and inserting 'six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill';

  (b) by inserting, after paragraph 2,—

  '2A. On each such allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the bill for any part of the period of six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock';
  and
  (c) in paragraph 4, by inserting after sub-paragraph (3)—
  '(3A) If, on consideration, two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or motions'.—[Mr. Betts.]
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I cannot help but notice that we are being given a guaranteed extra six and a half hours on the Scotland Bill programme, whereas this afternoon we thought that we would have three and a half hours to debate the vitally important issue of economic and monetary union, but had barely two hours for our debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am going keep the debate tight: the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about EMU, but can talk only about the programme motion.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I was not intending to talk about EMU, but was merely drawing the contrast between the amount of time that we had to debate that vital issue and the amount of guaranteed time being given to debate the Scotland Bill, when we have already had so many days in Committee on that Bill. Before we approve the motion, we should consider whether those hours should be devoted to Scotland, instead of to issues that affect the whole country.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I understood that it was the Conservatives' position to want more time devoted to debating the Scotland Bill. There seems to be a division opening up between the Tory Back Benchers and those left on the Tory Front Bench.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I have done some research: I went to the Library and asked for figures on how long the House normally debates Bills. For the last Session for which there is information—the last Session of the previous Parliament—there were 32 Bills, and a total of 227 hours were spent considering those Bills on the Floor of the House, giving an average of about seven hours in total spent on each Bill. The Committee stages of the two constitutional Bills of this Session are taking more than 100 hours of debate on the Floor of the House. It is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to debate this

  521
  evening whether it is right that we should devote a guaranteed extra six and a half hours to one of those constitutional Bills.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend make it clear during his speech whether he welcomes the extension of time in principle, whether he is unhappy with what has brought it about and whether he feels that it should be more widely applied in other circumstances? That would help those of us who want to participate in the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is not going to talk about any wider applications; he will confine his remarks to the motion before the House.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would lead me down dangerous paths if I were to let him, and it is not my intention to do so.
  It is worth considering why we need the extra six and a half hours of debate and, in the absence of any statement from the Leader of the House in proposing the motion, I can only divine that one of the reasons is to make sure that we have a six-and-a-half-hour debate on the West Lothian question.
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Would the hon. Gentleman care to correct the impression that he has given? I am sure that he has read extremely carefully both tonight's motion and the order that it would amend. He would be misleading the House were he to suggest that we propose an extra six and a half hours.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I have the original motion of 13 January in front of me. As a new Member, I find some of the rules and regulations a little hard to follow and, if that is what has happened, I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; however, as I understand it, the motion before us guarantees periods of six and a half hours when they might not otherwise be available. I have given the example of this afternoon, when we thought that we would have a three-and-a-half-hour debate on an issue of national importance, but the time available was cut. My understanding of the motion, in the absence of further clarification from the right hon. Lady, is that, from the time we start on the Scottish issue, we shall have an absolutely guaranteed six and a half hours for debate.
  The question is, should we allow that? I have read the rules and the proposals carefully and there is nothing on the face of the motion or in the order of 13 January to suggest for one moment that what we shall be discussing in that six and a half hours is the West Lothian question.
  Mr. Salmond: May I offer another explanation for the allocation of six and a half hours? Might it be because some hon. Members are talking for too long about very little indeed?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: That is often the case—the hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point, and it is one that I hope he will bear in mind when he rises to speak in future.
  522
  It is critical that we have a statement. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to intervene again, to assure us that the substantive purpose of the amendment to the order is to ensure that we have a debate on the West Lothian question. If that is the purpose, I would welcome it, albeit conditionally, and I would be prepared to support the motion, because the West Lothian question is of great importance to this country. However, if we are being guaranteed six and a half hours for a debate on that issue—one of constitutional importance, which goes to the heart of the Scotland Bill—it is fair to ask ourselves why we are not being guaranteed similar periods of time to consider the other vital issues that are being brought before the House in rapid succession by the new Government.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Is six and a half hours long enough? The West Lothian question is the same as what used to be called the Irish question, on which, under the Gladstone Government, the House spent weeks. Under the previous Labour Government, the House spent days on the West Lothian question, but we now have six and a half hours in which to consider a matter that is pertinent to the future of the United Kingdom. Is that satisfactory?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. If so much time had not been spent in Committee on the Floor of the House considering the minutiae of the Scotland Bill, we could have had many hours in which to debate this vital constitutional issue. It is extraordinary that so much time has been spent debating the Bill when the so-called West Lothian question has not been considered, especially as consideration of that question could determine whether hon. Members continue to support the Bill.
  Mr. Salmond: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present, so I should tell him that the West Lothian question was indeed discussed at two sittings when the Bill was considered in Committee.
  Mr. Leigh: Very briefly.
  Mr. Salmond: Not that briefly. At any rate, the question has been considered—perhaps the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) will accept the correction.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful for that minor correction, but my substantive point still holds. I should have thought that Scottish National party Members, as well as Conservative Members, would have been keen at the outset to deal with the most substantive issue relating to the Scotland Bill and its consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. The reason why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does not care about the West Lothian question is that it has an impact on England—the attitude is, "I'm all right, Jock." We have a problem with Scottish Members if that is their attitude and if they are not prepared to consider the Bill's impact on the people of England.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the merits of the Bill, but we are not considering the Bill's merits—we are considering the Scotland Bill programme.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am again grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask one further question, which I think will

  523
  have some impact on how hon. Members vote on the motion. Who will be involved in the debate? Will the Prime Minister—who was educated in Scotland and now claims to represent the whole United Kingdom—come to the Dispatch Box during the six-and-a-half-hour debate to explain his position on the West Lothian question?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the matter before us.
  7.32 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I had thought that the motion was sufficiently self-explanatory not to need much of an introduction. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is new to the House, so he may not fully have understood the procedure. As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the motion is narrow and specific.
  For the benefit of those who have not fully kept up to date with what is happening in the House, I should give some background to the original motion. On Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, the House agreed, without a Division—I think that my memory is correct—that there should be a programme motion. The programme motion is a new procedure recommended by the Modernisation Committee to facilitate the pacing of debates, so that all parts of a Bill can be debated, which is not always what happens when we follow the alternative method of allocating time—a guillotine motion.
  Conservative Members may care to reflect on the fact that that programme motion was tabled not only in my name, but in the names of the shadow Leader of the House, of the Liberal Democrat spokesman and of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). There was cross-party agreement on how the Bill should be handled.
  The motion is narrow and details some aspects of how that agreement should be carried out in practice. As I had to tell the hon. Member for Guildford, it does not allow for an extra six and a half hours. Programme motions are experimental—the Modernisation Committee recommended that the House should try that new way of working. As we have said, we shall learn as we go on and ensure that the system works as well as possible.
  Programme motions involve the establishment of a Business Committee, to work out how best to deal with the pacing of debates. An issue that has arisen on one or two occasions when a Bill has been programmed is whether—when debate is curtailed because of a statement or, indeed, because the Opposition have tabled a private notice question, as they did today—there should be injury time for the time that is lost. The motion simply ensures that, if time is taken because of a statement—we do not intend to have statements on these days, but something might crop up that requires one to be made—or because of a private notice question that is accepted by Madam Speaker, the time for consideration of the Scotland Bill will be protected. The motion provides for injury time, which I believe is for the convenience of the House.
  That approach was agreed through the usual channels. If Conservative Back Benchers have any problems with that, or with other matters that are not as relevant, they should have consulted Conservative Front Benchers.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: As an example to everyone else, I shall be very brief. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has complained at length about a request that was made jointly by the parties, including the Conservative party. Some would argue that he has taken up the time of the House unnecessarily in making such a complaint, but I do not take that view, as I have been wondering about Conservative Back Benchers' fascination with the six and a half hours. It came to me in a blinding flash that the reason why Conservative Back Benchers are fascinated with the figure of six and a half is that that is exactly the opinion poll rating of the Tory party as reported in yesterday's Daily Record.
  In the unlikely event that the contribution of the hon. Member for Guildford is broadcast in Scotland, many people may think that 6.5 per cent. is too high a rating for the Conservatives, given their attitude to the Bill and to Scottish matters in general.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I welcome the motion, although I regret the fact that the Leader of the House did not see fit to open the debate to explain the nature of the proposal. It is all very well for her to say that the motion is self-explanatory, but has the House of Commons fallen so low that hon. Members are now expected simply to glance at an item of business on the Order Paper—business for which debate is allowed until 10 pm, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and say, without even the courtesy of an explanation from the Leader of the House, "Well, that's all right then"?
  Admittedly, the right hon. Lady has—in response to the initiation of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), which I welcome—given some explanation of what is on the Order Paper. However, her explanation seemed largely to consist of her saying that, because something called the usual channels have agreed on something, it must be all right. I do not share that view. The usual channels, whatever they are, may have a key role to play, but I hope that hon. Members can have a look-in occasionally, too.
  The right hon. Lady seems surprised that Conservative Members want to participate in the debate. The fact that a number of hon. Members want to do so may be old-fashioned, for all I know. Perhaps I have not caught up with the modernisation of the House, or perhaps modernisation means that we should no longer bother to participate in debates.
  I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a stout defender of the House and of Back Benchers' rights, would want to encourage us to debate the motion. You would not expect hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends, who are widely involved in the business of the House, simply to accept that because an unexplained item is on the Order Paper, and because something called the usual channels have agreed to it, it must necessarily be all right. We want to spend just a little time this evening exploring the implications of the motion. The right hon. Lady has been at great pains to say that there is no extra time available—as if extra time was some sort of crime; as if the Government were ashamed of any concession over time.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for him, which has

  525
  lasted for many years. We have crossed swords on education matters on many occasions. It is always a joy to listen to him and a pleasure to look at his colourful appearance. Therefore, I am happy to spend time doing that this evening. However, I would hate him to be under any misapprehension about what I was saying. We shall give extra time if it is necessary. This is a pragmatic motion—it is about injury time, not extra time. It might be a fine distinction, but the motion is intended simply to ensure that if there is a statement or a private notice question, time will not be lost. I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's support, but I would not like him inadvertently to mislead people about the motion.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Indeed, she is demonstrating the point of the debate. I said something that inadvertently has given the wrong impression, and the right hon. Lady has kindly and courteously corrected me. That is the point of the debate. Already, we understand more than we did a short time ago about the nature of the motion and what lies behind it. We are trying to obtain just that sort of clarification.
  I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees that she may be setting an important precedent in the light of what happened today. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that we must not discuss that, but it must be at the back of our minds, because an important debate was squeezed out by a combination of parliamentary events. We are now being assured, which I welcome, that there will be a fresh approach to these matters, as exemplified in the programme motion. It will allow the House to deal with PNQs and other genuinely urgent matters secure in the knowledge that injury time is safeguarded for the important debate that will follow. That is what is important about the motion. I hope that when the right hon. Lady replies to this short debate—
  Mr. Leigh: If what my right hon. Friend proposes is accepted by the House, hon. Members may be secure in the knowledge of the length of time of a debate, but they may be insecure in the knowledge of when a vote might take place. As most new Labour Members of Parliament seem to be more interested in votes than in taking part in debates, they may not view my right hon. Friend's proposal with satisfaction.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but we shall never know the answer, because there are hardly any Labour Members in the Chamber. Indeed, there is only one Back Bencher, the distinguished hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray). I await his contribution with eager anticipation. He may want to take this opportunity to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I cannot answer on behalf of Labour Members of Parliament, and I would not want to do so. Nevertheless, it is an interesting point. Perhaps the Leader of the House will speak on behalf of the Labour party when she replies to the debate.
  I have one important reservation about the motion, which arises from the fact that the right hon. Lady—if I heard her correctly—said that if we agreed the motion tonight, some mysterious Committee would meet next week to decide what would be debated during the
  526
  allocation of time. That is both good and bad news. The bad news is that we are expected to vote on the motion without knowing to what use the allocation of time will be put—
  Mrs. Taylor: I intervene in the hope that I may clarify the issue and, perhaps, jog the right hon. Gentleman's memory. He referred to a mysterious Committee. I remember when he and I served on an education Bill, which was the subject of a guillotine, and he was a member of the Business Committee at that time. I may be wrong—it may have been one of his colleagues. However, Business Committees are no new process. They are not mysterious. As a former Minister, he probably knows that; he just needs to probe the recesses of his mind.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Lady. Perhaps, in the spirit of modernisation and openness, she would agree to cameras being allowed into the Committee to witness its proceedings, so that we can all share in the debate. I leave that thought with her.
  I welcome the fact that the debate this evening could, if it was what hon. Members wanted—
  Mr. James Wallace: As a member of the mysterious Business Committee, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the views of his party are well represented by the Conservative Members who serve on that Committee. The first day of the Report stage will deal almost entirely with new clause 1, which relates to the important West Lothian question. That is a sign of how sensitive the Business Committee is to the need of the Conservative party to express itself.
  Mr. Forth: I am mystified. How does the hon. and learned Gentleman know what the Committee will decide? Are we not getting a little ahead of ourselves? I thought that the Leader of the House said that following this debate—
  Mrs. Taylor: I said that following the programme motion that we passed some time ago, a Business Committee was established. That Committee has been sitting and has dealt with all of the Committee stage of the Bill. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to follow the proceedings, to which he did not object.
  Mr. Forth: We now know that the Business Committee will not pay any attention to tonight's debate. I had intended to welcome the fact that that mysterious Committee might pay some attention to what has been said tonight and respect the views of those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to be present. It now appears that the Committee works in isolation and will pay no attention to what has been said. Indeed, it may already have made its decision.
  Mrs. Taylor: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is misleading himself about the motion. It has nothing to do with the subjects that will be debated during the remaining time on the Scotland Bill; it is simply about the time that is allocated and the fact that there will be injury time. The House has already agreed—and the right hon. Gentleman has already agreed—that the Business Committee should deal with the question of the subjects to be debated.

  527
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot follow these procedures. Obviously, he has not read the Order Paper on the days when we have debated devolution. Had he done so, he would have seen everything set out on each day. Members of all parties serve on the Business Committee and they decide how much of the time that the House allocates is then allocated to each subject. This motion is about how much time the House allocates. We are talking only about injury time.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for trying to clarify the matter, but she has not totally succeeded. I am not certain whether the Business Committee has already met and decided the subjects to be debated—even though we are now being asked to provide injury time and the Committee has not been able to take account of that—or whether the Committee has yet to meet and make a decision on the subject matters for debate, following the decision that the House may make tonight.
  Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman should know that the Business Committee met regularly during the Committee stage of the Bill and used a timetable which generally, if not entirely, satisfied all sections of the House. He may recall that the first day of Report stage was due last week, but because of the important emergency business relating to Northern Ireland, it was postponed to this coming week.
  Although the Business Committee has not yet met to discuss the Bill's Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman will well know that, through the usual channels, hon. Members have indicated to members of the Business Committee that Conservative Members wish to have a full day's debate on the West Lothian question. It will be a matter for the Business Committee to affirm or not to affirm such a debate. Nevertheless, Conservative Members have expressed strong views on the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that Conservative Members do not want such a debate and that they would like to make even more progress on the Bill, I am sure that the Business Committee will consider that view, which is unlike the view expressed in informal discussions by his representatives on the Business Committee.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has now clarified the matter to my satisfaction. He implied earlier that the decision had been made, but he is now telling us that it has not been made. I welcome that statement, which suggests that if Conservative Members would like to say in this brief debate how they think the Business Committee should make its decision, they will have an opportunity to do so. I do not want to do that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have already dealt with the Business Committee, and I should have stopped further mention of it earlier. As the Leader of the House said, the Business Committee was established under a previous order, and we are debating only the motion on today's Order Paper.
  Mr. Forth: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for your guidance, and shall endeavour to adhere to it.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: For some hon. Members, the question whether the West Lothian question will be debated for six and a half hours is germane to deciding whether we support the motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me or for the House, as we are debating a programme motion. The hon. Gentleman will have to speak with Opposition Front Benchers, to determine whether that matter is included in the programme. We cannot have any assurances on that matter in this debate.
  Mr. Forth: I shall bring my remarks to an end. However, I hope that this debate has made an important point—that such motions are legitimate matters for debate and should not be nodded through simply because the great and the good have decided or predisposed of them. We have achieved in the debate some clarification of the background of the matter and of the reasoning behind it. We have also drawn out—albeit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your great patience and understanding—the nature and existence of one of the Committees that guide our lives and destinies. The exercise has therefore been useful.
  I can therefore support the motion on the Order Paper. I also hope that, on future occasions, we can have such debates and clarifications. I very much welcome the interventions by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and by the Leader of the House. They have given us ordinary mortals in the background just a glimpse into the corridors of power.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The House should be extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) for taking this opportunity to clarify an important issue.
  It is disappointing to us all that the Leader of the House did not seize the opportunity at the start of this debate to advise us of the intention behind the motion. Had she done so at the beginning of the debate, rather than in a few interventions in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—who was very forgiving in allowing her to intervene—we would have been able earlier to establish the truth, even if we are still unclear about the precise difference between injury time and extra time. I tell the right hon. Lady—in case she should seek to misrepresent me—that, although I realise that there is injury time and extra time in football matches, both provisions result in the game continuing rather longer than it might otherwise have done. However, that is perhaps a slightly semantic point.
  Although the point dealt with in this debate may be narrow, it is one of principle. The Leader of the House said that the motion arises partly from the proceedings of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, and that it has been agreed—in mysterious conversations through the usual channels—that the programme for the Scotland Bill will be adjusted to provide a guaranteed six and a half hours of debate on each day of the Bill's Report stage, which I welcome.

  529
  I am sure that Conservative Members in the Chamber will welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to change the timetable on that important Bill.
  This debate is a good example of why we need the type of change in programme heralded by the motion. I know that you ruled that some matters mentioned earlier in the debate should not have been so mentioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, today's debate on economic and monetary union was similar to our debates during the Scotland Bill's Committee stage, in that proper time was not allowed to debate a matter of grave importance to the future of these islands. I argue that the people of Britain and hon. Members were not given—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about an earlier debate. If he is concerned about that debate, he can express those concerns at another time. He must speak to the Scotland Bill programme.
  Mr. Howarth: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance, and understand the point that you are making. I am trying to make the point that there are good grounds for the Leader of the House to table the motion. I hope that she will consider extending the principle underlying the motion to other matters, so that our debates on other important issues will not be truncated within the narrow confines of a 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock motion.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—who has now disappeared—came into the Chamber only to make a quick comic point. Perhaps that shows his party's—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House says that that is a good point. She is right to think that it is a good point for the Conservative party[Interruption.]—but she should be absolutely clear about the fact that, in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Labour party will be defeated at the hands of the separatists.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the business before us. He must not do that.
  Mr. Howarth: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend, like almost everyone who has spoken in this debate, seems to accept that the motion is a good thing. There seems to be a consensus that all those Bills should be guillotined, and that all those meetings are frightfully cosy, when everything is agreed. I do not accept that. I return to my original point, which I made in an intervention on—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion deals not with a guillotine but with varying the programme. The hon. Gentleman is therefore misinformed, but will perhaps know when to comment on that matter. I tell the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that we cannot have repetition of earlier speeches.
  Mr. Howarth: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to repeat verbatim points made by my hon. Friends, but I intend to repeat some of the arguments, which are
  530
  forceful. We are faced with this motion today simply because, on 4 March 1998—I am sure that the Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong—in dealing with the West Lothian question in our debate on the Scotland Bill, we had precisely 50 minutes—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow that matter to be raised in a debate on a very specific motion. The hon. Gentleman cannot deal with earlier debates. As I said, the West Lothian question has nothing to do with the matter before us. We are debating a programme, and nothing else.
  Mr. Howarth: I entirely accept that, but the motion suggests that we change our procedures in respect of a particular Bill in order to ensure that the debate continues for six and a half hours.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a good thing for the Deputy Speaker to be on his feet all the time. The motion is to vary the programme, not to change procedure.
  Mr. Howarth: I apologise for the fact that you are on your feet once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am quite sure that you will appreciate the exercise. You do a very sedentary job and, if I can assist in giving you some exercise, that must be a good thing.
  The motion may not vary procedure, but it seeks to vary the programme. In welcoming it, is it not reasonable to allude to why it has come about? We are not debating the motion in a vacuum. It has not alighted on the House from the ether. It has resulted from a specific problem that arose in Committee. I shall not repeat it, as you have asked me not to, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said that he did not think that six and a half hours would be long enough, and I agree. In welcoming the motion, I believe that the Leader of the House responded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when, on 4 March, he referred to the utter unacceptability of the fact that the time permitted to discuss perhaps the most crucial and central part of the Bill had been limited to 50 minutes. Therefore, I welcome the fact that we are to have six and a half hours of guaranteed debate.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough that the issue is so important that six and a half hours is not long enough to debate it. I understand that the usual channels have agreed on the motion, but the issue is of such fundamental importance to the United Kingdom that it deserves more time. Perhaps the Leader of the House will consider giving us even longer to debate it. Given what my hon. Friend said about the Irish question in the last century and previous debates on devolution under former Labour Governments, it is right and proper that we should devote more time to it. I invite the Leader of the House to listen to the representations that have been made and perhaps to go back to the usual channels and seek to extend the debate beyond six and a half hours.
  8.2 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: When I first had the idea of making a brief contribution to the debate, I was under the impression that what was proposed in the motion was a thoroughly good thing. Indeed, I was on the point of congratulating the usual channels and welcoming the fact that, apparently, the Government had listened to representations from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen about varying the programme. However, as a result of some of the speeches by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have become somewhat more concerned.
  As you have pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not in danger of varying the procedures; but we are in danger of setting a precedent. I should like to know—I invite the Leader of the House to intervene and enlighten me—on what basis such variations are made in respect of the Bill and, potentially, in future.
  Sir Robert Smith: We had already done that when previous debates on the Scotland Bill continued after 10 o'clock to take account of earlier business that had disrupted the proceedings.
  Dr. Lewis: Yes, but, with respect, the hon. Gentleman is not taking full account of the fact that, as the Leader of the House pointed out, we are talking about a fairly new process—injury time—when, in effect, the clock is stopped if there is a ministerial statement or a private notice question such as we had this afternoon.
  I am worried by the fact that the Leader of the House said earlier that it was an emanation of the lucubrations of the Modernisation Committee. We are all aware that the Modernisation Committee is engaged in a number of contentious activities, including ways in which the voting procedure could be changed. In the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) about the dislocation that such variation would introduce into the voting times, it could be part of a programme to ensure that voting systems were changed and we no longer had to be present for a vote.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is way beyond the scope of the motion.
  Dr. Lewis: I am very concerned to hear that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman need not be concerned. I am here to guide hon. Members.
  Dr. Lewis: Indeed. As a new Member, I very much value that guidance.
  My concern is that, in having to decide whether to support the proposed variation, my vote—if there is to be a vote—should not be deemed to set a precedent that could then be used to have knock-on effects on the procedures of the House that many of us would regard as quite deplorable. However, I am happy to leave that aside.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: The New forest is a wonderful place, but it appears that one of the horses has got out. The procedures that we are following this evening were approved in a debate of the whole House without Division. Their implementation this evening has the agreement of representatives of all parties.
  Dr. Lewis: I welcome that intervention, if only to have the opportunity of endorsing what a wonderful place the
  532
  New forest is. I wish that Liberal Democrat Members, when they want to indulge in rather puerile insults, would at least think of original ones rather than copying an occasional diarist in The Times.
  In trying to assess how to respond to the proposals this evening, we need to be aware of their full implications and consider whether the Government will use what happens tonight to say, "You did not oppose it on that occasion; therefore, you have no grounds for opposing it now," on some future occasion when the implications for the procedures of the House have become clear.
  Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend consider the point that, simply because something was agreed by the House some time ago, even without a vote, that does not mean that the House cannot take a different view now because circumstances have changed, time has moved on and the debate has developed? Does he agree that we are hearing a rather alarming argument from the Government and from the Liberal Democrats that, if something was agreed some time ago, it is set in concrete and can never be varied, not even by the House itself?
  Dr. Lewis: Yes; furthermore, I am emboldened by that intervention from my right hon. Friend, who has been in the House so much longer than I have, to say what crossed my mind during the intervention by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I was not aware that, if something has been agreed without dispute by a Committee of the whole House from which an hon. Member such as me was absent, I am therefore forbidden to raise the issue during a debate on a serious issue which can have knock-on effects on the procedures of the House. I am concerned that, as the maxim says, hard cases make bad law. In this case, soft precedents make useful precedents for the Government to put leverage on the Opposition to accept procedures that we consider unacceptable. It is rather strange that the Government should have given way on an issue that suits them when, as we have seen previously—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This item is far too narrow for the hon. Gentleman to concern himself with what might happen. He must stick to the matter before the House—the motion relating to the programme for the Scotland Bill. He should not worry about what might happen in future.
  Dr. Lewis: I am extremely grateful, as always, for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sufficiently made my point about what might happen in the future. It is the events of the very recent past—this afternoon—that put doubts into the minds of hon. Members. A debate on an important matter—I will not discuss its subject now—which was scheduled to last for three and a half hours lost one and a quarter of those hours. Even my arithmetic shows that in one hour and a quarter, with the 10-minutes rule operating, seven or eight more hon. Members would have been able to take part in the debate.
  We can conclude from the fact that the Government are willing to give injury time on this issue that they clearly regard it as more important to confer powers on the new Scottish Parliament than to debate Westminster's loss of powers to Brussels, as we wanted to do in the truncated debate this afternoon.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: I found the past hour remarkably educational. As I understand it, the House agreed that it should spent three days on Report and Third Reading of the Bill and that the debate would end at 10 o'clock. The Government are now saying that, if there is a statement or the debates take place on a Thursday when the Leader of the House answers questions, that time will be made up. All that we are discussing today is whether there will be three debates that are guaranteed to last six and a half hours or whether on one or more of those days the debate may last only five and a half hours or four and a half hours.
  The measure is an admirable concept, which I hope will be extended in future timetables for Bills, so that they are not adversely affected by extraneous events. That is a simple, straightforward and honourable concept, which I am happy to endorse.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I have one brief point to make. At first sight, this may seem to be an entirely innocuous motion to vary the programme of a particular Bill. It sets a dangerous precedent—it packages Parliament. In the past, the Opposition's one weapon was time. Again and again, in the great debates of history—on Irish Bills, reform Bills and many others—Oppositions spent days and weeks debating. The Government are tightly packaging Parliament with a nice pink ribbon so that everything is agreed beforehand and debates have a set duration and finish at a set time. That is all very cosy and nothing ever changes. The Government, of course, win every vote and the Opposition cannot even delay proceedings. Hon. Members who are not present and the public should be very concerned.
  8.13 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The past hour has been very interesting and I give the debate full marks for entertainment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said that this had been an educational exercise. He seemed to have no difficulty in understanding the measure, so it seems that it is Conservative Members who need educating. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) complaining that the Opposition needed more time, when the purpose of the motion is to provide more time, or a guaranteed time if necessary.
  I recommend that hon. Members read the Order Paper, which the Modernisation Committee made easier to read. If hon. Members had done a little homework before they came into the Chamber, or had read the precise wording of the motion, they could immediately have set aside their doubts and they would have found our intentions as easy to understand as did Liberal Democrat Members.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Order [13th January] relating to Scotland Bill (Programme) be further amended—
  (a) in paragraph 2, by leaving out 'at Ten o'clock' and inserting 'six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill';
  (b) by inserting, after paragraph 2,—
  '2A. On each such allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the bill for any part of the period of six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock';
  and
  (c) in paragraph 4, by inserting after sub-paragraph (3)—
  '(3A) If, on consideration, two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or motions'.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet—

  (1) on Wednesday 20th May at half-past Four o'clock at Westminster to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee, the proceedings to be interrupted at Seven o'clock;

  (2) on Tuesday 16th June at half-past Ten o'clock at Westminster to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  (3) on Monday 6th July at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to take Questions for oral answer and to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee; and

  (4) on Tuesday 14th July at half-past Ten o'clock at Westminster to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]

  PETITION

    Building in the Countryside
    8.14 pm
    Mr. David Amess: Although my constituency is urban, it is surrounded by the beautiful Essex countryside. My constituents are very concerned that the Government should do everything possible to preserve the countryside and its traditional way of life. The petition has been signed by many local residents in Belfairs, Blenheim, Chalkwell, Eastwood, Leigh-on-Sea, Prittlewell and Westborough.
    The petition of the residents of Southend, West declares:
    that we are concerned about the decisions to sanction plans for new development throughout the countryside.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built in city areas, instead of the countryside or Green Belt, to breathe new life into our cities and to protect valuable countryside for future generations.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Battle Fire Station
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I am grateful for this opportunity to help clear up the confusion and misapprehension that have surrounded the proposals of East Sussex fire authority for staffing changes at Battle fire station in my constituency.
  The proposals were put to the fire authority by the chief fire officer in early February and met with approval from a clear majority of the members. Arrangements were then made for the normal statutory process of consultation. The proposals, which have not been opposed by the Fire Brigades Union and are actively welcomed by Battle's retained firefighters, do not call for any cut in the number of appliances at Battle or any reduction in fire cover and will actively strengthen road traffic accident emergency response throughout East Sussex. Nevertheless, they have been the subject of a persistent, ill-informed, alarmist campaign of protest which has wrongly implied that the fire station will be closed, creating needless doubts and insecurity in the minds of anxious local residents.
  Before I describe the proposed changes and ask the House to consider what lies behind the muddled—if not downright misleading—protest campaign that has been organised, mainly by a local paper, I should like to pay tribute to the fire service nationally. The 50,000 whole-time uniformed staff, control room personnel, retained firefighters and the officers in every brigade perform a most demanding job with professionalism and courage. Together, they ensure that high standards of fire cover are always met. They embrace new technology where it can help operations, improve training competence whenever possible and do their utmost to enhance fire safety in the workplace and at home. As well as attending and dealing with fires, Britain's whole-time and retained firemen and women regularly undertake vital rescue work at the scene of road traffic accidents and other emergencies.
  Four years ago, I had the responsibility for fire and emergency plans that the Minister has today. I congratulate him on having taken over those responsibilities. I feel sure that he and other right hon. and hon. Members agree that the fire service deserves our unreserved respect and admiration. The East Sussex fire authority, most ably chaired by Councillor Bill Clements, a retired police superintendent from Bexhill, covers East Sussex, Brighton and Hove. Like other fire authorities, it faces the constant challenge of the local authority spending constraints that the retiring chief inspector, Sir Bryan Collins, referred to in his report last year. No doubt his successor, Mr. Meldrum, with whom I also worked when he ran the West Midlands brigade, will be mindful of the same pressures, which this Government, like the previous one, have kept in place.
  Although East Sussex fire authority spends 11 per cent. above the amount allocated by central Government and there is no cost-cutting imperative in the proposals, it needs constantly to strive for more efficient and effective deployment of the more than 400 whole-time and more than 300 retained firefighters at its 24 stations. Twelve of those stations are staffed entirely by retained firefighters,
  536
  six in large towns, such as Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings, are staffed by whole time, and the other six are day-crewed by whole time for the Monday to Friday day shift, with the remainder of the week covered by the retained.
  On 5 February, the chief fire officer for East Sussex, Alan McCormack, submitted proposals to the authority to redeploy, without any loss of jobs, the nine whole-time firemen at Battle to other larger day-crewed stations in order to fill four retirement vacancies and to facilitate a better balanced four-by-four duty roster at Lewes, Bexhill, Newhaven, Crowborough and Uckfield. He proposed to add more recruits to the 13 retained firemen in Battle in order to provide a fully staffed team there, consisting entirely of retained firemen. He also undertook that Battle would keep its two existing appliances—fire engines to the layman—which is strictly one more than is required by Her Majesty's inspectors' standard of fire cover for the town and surrounding area. He further recommended that he be allowed to purchase the latest cutting and separating equipment for emergency road traffic accidents to be fitted to appliances at each of the 24 stations in the brigade.
  The last recommendation was a huge step forward in road traffic accident support because, until then, only three of the stations had had such an operational service unit—one being Battle. With only three OSUs in the whole county, that has meant that the one at Battle has been in constant demand to respond to accidents outside the Battle area, thus depleting local cover for Battle whenever that one appliance has been on call further afield.
  To summarise, the chief officer wants a set of emergency cutting and separating equipment at every station and a better working balance for the day crews in five larger towns, with Battle resuming its former wholly retained status. Pivotal to the last condition will be the ability to recruit extra retained staff at Battle, but one new firefighter has already been signed up, and the fire authority says that it has other volunteers ready to apply.
  Having previously done the Minister's job, I never underestimate the problems nationally of retaining the retained, but in Battle today, the senior retained firefighter, Mr. Mike Dawes, is confident that the fire authority will not find it difficult to sign up additional recruits to the full complement of 18. If, for any reason, that assumption is wrong, the whole proposal will be undermined.
  Whatever happens, there is no question of seeking any modification of existing standards of fire cover in the Battle area in terms of response times. As the House will know, the fire authority has a statutory obligation under the Fire Services Act 1947 to provide the fire cover laid down by Her Majesty's inspectors. In Battle, that means a response time of eight to 10 minutes in the centre of town, which represents 3 per cent. of the 12,000 hectares covered by the fire station, and 20 minutes in the rest of the area.
  Until the early 1980s, Battle fire station operated under those same standards of fire cover with an entirely retained strength. At that point, flagging recruitment of the retained, which was by then a national problem, led to the introduction of 13 whole-time firefighters at Battle. That number was reduced to six in 1983, when more

  537
  retained firefighters came forward, but increased to nine in 1988, along with 13 retained firefighters who continued to work on the station.
  All the nine whole-time staff now in Battle have given loyal service to the local community and deserve praise and thanks for what they and their 13 retained colleagues have done. Five of the whole-time officers have been in the town for more than two years, but four others were transferred, for one reason or another, from other parts of the country only relatively recently when vacancies occurred. All of them have worked conscientiously, although it has to be said that they have encouraged the disapproval of their union by working out of hours for extra money. They have done that by signing up on-call as retained staff out of their normal weekday shift hours. The FBU has posted a notice at the fire station warning its members that the practice contravenes union policy.
  The level of call-outs during the Monday to Friday day shift from 9 am to 1 pm and 2 pm to 5 pm, staffed by the whole time, has fallen noticeably. In the first 12 weeks of this year, during the day shift, Battle fire station has responded to just one local FDR 1—which, as the Minister will know, is a fire reportable to the Home Office—four FDR 3s, or minor fires, two road traffic accidents and seven activated fire alarms where there was no fire. I understand that, on the same shift, there were eight other calls outside the Battle area. It is, of course, true that that pattern could change at any time, but, for the first three months of 1998, there has been little activity in the daytime on weekdays. Most of the fire calls in Battle have in fact occurred when the retained are on duty.
  Significantly, FBU officials have indicated that they will not contest the chief officer's proposals that Battle returns to wholly retained status. Having chaired the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council at the Home Office, I am acquainted with and have much respect for the FBU leadership. The operational sense of the better balanced four-by-four roster at other larger day-crewed stations appears to have been accepted by the whole brigade, but the union has rightly insisted on close scrutiny of the terms of transfer for each of the nine whole time in Battle who will be moving to other stations in the county. Management has fully complied with that.
  Each of the nine whole time have been able to discuss their personal circumstances with Mr. Short, a senior officer from the Hastings division. I understand that eight of them have been offered acceptable posts elsewhere in East Sussex. The remaining one has made three applications to join the London fire brigade, but has not yet been successful. Where, then, is the gripe? With the experts more at less at one over the broad principle of the changes, what are the objections and why have they arisen?
  In February, a number of constituents in Battle expressed their concern to me that the fire station was about to close. That view rapidly gained momentum among local residents, fearful that they would no longer be protected against the risk of fire. That false alarm arose from a "Save Battle Fire Station" campaign, launched by the Observer in Battle, one of two or three local newspapers sold in the town but published in St. Leonards on Sea.
  538
  Posters proclaiming "SOS—Save Battle Fire Station", depicting a fire engine over the newspaper's logo were distributed to local shops and pubs. The poster message was not "Save Our Nine Whole-Time Firemen From Transfer" or "Don't Allow Battle Fire Station to Revert Entirely to Retained Staffing", but simply, "Save Our Station". It is little wonder that many casual observers quickly assumed that the station was about to close. The newspaper now vehemently denies that its reporters ever mentioned closure, but successive editions were sprayed with the misleading poster illustration, and, on 13 February, it quoted on its front page a Liberal Democrat county councillor from Eastbourne saying:
  "The chief issue here is the ultimate closure of Battle fire station".
  On page five of the same edition, it quoted a local Liberal Democrat county councillor wrongly implying that Battle would lose cutting and separating equipment for road accidents.
  My own explanatory press release was selectively used, and the editorial barrage that followed was acrimonious, but accuracy, distorted material and the public's right to know is for the Press Complaints Commission to monitor. What matters in this debate is that the editor collected 600 signatures from about 500 worried households for the SOS campaign, and a Robertsbridge resident organised a petition in the shops displaying the poster, which attracted several thousand signatures.
  After consultations with the fire authority and the chief officer, I wrote to all the campaign signatories, as well as to the chamber of commerce and to other residents who had expressed fear and anxiety. The posters promptly disappeared from practically all the shops, but widespread uncertainty about fire cover and the ability of retained firemen to do as good a job as whole time continued to be fuelled by the on-going local press speculation.
  At the public consultation meeting on 26 March in Battle, Councillor Clements set out the fire authority's proposals very clearly in his opening addresses. Not including the uniform fire brigade personnel, there were—perhaps—180 people present, which is equivalent to about 1.5 per cent. of the fire station area population. It was important that people could air their concerns as the legislation provides. Those who spoke included Liberal Democrat councillors, representatives of Battle town council and a fireman from the London fire brigade, as well as trade union activists from the Royal Mail and the ambulance service, one resident of Robertsbridge and two other residents from Battle.
  Following the speeches, there was general acceptance from those in the hall that the fire station was not about to close, but doubts were stridently repeated about the ability of retained personnel to provide as prompt a response as the whole time and, therefore, to ensure equivalent safety. Questions were raised about the comparative lack of training and firefighting experience of retained staff, and other doubts were voiced about the prospect of finding more recruits for the retained in the face of the hostility over the fire station that had recently been engendered.
  After the meeting, representatives of the retained told me that they felt badly bruised by the lack of confidence in them that was implicit in the sometimes rowdy and querulous meeting. Although the chief fire officer did his best, he was unable to assuage the overwhelming feeling in the hall that retained firefighters could not fully match

  539
  the training and performance of their whole-time colleagues. However, the retained now assure me that they are determined to fulfil the fire authority's plans and staff the station on their own, as they did for generations before 1980. They say that further recruits have been identified, and that there is a spirit of determination that these firefighting residents of Battle, who volunteer for such courageous duties, can and will do an excellent job.
  The retained represent a lively cross-section of the Battle community. Mike Dawes has lived in the town all his life and runs a garden machinery service centre. His colleagues include a local auctioneer and valuer, two carpenters, a fork-lift truck driver, a picture shop owner, a plumbing and heating engineer, the manager of the local supermarket, two workers at the nearby gypsum mine, the manager of the local engineering company, a foundry worker, a garden maintenance contractor and one person between jobs.
  These people bring a variety of important technical skills to the firefighting task. Together, they are the very strength of Battle's close-knit community. They take enormous pride in their work and the public rumpus created by the local newspaper's irresponsible and misleading campaign has only served to reinforce their resolve. However, it would be encouraging to Battle's own retained firefighters—and the local community as a whole—if the Minister could provide the House with an assurance this evening that the 15,000 retained firefighters across this country are fully trained and perform their tasks with the greatest competence, dedication, skill and bravery, and that they can be relied upon without question. It is helpful that the Home Office brochure "Opportunities as Retained Firefighters" emphasises that
  "the training is excellent and really gives you confidence."
  I am equally sure that the Minister's comments about unchanged standards of fire cover in what the fire authority is proposing for Battle—as well as his views about the value of 24 appliances across East Sussex having cutting and separating gear, and the benefits, too, in the five larger towns of a balanced day-crewed system—will be carefully heeded.
  Before I conclude, I should draw the attention of the House to the latest attempt by the Battle Observer to add fuel to its "Save Battle Fire Station" campaign, which looks increasingly as if it is driven by the need to sell newspapers, regardless of the fears of readers. On 17 April, the paper ran a story under the headline "U-Turn over fire station", claiming that I had reversed the position I adopted over the fire station in 1995—when I defended the continued presence of the whole-time staff—and that my views had changed for no apparent reason.
  As the fire authority will confirm, there is a world of difference between what the chief fire officer is proposing now and what was in contemplation in 1995—although even then I had to issue a press release, dousing the rumours that Battle fire station was about to close.
  First, in 1995, one option considered was to reduce the number of appliances at Battle from two to one. There is now a firm undertaking to keep two appliances there. Secondly, in 1995, there was no sign of fresh recruits for the retained. Now, one has already signed up, and other local people have asked for application forms. Thirdly, in 1995 there was no proposal to equip all 24 stations with cutting and separating equipment.
  540
  Fourthly, in 1995, relations between the whole time and retained at Battle were amicable—as they had been for several years previously—but, in the recent past, tensions have grown. This is largely because of the publicity campaign by the Battle Observer. The retained have told me that they are no longer talking to their whole-time colleagues, which is a great pity and no way to run a fire station where the retained have always been in a majority anyway.
  Fifthly, in 1995, there was no plan to redeploy the whole time to secure, useful jobs elsewhere in East Sussex. Sixthly, in 1995 the FBU's disapproval of the whole time working overtime as retained was not as formal and as explicit as it is now. Seventhly, since 1995, there has been a marked fall-off in fire calls on the day shift, such that, recently, one of the whole-time staff was admonished for using his spare time from duty rather too enterprisingly by cleaning windows at nearby buildings.
  In contrast to the uncertainty that existed in 1995 about the fire authority's best way forward, the current proposals will ensure that fire cover in Battle is fully safeguarded. I know just how much this matters to local residents because my family lives in Battle. The proposals also allow for more efficient fire protection in several other towns, including Bexhill in my constituency, and they will enable a very significant advance in the response to road traffic accident emergencies throughout East Sussex.
  To conclude, I do not expect the Minister to anticipate the formal decision of the fire authority—to be taken on 13 May—or the subsequent recommendation of Her Majesty's inspector to the Secretary of State under section 19 of the Fire Services Act. However, I can tell the House that Councillor Clements has advised me that the Conservative and Labour majority on the fire authority support the chief officer's plans. In the meanwhile, I hope that the Minister will agree that, while full public consultation and debate should always be encouraged, misleading publicity that allows local residents to assume that if a fire station needs to be saved, it is otherwise likely to close—when, in fact, nothing of the sort is contemplated—is to be deplored.
  I shall always defend the right of the media, or any individual, to express differing points of view about a given subject. The House will agree that it would be a dull world if we all thought the same about everything. However, that is a far cry from a publicity campaign that fails to convey the detailed arguments about proposals designed to protect people's safety. There is disturbing evidence that the campaign has caused widespread fear and anxiety, particularly among the elderly. That is why I have been determined to present a balanced and detailed case for the proposed changes to allay the doubts and uncertainty felt by local residents.
  I could have sidestepped the debate, saying it was a local authority matter. However, when my constituents express alarm, I never consider it a waste of time to put them fully in the picture. They can be absolutely confident that the retained staff in Battle will successfully maintain the proud tradition of firefighting at Battle fire station.
  8.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle

  541
  (Mr. Wardle) on initiating this debate on Battle fire station. I am keenly aware of the sensitivities which inevitably surround any proposals to change the arrangements for providing fire cover. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the concerns he wanted to express in the debate.
  We have good reason to be proud of the fire service in this country. The hon. Gentleman—as a former occupant of this post—will agree that it is a real privilege to work with a service which is so highly regarded. He made particular reference to the retained service and to the training of retained firefighters. I would like to pay tribute to retained firefighters, who perform a vital and cost-effective role in providing fire cover, particularly in the more rural areas.
  The retained service does an excellent job. However, there is evidence of recruitment and retention difficulties in some parts of the country. It sounds as if a stable crew is stationed at Battle. In view of the importance of this matter, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales—which I chair, and which the hon. Gentleman has chaired in the past—asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services, Mr. Meldrum, to consider the position in detail and he will report back in due course. Training is vital to the provision of an effective fire service. All firefighters—both whole time and retained—spend a proportion of their time in training.
  The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council has recently produced a framework document, entitled "Training for Competence", which shifts the emphasis of training from inputs to outcomes. It is based on national standards of competence which will for the first time, enable the training provided to all members of the fire service to be assessed against these standards. I hope that that is some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. It is recognised that for the retained service, there are particular issues which will need to be addressed, but there is a commitment to ensure that the retained service remains well trained.
  Last month, the Audit Commission published performance indicators for the fire service for 1996–97. The Commission stated that
  "fire brigades continue to attend a high percentage of calls within attendance standards and improved their average between 1993–94 and 1996–97."
  Overall, the service met recommended response times on 95 per cent. of occasions. East Sussex fire brigade managed a highly creditable 97 per cent.
  The Government will build on this solid foundation, and we shall do so in close and effective partnership with fire service interests, fire authorities, trade unions, chief fire officers and other interested bodies. However, ensuring an efficient and effective fire service is not achieved by just standing still. Local authorities must have a weather eye to the principles of best value and look at standards of fire cover, fire safety and the structure and organisation of every service. Fire service interests are being fully consulted about options, and in June, we shall hold a seminar in partnership with the Local Government Association on "Working Together for Best Value".
  In respect of the duties of fire authorities, the hon. Gentleman knows that statutory responsibility for providing an efficient fire service rests with the local fire
  542
  authority, which, for Battle fire station, is the East Sussex combined fire authority. The fire authority must keep its fire cover provision under review, deploy its resources efficiently and set its budget at a level that allows it to discharge its statutory responsibilities.
  The fire service legislation provides safeguards to ensure that statutory responsibilities continue to be met. Section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, requires that a fire authority cannot reduce the numbers of fire stations, appliances and firefighting posts without the express consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has a specific role in considering section 19 applications.
  My right hon. Friend grants approval only if he is satisfied, first, that the proposals have been sufficiently widely publicised and are sufficiently detailed and that there is adequate time for any interested party to make representations; secondly, that the representations have been considered by the fire authority; and, thirdly, on the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, that national standards of fire cover will be maintained.
  There is no statutory right of consultation, but the guidance makes it clear that the Home Secretary considers it to be desirable that there should be appropriate consultation and that he would take into account representations that are made directly to him.
  East Sussex fire authority has been consulting on a proposal to change the status of Battle fire station from day-crewed to retained. Such a change would require my right hon. Friend's approval. The authority has yet to decide whether to make a section 19 application. The hon. Gentleman explained the circumstances of the matter. If an application is made, my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to it and to representations that he receives. He will take advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate on implications for fire cover.
  Levels of fire cover are determined locally and rest on four main standards of service, according to the risk category of the area, and assume for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances must attend within a certain time. The standards are not only nationally recommended, but nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is constituted under the 1947 Act. They were extensively reviewed in 1985, and all concerned know where they stand on the minimum level of service that should be delivered.
  In 1995, the Audit Commission recommended another review of fire cover, but recognised that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. A review of the standards is being taken forward by a joint committee of the Fire Brigades Advisory Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. Its draft report will be discussed at forthcoming meetings of the advisory councils.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned budgets. The standard spending assessment in England for 1998–99 increased by £61.6 million, or 5 per cent. The settlements were 4.4 per cent. last year, and 1.5 per cent. and 0 per cent. in the previous two years. While the problems of funding that we have inherited cannot be resolved overnight, this settlement has recognised and responded to the fire

  543
  service's concerns. The fire standard spending assessment for East Sussex for 1998–99 has been increased by £1.1 million—6.2 per cent.—compared with 1997–98. That compares with increases of 5 per cent. last year, and of 2.6 per cent. and 1.7 per cent. in the previous two years.
  Until a section 19 application is received from the fire authority, any Government comment on possible changes to fire cover at Battle fire station would be premature.
  544
  Nevertheless, I repeat my assurance that in the event of a section 19 application, we would give careful consideration to any representations. The hon. Gentleman's observations would of course be taken into account. We shall reflect carefully on the issues before a decision is arrived at.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Nine o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his speech to the Midland Bank Conference on the Millennium, if he will list the members of the central team located in the Cabinet to work on the year 2000 problem; when this team will first meet; and what is its remit. [37474]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]I am setting up a new team in the Cabinet Office to support the Ministerial Group on the Millennium date change (MISC 4) and its public sector sub-group in co-ordinating the drive by Government across the public and the private sector to prepare for the Year 2000, with a particular focus on preventing damage to the national infrastructure. The team will manage the study into the risks the country faces in the run up to the Year 2000 which I announced in my speech to the Action 2000/Midland Bank conference on 30 March. It will liaise with Government departments across Whitehall to ensure that the action Ministers are taking in relation to their own departments and the other areas of the public sector for which they are responsible is properly co-ordinated and fits with Action 2000's work with the private sector. It will work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other departments on our drive for action internationally. And it will co-ordinate the presentation of Government action.

  Appointments to the Unit are now being made.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his article in The Independent newspaper of 30 March, if he will publish the analysis underlying his statement that the cost of dealing with the millennium computer problem across the public sector is up to £3 billion; and if he will make a statement. [38140]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]The figure of up to £3 billion for the cost of millennium compliance across the public sector was an estimate to indicate the possible scale of the problem which is faced by the sector. It took account of forecasts which have been made by independent experts and companies with experience of dealing with the costs of tackling this problem. Such forecasts have ranged from £1 billion to £3 billion. These forecasts are within a range because the actual costs of compliance are not easy to predict accurately in advance and historically have tended to be underestimated.
  174
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy that the money to resolve the millennium computer problem across the public sector can be found from existing budgets; and if he will make a statement. [38139]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]The Government's policy remains that the cost of resolving the millennium computer problem across the public sector will be met from within existing funds. This will be closely monitored as part of the reporting arrangements which have been put in place.

  Astra
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister what information was made available to or from the DTI to or from Mr. Stephen Hatch in the course of the DTI inquiry into the affairs of Astra on commission payments for defence contracts paid to intermediaries [38550]

  The Prime Minister
  The Companies Act inspection into the affairs of Astra Holdings plc was concerned with the acquisition by Astra of a number of subsidiaries, and with accounting issues arising therefrom. It was not concerned with commission payments for defence contracts.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on what dates Mr. Stephen Kock met DTI officials to discuss matters relating to the supply of equipment to Iraq between 1985 and 1990;[38545]

  (2) on what date the appointment of Mr. Stephen Kock to the Board of Astra was first discussed by DTI officials. [38547]

  The Prime Minister
  A search of the potentially most relevant sources of information held by DTI has produced no evidence to suggest either that Mr. Stephen Kock discussed matters relating to the supply of equipment to Iraq between 1985 and 1990 with DTI or that discussions were held within the DTI about his appointment to the board of Astra. Indeed, the appointment of individual directors to a private sector company is not an issue with which the DTI would normally concern itself.

  Royal Commissions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the last 10 ad hoc Royal Commissions, the time which elapsed between their establishment and the publication of their reports and, for each, the total cost. [39888]

  The Prime Minister
  The details of the last ten Royal Commissions are as follows:

  Title

  Date established

  Presented to Parliament

  Constitution

  15 April 1969

  October 1973

  Civil Liability and Compensations for Personal Injury

  19 March 1973

  March 1978

  Press

  16 July 1974

  July 1977

  Standards of Conduct in Public Life

  6 December 1974

  July 1976

  Gambling

  24 February 1976

  July 1978

  National Health Service

  19 May 1976

  July 1979

  Legal Services

  20 July 1976

  October 1979

  175

  Title

  Date established

  Presented to Parliament

  Criminal Procedure

  3 February 1978

  January 1981

  Criminal Justice

  14 March 1991

  July 1993

  Long Term Care for the Elderly

  17 December 1997

  Due December 1998

  Details of cost are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  UN (Drugs Special Session)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to attend the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs on 8 to 10 June. [39945]

  The Prime Minister
  It has not yet been decided who will lead the United Kingdom Delegation to the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Heathrow Airport
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the experimental scheme for planes landing at Heathrow Airport was introduced; if this scheme resulted in more planes flying over areas of South and South East London; and when the experiment is to be assessed. [39581]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The trial began on 4 September 1995 and the assessment is underway. The results should identify the areas affected and the associated noise impact. As indicated in Annex 5 of the preliminary consultation paper on Night Restriction at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted that we published on 27 February, the results should be available in time to take into account when drawing up proposals for the next night restrictions consultation paper. A copy of the preliminary paper was placed in the House Library. (Ref;Official Report, 27 February 1998, columns 403–04).

  Shipping
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to take action on the report submitted to him in March by the Shipping Working Group. [39849]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering the recommendations of the Working Group.

  Euratom
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library all reports submitted by the Government to the European Commission under Article 18 of Directive 92/3/EURATOM. [39942]

  Angela Eagle
  Article 18 of Directive 92/3 EURATOM requires Member States to submit reports every two years on the transboundary shipments of radioactive waste which they have authorised. The first such report was made in 1994 and the second in 1996. I am arranging for copies of these to be placed in the 176
  Library. The third report is being compiled and I shall place a copy in the Library once it has been lodged with the Commission.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the expected change in carbon dioxide emissions as a result of estimated gross domestic product growth in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [40088]

  Angela Eagle
  We expect that gross domestic product will grow by around 2.25% per year between 1998 and 2000. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member on 27 April 1998,Official Report, column 6, we estimate that the present relationship between gross domestic product growth and carbon dioxide emissions is such that every 1% increase in gross domestic product would increase emissions of carbon dioxide by around 0.5%, other things being equal. This approximate relationship may continue to apply to 2000. However, the trend in total UK emissions of carbon dioxide is likely to continue downwards over this period because the types of fuels used, the structure of the economy, and energy efficiency are also changing over time.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the UK delegation to the 10 session of the negotiations for a UN ECE Commission for Europe Convention concerning public participation in environmental decision-making did not support a proposal to provide for public participation in transfrontier movements of radioactive waste. [39943]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposal would have added all transboundary and internal movements of hazardous and radioactive substances, including wastes, for which a specific permit is required under national law, to the list of those practices requiring formal public consultation. Consultation on every such movement would be impracticable. The relevant legislation and associated guidance provides a stringent system of checks which ensure the safety of radioactive waste during transit, radiological protection of the public and protection of the environment.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory provisions govern the international shipment of radioactive waste; whether there is a requirement for a public register of applications or authorisations for such shipments; what records(a) he and (b) the Environment Agency keep of (i) applications and (ii) authorisations for such shipments; if he will place a copy of such records in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [39941]

  Angela Eagle
  The import and export of radioactive waste from the UK is governed by SI 1993 No. 3031, the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste Regulations 1993. The Regulations provide for a system of authorisation and approval by competent authorities of the shipment of radioactive waste. There is no statutory requirement within the Regulations for the provision of a public register. The Environment Agency maintains records of applications, approvals and authorisations for
  177
  England and Wales, in the form prescribed by the Regulations, and I have arranged for copies of these to be placed in the Library. Arrangements for shipments of waste involving Scotland and Northern Ireland are dealt with by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland respectively.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many, and which, United Kingdom local authorities have(a) promoted and (b) participated in schemes under the Private Finance Initiative in the last year. [39988]

  Ms Armstrong
  My Department's press release of 10 February, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library, lists 42 individual PFI schemes in England, promoted by 34 local authorities. Local authorities whose projects appear on this list can be confident that they will receive support for their contractual commitments. In Wales, so far no PFI schemes have been signed but the Welsh Office is treating six projects as pathfinders. 26 Scottish authorities have indicated to the Scottish Office an intention to apply for support towards PFI schemes.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) number and (b) total area in hectares of sites of special scientific interest in (i) East Sussex and (ii) the United Kingdom. [39989]

  Angela Eagle
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Number of SSSIs (ASST in Northern Ireland)

  Area in hectares

  East Sussex

  64

  18,543

  United Kingdom

  6,510

  2,181,312

  Rail Services
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that the information services provided at railway stations are improved. [40105]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are reviewing the regulation of the railway as part of our overall review of transport policy, and our proposals for the long-term reform of the railway will be published in our White Paper later in the year. In the interim, the Government have issued the Franchising Director with revised objectives, instructions and guidance which require him to secure a progressive improvement in the quality of passenger and station services and to manage existing franchise agreements in a manner which promotes passengers' interests.

  The existing franchise agreements require operators to meet minimum station standards, which include the provision of communication and information systems within three years of taking over the franchise. Therefore these standards must be implemented during 1999 in
  178
  respect of the first franchises to be awarded in 1996. Some operators are achieving higher standards than those specified within a shorter timescale.

  Housing (Care Leavers)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the Housing Act 1996 Code of Guidance with respect to youth homelessness strategies to make specific reference to meeting the particular housing needs of care leavers. [40164]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]The revised Code of Guidance, which we hope to issue later in the year, will draw local authorities; particular attention to the considerations which they should bear in mind when assessing care leavers' housing needs.

  Politically Restricted Posts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review the Widdecombe definition of politically restricted posts. [39869]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]The Government are firmly committed to the principle of political impartiality among senior and other front line public servants. In our consultation paper, "Modernising Local Government—A new ethical framework", a copy of which was sent to all hon. Members on 7 April, we are inviting views on an approach we are proposing for designating posts as politically restricted, and in particular on the level of any salary threshold.

  Local Government Pay
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on local authorities' responsibilities when implementing national pay review body awards for chief executive officers. [39979]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]Agreement was reached last year in the national negotiating body for chief executives on a new package of pay and conditions. The principal pay-related features of the package were a 2.5 per cent. pay rise from 1 July 1997; and local reviews in each local authority of the salary of their chief executive, to be completed by 1 April 1998 in the light of the new national pay structure and the accompanying national agreement on implementation. Any further pay rise stemming from the local review is to be paid from 1 January 1998.

  Housing (Disabled Access)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to reduce waiting times for local authority disability facilities grants; [40334]

  (2) what was the average waiting time for a disabled facilities grant for (a) all applications, (b) council tenant applications, (c) housing association tenant applications, (d) private tenant applications and (e) owner occupier applications in the last year for which figures are available. [40335]
  179
  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on the average waiting times for disabled facilities grants is not collected by the Department. Local authorities already have a statutory duty under section 34 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to notify the applicant within six months of the date of application whether the application is approved or refused. We have no plans to change this.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications to release GMOs into the environment have been considered in each year since 1990; for each year how many have been(a) approved and (b) refused; and how many are outstanding. [40321]

  Angela Eagle
  Following the introduction of our regulations in March 1993, a total of 152 applications have been considered. These breakdown per year as:

  Year

  Applications approved

  Applications refused

  Applications outstanding

  1993

  15

  0

  0

  1994

  24

  0

  0

  1995

  40

  0

  0

  1996

  28

  0

  0

  1997

  25

  0

  0

  1998

  14

  0

  0

  Whilst no consents have been refused, in many cases applicants have been required to significantly amend their applications to provide further information to enable a decision to be made. Also, some consents would have been refused unless the applicant had agreed to implement the strict risk management procedures recommended by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of quantifiable risk must be reached before permission to release a GMO into the environment is refused. [40323]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's approach to risk assessment for GMO releases is set out in Chapter 4 of "The Regulation and Control of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms" and this is consistent with the approach published in "A Guide to Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Environmental Protection". These have been placed in the House of Commons library.

  In all cases we obtain expert advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE).

  Greater London Authority
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial effect of the establishment of the Greater London Authority on revenue support grant levels for other regions; and if he will make a statement. [40365]

  Ms Armstrong
  As we said in our White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (Cm 3897), we have carefully considered how the costs of the Mayor, Assembly and new central service of the Greater London 180
  Authority should be paid for, and have decided to meet most of the costs ourselves through grant. We have no plans to cut support to other parts of the country to pay for the Authority.

  Urban Foxes
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of(a) the measures required to control urban foxes and (b) the effects of releasing urban foxes into the countryside. [39112]

  Angela Eagle
  A recent decline in reported sightings suggests that the number of urban foxes has fallen in some cities, and a study in 1987 showed that urban foxes tend to be self-regulating. Furthermore, although foxes could in theory transmit certain infections to man, such a toxocariasis, hydatid disease or pasteurellosis, from the limited data available foxes have not been implicated in any cases of these diseases among humans. It is not therefore thought necessary to consider measures to control them.

  It is not in general an offence to move wild animals around the country, and relocation of native foxes is not prohibited by our conservation legislation. Reports of large-scale releases of foxes into the countryside have not been substantiated.

  Personal Water Craft
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the inter-departmental review of coastal safety, with particular reference to the use of personal water craft; [40318]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress made by his Department in encouraging more responsible use of personal water craft. [40319]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Consideration is currently being given to the results of consultation on the ways in which safety of non-regulated pleasure vessels can be improved, which incorporates input from both the Environment and Transport points of view. A decision on the way forward will be made in the next few months.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Vehicle Certification Agency. [40786]

  Dr. Strang
  The key targets have been set for the agencies. They are included in the agencies' business plans, which include management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks, where appropriate to the agencies' business. Copies of the business plans will be placed in the Library in due course.
  181
  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are to:
  make an efficiency gain (on the basis of an overall efficiency index) of 2.5 per cent;
  to recover, through penalties and duty from licensing, at least £2.90 for every £1.00 full cost spent by DVLA on vehicle excise duty enforcement;
  deliver 95 per cent. of ordinary driving licences to customers within 10 working days, 95 per cent. of vocational driving licences within 9 working days, and 95 per cent of first provisional driving licences within 9 working days;
  deliver 95 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles within 12 days, and 95 per cent. of changes to vehicle registration documents within 13 days;
  deliver answers to 96 per cent. of written inquiries within 8 working days, and to answer 92 per cent. of telephone inquiries within 30 seconds;
  ensure that at least 98 per cent. of driving licences, 98 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles, and 97 per cent. of changes to registration documents, are issued without a DVLA induced error.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate are to:
  meet the requirements on levels and types of activity laid down in the Memorandum of Agreement on each Road Enforcement Transport Scheme;
  meet the quality and general effectiveness levels as specified in the Business Plan measures;
  improve customer service by extending the range of structured interviews and surveys, acting on the results and devising satisfaction indices;
  achieve an efficiency target (on the basis of an Aggregated Cost Efficiency Index) of 0 per cent;
  break even while achieving an average 6 per cent. rate of return on capital, over the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2003;
  improve staff awareness and satisfaction as measured through the annual survey;
  secure the long term development of the organisation, in the context of the DVO Review, through the implementation of an Information Systems Strategy and progression of the MOT Computerisation Project.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are to:
  achieve break-even or better on the commercial accounts whilst achieving at least a 6 per cent. rate of return on capital employed;
  ensure that at least 98 per cent. of approval certificates are issued error free;
  ensure that at least 98 per cent. of invoices are issued error free;
  audit at least 50 per cent. of VCA's approved type-approval, and 100 per cent. of the management system certification, procedures with all major non-compliances found having corrective action plans agreed within 30 working days at the most, with those plans being completed within the specified time.

  Water Prices
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about progress towards the setting of price limits for water companies from 1 April 2000. [40790]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Director General of Water Services has sent an open letter and accompanying paper "Setting the Quality Framework" to me and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales, on 30 April, seeking guidance on the quality obligations to be placed on water 182
  companies in the period 2000 to 2005. Copies of the Director General's letter and accompanying paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  We expect also to receive advice on this issue from the Environment Agency in mid-May, which we shall take into account in formulating the guidance to the Director General. The advice will, similarly, be placed in the Library of the House.

  My Department will issue a consultation letter on 1 May, seeking the views of all those who have an interest in or involvement with the water industry on the issues raised in the Director General's letter and accompanying paper, and inviting the submission of reasoned arguments over the appropriate level of obligations to place on water companies, to be funded from customers' bills. We are keen to strike the right balance between investment to deliver desirable environmental and quality improvement and the level of water bills.

  At this stage in the periodic review, costings have not been finalised. Further work will be needed to refine this information. There also remain uncertainties in relation both to the precise nature of some of the EU obligations that water companies will have to meet, as well as to the costings of possible obligations. Against that background, however, we shall seek to give guidance in the summer which is as clear as possible when responding to the Director General. We should welcome views on the issues raised in the Director General's letter and paper, which we shall take into account in providing guidance.

  A copy of the Department's consultation letter, which will seek comments by Friday 12 June, will be placed in the Library of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against closures of magistrates' courts were made in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994, (d) 1995, (e) 1996 and (f) the first four months of 1997; and how many were (i) upheld and (ii) rejected. [39684]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of appeals against the closure of magistrates courts made between 1992 and April 1997 were:(a) 1992, 10; (b) 1993, 12; (c) 1994, 3; (d) 1995, 2; (e) 1996, 11 and (f) in the first four months of 1997, 4. In 1992, 2 appeals were upheld. All other appeals were dismissed.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against closures of magistrates' courts have been lodged since 1 May 1997; and how many(a) were upheld, (b) were rejected and (c) have still to be determined. [39685]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 1 May 1997, 16 appeals against the closure of magistrates courts have been lodged.

  In the same period, 2 appeals were upheld and 17 were rejected. There are 6 appeals pending. (These figures include appeals outstanding at 1 May 1997).

  Fines Revenue
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total amount of revenue raised from all forms of fines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1997–98; what estimate he has made of revenue in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [40222]

  Mr. Hoon
  The figures requested are shown in the table. There is no estimate available for 1998–99.

  £ million

  Year

  Revenue raised

  1993–94

  228.0

  1994–95

  219.8

  1995–96

  216.0

  1996–97

  224.2

  1997–98

  173.6

  1 Covers the period I April 1997 to 31 December 1997

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Intellectual Property
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the WTO about the forthcoming review of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property; and if she will make a statement. [40151]

  Clare Short
  The WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) is overseen by the TRIPs Council which meets on a regular basis and comprises all WTO members. The TRIPs Agreement requires the Council to review the provisions of Article 27(3(b) of the Agreement concerning the exclusion from patentability of plants and animals in 1999, and the implementation of the Agreement as a whole after 2000. The UK Government will take full part in discussions alongside developing countries in the Council before and throughout the reviews. The TRIPs Council operates by consensus and therefore will need to take into account the views and interests of all members.

  Bananas
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to the European Commissions about the findings of the WTO Appellate Body on the EU banana regime; and if she will make a statement. [40157]

  Clare Short
  The Government have been keeping in close touch with the European Commission since the WTO Appellate Body published its findings on the EU banana regime last Autumn. The Commission made proposals earlier this year for changes to the banana regime, to bring it into line with the WTO ruling, and for the new assistance framework for traditional producers in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.

  Negotiations on these proposals are now well advanced in Brussels. As the leading advocate of the developing countries in the Caribbean who have traditionally supplied bananas to the UK, the Government have made it a priority of its current Presidency of the EU to reach agreement.

  Biotechnology
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the outcome of her discussions with the Patent Office about the proposed EC Directive concerning the protection of biotechnological inventions and the potential implications for developing countries. [40152]

  Clare Short
  The proposed EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions is currently being considered by the European Parliament, following adoption of a Common Position by the Council of Ministers in February 1998. The Directive addresses which biotechnological inventions can be patented in Europe and does not affect national patent laws. When agreeing to support this Common Position, the UK set down a statement which noted that there had been no consideration as to whether the provisions of the Directive would be appropriate for other countries outside the European Union, in particular developing countries.

  In its statement the UK also considered that in preparing its annual report on the development implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering [under Article 16.3 of the proposal] the Commission should consider the breadth of patent rights, the effects of patents on research and, in accordance with Article 130v of the Treaty of Maastricht, take account of the implications for developing countries.

  Generalised System of Preferences
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Generalised System of Preferences Working Group about the proposed regulation; and if she will make a statement. [40149]

  Clare Short
  Two key regulations have been discussed and agreed within the Generalised System of Preferences Working Group during the UK Presidency. These are the Regulation on Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the Regulation on Special Incentives. UK policy on both of these is set out in the Government's White Paper on International Development published in November 1997. DFID has worked closely with DTI—which is the lead Department in formulating and implementing the Government's policy.

  The proposed Regulation on LDCs was agreed by the Council in March this year. This requires the EU to extend market access terms, similar to those available under the Lome Convention, to the nine non-ACP LDCs and to apply these retrospectively from 1 January 1998. We therefore welcome this Regulation which we see as an important first step towards our long-term goal of duty-free market access to the EU market for all LDCs and for the eventual agreement to eliminate tariffs on LDC products within a bound WTO scheme.

  The proposed Regulation on Special Incentives provides for additional trade preferences to be granted to developing countries that meet certain labour and environmental standards. The Government attach considerable importance to these proposals as a mechanism for signalling to the developing world that our

  185
  concerns about raising standards are not driven by protectionist motives. The GSP Working Group has concluded its deliberations on the proposal which will be submitted to the Council in May. The Group will soon be considering how technical assistance can be offered to those developing countries who wish to access the scheme but who lack the capacity to meet the required standards.

  Trade Barriers
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with (i) the Department of Trade and Industry (ii) the WTO and (iii) multilateral and bilateral aid donors about ways to achieve further reductions in trade barriers faced by LDCs; and if she will make a statement. [40150]

  Clare Short
  UK policy towards elimination of barriers to trade for Least Developed Countries is set out in the Government's White Paper on International Development published in November 1997. The UK has taken a lead within Europe and internationally (including through the G8) in pushing for the elimination of tariffs on imports from the least developed countries (LDCs) and for eventual agreement to eliminate tariffs within a bound WTO scheme. A number of member states made commitments to extend their market access for LDCs at the WTO hosted High Level Meeting for LDCs in October last year. Progress will be reviewed at the WTO Ministerial in May this year.

  Under the UK Presidency agreement has been reached within the EU to extend market access to the imports of the nine non-ACP LDCs on terms similar to those available under the Lomé Convention. The UK see this as a first step and will continue to press for duty-free access to the EU market for all Least Developed Countries. In addition the UK recognises that complex rules of origin can act as a constraint on taking up preferential access. The UK is therefore pressing for an EU commitment to simplify and harmonise the EU preferential origin rules.

  Development Co-operation
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the (i) WTO, (ii) UNCTAD, (iii) ITC, (iv) IMF, (v) World Bank and (vi) UNDP about the implementation of the Integrated Framework for the co-ordination and delivery of trade-related development co-operation; and if she will make a statement. [40154]

  Clare Short
  The Integrated Framework was discussed in the WTO hosted High Level Meeting in October 1997. The Integrated Framework seeks to enhance the effectiveness of trade-related technical assistance in order to promote the integration of Least Developed Countries into the multilateral trading system.

  This Government have consistently supported discussion of the Integrated Framework in the senior bodies of the WTO, IMF, UNCTAD, ITC, World Bank and UNDP. Each of these bodies has indicated their support for the Framework and agreed to co-ordinate their efforts in this area. Further, the agencies have agreed to set up an Inter-Agency Working Group and an Administrative Unit to be housed at ITC.
  186
  I believe that good progress had been made on setting up the machinery to operationalise the Integrated Framework and over the coming months, my Department will be working to ensure this is used to design and implement effective country-level programmes.

  Development Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will raise the issue of the environmental record of the Commission's funded programmes in developing countries at the Development Council meeting in May. [40353]

  Clare Short
  My Department continues to work closely with the Commission to promote the full integration of environmental considerations into EC programmes and projects. One of our Presidency priorities is to seek to improve the effectiveness of the EC's development programmes. I will not, however, be raising this issue at the Development Council in May.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what issues are on the agenda for the Development Council meeting in May. [40347]

  Clare Short
  The agenda is still under discussion. However, the main items are likely to be:

  (a) The EU's Negotiating Mandate for the successor to the Lomé Convention.

  (b) Conclusions on follow-up to the 1993 Poverty Resolution.

  (c) Conclusions on follow-up to the 1995 Gender Resolution.

  (d) Progress Report and Exchange of views on the Evaluation of European Union Development Aid.

  (e) Commission Presentation on Indigenous People.

  (f) Commission Presentation on Humanitarian Aid.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she proposes to take in response to the conclusions and recommendations of the report of the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee of the Northern Ireland Forum on Organophosphate Insecticides-their use by the farming community; and if she will make a statement. [39654]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 27 April 1998]The Forum's report will be considered in the light of the findings of the High Level Officials' Group on Organophosphates. The establishment of that Group was announced in another place by my noble friend, Lord Donoughue, on 13 January 1998. Those findings will be published when Ministers have fully considered them.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of the (i) paid and (ii) unpaid appointments which she has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [39395]
  187
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]The following appointments have been made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997:

  Total

  Female appointments

  Percentage

  Paid appointments

  222

  87

  39

  Unpaid appointments

  461

  138

  30

  The Government are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this, an action plan is being drawn up in NI for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding public appointments.

  Construction Service
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Construction Service in 1998–99. [40730]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For the 1998–99, the following performance targets have been set for Construction Service.

  Quality of Service
  1. To achieve a 90 per cent. compliance in customer assessment of Agency performance against Service Level Agreements.
  2. To obtain a 90 per cent. positive response in customer assessments on project work.
  3. To place 80 per cent. of orders in response to requests for maintenance work within 7 days.
  4. To place 75 per cent. of order in response to requests for supplies work within 7 days.
  5. To respond to 85 per cent. of customer advisory inquiries within 6 weeks.

  Efficiency
  6. To achieve 3 per cent. efficiency gains on running cost expenditure.
  7. To ensure that actual costs as a percentage of agreed target costs on project work do not exceed the agreed percentage.
  8. To ensure that staff costs as a percentage of construction spend for maintenance work do not exceed the agreed percentage.
  9. To ensure that staff costs as a percentage of construction spend for supplies work do not exceed the agreed percentage.

  Financial Performance
  10. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budgetary plans.
  11. To recover the full cost of Agency operations from customers.

  Social Security Agency
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Social Security Agency for the current financial year. [40731]

  Mr. Worthington
  The targets are in line with the objective of improving the service provided to customers and fully support the Active Modern Service principles laid down for public services. I am satisfied that the targets represent a demanding challenge for the Agency.
  188
  The targets will be included in the Agency's 1998–99 Strategic and Business Plan, which is due for publication this month. A copy of the Plan will be placed in the library. The targets are as follows:

  1. Benefit Accuracy

  Disability Living Allowance

  to pay the correct amount in at least 85% of cases.

  Family Credit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 94% of cases.

  Incapacity Benefit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 98% of cases.

  Income Support

  to pay the correct amount in at least 87% of cases.

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  to pay the correct amount in at least 87% of cases.

  2. Customer Satisfaction1

  of customers to regard the Agency's service as satisfactory or better.

  3. Financial Recovery

  recovery of overpayments—£2.9 million.

  benefit savings from detection and prevention of fraud—£14.4 million.

  sign-offs as a result of anti-activity—4,600.

  Class I contributions identified as underpaid to the National Insurance Fund—£1.70 million.

  Collection of Contributions owing to the National Insurance Fund—£2.05 million.

  4. Resource Management

  to achieve cash efficiency savings of the order of £3.3 million.

  1 The customer satisfaction target is presently measured by independent survey and usually covers a two year period, in this case 1997–98 and 1998–99. It will be measured again early in 1999.

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she intends to carry out a market test of the functions of the Rate Collection Agency. [40732]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have decided to defer plans to market test the functions of the Rate Collection Agency until the next quinquennial review of the agency which is planned for 1999.

  This will allow time to assess the potential impact on the work of the agency of the current review of charging arrangements for water and sewerage services. Ratepayers currently contribute to the cost of these services through the Regional Rate.

  The Agency's Framework Document will be amended to reflect the position.

  Students (Tuition Fees)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what decision she has taken on whether to provide funds for the payment of fourth year tuition fees for eligible Northern Irish students at Scottish universities; and if she will make a statement. [40257]

  Mr. Worthington
  Northern Ireland students will not receive public support for fees in the fourth year of Scottish 4-year degrees where similar degree courses in Northern Ireland, England and Wales are of 3 years' duration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  CS Gas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received to date against the use of CS gas by the police force. [38523]

  Mr. Michael
  During police trials of CS sprays between 1 March and 31 August 1996, in which about 4,000 officers carried CS spray canisters, 45 complaints were made to police forces. During the 12 months up to 31 March 1997 (the most recent period for which figures are available) the police referred 28 complaints to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) of which 19 resulted in investigations supervised by the Authority. Five complaints were withdrawn, eight were unsubstantiated, three are under or are awaiting disciplinary review, one is subject to criminal proceedings against an officer for assault (the complaint about the use of CS is a secondary issue in this case), and in another case an officer was found not guilty of abuse of authority. One complaint is still under investigation and the PCA granted the police dispensations from the requirement to investigate the remaining nine cases. This is allowed by the Police (Dispensation From Requirement to Investigate Complaints) Regulations 1985 where it is not reasonably practicable to conduct an investigation or the complaint is vexatious, repetitious or otherwise an abuse of the complaints procedures.

  The PCA estimates that in the twelve months up to 31 March 1998 there were about 250 complaints to police forces referring to CS spray.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by the Government during their presidency of the EU to promote discussion on problems caused by the flow of asylum seekers through the EU; and if he will make a statement. [39984]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Kingdom Presidency is promoting discussion in the European Union of a wide range of issues relating to asylum seekers. In particular, under the Presidency, member states have adopted a comprehensive Action Plan on the influx of migrants from Iraq and the neighbouring region. Under this Action Plan, the Presidency is taking forward a number of measures aimed at ensuring that those in genuine need of protection receive it and to prevent abuse of asylum procedures in the European Union.

  In addition, the Presidency is seeking to secure agreement on a programme of action designed to improve the operation of the Dublin Convention. This Convention governs arrangements for determining which member state should be responsible for examining asylum claims made in the European Union.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criteria used by an immigration officer to decide if an interview with an unaccompanied child seeking asylum is unavoidable. [39847]
  190
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A child will not be interviewed about the substance of his claim to refugee status if it is possible to obtain, by written inquiries or from other sources, sufficient information properly to determine the claim. In the vast majority of cases, the required information is obtained without an interview. In those rare cases where an interview is deemed necessary it will be conducted only in the presence of an independent adult, and by an immigration officer who has received specialist training.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures must be followed by an immigration officer when an unaccompanied child arrives at a port of entry seeking asylum. [39858]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When an unaccompanied child arrives at the immigration control a brief interview is undertaken to establish age, the basis upon which entry is sought, and whether anyone has accompanied the child on the journey or is meeting him/her. If the child is an asylum seeker the Refugee Council's Panel of Advisers for Refugee Children is notified without delay, and the child is issued with a self-completion asylum questionnaire. Temporary admission is normally granted, and if the child has nobody to turn to in the United Kingdom, the social services are contacted. It is not the practice of the Immigration Service to detain a child for longer than absolutely necessary before passing the child to the responsible adult or social services.

  Homosexual Offences
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been in each of the last three years of 16 to 18 year old men for offences involving consenting homosexual acts. [39987]

  Mr. Michael
  Information for 1994 to 1996 (latest available) is given in the table. It does not include offences such as male rape or indecent assault on a male. It should be noted that section 145 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (which came into force in November 1994) amended section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967—by lowering from 21 to 18 the age at which men may lawfully perform consenting homosexual acts in private.

  Number of males cautioned, prosecuted and convicted1 for specific homosexual offences by age, 1994–1996

  England and Wales

  Year/offence

  Aged 16

  Aged 17

  Aged 18

  1994

  Buggery offences

  Cautioned

  5

  3

  1

  Prosecuted

  9

  13

  5

  Convicted

  4

  6

  5

  Indecency between males

  Cautioned

  3

  5

  3

  Prosecuted

  1

  3

  3

  Convicted

  1

  2

  3

  1995

  Buggery offences

  Cautioned

  1

  —

  —

  Prosecuted

  3

  3

  6

  Convicted

  —

  5

  3

  191

  Number of males cautioned, prosecuted and convicted1 for specific homosexual offences by age, 1994–1996

  England and Wales

  Year/offence

  Aged 16

  Aged 17

  Aged 18

  Indecency between males

  Cautioned

  1

  1

  2

  Prosecuted

  —

  4

  4

  Convicted

  —

  2

  1

  1996

  Buggery offences

  Cautioned

  3

  1

  —

  Prosecuted

  4

  —

  2

  Convicted

  1

  —

  1

  Indecency between males

  Cautioned

  2

  5

  1

  Prosecuted

  —

  —

  1

  Convicted

  —

  —

  1

  1Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences.

  Racial Incidents
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the method of recording racial incidents in order to record more accurately(a) the nature of incident, (b) the local distribution and (c) the ethnic origin of the victim or the offender. [39958]

  Mr. Michael
  At present, individual forces submit their racial incidents figures to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary at the end of each financial year on the basis of the Association of Chief Police Officers definition of a racial incident:"Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person".

  The figures are not broken down into the nature of the incidents, the local distribution or the ethnic origin of the victim or offender. However, some forces hold such information locally.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers have recently published a Good Practice Guide for the Police Response to Racial Incidents which advises police forces that it is essential to keep an accurate record of the number and types of racial incidents that are reported to ensure that management information is available to inform resource deployment and to monitor trends. It also advises that information should be shared with other local partnership agencies.

  The Home Office will, however, look at the way in which the racial incidents figures are submitted centrally and will consider ways for improving the recording of information in consultation with the police.

  Intrusive Surveillance
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the revised Code of Practice on Intrusive Surveillance; and if he will make a statement. [40077]
  192
  Mr. Michael
  We intend to lay the draft code of practice on intrusive surveillance before Parliament during the Summer. Detailed work is continuing on a number of fronts in relation to Part III of the Police Act 1997 with a view to implementing the provisions as quickly as possible.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the(a) male and (b) female population (i) under 30 and (ii) over 30 years of age has committed at least one (1) minor criminal offence and (2) serious criminal offence. [40026]

  Mr. Michael
  The information that is available centrally on the prevalence of offending relates solely to convictions for standard list offences. These include all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences (a complete list can be found in Appendices 4 and 5 of Criminal Statistics England and Wales, 1996, Cm 3764). There is no standard definition for seriousness among these offences.

  Information on prevalence of offending is contained in "Criminal careers of those born between 1953 and 1973" (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 14/95). It is estimated that among males born in 1953, 31 per cent. had been convicted of a standard list offence by the age of 30, and 34 per cent. before the age of 40. Comparable figures for females were 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. No figures are available for age 40 and over.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were for(a) violent crime, (b) car crime, (c) serious crime and (d) in total, in each year since 1988 for which figures are available. [40021]

  Mr. Michael
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of offenders convicted, at all courts, for certain crimes 1988–1996

  England and Wales

  000s

  Offence description

  Year

  Violent crime1

  Car crime2

  Serious crime3

  Total crime4

  1988

  65.5

  32.7

  5396.7

  51,604.9

  1989

  70.9

  29.8

  5348.8

  51,583.5

  1990

  69.2

  30.3

  5352.1

  51,562.7

  1991

  63.6

  30.5

  5346.8

  51,519.9

  1992

  61.6

  24.9

  5330.1

  51,528.4

  1993

  57.3

  22.1

  307.6

  1,425.3

  1994

  58.4

  21.6

  314.1

  51,424.6

  1995

  57.5

  20.1

  302.2

  51,429.7

  1996

  59.7

  20.1

  300.6

  51,440.8

  1Includes the indictable offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery and the summary offences of common assault.

  2Includes the indictable offences of theft from a vehicle, theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle, aggravated vehicle taking and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance and aggravated vehicle taking.

  3Taken as all indictable offences.

  4Taken as all indictable, summary non motoring and summary motoring offences.

  5Includes allowance for known shortfalls in the data. It is not possible to produce estimates for the more detailed offence categories.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of young people who have been victims of crime; and if he will make a statement. [40023]

  Mr. Michael
  While it is difficult to make a dependable estimate of the overall percentage of young people who have been victims of crime, a good deal of information is available from the 1992 British Crime Survey (BCS), the 1993 Youth Lifestyle Survey (YLS), and from a special data collection exercise on violent crime recorded by the police.

  According to the 1992 BCS, 60 per cent. of 12 to 15 year olds had experienced a theft, non-family assault and/or harassment in the six to eight months prior to the survey. Most of these incidents were not judged to be crimes by the victim: 18 per cent. had experienced something they regarded as a crime. The full findings are

  Victimisation rates by offence, average 1990–94 Rates per 100,000 population2

  Violence against the person

  Indecent assault1

  Robbery and theft from the person

  Rape Male

  Female

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Age of victim

  0–9

  94

  62

  6

  25

  94

  8

  2

  10–15

  704

  373

  59

  66

  327

  331

  54

  16–24

  1,234

  704

  58

  11

  130

  305

  116

  25–39

  634

  463

  21

  3

  37

  168

  93

  40–59

  273

  153

  5

  1

  10

  109

  66

  60 and over

  64

  26

  1

  0

  2

  44

  81

  Total

  477

  271

  18

  7

  63

  144

  67

  Coverage of recorded offences

  (50%)

  (72%)

  (64%)

  (55%)

  1 Including buggery offences

  2 Represents the number of victimisations per 100,000 population in each respective age group

  Recidivism
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research his Department has conducted which compares re-offending rates following prison and following alternatives to prison; and if he will make a statement; [40078]

  (2) what were the re-conviction rates in the (a) one year and (b) two years following (i) release from custody and (ii) completion of community sentences in the most recent period for which figures are available; if he will indicate the methodology used; and if he will make a statement; [40028]

  (3) what were the re-offending rates for young people leaving custody in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [40085]

  Mr. Michael
  The most recent information available on the reconviction rates of those released from custody is based on a sample of sentenced prisoners discharged during the first quarter of 1995. The reconviction rate one year after release is 39 per cent., and after two years is 55 per cent.
  194
  published in Home Office Research Study 140 'Young people, victimisation and the police: British Crime Survey findings on experiences and attitudes of 12 to 15 year olds', available in the Library.

  The 1993 YLS found that 51 per cent. of young people aged 14 to 25 had experienced one incident or more of vandalism, theft, violence or threats in the 12 months preceding the survey. 29 per cent. had experienced theft, 23 per cent. vandalism, 17 per cent. violence and 13 per cent. threats. The YLS will be conducted again later this year, providing up to date findings on the victimisation of young people.

  Information on the age of victims of crimes recorded by the police is not collected routinely by the Home Office. However, an ad hoc survey on violent crime shows the rates of recorded offences per 100,000 population by age and sex of victims for each of the violent crime offence categories (see table below). This information is published in Home Office Statistical Findings 1/96 'Victims of Violent Crime Recorded by the Police 1990–94', available in the Library.

  These rates and others quoted in this reply relate to reconvictions for standard list offences. These include all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences (a complete list can be found in Appendices 4 and 5 of Criminal Statistics England and Wales, 1996, Cm 3764).

  Reconviction rates for community sentences are most commonly quoted in terms of a period following commencement of the order. The most recently available rates for a period following completion of a community sentence (probation or community service) relate to a sample of offenders whose orders commenced in 1987. Completion of an order does not imply completion without reoffending and a proportion of those completing orders will be reconvicted on or before the termination date. The overall reconviction rate within two years of completion for the sample was 50 per cent. (if reconvictions on the termination date are included) but falls to 45 per cent. if reconvictions on the termination date are excluded. The respective rates at one year after completion are 39 and 30 per cent.

  Figures in respect of reconviction within two years of commencing an order are more up to date. The most recent available information relates to a sample of

  195
  offenders who commenced probation, community service or combination orders during the first quarter of 1995, of which 42 per cent. had been reconvicted one year after commencement and 56 per cent. after two years.

  The methodology used to produce the rates for custody was published in 'Reconvictions of prisoners discharged from prison in 1993, England and Wales' (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 5/97) and for community sentences in 'Reconvictions of those commencing community penalties in 1993, England and Wales' (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 6/97). Copies are in the Library.

  The most recent information available on the reoffending of young offenders leaving custody relates to reconviction rates within two years of discharge from Prison Service Establishments:

  Reconviction rates for standard list offences, within two years of discharge, for young offenders discharged from Prison Service establishments in England and Wales

  Percentage

  Period of discharge

  Reconvicted

  1992

  71

  1993

  74

  1994

  75

  1st quarter of 19951

  75

  1The coverage of standard list offences increased in July 1995 and January 1996. These changes had the effect of increasing the reconviction rate for young offenders discharged in the first quarter of 1995 from 74 per cent. to 75 per cent. to 75 per cent.

  The most recent detailed analysis of reconviction results is contained in Home Office Research Study 136. This used a two year follow-up for reconviction rates and is based on samples of offenders released from prison or commencing orders in 1987. After taking account of the characteristics of offenders and pseudo-reconvictions the authors concluded:
  "The key finding of this study—in common with previous studies—is that there was little difference between actual and predicted reconviction rates, suggesting that sentence on its own did not have a major impact upon the likelihood of reconviction. We found no clear evidence to suggest that custody outperformed community penalties or vice versa in preventing reoffending".

  Their results are broadly in line with those obtained from more recent samples of offenders described above. Some limited comparisons of those fined or conditionally discharged in 1993 have been made with rates for other disposals. A summary of results was presented to the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into alternatives to prison sentences.

  Research on the relationships between social factors and reconviction rates for those given community sentences is currently underway.

  Drug Treatment Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of drug treatment orders which will be made in the first full year of operation of the orders. [40139]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The purpose of piloting the drug treatment and testing order in three areas will be to evaluate its cost, effectiveness, and the demand for it from 196
  the courts. It is not possible at this stage to estimate with any accuracy how many orders will be made in the first full year of operation.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of drug testing and treatment orders which will be made in each of the pilot areas under the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] in (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [40138]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Each of the areas will receive an equal share of the funding available for the pilot and should make approximately the same number of drug treatment and testing orders. We estimate that the funds available will purchase 150–250 drug treatment and testing orders per annum, depending on the type of treatment proposed in each case. It would seem reasonable to assume that approximately one-third of these would be made in 1998–99 and two-thirds in 1999–2000.

  Remand Custody
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to implement section 9 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [40212]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government plan to implement section 9 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 early next year, subject to the satisfactory completion of pilots currently in progress. Section 9 requires a court, on passing a sentence of imprisonment, to identify the number of days spent on remand in custody or police detention by the defendant that are to be credited against the sentence imposed. It is essential that the courts have confidence in the remand information when sentencing. Pilots have been running since January with the aim of establishing a reliable system for passing remand details to the court.

  The Crime and Disorder Bill currently before Parliament contains technical amendments to section 9 consequential on the Government's decisions to repeal certain measures in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Rules, which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, are being drafted to govern the disallowing of remand time in cases where there are consecutive or wholly or partly concurrent sentences, and where some or all of a remand in custody is concurrent with a sentence of imprisonment.

  Embarkation Control
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the changed arrangements for embarkation control at United Kingdom ports and airports, with particular reference to(a) the manning of closed circuit television monitors, (b) the training of staff to monitor CCTV equipment, (c) which categories of immigration officers are being trained to monitor CCTV equipment, (d) how many immigration officers have been re-deployed as a result of the changes and (e) how many of these have been seasonal immigration officers. [40310]
  197
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Implementation of the new embarkation arrangements which I announced on 16 March commenced on 14 April. The transition is running smoothly. The answers to the hon Lady's specific questions are as follows:

  (a) the closed circuit television (CCTV) monitor will be staffed on the basis of operational need and intelligence received by the respective enforcement agencies;

  (b) basic instruction by an established company in this field has already been delivered and further training is being planned.

  (c) a number of relevant operational staff in the chief immigration officer, immigration officer and assistant immigration officer grades have received instruction in basic techniques of CCTV monitoring.

  (d) we estimate that it should be possible to re-deploy the equivalent of up to a maximum of 90 permanent posts in a full year once all the changes have been made; and

  (e) it is unlikely that in the long term any seasonal immigration officers will be re-deployed.

  Travellers
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to give greater powers to the police to evict travellers who are occupying private land against the wishes of the owners of the land. [40165]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]We will consider any proposals for strengthening the law if this will have a practical effect in helping the police to be more effective. The police already have wide powers under sections 61 and 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to remove trespassers and their vehicles where they have, for example, been abusive to the owner, a member of his family or his agent; or they have between them six or more vehicles. These powers complement the powers available to local authorities under sections 77 and 78 of the Act to direct unauthorised campers to leave land. Decisions about how to enforce the criminal law are an operational matter for chief police officers.

  Human Rights
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the United Kingdom has not ratified Protocol 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [40369]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are a few provisions in our domestic law—for example, at common law a husband has a duty to maintain his wife, but not vice versa—which are not compatible with Protocol 7. We intend to legislate to remove these inconsistencies, when a suitable opportunity occurs, and then to sign and ratify the Protocol.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the United Kingdom has not ratified Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in September 1963. [40370]
  198
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Ratification of Protocol 4 will be possible only if potential conflicts with our domestic laws can be resolved. There is a particular concern in relation to Article 3(2) of the Protocol, which protects the right of nationals not to be excluded from their home state. This could be taken as conferring the right of abode in the United Kingdom on various categories of British nationals who do not have it.

  Fines
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards income-related fines. [40218]

  Mr. Michael
  A scheme of unit fines was introduced by the previous administration in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, but the public did not have confidence in the system and it was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  When imposing a fine on an offender, the courts are required to take into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender. This includes the financial means of the offender, so far as it is known. This should ensure that the fine will be set at a level which is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, but which the offender can afford to pay.

  Sporting Events (Policing)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the percentage of commercial sporting events for the policing of which police forces presently charge; and if he will make a statement. [40235]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no information held centrally on which to base such an estimate. It is for chief officers of police to decide when to charge for the policing of commercial sporting events.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sportsmatch
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value of grants agreed by the Sportsmatch business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport has been since November 1992. [40169]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since its launch in November 1992, the Sportsmatch scheme has made 2,055 awards worth a total of £16,355,366.

  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications to the National Heritage Memorial Fund have been(a) made and (b) approved from organisations in the Warrington, North constituency since the fund was set up. [40224]
  199
  Mr. Banks
  The National Heritage Memorial Fund encompasses two separate funds: the heritage memorial fund and the heritage lottery fund. The heritage memorial fund has since 1980 served as a fund of last resort for the support of heritage projects throughout the United Kingdom. Information concerning funding applications to and awards from the memorial fund is not readily available on a constituency basis. The heritage lottery fund constitutes the heritage tranche of proceeds from the National Lottery. It has so far received four applications for funding from organisations in the Warrington, North constituency, two of which were successful.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the total value of grants awarded from the National Heritage Memorial Fund for each constituency in England and Wales. [40225]

  Mr. Banks
  Such information is available only in respect of awards by the heritage lottery fund. I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the list of awards for each constituency in the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers in local education authority schools in Wales were given early retirement at the age of 55 years and over in each of the last five years. [39435]

  Mr. Hain
  The number of teachers in local education authority schools (that is, maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools) in Wales who were given early retirement at the age of 55 years and over in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Ill health

  Premature

  Total

  1992–93

  108

  271

  379

  1993–94

  125

  323

  448

  1994–95

  114

  311

  425

  1995–96

  92

  295

  387

  1996–971

  97

  267

  364

  1 1996–97 data are still provisional

  Source:

  Database of teacher records and Pensioner statistical system

  Beef and Lamb
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure the effective

  £000

  Year

  WDA

  DBRW

  WTB

  EC 5b grant

  Welsh Office Other/fees

  Other/fees

  Total

  1991–92

  48

  7.5

  17.5

  0

  0

  62

  135

  1992–93

  1,019.5

  100.0

  40.0

  0

  0

  0

  1,159.5

  1993–94

  1,372.0

  102.6

  45.0

  0

  0

  0

  1,519.6

  1994–95

  1,400.0

  100.9

  50.0

  0

  0

  0

  1,550.9

  1995–96

  1,350.0

  105.0

  55.0

  0

  0

  0

  1,510.0

  1996–97

  500.0

  108.0

  55.0

  9

  550.0

  279

  1,451.0

  1997–98

  0

  110.0

  55.0

  378

  700.0

  185

  1,428.0

  200
  promotion of Welsh beef and lamb, with particular reference to the production methods of Welsh food producers. [39502]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Welsh Office provides support to Welsh Food Promotions Limited which through the marketing and promotional activities of its sister company, Welsh Lamb and Beef Promotions, is responsible for stimulating demand for Welsh lamb and beef. A key element of this is the Farm Assured Welsh Livestock scheme.

  The scheme is aimed at livestock producers and encourages the highest standards of animal husbandry and provides consumers with assurances on quality, traceability and animal welfare. Through direct Welsh Office support for a recruitment campaign, membership of the scheme has increased four fold to 3,500 in recent years.

  In addition, we are providing grant aid totalling over £2 million to two major projects aimed at improving breeding and production systems for Welsh lamb and beef. These projects, which are assisted under the Objective 5B scheme, are the Beef Development Project sponsored by ADAS and the Welsh Sheep Strategy.

  Finally, the Welsh Office will be seeking to develop organic and conservation grade farming as part of our plans to develop a long-term food strategy for Wales.

  Environmental Task Force
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1998,Official Report, column 444, how the aims and operation of the Environmental Task Force in Wales differ from those in (a) England and (b) Scotland. [39696]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The aims and operation of the New Deal Environment Task Force option in Wales are not significantly different from those in England or Scotland. However minor variations have been made to reflect the needs of each home country.

  Welsh Food Promotions Ltd.
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much public funding has been given to Welsh Food Promotions Ltd in each financial year since it was formed; and how much the Welsh Office has committed to it for the current financial year. [39644]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Welsh Food Promotions was established in 1991 and the public funds it has received since then is shown in the table.
  201
  Funding for the current financial year has not yet been announced as discussions on Welsh Food Promotions' 1998–99 business plan are continuing.

  Agricultural Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of centralising the payment of agricultural grants on the economies of those areas in which regional offices are currently based; [39743]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the centralisation of the farmers' grants payment system on the length of time taken to issue payments to farmers. [39733]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  On 16 March I announced plans to commission a study from consultants to assess the options for securing improved administration of Common Agricultural Policy payments in Wales.

  Work on the study has just begun and at this early stage the consultants have been asked to collect information from staff on all feasible options for developing the service. These could include options for centralising the service, for transferring responsibility for administering payments to MAFF or the Intervention Board, or for developing the service using the existing office structure.

  In line with the terms of reference for the study each option identified will be assessed in terms of the costs, benefits and risks it represents for the Welsh Office. All feasible options will be expected to deliver a bilingual service to farmers that meets the Welsh Office's objectives and the standards set out in the Charter Standard for Farmers in Wales, and complies with the requirements of EC regulations. All options will be assessed in terms of their impact on the number and distribution of employment opportunities within Wales.

  All these factors will be taken in to account in the study's final report which will inform my decision on the best way forward.

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the benefits of introducing a system of proportional representation for local government elections in Wales. [39737]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The emphasis so far has been on developing proposals for increasing the frequency of local elections. Little work has been done on the merits of alternative electoral systems for local government. Decisions on the way ahead in Wales will be informed by the response to the consultation document, "Local democracy and community leadership", published by my Department on 19 March.

  Milk Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent steps he has taken to support the Welsh milk industry. [39738]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  On 16 December 1997 officials from the Welsh Office attended the Mergers Panel meeting investigating the acquisition by Milk Marque of the Felinfach based Aeron Valley Cheese Company to underline the importance of this investment for the West 202
  Wales economy and dairy industry in particular. More recently, we have given written evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the selling of raw milk reinforcing these points and more generally the important contribution that the dairy sector makes to agriculture in Wales.

  The Welsh Office is currently considering an application for grant aid from Aeron Valley Cheese concerning their expansion plans.

  I have also, in recent months, discussed with colleagues the Milk Development Council's campaign to be allowed to retain its exemption from Corporation Tax.

  The EC's proposals for reform of the dairy sector as part of the Agenda 2000 are part of the on-going dialogue that I and my officials are having with the farming unions in Wales.

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to advertise publicly to fill the post of Chairman of the Dyfed Powys Health Authority when the present incumbent's term ends. [39949]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The post was advertised in October 1997 and an announcement will be made before the period of appointment of the present incumbent ends on 30 June 1998.

  Training
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many training providers are currently on the promotional file of Business Connect; [40108]

  (2) how many training providers have received contracts from each TEC in Wales for the year 1998–99. [40111]

  Mr. Hain
  This information is not held centrally. However the Department will be compiling a training database with the assistance of TECs in Wales for 1998–99 in preparation for the planned start of inspection of vocational training by OHMCI from 1 April 1999. This is subject to the passage of the necessary enabling vires for OHMCI in the Teacher and Higher Education Bill which is currently before the House.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors underlie the differences in the administration arrangements of the assisted places scheme in Wales. [40107]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the Education (Schools) Act 1997 and associated Regulations, the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the operation of the Assisted Places Scheme (APS) at participating independent schools in Wales.

  The Secretary of State has powers to vary, subject to consultation and Parliamentary approval of revised Regulations, certain administrative and financial elements of the Scheme. These include the determination, usually annually, of the relevant income levels in the Parental Contribution Tables and the maximum level of fees and other incidental expenses that may be remitted in relation

  203
  to APS pupils at participating schools. In practice, any changes in these elements have been consistent across England and Wales in percentage terms.

  There are some differences in the coverage of the APS in Wales compared with England. In Wales, the Scheme does not include places for pupils below age 7 nor places at preparatory schools that are not an integral part of a school with secondary provision.

  Local Government
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish his proposals for a new ethical framework for local government in Wales. [40787]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of the seventh and final consultation paper in the series inviting views on the options for modernising local government in Wales.

  The paper sets out the Government's proposals for a new ethical framework for Welsh local government. It will underpin the modernising process by ensuring that councillors and council employees are aware of the conduct expected of them and that all allegations will be investigated and appropriate action taken if they are upheld. These changes will ensure that the public retains confidence in Welsh local government.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to tackle social exclusion in Wales. [40788]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I will announce tomorrow that funding of £750,000 will be made available for the initial, development phase of a new Social Exclusion Programme for Wales. The focus of the Programme will be on tackling social exclusion in a co-ordinated way, through community development and with an emphasis on action research.

  Cadw
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets he has set for Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments Executive Agency. [40789]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Cadw has been set the following key targets for 1998–99:

  1. To complete 90 per cent. of the approved conservation maintenance programme.

  2. To complete 80 listing resurveys.

  3. To resolve 75 per cent. of ad hoc listing cases within 17 weeks.

  4. To complete 120 scheduling actions, of which at least 70 per cent. involve additional protection.

  5. To resolve 80 per cent. of listed building consent cases within 4 weeks and 90 per cent. of cases in 7 weeks.

  6. To resolve 75 per cent. of scheduled monument consent cases within 13 weeks and 90 per cent. of cases within 17 weeks.

  7. To resolve 80 per cent. of historic buildings grant applications in 18 weeks.

  8. To resolve 80 per cent. of ancient monument grant applications within 6 weeks.

  9. To pay 90 per cent. of properly presented claims for historic buildings and ancient monuments grants within 5 weeks of receipt.

  204

  10. To achieve a market share of 63 per cent. of the number of visitors to the top twenty heritage sites in Wales.

  11. To reduce the direct net cost per visitor at Cadw's sites to an average of 30p.

  12. To operate within allocated programme and running cost budgets.

  13. To achieve efficiency gains of at least 2 per cent.

  Full details of Cadw's performance against targets for 1998–99 will be published in the Agency's Annual Report.

  Education
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those grants and bursaries to educational establishments which have been in existence for three years or more which it is his policy to withdraw. [40374]

  Mr. Hain
  The following are to be withdrawn:

  Grants to grant maintained schools under sections 250–252 of the Education Act 1996. Such schools will come within the local authority funding arrangements from 1 April 1999 under the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Bill.

  Funding for assisted places under the Education (Schools) Act 1997, which is being phased out over a period of 7 years from September 1998.

  Training Grants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those grants and bursaries for training which have been in existence for three years or more which it is his policy to withdraw. [40375]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no plans to withdraw any training schemes which are currently open to new applicants, although, as with all such programmes, they are reviewed regularly.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of public appointees appointed since 1 May 1997 have been selected from outside the central list of nominees. [39690]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government are committed to obtaining a wide field of candidates for public appointments. Sources of candidates can include advertising, executive search, consultation with interested bodies, and searches of central and departmental lists.

  Since May, the Public Appointments Unit has made nominations for around 700 appointments. Over the same period, it has learnt of 82 appointments which have been made following nomination by the Unit. A number of recent appointments will still be under consideration.

  Figures on the total number of new appointments made to executive non-departmental public bodies and health bodies within his remit since April 97 will be published in the Annual Report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
  205
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his responsibilities relating to senior and public appointments; and what policy initiatives he has taken in this area. [39686]

  Dr. David Clark
  My responsibility for public appointments includes setting the policy framework in which public appointments are made; liaising with the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments who sets standards for the process of making appointments within his remit; and responsibility for the Public Appointments Unit in OPS which works with departmental appointments units in disseminating best practice, and maintains a central list of potential candidates for public appointments. Recent initiatives in this area have included the publication of the green paper on Opening up Quangos which set out proposals on extending the Commissioner's remit and attracting a wider range of candidates to public appointments; and the development of a public appointments register on the internet. In addition, I have responsibility for a number of appointments to Cabinet Office non-departmental public bodies.

  My responsibility for the senior civil service extends to policy oversight for their pay and personnel management framework, including general appointment procedures. Responsibility for appointments to the most senior civil service posts resides with the Prime Minister and the Head of the Home Civil Service. An important recent initiative in this field was the creation of an inter-departmental Working Group on Equal Opportunities in the Senior Civil Service.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the use of information technology in the selection of candidates for public appointment. [39689]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government are committed to effective and efficient use of modern technology in carrying out their function. Information technology is used in public appointments in a variety of ways, including maintaining databases of potential candidates. In addition, information technology is used to provide information about public appointments, for example via the public appointments website (Public Appointments Unit @ Cabinet-Office.gov.uk).

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the role of headhunting bodies in the selection of public appointees;

  Disabled staff as a percentage of all staff at 1 April 1997 by Department and responsibility level

  %

  Departments

  SCS

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Disabled

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  20.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3.5

  4.2

  1.7

  5.3

  12.9

  4.5

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  0.9

  2.9

  5.3

  2.1

  2.6

  2.4

  4.4

  3.7

  3.5

  Cabinet Office (incl. OPS)

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  2.2

  0.8

  1.7

  1.6

  2.4

  1.4

  Charity Commission

  0.0

  1—

  6.5

  2.9

  4.7

  6.3

  2.3

  2.5

  3.8

  Crown Prosecution Service

  0.0

  1.9

  6.7

  0.0

  2.2

  1.8

  2.2

  3.6

  2.2

  Culture, Media and Sport, Department

  9.1

  0.0

  1.5

  2.7

  0.0

  0.0

  1.0

  0.8

  1.1

  Customs and Excise

  0.0

  1.2

  0.6

  0.9

  1.2

  1.4

  3.0

  4.8

  2.2

  Defence

  1.3

  1.6

  2.0

  2.6

  4.7

  4.6

  3.6

  4.1

  3.9

  206
  and what assessment he has made of the extent to which those from ethnic minority backgrounds are represented on such headhunting bodies. [39691]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government are committed to obtaining a wide field of candidates for public appointments. The guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes clear that sources of candidates can include advertising, consultation with interested bodies, search of central and departmental lists and the use of executive search can be particularly helpful in seeking to attract people who are not currently looking for a job, or who would not normally think of putting themselves forward for public appointment.

  The employment of members of the ethnic minorities is a matter for the executive search companies themselves. Departments will engage such companies in line with normal Government rules on tendering. All government contracts have provision against unlawful discrimination; and oblige the contractor to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their employees or agents do not discriminate.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average interval between the nomination of candidates for appointment to a public body, and the taking up of the appointment. [39688]

  Dr. David Clark
  Information on the time between nomination and any appointment is not held centrally. The time is likely to differ substantially, depending on the circumstances.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the accountability of public appointments bodies to ministers. [39687]

  Dr. David Clark
  Ministers are directly responsible for around 30,000 public appointments. The Commissioner for Public Appointments, appointed under the Public Appointments Commissioner Order in Council 1995, produces guidance on the public appointments process, which sets out the role of Ministers, the alternative sources of candidates and the Commissioner's own responsibility to monitor and report on public appointments within his remit.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by grade and by Government department the percentage of employees in the Civil Service who are disabled. [39913]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 27 April 1998]The proportions of non-industrial civil servants by grade and by Government department who are disabled as at 1 April 1997 are set out in the table.
  207

  Disabled staff as a percentage of all staff at 1 April 1997 by Department and responsibility level

  %

  Departments

  SCS

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Disabled

  Education and Employment, Department for

  1.4

  2.8

  3.7

  4.2

  3.7

  4.6

  6.1

  10.8

  5.6

  Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)

  11.1

  2.6

  0.0

  9.1

  4.2

  1.6

  2.1

  5.2

  3.2

  Environment (including Property Holdings)

  0.0

  0.0

  1.0

  1.1

  1.2

  1.7

  1.4

  3.6

  1.4

  Health and Safety Commission/Executive

  1.2

  0.8

  1.7

  1.0

  2.7

  3.1

  4.3

  6.9

  2.9

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  0.0

  50.0

  27.9

  8.8

  10.5

  7.4

  4.0

  14.0

  9.7

  FCO: Diplomatic Service

  0.9

  1.2

  2.6

  2.2

  2.1

  1.2

  2.9

  3.4

  2.0

  Friendly Societies, Registry of

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  4.5

  0.0

  2.5

  14.3

  2.9

  Government Actuary

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  16.7

  20.0

  0.0

  3.8

  Health

  1.8

  0.0

  3.6

  3.3

  3.1

  4.3

  2.8

  2.7

  3.1

  HM Prison Service

  0.0

  0.6

  1.0

  0.9

  1.0

  0.6

  0.2

  0.7

  0.3

  Home Office

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  0.7

  1.4

  1.8

  3.1

  2.8

  2.0

  Information, Central Office of

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.9

  3.7

  0.5

  Inland Revenue

  2.5

  2.8

  2.7

  3.2

  3.6

  3.6

  3.2

  5.5

  3.9

  International Development, Department for

  0.0

  0.0

  1.1

  0.0

  2.0

  1.7

  2.4

  9.4

  2.6

  Intervention Board

  0.0

  0.0

  4.0

  12.8

  6.1

  6.2

  9.1

  10.2

  8.2

  Land Registry

  0.0

  0.0

  22.0

  2.3

  1.7

  2.6

  4.0

  8.6

  4.2

  Legal Secretariat

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1—

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  0.0

  1.7

  1.4

  2.0

  1.2

  2.2

  2.6

  4.1

  2.6

  National Investment and Loans Office

  0.0

  1—

  0.0

  0.0

  1—

  8.3

  0.0

  1—

  2.7

  National Savings, Department for

  0.0

  10.0

  2.6

  2.0

  2.0

  1.8

  1.9

  5.1

  2.8

  National Statistics, Office for

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.6

  0.6

  1.6

  1.1

  4.0

  1.5

  Northern Ireland Office

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3.7

  0.9

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Office of Fair Trading

  9.1

  0.0

  2.1

  0.0

  4.3

  2.9

  4.3

  0.0

  3.0

  Office of Gas Supply

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.9

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  8.3

  0.0

  5.6

  16.7

  0.0

  2.9

  Office of Telecommunications

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Office of the National Lottery

  0.0

  1—

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  12.5

  0.0

  0.0

  1—

  0.0

  5.6

  0.0

  0.0

  1.7

  Office of Water Services

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  6.7

  0.6

  Ordnance Survey

  0.0

  0.0

  2.6

  2.8

  2.0

  2.4

  3.2

  14.3

  2.6

  Privy Council Office

  0.0

  1—

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Public Record Office

  0.0

  0.0

  11.8

  8.3

  4.2

  3.6

  4.0

  14.2

  7.2

  Royal Mint

  0.0

  0.0

  14.3

  0.0

  4.6

  1.1

  1.0

  3.3

  2.5

  Scottish Office

  0.0

  1.2

  0.0

  0.3

  0.5

  0.8

  1.5

  4.2

  1.5

  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  2.0

  0.0

  0.8

  0.5

  General Register Office—Scotland

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.3

  2.1

  0.9

  Lord Advocates Department

  0.0

  0.0

  1—

  1—

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Registers of Scotland

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  2.3

  4.4

  5.3

  2.9

  Scottish Courts Administration

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Scottish Courts Service

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.3

  1.0

  1.0

  1.3

  1.0

  Scottish Prison Service

  2.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  Scottish Record Office

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  7.7

  6.3

  0.0

  2.4

  Security and Intelligence Services

  0.0

  0.0

  1.3

  1.5

  0.5

  1.0

  1.7

  1.0

  1.1

  Serious Fraud Office

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  6.3

  0.0

  0.0

  7.1

  0.0

  1.8

  Social Security

  4.3

  1.3

  1.2

  2.8

  5.0

  6.4

  6.3

  8.7

  6.6

  Trade and Industry

  2.1

  3.0

  3.0

  3.4

  2.6

  3.2

  4.5

  6.1

  3.8

  Transport

  0.0

  1.2

  0.2

  0.8

  0.7

  0.5

  1.2

  2.6

  1.1

  Treasury

  3.9

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  1—

  0.0

  0.9

  4.8

  1.0

  Treasury Solicitor

  2.1

  6.1

  2.2

  4.0

  5.7

  8.6

  13.2

  11.4

  6.9

  Welsh Office (including OHMCIS)

  1.4

  1.9

  4.5

  5.0

  6.2

  4.2

  2.9

  4.4

  3.9

  Total

  1.3

  1.6

  2.3

  2.1

  3.1

  3.7

  3.9

  5.4

  3.8

  1No staff at this responsibility level.

  Note:

  1. Figures are for non industrial staff and are calculated on a head count basis.

  2. Since April 1996, service-wide grades no longer exists. The "responsibility levels" shown in this table assign staff to eight levels of responsibility broadly equivalent to the previous grades.

  Source:

  Mandate and Departmental Returns.

DEFENCE

  NATO Enlargement
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to hold a public debate on NATO enlargement prior to ratification. [40391]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We have undertaken to provide time for debates in both Houses before Her Majesty's Government accept the Protocols of Accession 208
  enabling the accession to NATO of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. The Protocols were tabled with explanatory memoranda by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 8 April 1998. We will respond in the normal way to the recent report by the Defence Select Committee. We have also taken steps to increase the amount of information available about NATO and NATO enlargement by establishing web pages on the Ministry of Defence's World Wide Web site at http://www.mod.uk.

EDUCASTION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Undergraduate Students
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the numbers of(a) full-time and (b) sandwich undergraduates broken down by socio-economic categories A to E attending former polytechnics and colleges in 1995. [39423]

  Dr. Howells
  The available data held centrally on full-time and sandwich undergraduate students by social classes A to E are provided in the table. Figures for full-time and sandwich students separately are not available. The table shows the numbers of accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich courses in former polytechnics and colleges who apply through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS); however not all full-time and sandwich undergraduate students in these institutions enter through UCAS.

  Accepted applicants through UCAS to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the former Polytechnics and Colleges1 in the UK, by Social Class: Autumn 1995 entry

  Home domiciled, all ages

  Social class

  Numbers

  A. Professional

  15,735

  B. Intermediate

  54,561

  Cl. Skilled non-manual

  17,860

  C2. Skilled manual

  27,838

  D. Partly skilled

  13,174

  E. Unskilled

  3,578

  18,720

  Not Known Total

  151,466

  1All institutions other than the former UFC funded institutions.

  Higher Education Qualifications
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the proportion of people with higher education qualifications by parliamentary constituency in(a) 1981 and (b) 1991. [39424]

  Dr. Howells
  Data from the 1991 Census showing the proportion of people with higher education qualifications in each constituency are published by the Office for National Statistics in the "New Parliamentary Constituency Monitor" series. Copies of these, and the equivalent publications covering the 1981 Census, are available in the Library. These figures are not reproduced here because of the volume of data involved.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the spending by local education authorities in England was on special educational needs for the years(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98. [39616]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is not possible to disaggregate expenditure on all pupils and students with special needs. The table shows expenditure by local education 210
  authorities on pupils and students with statements of special educational needs for 1994–95 to 1996–97, the latest year for which figures are available.

  1994–95: £1.82 billion

  1995–96: £1.63 billion

  1996–97: £1.69 billion

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the spending by local education authorities in England was on teacher training and development for special educational needs in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98. [39617]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of total LEA expenditure on teacher training and development are not held centrally. The Government do provide support to local education authorities for teacher training and development for special educational needs through the Standards Fund, known as the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme up to 1997–98. This provides specific resources for teacher training in special educational needs, but allows local education authorities to determine spending, in accordance with local needs. LEAs may use other funds for teacher training and development in addition to that supported through the Standards Fund.

  GEST programme—elements of the grant for teacher training and development for special educational needs

  Year

  £million

  1994–95

  15.2

  1995–96

  20.6

  1996–97

  20.1

  1997–98

  16.9

  Note:

  In 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 there were two separate grants, one to support training for SEN and one to support implementation of the SEN Code of Practice. These have been combined to provide an overall figure for training and development for special educational needs. In 1997–98 there was only one combined grant.

  Arts Subjects
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the provision in the National Curriculum for the promotion and classroom study of areas of artistic specialisation and subjects other than those concerned with literacy and numeracy. [39850]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Music and art remain National Curriculum foundation subjects and continue to be taught in all schools. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education to make recommendations on how we might identify, encourage and nurture creativity in young people. The Committee will be taking a close look at the arts in schools as part of its work.

  Hansard (CD-Roms)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make available free of charge CD-ROMS of Parliamentary Debates to public libraries and secondary schools. [39909]
  211
  Dr. Howells
  Hansard is available on the Internet website of the Stationery Office. Most secondary schools and many public libraries have access to the Internet and it is the Government's intention that all will have access by 2002. Hansard is also available in CD-ROM format to schools and at special rates to public libraries and it is open to schools and library authorities to consider its purchase.

  School Toilets
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will extend the scope of funding for the replacement of outside toilets to include those schools which will continue to depend substantially on such facilities. [40168]

  Mr. Byers
  There is no need to extend the scope of the funding. Our guidance to local education authorities (LEAs) states that:
  "grant will be available for projects which will ensure that a school's principal toilet accommodation will be accessed from indoors either by remodelling, the building of an extension, or the construction of enclosed links between the main buildings and current externally accessed toilet blocks".
  LEAs will be able to apply for funding for all schools which have outside toilets which fall within this definition. We would not normally, however, consider support for the replacement of toilets in temporary teaching accommodation which the LEA or governors expect to be taken out of use or replaced by permanent accommodation within a reasonable period.

  International Labour Organisation
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason the United Kingdom has not ratified Convention 138, on the minimum age of child labour, of the Core Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. [40372]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government fully support the principles embodied in the Convention and are currently reviewing the United Kingdom position with regard to ratification.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons the United Kingdom has not ratified Convention 111, on discrimination on grounds of race, sex, religion, social origin and political opinion, of the Core Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. [40373]

  Mr. Andrew Smith:
  Although the Government have not yet ratified this Convention we are strongly committed to the principles contained in it. Therefore we are currently reviewing the position towards ratification.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Gender Issues
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards COM (98) 82 on gender issues. [37000]
  212
  Ms Ruddock
  It is a priority of this Government to ensure that women's needs and interests are at the heart of Government in all policy development, across all departments.

  The Ministers for Women have issued new guidance for policy makers to achieve this objective (often referred to as "mainstreaming"). The guidance will be launched on 18 May at a major conference for senior civil servants and representatives of women's organisations. The guidance is backed up by a new civil service training initiative, and a programme to monitor progress, with regular reports from all departments.

  The Regulation on Integrating Gender Issues in Development Cooperation is currently under discussion in the European Community. It will ensure that resources are directly targeted at the pursuit of gender equality in the European Community's development programme. The Government welcome this initiative.

  During the UK Presidency of the EU, Department for International Development has made it a priority to improve the effectiveness of the Community's development programmes. As part of this, the UK launched an initiative to review the implementation of the 1995 Gender Resolution to consider what more needs to be done to improve performance and impact in this key area. We expect conclusions on this to be adopted at the May Development Council.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate she has made of the value of debts outstanding to the Benefits Agency, what resources are being devoted by the Agency to their recovery; and what is the average age of such debts; [39221]

  (2) how many and what percentage of outstanding debts were recovered by the Benefits Agency over the most recent period for which figures are available; what methods were employed; and in what percentage of cases litigation was pursued; [39223]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the expenditure incurred by the Benefits Agency in the recovery of debts for the most recent period for which figures are available; and what was the total amount recovered as a result. [39224]

  Mr. Denham
  We are transforming the Social Security system into an Active Modern Service that commands the support and confidence of those who fund it, those who use it, and those who administer it, and provides a better, simpler, more efficient service to clients. As part of this, we are introducing a new overpayment recovery strategy for the Benefits Agency which will ensure that:
  causes of overpayments are identified and dealt with;failures in recovery of overpayment are minimised; and overpayments are identified, calculated and recovery is effected as quickly as possible
  The administration of debt recovery action is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  213
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 27 April 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the recovery of outstanding debts.
  Debt owning to the Benefits Agency (BA) falls into two main categories, recoverable overpayments of benefit and loans made through the Social Fund (SF). The estimated total debt currently outstanding is £691m, in benefit overpayments and £400m in SF loans.
  Resources available for recovery work for 1998/99 are estimated at £24.9m for overpayments of benefit and £1 Om for the SF. As far as overpayments of benefits are concerned, information relating to the age of debts is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Information on the current age of debts owning to the SF is not available. However, the following information is held for the year ending in March 1997.

  Age

  Percentage of total

  Less than 1 year

  64.95

  1-2

  19.25

  2-3

  7.18

  3-4

  3.61

  4-5

  2.09

  Over 5

  2.82

  The total volume of overpayments of benefit cleared for the fiscal year 1996/97, the most recent period for which figures are available, was 224.771, representing 22% of the total stock of overpayments. A total of 1,298,778 SF loans were recovered in 1996/97, representing 65% of the outstanding debt.
  As far as overpayments of benefit are concerned, the method of recovery depends on whether the debtor remains in receipt of benefit. If this is the case and the debtor is unable to repay immediately, recovery is made by deduction from ongoing benefit entitlement. The amount deducted can vary depending on the debtors circumstances and whether other deductions are being made from benefit, for example to clear arrears of housing or fuel costs.
  The maximum that can be deducted from Income Support and income based Job Seekers Allowance under current regulations is currently £7.65 per week, rising to £10.00 per week in cases of proven fraud. For other benefits, the rate is set at a maximum of one third of the personal allowance for that benefit.
  For those people no longer in receipt of benefit, voluntary arrangements for repayment are sought. Where these are not forthcoming, recovery is pursued through the civil courts if appropriate.
  The vast bulk of SF loans are recovered by deductions from benefit.
  When recovering both overpayments of benefit and SF loans, civil action is not taken against those still in receipt of benefit. For those not in receipt of benefit, litigation is pursued as a last resort. It was taken in approximately 7% of overpayment of benefit cases and approximately 14% of SF cases in 1996/97.
  The expenditure incurred by the Benefits Agency in the recovery of debts in 1996/97, the most recent period for which figures are available, was:
  £15.6m for overpayments of benefit.
  £22.1m for SF.
  The total amounts recovered for this period were:
  £102.6m for overpayments of benefit.
  £299m for SF.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for reforming the Benefit 214
  Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement on the review of the gateways into disability living allowance and attendance allowance. [38949]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to help ensure the correctness of awards of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) which evidence has shown to be vulnerable to change over time. Up-to-date information is being gathered from beneficiaries about their care and mobility needs, so that we can check that they are receiving the correct amount of DLA.

  Since taking office last year, we have made a number of improvements to the way in which the Project operates. On 9 February, we introduced an extra safeguard, to help ensure that we get decisions right and restore confidence.

  Following consultation between my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and my noble Friend, the Baroness Hollis and the disability organisations, we took the decision that people aged 65 or over would not be contacted as part of the Project. We will work with the disability organisations to look at ways of improving Project literature and staff training, at speeding up reviews and appeals and at extending the categories of people who need not be contacted directly as part of the Project.

  This demonstrates our determination to be fair and to keep under review the way in which the Project operates. We are setting up a forum with organisations of and for disabled people to discuss how the gateways to DLA and Attendance Allowance (AA) can be improved. We are committed to the principle of providing special allowances to help with the extra costs of disability and we intend to maintain DLA and AA as universal, national benefits for those who meet the entitlement conditions.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 31 March 1998,Official Report, columns 485–86, on lone parents, if he will list the common characteristics of the lone parents who will be worse off overall. [40256]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Less than 5 per cent. of lone parents will be worse off as a result of these changes, those who will be fall into three groups:

  (a) Those who will not be entitled to the lone parent rate of Child Benefit and make a new claim for Income Support, assessed Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit, and who do not have a child under 11;

  (b) Those who will not be entitled to the lone parent rate of Child Benefit and remain on maximum Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit after all of the benefit changes;

  (c) Those who will not be entitled to the lone parent rate of Child Benefit or any income related benefits.

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board Small Board sessions(a) were held between 1 August 1997 and 31 March 1998 and (b) have been held since 1 April 1998. [39884]

  Mr. Denham
  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board held 62 small boards sessions between 1 August 1997 and 31 March 1998. One has been held since 1 April 1998.

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to consult with(a) pensioners' organisations and (b) other interested groups and charities in advance of the publication of the Government's Pensions Review. [40392]

  Mr. Denham
  The first stage of the Pensions Review has involved an extensive public consultation exercise with pensioners' organisations, employers, employees, consumer groups, charities, the pensions industry and others. We have met representatives of many of these organisations since the review was launched last July and we are meeting the National Pensioners' Convention on a regular basis reflecting their central and specific role to ensure that the views of today's pensioners are at the heart of the review process.

  We received over 2,000 responses to the first part of the review and over 200 responses to our proposals on stakeholder pensions. As set out in the Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare" (Cm 3805), we will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. There will then be a period of further consultation before final proposals are developed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union Council
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for May and the major European Union events for the next six months. [40785]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  European calendar: May-October 1998

  Date

  Venue

  Council

  May 1998

  1–3

  Brussels

  Ecofin and Special EMU Council

  5

  Brussels

  Political Committee (t.b.c.)

  5–6

  Belfast

  EU Ministers Women's Forum (Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  7–8

  Barbados

  ACP-EC Council

  8

  London

  EU/Japan Troika Ministerial (t.b.c.)

  8–9

  London

  G8 Foreign and Finance Ministerial

  10–12

  Newcastle

  Meeting of Agriculture Ministers

  11

  Brussels

  Energy Council (t.b.c.)

  11

  Brussels

  Euro-Med Energy Ministerial

  11–15

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  12

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  14

  London

  EU/Canada Summit

  14–15

  London

  Innovative Partnerships for Competitiveness Conference

  14–16

  London

  Conference on Culture and Employment

  15–17

  Birmingham

  G8 Summit

  18

  London

  EU/US Summit

  18

  Brussels

  Development Council

  18

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  18–20

  Northern Ireland

  Regional Affairs Committee

  19

  London

  Conference on Developing EU Public Health Policy

  216

  European calendar: May-October 1998

  Date

  Venue

  Council

  19

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  19

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  20

  London

  EU Public Administration Ministers Meeting

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  28

  Brussels

  Culture and Audiovisual Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  June 1998

  2

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  3–

  Palermo

  Ad-hoc meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers

  4

  Luxembourg

  Education and Social Affairs Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  Ecofin Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  8–9

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  8–9

  Glasgow

  Regional Policy/Spatial Planning Ministers' informal

  15–16

  Cardiff

  European Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  Joint Environment and Transport Council

  18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  19

  Glasgow

  Energy and Environment Conference

  22

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Presidency Biotechnology Round Table

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  July 1998

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  6

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  6–7

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  8–10

  Innsbruck

  Employment/Social Affairs/Women (Informal)

  13

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  13–14

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  17–19

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council (Informal)

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  27

  Luxembourg

  Budget Council

  August 1998

  There are no Councils scheduled for this month.

  September 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  5–6

  Salzburg

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  7–8

  Brussels

  Special Committee on Agriculture

  10–11

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Transport Council (Informal)

  21

  New York

  Political Committee

  215–222

  St. Wolfgang, Austria

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  24

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs

  24

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  25–27

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council (Informal)

  28–29

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  October 1998

  1–2

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  2–3

  Luxembourg

  Industry/Research and Technology Council (Informal)

  5

  Luxembourg

  Work and Social Affairs Council

  5–6

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  6

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  12

  Luxembourg

  Ecofin Council

  13

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  217

  European calendar: May-October 1998

  Date

  Venue

  Council

  13

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  European Council

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  23–24

  Luxembourg

  Education Council (Informal)

  26

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Christmas Island
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 8 January 1998, concerning Christmas Island, what action has been taken on the costs and technical issues involved in the clean-up of Christmas Island. [39312]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since my letter of 8 January there has been a further round of correspondence between myself, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for International Development. Officials have drawn up a three stage plan to identify the cost and technical issues that would be involved in any future clean-up of Christmas Island.

  General Affairs Council
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 27 and 28 April. [40535]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  1. The General Affairs council in Luxembourg on 27 April adopted the A points, and noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its session of 30 March—3 April. Copies of the documents listing the A points and resolutions will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  2. The Council invited COREPER to continue work on preparations to the EU/Canada and EU/US Summits on 14 May and 18 May respectively, including taking forward an EU position on transatlantic trade and on US sanctions legislation.

  3. The Presidency reported on progress on Agenda 2000 negotiations. Some Foreign Ministers commented on political aspects of the dossier, including the Own Resources system. The Council agreed how to handle European Parliament involvement.

  4. The Council heard a report from Commissioner van den Broek on the Commission's exploratory contacts with Turkey on the elements of the proposed European strategy for Turkey identified at Luxembourg. It reaffirmed the importance it attaches to a successful Association Council and invited the Presidency and Commission to continue the necessary preparation on the European Strategy to that end. Most Member States noted the importance of releasing the financial protocol for Turkey to allow full implementation of the strategy.

  5. The Presidency briefed partners on the recent visit of the Prime Minister to the Middle East. The Council welcomed the agreement of Prime Minister Netanyahu
  218
  and President Arafat to meet US Secretary of State Albright in London on 4 May, as well as additional meetings of all three with the Presidency. These meetings represent an important opportunity to reinvigorate negotiations. The EU strongly urged the parties to approach the London meetings with the necessary determination to find a compromise along the lines put to them by the US. The EU is ready to help facilitate progress.

  6. The Presidency briefed the Council on Northern Ireland and thanked EU partners for their constructive support, including through Objective One Funding.

  7. On Kosovo, the Council expressed concern at the mounting violence and reiterated its calls for restraint from both sides. It called for an urgent dialogue between the parties without pre-conditions, and with international involvement, to help secure a lasting solution. The Council regretted that President Milosevic had thus far failed to promote a peaceful settlement and passed a Regulation implementing at the Community level those measures against the FRY agreed by common position on 19 March. The Council agreed that further measures against the FRY would be taken in the event of continued failure to address international concerns. But the Council also underlined a wish to develop relations between FRY and the rest of Europe in return for a real willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.

  8. On Montenegro, the Council welcomed positive developments in political and economic reform, and agreed to allocate an initial sum of 3 million ECU to help the new Montenegrin Government meet outstanding social welfare commitments.

  9. The Council also considered its regional approach to the development of contractual relations between the EU and countries in the Western Balkans region. It concluded that the Commission should look closely at the feasibility of improved trade relations with Albania, and how best to implement existing arrangements with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It considered that the time was not yet right for further deepening of contractual links with FRY, Bosnia or Croatia; and called into question Croatia's continued eligibility for EU trade preferences unless it improved its performance against agreed EU conditionality.

  10. The Presidency reported on preparations for the EU/Russia Summit, which will be held in Birmingham on 15 May.

  11. The fourth EU/Slovakia and EU/Romania Association Councils took place on 28 April. The meetings took stock of the past year's developments in the enlargement process, and Slovakia and Romania's preparations for accession, notably their progress towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria for membership. The EU/Slovakia Council paid particular attention to the shortcomings in Slovakia's democratic institutions. The EU/Romania Council concentrated on economic reform.

  12. The state of relations between the EU and Slovakia and Romania under the Europe Agreements was noted, particularly recent progress and problems in trade and agriculture.
  219
  13. The joint dinner on 27 April discussed the following issues: strengthening of democratic institutions, relations with neighbouring countries, including regional cooperation, and border management.

  14. The tenth EC/Malta Association Council met on 28 April, and adopted a Joint Declaration on future relations, including a political commitment to establish a Free Trade Area. In the margins, two further Joint Declarations were adopted: on political dialogue and on Justice and Home Affairs cooperation. Over lunch, Member States discussed the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

TREASURY

  Individual Savings Account
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 1998,Official Report, column 775, when he will place the results on the consultation exercise on the ISA Green Paper in the Library. [36873]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]The Government will publish a summary of the consultation exercise on the individual savings account when draft regulations for the new account are issued for consultation.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to respond to the question from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tabled for answer on 30 March regarding placing the results of the ISA consultation exercise in the Library; and if he will ensure that the responses to the consultation paper are available to hon. Members before he makes further reference to them. [40394]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I have done so.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of transfers of European Communities moneys expressed in SEC (1998) 153 on the Single Currency information programme. [37772]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This transfer covers expenditure under two EC Budget lines relating to the Commission's information and communication policy: B3–300 (General information and communication work concerning the European Union) and B3–306 (Information programme for European citizens (Prince) Information activities in connection with specific policies), which covers expenditure on the Single Currency information programme.

  When the 1998 EC budget was adopted, in respect of B3–306 the European Parliament entered 15 million ecu (about £10 million1) in commitment appropriations and 10 million ecu (about £6.7 million) in payment appropriations in the Reserve pending further information on the breakdown and coverage of resources between the two main information campaigns for 1998: "Euro, a single currency for Europe" and "Building Europe Together".
  220
  The Commission attached detailed plans on both campaigns to the transfer proposal.

  1Converted at the rate of £1=1.4998 ecu, which is the rate set for UK VAT and Fourth Resource contributions to the 1998 Community Budget.

  Deutschmark
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rise or fall in(a)real and (b) nominal terms of the Deutschmark against (i) sterling and (ii) the US dollar for (1) each three month period in the four years up to the end of March 1998 and (2) in total for that period and indicating the balance of trade with Germany for each period. [39351]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The real and nominal movements in the sterling and dollar rates against the Deutschmark from 1994Q2 until 1998Q1 are given in the table alongside the quarterly UK balance of trade in goods with Germany. The effects of exchange rate movements on trade balances are difficult to isolate. However, recently the UK's deficit on trade in goods with Germany has been similar to its level four years earlier.

  Percentage change on previous quarter

  DM/Sterling exchange rate

  DM/Dollar exchange rate

  UK balance trade in goods with Germany (£ million)3

  Nominal1

  Real2

  Nominal1

  Real2

  1994Q2

  -2.3

  -2.9

  -3.5

  -3.8

  -1,068

  1994Q3

  -3.2

  -3.3

  -6.0

  -6.3

  -1,346

  1994Q4

  1.2

  0.8

  -1.1

  -0.9

  -1,164

  1995Q1

  -4.4

  -3.3

  -4.3

  -4.2

  -1,282

  1995Q2

  -4.7

  -3.0

  -5.5

  -4.7

  -1,631

  1995Q3

  0.9

  2.7

  2.5

  3.8

  -1,447

  1995Q4

  -1.3

  0.0

  -0.6

  0.3

  -1,567

  1996Q1

  1.3

  2.7

  3.1

  4.0

  -1,774

  1996Q2

  3.1

  4.0

  3.7

  5.1

  -1,528

  1996Q3

  0.4

  0.9

  -1.6

  -0.3

  -1,484

  1996Q4

  7.2

  8.7

  2.3

  3.8

  -1,651

  1997Q1

  8

  9.3

  8.1

  10.0

  -1,407

  1997Q2

  3.7

  4.9

  3.5

  4.8

  -1,245

  1997Q3

  4.6

  5.8

  5.3

  6.1

  -1,353

  1997Q4

  -0.7

  1.0

  -2.7

  -2.5

  -1,372

  1998Q1

  2.7

  4.7

  3.5

  3.6

  n/a

  Total change

  16.8

  22.5

  5.6

  8.8

  —

  1A minus sign denotes sterling/dollar depreciation.

  2 Nominal exchange rate changes adjusted for changes in relative consumer prices.

  3A minus sign denotes a deficit.

  Vitamin B Supplements
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have died as a result of taking vitamin B supplements in each of the last 20 years. [39877]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  221
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Tredinnick, dated 30 April 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary question on how many people have died as a result of taking vitamin B supplements in each of the last 20 years.
  Between 1993 and 1997 (the latest year for which data are available; 1997 data are provisional) there were no deaths in England and Wales certified as due in part or whole to taking vitamin B supplements.
  Data for earlier years are only available at disproportionate cost.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 April 1998,Official Report, column 555, if the Monetary Policy Committee has responsibility to assess the use of alternative monetary instruments. [39745]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Bank of England Bill gives the Monetary Policy Committee the responsibility for formulating monetary policy. This includes assessing the use of alternative monetary instruments which were reviewed at the meeting in August 1997.

  LG Investment, South Wales
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the exact date upon which Treasury approval was given for the LG investment in South Wales to receive regional selective assistance exceeding the cost per job ceiling for intermediate status areas. [39724]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The year was 1996. The exact date falls under advice given to the previous administration and so is confidential.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on national gross domestic product of the United Kingdom joining economic and monetary union. [39754]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor has set five tests for determining if the economic case for joining the single currency is clear and unambiguous. The fifth test is whether joining EMU would promote higher growth and jobs. On 27 October 1997 the Treasury published "UK membership of the single currency: as assessment of the five economic tests". It concluded that, while joining EMU had the potential to enhance growth, the UK economy was not yet sufficiently converged and flexible to realise these potential benefits.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance his Department provides to business in preparation for the United Kingdom joining economic and monetary union. [39946]

  Mrs. Liddell
  HM Treasury intends to publish by the end of the year an outline national changeover plan setting out the steps which would be involved in joining the single currency. A wide range of activities is also under way, organised by the Euro Preparations Unit in HM Treasury, to help businesses prepare for the launch of the euro elsewhere in the European Union on 1 January 1999.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 April 1998,Official Report, columns 953–55, if there was informal discussion about the Maastricht criteria at the Ecofin Conference in York. [40084]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The convergence criteria of the Maastricht Treaty were not discussed in the ECOFIN meeting at York.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of the (i) paid and (ii) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [39407]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]The Government are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this I have drawn up an Action Plan for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding appointments in public bodies of the Chancellor's Departments and Agencies. The information for the NDPBs to which the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers make appointments is as follows:

  Number of appointments since 1 May 1997

  Paid

  Unpaid

  Number of women appointed

  1

  —

  Women as percentage of appointments

  20

  —

  Number of women appointed

  —

  4 appointments

  —

  13 re-appointments

  Women as percentage of appointments and re-appointments

  —

  23.5

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown for each department, by accounting heading of the amount spent in the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 on central administration and associated expenditure as set out in Table 5.4 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1997–98 (Cm 3601, March 1997); and if he will identify for each department and each accounting heading the amount of such expenditure defined as identifiable and non-identifiable in terms of allocation by geographic area of the UK. [40095]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]The most recent data for central administration expenditure by department for 1995–96 and 1996–97 were published in table 5.7 of Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 1998–99 (Cm 3901, published on 3 April 1998). Information regarding the breakdown of these departmental administration figures across specific functional categories is not held centrally.
  223
  The latest analysis of expenditure by country is presented in Section 7 of the same publication. For most government departments, nearly all central administration costs are included in the identifiable spending which has been apportioned between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, where the expenditure which the administration supports is deemed to have been incurred for the benefit of the UK as a whole, central administration expenditure has not been allocated between countries, and is included in non-identifiable expenditure. With the exception of Scottish Office, Welsh Office and Northern Ireland Departments (whose administration expenditure is assigned to the relevant country), precise information as to the allocation by country of departmental administration costs, separate from the rest of a department's expenditure, is not collected and held centrally.

  Office for National Statistics
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has agreed the business plan for the Office for National Statistics for 1998–99. [40660]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Yes. Copies of the plan, giving details of the performance targets I have set for 1998–99, have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. [39143]

  The Attorney-General
  The Government are committed to restructuring the CPS into 42 Areas. Sir kin Glidewell will make recommendation about the organisation necessary to support that structure. The review team have advised that this cannot take effect until 1 December 1998 at the earliest. Sir lain is considering what further changes might be necessary to provide for the more effective and efficient prosecution of crime through local CPS prosecutors.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to reduce bureaucracy in the Crown Prosecution Service. [39144]

  The Attorney-General
  Sir lain Glidewell is examining the structure and organisation of the Crown Prosecution Service's procedures in his Review of the CPS. He will consider what changes, if any, are necessary

  £

  A (1995–96)

  B (1996–97)

  C & D (1997–98)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (i) Departments

  1,678

  371,139

  88,482

  1,205,806

  108,825

  544,639

  41.650

  524,000

  —

  —

  57,900

  300,000

  (ii) Agencies

  Total

  43,328

  895,139

  88,482

  1,205,806

  166,725

  844,639

  224
  to ensure that available resources are focused in the most efficient and effective manner on the prosecution process itself.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the success of joint performance management as operated by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.[39145]

  The Attorney-General
  Joint performance management is proving to be a valuable tool for enabling the police and the CPS jointly to monitor key aspects of their performance in order to identify problems and develop solutions.

  Trade Union Recognition
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Attorney-General what advice has been sought from his Department on trade union recognition. [39146]

  The Attorney-General
  There is a long standing Convention, followed by successive Governments, that neither the substance of Law Officers' advice, nor the fact that they have been consulted is disclosed outside Government. I see no reason for departure from that Convention on this occasion.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the operation of the Treasury Solicitor's Department. [39137]

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department provides legal services to a number of Government departments and publicly funded bodies in England and Wales. It recovers its costs by charging its clients. Since April 1996 it has operated as an Executive Agency and I have recently approved its performance targets for the financial year just started.

SCOTLAND

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has responsibility, in (A) 1995–96, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 to date and (D) 1997–98 full year. [26642]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The information set out relates to empty properties owned by The Scottish Office and its Agencies. Information about empty properties owned by other public bodies is not held centrally.

  The information is as follows:

  Cairngorm Mountains
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for developing the Cairngorm mountains range; and if he will make a statement. [39457]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We are making available resources through Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise to support a range of projects aimed at boosting tourism and economic development in Aviemore and the surrounding area. In

  Electorate in each electoral ward: 16 February 1998

  Electoral ward No.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  Name of council

  Aberdeen City

  3,407

  3,050

  3,005

  3,321

  3,802

  3,138

  2,843

  3,745

  4,374

  2,909

  3,328

  3,574

  3,342

  2,973

  Aberdeenshire

  3,926

  3,435

  3,470

  3,522

  4,059

  4,046

  4,180

  4,298

  4,180

  3,333

  3,291

  3,484

  3,491

  3,298

  Angus

  3,388

  3,042

  3,291

  3,470

  3,440

  3,477

  3,657

  2,926

  3,417

  3,276

  3,274

  3,631

  3,658

  3,508

  Argyll and Bute

  1,550

  1,575

  1,737

  1,648

  1,745

  1,864

  2,073

  2,000

  2,376

  1,516

  1,428

  2,567

  2,247

  2,604

  Clackmannanshire

  3,334

  2,973

  2,834

  2,949

  2,921

  2,734

  3,205

  3,273

  3,629

  3,310

  3,175

  2,660

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,563

  1,888

  1,776

  1,519

  1,521

  1,865

  1,667

  1,979

  1,615

  1,757

  1,688

  1,625

  1,025

  1,926

  Dundee City

  3,907

  3,604

  3,623

  3,147

  3,522

  3,232

  2,821

  3,942

  3,680

  3.578

  2,939

  3,343

  3.362

  3,048

  East Ayrshire

  3,199

  2.871

  3,165

  3,015

  3,040

  2,737

  3,621

  2,901

  2,996

  3,332

  3,338

  3,221

  3,517

  2,896

  East Dunbartonshire

  3,352

  3,520

  3,631

  3,472

  3,417

  3,122

  3,112

  3,081

  3,228

  3,035

  3,282

  3,851

  2,980

  3,428

  East Lothian

  4,090

  3,572

  4,209

  3,910

  3,614

  3,808

  4,037

  4,095

  3,950

  4,083

  3,536

  4,029

  3,625

  3,893

  East Renfrewshire

  3,141

  3,237

  3,244

  3,160

  3,469

  3,138

  3,388

  3,619

  3,094

  3,320

  3,467

  3.485

  3,260

  3,494

  Edinburgh, City of

  6,295

  6,304

  5,879

  6,836

  6,551

  6,091

  5,500

  5,773

  5,543

  5,958

  6,252

  6,263

  6,112

  5,971

  Eilean Siar (formerly Western Isles)

  672

  709

  635

  757

  752

  608

  740

  739

  978

  846

  912

  803

  834

  874

  Falkirk

  3,522

  2,379

  2,824

  2,972

  3,037

  2,942

  2,939

  2,757

  2,810

  2,933

  3,331

  2,743

  3,039

  3,081

  Fife

  3,102

  2,748

  3,321

  3,056

  2,792

  3,489

  2,758

  2,703

  2,817

  3,437

  3,142

  2,225

  2,780

  2,596

  Glasgow City

  5,592

  5,627

  5,303

  6,301

  5,648

  6,242

  6,141

  5,770

  6,413

  5,985

  5,829

  6,308

  7,437

  6,615

  Highland

  3,366

  2,768

  2,979

  2,640

  2,347

  2,138

  2,422

  1,969

  1,824

  1,338

  1,148

  1.669

  1,201

  1,363

  Inverclyde

  4,346

  3,487

  3,473

  3,359

  3,498

  3,057

  3,304

  1,847

  4,179

  3,162

  3,344

  3,223

  3,379

  3,364

  Midlothian

  4,946

  4,103

  4,442

  3,858

  3,953

  3,642

  3,968

  4,455

  4,028

  4,480

  4,147

  3,794

  4,038

  4,101

  Moray

  4,033

  3,707

  3,701

  3,969

  3,865

  4,145

  3,920

  3,739

  3,389

  3,708

  3,776

  3,552

  3,460

  3,648

  North Ayrshire

  3,253

  3,348

  3,068

  3,007

  2,925

  3,456

  2,894

  3,636

  3,626

  3,994

  3,418

  3.257

  3,502

  3,659

  North Lanarkshire

  3,589

  3,493

  3,476

  3,217

  4,075

  3,226

  3,428

  3,878

  3,676

  3,344

  3,488

  3,606

  3,342

  3,642

  Orkney

  653

  553

  582

  776

  568

  597

  587

  644

  574

  528

  578

  668

  636

  718

  Perth and Kinross

  3,460

  3,035

  3,676

  3,534

  3,432

  3,779

  3,848

  2,806

  3,255

  3,217

  3,663

  3,211

  3,575

  3,349

  Renfrewshire

  3,682

  3,173

  2,731

  3,758

  3,773

  3,095

  3,354

  3,759

  3,627

  3,252

  3,609

  4,373

  4,105

  3,593

  Scottish Borders

  1,614

  1,428

  1,812

  1,692

  1,484

  1,384

  1,811

  1,619

  1,443

  1,634

  1,523

  1,513

  1,697

  1,311

  Shetland

  651

  670

  634

  600

  637

  731

  678

  580

  583

  597

  328

  575

  600

  718

  South Ayrshire

  3,840

  3,972

  3,934

  3,801

  3,622

  3,614

  3,542

  3,752

  3,708

  3,878

  3,845

  3,946

  3,647

  3,565

  South Lanarkshire

  3,673

  3,510

  3,138

  3,257

  2,291

  2,025

  1,692

  2,552

  2,670

  2,823

  2,140

  3,403

  3,642

  3,361

  Stirling

  3,216

  3,169

  3,030

  2,516

  3,044

  3,086

  2,557

  2,836

  3,082

  2,835

  3,087

  2,751

  2,921

  3,075

  West Dunbartonshire

  3,508

  3,822

  3,325

  3,496

  3,322

  2,841

  3,135

  2,839

  3,017

  2,817

  3,449

  3,320

  3,306

  3,494

  West Lothian

  5,146

  5,088

  4,230

  4,785

  4,469

  4,588

  4,852

  4,229

  4,219

  4,013

  4,217

  4,892

  4,538

  4,724

  Electorate in each electoral ward: 16 February 1998

  Electoral ward No.

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24

  25

  26

  27

  28

  Name of council

  Aberdeen City

  2,919

  3,479

  3,436

  3,482

  3,592

  3,495

  3,261

  3,526

  3,808

  3,608

  3,259

  3,278

  2,983

  3,536

  Aberdeenshire

  3,991

  3,706

  3,710

  3,634

  3,556

  3,041

  4,786

  3,914

  3,963

  4,102

  3,669

  3,576

  3,582

  4,202

  Angus

  3,284

  3,010

  3,387

  3,440

  3,733

  3,699

  3,805

  3,692

  2,169

  2,423

  3,627

  3,212

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  2,175

  2,253

  733

  1,554

  1,461

  1,707

  1.376

  2,077

  2,248

  1,876

  1,762

  2,048

  2,071

  3,259

  Clackmannanshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,492

  1,652

  1,473

  1,863

  1,448

  1,756

  1,594

  1,575

  1,562

  1,542

  1,715

  1,511

  1,868

  2,050

  Dundee City

  3,083

  2,966

  1,518

  3,176

  3,222

  3,158

  2,753

  2,985

  3,419

  3,405

  3,236

  3,263

  3,245

  3,055

  East Ayrshire

  3,261

  3,165

  2,940

  2,884

  2,771

  3,224

  3,330

  2,775

  3,312

  3,160

  3,083

  3,189

  2,804

  3,073

  East Dunbartonshire

  3,785

  3,111

  3,079

  2,675

  2,975

  3,143

  3,535

  3,096

  3,155

  3,200

  3,143

  3,976

  —

  —

  East Lothian

  3,887

  3,895

  3,715

  4,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  3,295

  4,178

  3,396

  3,671

  3,647

  3,318

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  6,356

  6,034

  6,446

  6,374

  6,432

  6,239

  5,723

  6,556

  6,883

  6.392

  5.170

  5,963

  6,402

  6,054

  Eilean Siar (formerly Western Isles)

  773

  985

  897

  824

  782

  820

  615

  556

  554

  616

  727

  942

  731

  847

  Falkirk

  2,702

  3,454

  3,109

  2,896

  3,066

  2,712

  2,679

  3,350

  3,257

  2,681

  3,389

  3,811

  3,147

  2,893

  Fife

  3,352

  2,949

  3,327

  2,841

  2,411

  2,882

  2,141

  3,631

  3,743

  1,551

  2,901

  2,776

  2,878

  3,053

  Glasgow City

  7,074

  7,275

  6,284

  7,248

  6,228

  5,551

  6,031

  5,468

  5,354

  5,064

  5,746

  5,540

  5,527

  5,165

  Highland

  2,225

  1,678

  1,351

  1,745

  1,536

  1,773

  1,549

  3,675

  3.517

  3,313

  3,439

  3,493

  2,266

  3,656

  Inverclyde

  3,201

  3,842

  3,645

  3,239

  2,922

  3,692

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midlothian

  4,308

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray

  3,221

  2,983

  3,224

  3,009

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Ayrshire

  3,684

  3,774

  3,625

  3,004

  3,262

  3,160

  3,355

  3,941

  3,162

  3,705

  3.528

  4,517

  3,937

  4,660

  North Lanarkshire

  3,524

  3,414

  3,524

  3,812

  3,487

  3,080

  4,202

  4,007

  3,879

  3,810

  4,051

  3,719

  3,731

  3,570

  Orkney

  697

  512

  611

  575

  601

  641

  560

  460

  444

  207

  248

  398

  498

  545

  Perth and Kinross

  3,704

  2,623

  3,179

  4,111

  3,017

  1,518

  2,836

  3,083

  2,925

  3,147

  3,988

  3,125

  3,206

  3,222

  Renfrewshire

  3,402

  3,379

  3,401

  3,088

  3,303

  3,256

  3,563

  3,699

  3,584

  3,521

  3,900

  3,329

  3,434

  3,003

  Scottish Borders

  1,858

  1,421

  1,601

  1,798

  1,938

  1,788

  1,597

  1,156

  1,653

  1,579

  1,448

  1,455

  1,607

  1,759

  Shetland

  685

  430

  1,007

  858

  834

  673

  566

  856

  769

  609

  594

  642

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire

  3,463

  4,012

  3,897

  3,784

  3,767

  3,877

  3,719

  3,596

  2,850

  2,957

  2,794

  —

  —

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  2,788

  3,140

  3,024

  3,073

  3,136

  3.130

  2,966

  3,183

  3,237

  3,555

  3,246

  3,034

  3,007

  3,400

  Stirling

  3,299

  2,862

  3.553

  2,021

  3,258

  2,887

  2,896

  3,041

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Dunbartonshire

  3,783

  3.763

  2,518

  3,680

  3,347

  3,203

  3,450

  3,237

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  4,338

  3,917

  3.745

  1231

  4,476

  4,180

  3,975

  3,886

  3,618

  3,680

  4,731

  4,146

  3,615

  —

  226
  addition, we provide support to the Cairngorms Partnership to promote the sustainable development of the Cairngorms area.

  Electorates
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the electorates at 16 February for each ward of each local authority area in Scotland. [39752]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information requested is set out in the tables.
  227

  Electorate in each electoral ward: 16 February 1998

  Electoral ward No.

  29

  30

  31

  32

  33

  34

  35

  36

  37

  38

  39

  40

  41

  42

  Name of council

  Aberdeen City

  3,345

  3,441

  3,068

  3,007

  4,946

  3,218

  3,726

  3,514

  3,956

  2,925

  3,379

  2,908

  3,420

  3,210

  Aberdeenshire

  4,038

  3,962

  4,165

  3,705

  3,734

  4,082

  2,304

  2,373

  2,779

  4,137

  3,284

  3,780

  4,000

  3,735

  Angus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  3,259

  3,181

  3,613

  3,261

  3,339

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clackmannanshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,679

  1,743

  1,708

  1,761

  1,544

  1,713

  1,432

  2,027

  1,757

  1,659

  1,500

  1,968

  1,999

  1,704

  Dundee City

  3,105

  2,336

  3,157

  3,129

  3,419

  3,515

  3,215

  3,707

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Ayrshire

  3,872

  3,608

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  6,475

  6,380

  6,171

  6,925

  7,162

  6,092

  6,458

  5,726

  6,541

  5,857

  5,927

  6,005

  6,706

  5,546

  Eilean Siar (formerly Western Isles)

  534

  477

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  3,201

  3,104

  3,913

  3,159

  3,309

  3,322

  3,350

  3,243

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  2,777

  3,168

  3,540

  3,584

  2,672

  2,795

  2,447

  2,746

  3,316

  3,151

  2,757

  2,898

  2,803

  3,099

  Glasgow City

  5,937

  5,739

  6,159

  6,549

  5,514

  5,921

  6,432

  6,011

  5,250

  5,541

  5,009

  4,624

  5,550

  4,740

  Highland

  4,053

  3,632

  3,065

  1,324

  2,432

  1,300

  2,016

  1,761

  1,728

  1,306

  1,695

  1,920

  3,047

  3,058

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midlothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Ayrshire

  4,878

  3,826

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Lanarkshire

  3,561

  4,060

  3,381

  3,844

  3,609

  4,093

  3,485

  3,778

  3,367

  3,662

  3,381

  3,150

  3,841

  4,070

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  3,163

  4,425

  3,823

  2,234

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrewshire

  3,246

  3,359

  3,831

  4,008

  3,224

  2,759

  3,690

  4,176

  3,288

  3,227

  3,638

  3,219

  —

  —

  Scottish Borders

  2,219

  2,307

  1,698

  1,674

  1,446

  1,230

  1,500

  1,452

  1,531

  1,504

  1,593

  1,537

  1,628

  1,581

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  3,036

  3,177

  3,567

  3,938

  4,252

  3,095

  3,718

  3,705

  3,108

  2,850

  3,301

  3,473

  3,084

  3,059

  Stirling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electorate in each electoral ward: 16 February 1998

  Electoral ward No.

  43

  44

  45

  46

  47

  48

  49

  50

  51

  52

  53

  54

  55

  56

  Name of council

  Aberdeen City

  3,436

  3,354

  3,304

  3,018

  3,367

  3,211

  3,396

  4,058

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeenshire

  3,855

  2,887

  3,215

  3,938

  3,218

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Angus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clackmannanshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,644

  1,952

  1,766

  1,494

  1,745

  1,869

  1,470

  1,493

  1,264

  2,153

  1,735

  1,267

  1,329

  1,658

  Dundee City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  5,952

  6,240

  6,864

  6,269

  6,749

  7,007

  6,304

  6,388

  6,454

  6.099

  6,169

  5,915

  6,264

  5,846

  Eilean Siar (formerly Western Isles)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  2,858

  2,829

  2,904

  3,336

  2,849

  2,620

  2,657

  2,650

  3,218

  2,941

  3,000

  3,083

  2,910

  2,825

  Glasgow City

  5,156

  4,919

  6,010

  6,940

  6,262

  6,505

  4,529

  4,966

  4,946

  5,394

  5,024

  5,821

  5,538

  6,056

  Highland

  3,225

  2,453

  3,179

  2,854

  2,661

  3,045

  2,949

  2,552

  4,457

  3,759

  3,435

  1,971

  1,794

  1,759

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midlothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Lanarkshire

  4,251

  3,900

  3,750

  4,309

  3,702

  4,505

  4,660

  4,229

  3,301

  3,587

  3,058

  3,103

  3,067

  3,584

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Borders

  1,487

  1,477

  1,391

  1,452

  918

  1,009

  980

  1,023

  897

  1,182

  1,140

  1,118

  886

  1,480

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  3,272

  3,166

  3,354

  2,962

  2,868

  3,369

  2,980

  3,034

  2,971

  3,066

  3,248

  3,097

  3,216

  3,480

  Stirling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  228 229

  Electorate in each electoral ward: 16 February 1998

  Electoral ward No.

  57

  58

  59

  60

  61

  62

  63

  64

  65

  66

  67

  68

  69

  70

  Name of council

  Aberdeen City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeenshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Angus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clackmannanshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,582

  1,803

  1,504

  1,663

  1,810

  1,845

  1,441

  1,463

  2,029

  1,472

  1,891

  1,548

  1,520

  1,800

  Dundee City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  6,301

  5,678

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eilean Siar (formerly Western Isles)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  2,795

  2,808

  2,862

  2,743

  3,133

  3,016

  3,077

  2,578

  2,809

  3,230

  2,987

  2,658

  2,940

  2,601

  Glasgow City

  5,669

  5,757

  6,806

  5,301

  4,643

  6,507

  5,371

  4,708

  4,072

  5,138

  6,134

  6,268

  6,042

  5,576

  Highland

  1,372

  1,890

  1,204

  1,732

  1,998

  1,761

  920

  1,847

  1,454

  1,667

  1,727

  2,113

  2,136

  1,646

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midlothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Lanarkshire

  3,859

  3,672

  3,692

  3,037

  2,857

  2,801

  3,240

  3,102

  3,241

  3,371

  3,282

  3,319

  2,806

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Borders

  1,079

  1,185

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  3,606

  3,669

  3,660

  3,197

  4,311

  3,402

  3,663

  3,121

  3,215

  3,741

  3,638

  2,921

  2,856

  3,816

  Stirling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electorate in each electoral ward: 16 February 1998

  Electoral ward No.

  71

  72

  73

  74

  75

  76

  77

  78

  79

  80

  81

  82

  83

  84

  Name of council

  Aberdeen City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeenshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Angus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clackmannanshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eilean Siar (formerly Western Isles)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  3,136

  3,932

  3,024

  2,599

  3,822

  3,296

  3,783

  2,807

  3,161

  2,697

  2,990

  3,148

  3,630

  3,478

  Glasgow City

  6,408

  5,384

  4,979

  5,056

  6,289

  6,840

  5,287

  5,664

  4,574

  5,195

  4,425

  4,570

  3,606

  —

  Highland

  2,248

  2,348

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midlothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  2,636

  2,726

  4,164

  2,984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electorate in each electoral ward: 16 February 1998

  Electoral ward No.

  85

  86

  87

  88

  89

  90

  91

  92

  Name of council

  Aberdeen City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeenshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Angus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  230 231

  Electorate in each electoral ward: 16 February 1998

  Electoral ward No.

  85

  86

  87

  88

  89

  90

  91

  92

  Clackmannanshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eilean Siar (formerly Western Isles)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  3,314

  3,316

  3,507

  3,161

  3,228

  3,853

  3,565

  3,064

  Glasgow City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midlothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the size of the electorates as of 16 February for each(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) local government area in Scotland. [39751]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Electors

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Aberdeen Central

  53,713

  Aberdeen, North

  55,009

  Aberdeen, South

  60,968

  Airdrie and Shotts

  58,534

  Angus

  60,427

  Argyll and Bute

  50,271

  Ayr

  57,000

  Banff and Buchan

  58,949

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  41,902

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  66,588

  Central Fife

  59,123

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  52,963

  Clydesdale

  64,548

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  52,501

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  49,201

  Cunninghame, North

  56,374

  Cunninghame, South

  50,727

  Dumbarton

  57,013

  Dumfries

  63,513

  Dundee, East

  58,629

  Dundee, West

  56,937

  Dunfermline, East

  52,200

  Dunfermline, West

  53,361

  East Kilbride

  66,479

  East Lothian

  58,577

  Eastwood

  68,021

  Edinburgh Central

  64,051

  Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh

  60,364

  Edinburgh, North and Leith

  61,786

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  60,729

  232

  Electors

  Edinburgh, South

  63,775

  Edinburgh, West

  61,988

  Falkirk, East

  57,629

  Falkirk, West

  53,427

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  53,406

  Glasgow Anniesland

  53,397

  Glasgow Baillieston

  49,062

  Glasgow Cathcart

  50,429

  Glasgow Govan

  50,870

  Glasgow Kelvin

  57,058

  Glasgow Maryhill

  53,506

  Glasgow Pollok

  48,303

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  51,059

  Glasgow Shettleston

  48,209

  Glasgow Springburn

  53,427

  Gordon

  59,621

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  49,400

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  54,403

  Hamilton, South

  47,145

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  66,531

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  62,171

  Kircaldy

  52,079

  Linlithgow

  54,728

  Livingston

  61,800

  Midlothian

  48,772

  Moray

  58,845

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  53,004

  North East Fife

  59,820

  North Tayside

  62,230

  Ochil

  57,715

  Orkney and Shetland

  32,761

  Paisley, North

  49,915

  Paisley, South

  54,436

  Perth

  61,457

  Ross, Skye and Inverness, West

  56,448

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  47,907

  Stirling

  53,452

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  64,016

  233

  Electors

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  51,811

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  60,270

  West Renfrewshire

  53,223

  Western Isles

  22,539

  Total

  3,992,502

  Local authority

  Aberdeen City

  171,445

  Aberdeenshire

  173,140

  Angus

  87,049

  Argyll and Bute

  70,350

  Clackmannanshire

  37,049

  Dumfries and Galloway

  117,126

  Dundee City

  115,890

  East Ayrshire

  94,477

  East Dunbartonshire

  85,476

  East Lothian

  70,592

  East Renfrewshire

  68,116

  Edinburgh, City of

  364,612

  Eilean Siar

  22,565

  Falkirk

  111,114

  Fife

  277,321

  Glasgow, City of

  474,620

  Highland

  165,308

  Inverclyde

  67,636

  Midlothian

  62,370

  Moray

  65,243

  North Ayrshire

  107,242

  North Lanarkshire

  248,028

  Orkney Islands

  15,697

  Perth and Kinross

  105,488

  Renfrewshire

  139,662

  Scottish Borders

  86,431

  Shetland Islands

  17,130

  South Ayrshire

  91,579

  South Lanarkshire

  237,165

  Stirling

  66,415

  West Dunbartonshire

  72,701

  West Lothian

  116,683

  Total

  4,005,720

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about performance targets for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency for 1998–99. [40809]

  Mr. Dewar
  For the financial year 1998–99 I have set the following targets:

  Aerial surveillance
  per cent. of hours flown on task—86 per cent.
  cost per flying hour on task—£922

  Marine surveillance
  utilisation of available patrol days—97 per cent.
  cost per effective patrol day—£3,432

  Sea Fisheries Inspectorate
  cost per catch inspection—£72
  landing declarations checked against actual catches—45 per cent.
  82 per cent. of cases for prosecution to be reported within 6 weeks of offence being detected and 95 per cent. within 8 weeks.
  Number of cases where court proceedings are taken as percentage of offences reported to prosecuting authorities—83 per cent.

  In order to ensure that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency uses its resources efficiently, I have set it a target to achieve cash releasing efficiency gains of 2.0% during 1998–99.
  234
  The Chief Executive will be directly accountable to me for the achievement of these targets, which will be reported in the Agency's Annual Report.

  National Galleries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library his response to the letter written to him by Helen Stevens, Negotiating Officer for Scotland of IPMS, in relation to the appointment of the Deputy Keeper of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery; [39372]

  (2) if he will set up a review of the means by which appointments are made in the National Galleries of Scotland. [39373]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I am arranging for a copy of the reply which I issued today to be placed in the Library. No appointment has been made to the position of Deputy Keeper at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, but a new Assistant Keeper took up post in December 1997.

  The National Galleries of Scotland Act 1906 provides that the staff of the National Galleries of Scotland (NGS) are not to be regarded as Crown servants and that responsibility for the appointment of employees lies with the Board of Trustees. In addition, the appointment of the Director requires the approval of the Secretary of State.

  The staff are appointed on terms and conditions determined by the Board, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Under the terms and conditions of NGS staff, employment by the Board is subject to the Civil Service Management Code which incorporates appropriate procedures for appointing staff. It is the responsibility of the Board to secure the proper application of those procedures and I therefore do not consider that a review is necessary.

  Soft Fruit Sector
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the soft fruit sector to discuss market conditions; and if he will make a statement. [39133]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the farming industry earlier this year when there was discussion of market conditions generally, including the soft fruit sector.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters relating to the smuggling of nuclear materials were raised at the recent G8 Energy Summit in Moscow; and what decisions were taken on this matter. [38725]

  Mr. Battle
  The recent formal meeting of G8 Energy Ministers focused on issues relating to the future of world energy production. The issue of smuggling of nuclear materials was not raised. The detailed communique issued after the meeting can be found on my Department's website at http://dti.gov.uk/index html.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the total cost of the sodium treatment facilities built at Dounreay; for how many years they are expected to remain in operation; and what potential exists for selling the technology abroad. [39675]

  Mr. Battle
  I am advised by the UKAEA that the cost of design, manufacture, installation, construction, commissioning and decommissioning of the liquid metal disposal facility to treat the sodium from the Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) at Dounreay will be approximately £17 million. It will operate from 1999 to 2001. The facility uses licensed French technology and there is therefore no potential for the UK to sell the technology abroad. As several countries (eg. USA, France, Russia) have sodium cooled reactors which are undergoing decommissioning, there is potential to sell British experience in sodium disposal operations.

  The Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) used a sodium potassium alloy (NaK) as a coolant. The total cost of the plant to dispose of this material will be approximately £22 million and disposal will be complete by 2003. Internationally, fast reactors use sodium as a coolant so there is not likely to be significant overseas interest in this technology.

  AEA Technology have constructed a sodium disposal plant at Dounreay for the disposal of sodium from Germany. As this is a commercial venture the details of cost and programme are confidential to AEA Technology.

  Power Station (Anglesey)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to approve the building of a 400 mw CCGT power station in Anglesey; and if she will make a statement. [39736]

  Mr. Battle
  An application for a 400 MW CCGT power station at Porth yr Ogof, Wylfa, is currently with the Department. Our general approach to decisions on current applications is as set out in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, columns 519–20.

  Miners
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the number of disabled miners who have been assessed to date for PDD12 emphysema and chronic bronchitis; and how many of these were aged (i) 50 to 55, (ii) 55 to 60, (iii) 60 to 65, (iv) 65 to 70 and (v) over the age of 70 years. [39856]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand from the Analytical Services Division of the Department of Social Security that at 5 April 1997 the number of disabled miners with PD D12 assessments were 11,463. Only 4,386 of these have been assessed by age band and these break down as follows:

  Age band

  Number assessed

  Under 50

  10

  50-55

  43

  236

  Age band

  Number assessed

  55-60

  280

  60-65

  505

  65-70

  682

  Over 70

  2,866

  There have been a further 7,077 successful claimants following relaxation of the qualifying criteria for PD D12 in April 1997 but, at present, the DSS have no age analysis available.

  We are continuing to offer interim payments of £2,000 to those miners seeking compensation for emphysema who are also in receipt of PD D12 benefit. Such offers are being made to those in the 80+ age band as a priority on receipt of PD D12 certificates from claimants' solicitors. However, we are also making offers to claimants in age brackets below 80+ (in descending order) wherever practicable, to ensure that we reach our minimum target of 5,000 offers by the end of June.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate her Department has made of the number of miners or their widows who will be excluded from compensation for respiratory diseases by the Limitation Act 1939 in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland. [39855]

  Mr. Battle
  As part of our proposed scheme for handling respiratory disease claims, we have made it clear that no attempt will be made to use the limitation defence (other than under the 1939 Act as provided by the judgment) where emphysema is established in the claim, including claims from widows. However, we intend to take limitation arguments, where appropriate, in respiratory disease claims where emphysema is not established. Our proposals are currently being discussed with the Solicitors' Group representing the majority of claimants.

  We are, at present, unable to estimate the total number of claims we are likely to receive, either from ex-miners or widows, or the number of claims for each specific condition. I am therefore unable to provide my hon. Friend with the regional breakdown requested.

  Academy of Invention
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to investigate the creation of an Academy of Invention. [39948]

  Mr. Battle
  I know, in addition to the advice currently available from the Institute of Patentees and Inventors and the Intellectual Property Development Confederation, there are a number of proposals in existence to provide more substantive help to lone inventors.

  I have received a number of representations about the creation of an Academy of Inventors and will be discussing it with the leading proposers in the near future.

  UKAEA Constabulary
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reviews of manpower of the UKAEA
  237
  Constabulary have been undertaken in 1997–98 and with what outcome; and what manpower reviews of the UKAEA Constabulary are planned for the future. [40215]

  Mr. Battle
  The Police Authority for the UKAEA Constabulary has a duty to consider all issues relating to the Constabulary. Following consultation with the Chief Constable, the Authority considers and formulates an agreed view of the Constabulary's objectives. One such objective (ongoing) is to ensure that the Constabulary has the right number of people at the right places to carry out their functions effectively and efficiently. To achieve this goal there is frequent liaison between the Chief Constable, Operational Unit Commanders, site management, and the Director of Civil Nuclear Security. The conclusion of these discussions and any disagreements are raised at the full meetings of the Police Authority.

  Following discussions in the last year about two sites in particular, an increase in staff at both sites was agreed on the advice of the Chief Constable. Manpower will continue to be kept under review at all sites in the coming year, during which a full inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of Constabulary is also likely.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance Ministers have issued to the UKAEA on policing levels and security at nuclear installations; and if he will place a copy of that guidance in the Library. [40216]

  Mr. Battle
  Requirements on policing levels and security at nuclear installations are issued to UKAEA by the Directorate of Civil Nuclear Security. The minimum standards laid down by the Directorate take full account of the United Kingdom's international obligations, and the Government's views on the appropriate levels of security which should be applied by the industry. They are by necessity classified and it would not be appropriate, therefore, for them to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy in relation to the security and policing levels at those nuclear establishments policed by the UKAEA Constabulary; and if she will make a statement. [40217]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government's policy is that high standards of protection are to be maintained by all nuclear establishments, including those policed by the UKAEA Constabulary, even when the threat is assessed as low, in order to deter potential terrorists and to guard against any increase in the threat.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional emoluments were given to the Chief Constable of the Atomic Energy Authority consequent on his resignation.[40420]

  Mr. Battle
  The Chief Constable resigned from UKAEA in January 1998, giving three months notice, and will receive his normal salary and benefits under his contract of employment. He has been treated on exactly the same basis as would any employee who resigns from employment with UKAEA.
  238
  No further payments will be made following his departure on 1 May 1998. However, if he chooses to preserve his accrued pension benefits in the UKAEA Pension Scheme, under the rules of that Scheme these would be payable at his normal retirement age of 60—ie in 2003.

  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the availability of Shipbuilding Intervention Fund grants for 1998. [40729]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have decided to extend the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund for currently eligible yards until 31 December 1998. The rates of support will be unchanged from those in 1997, namely 9 per cent. for large ships and 4.5 per cent. for small ships, both rates inclusive of Shipbuilders' Relief of 2 per cent. These are the maximum rates permitted within the EU's Seventh Shipbuilding Directive.

  I will be considering the overall future of the Fund beyond 1998 in the light of progress in negotiations for the abolition of shipbuilding subsidies in the European Union and the OECD, and also in the context of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the revised framework document for the Insolvency Service is to be published. [40804]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The document has been published today. Copies of the document and of the evaluation of the agency's performance have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets she has set her Department's Insolvency Service Executive Agency for 1998–99. [40806]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Against the Insolvency Service's planning assumption that compulsory insolvencies will total 26,000 in the year to 31 March 1999, I have set it the target of completing 26,500 cases so that the number of cases outstanding as at 31 March 1999 is no more than 17,000 (around 8 months input), with no more than 9% of cases being more than 36 months old. I have also set it the target of reducing administrative costs of bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation case administration in 1998–99 by 1%. The Services's investigation resource is being maintained at 1997–98 levels, and I would therefore expect it to continue to take proceedings against unfit directors and to report on cases of criminal misconduct at least at the levels achieved in the year to 31 March 1998.

  In addition, I have set the Service the following quality of service targets for 1998–99:
  to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within 8 weeks in at least 96% of all cases, and within 12 weeks in 98% of all cases;
  to hold the initial meetings of creditors within 12 weeks in 96% of all appropriate cases, and within 4 months in 98% of all appropriate cases;
  to submit reports within 10 months in at least 90% of bankruptcy cases, and at least 80% of company liquidation cases where there is evidence of criminality;

  239
  to submit disqualification reports within 15 months in at least 80% of cases where there is evidence of unfit conduct by directors; and
  to check and action at least 97% of Insolvency Services Account payment requisitions within 4 days or by the due date.

  I also expect the Service to action 97% of invoices for payment within 30 days of receipt and the Agency Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets she has set her Department's National Weights and Measures Laboratory for 1998–99. [40799]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have set the National Weights & Measures Laboratory the following quality of service and efficiency targeis for the year 1998/99:

  Financial Targets
  To report a break even situation in the income and expenditure account 1998/99.To meet the net vote target in 1998/99.To reduce the real cost of a programme hour by 4– over the period 1997–2000.
  Operational Targets
  To complete 85% of European type approvals within 10 weeks.
  To complete 95% of all calibration jobs (including preparation of certificates) within 18 working days of the acceptance of the work.
  To meet 70% of the milestones by their due date in the work
  programme agreed between CACP Directorate and NWML.

  Questions Delegated to the Chief Executive
  Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets she has set her Department's Radiocommunications Agency for 1998–99. [40800]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have set the Radiocommunications Agency the following quality of service targets for 1998/99 in respect of its licensing and enforcement activities. These are in addition to achieving an overall efficiency improvement of 5% over 1997/98, and to set fees in accordance with the powers established under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998.

  Licensing Targets

  Category A:
  Licences that involve no frequency assignment, site clearance or international co-ordination; 100% of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 5 working days.

  Category B:
  Licences that involve frequency assignment but no site clearance or international co-ordination; 90% of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 15 working days: the remainder to be processed and despatched within 25 working days or an explanation of the delay provided to the applicant.

  Category C:
  Licences that require frequency assignment and/or site clearance and/or international co-ordination; 90% of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 40 working days; remainder to be despatched within 60 working days, or an explanation of the delay provided to the applicant.
  240
  Renewals
  Renewals of all licences in category A to be processed and despatched within 5 working days; renewals of licences in categories B and C to be processed and despatched within 10 working days.

  Enforcement
  100% of safety of life services reports of interference to be investigated within 24 hrs.
  98% of business customers reports of interference to be investigated within 5 working days, the remainder within a further 10 days;
  98% of domestic customers reports of interference to be investigated within 1 month, the remainder within a further month.

  Correspondence
  I also expect all correspondence from hon. Members to Ministers, and all written complaints to the Chief Executive about Agency services, to be answered within 10 working days of receipt, the Agency's enquiry point to respond to 95% of all calls within 30 seconds, and 97% of valid invoices to be paid within 30 days (or as agreed with supplier) and the remainder to be paid within a further 30 days.

  Employment Tribunals Service
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets she has set her Department's Employment Tribunals Service for 1998–99. [40802]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have set the Employment Tribunals Service the following quality of service targets for 1998/99 in respect of its tribunals activities. These are in addition to achieving an efficiency improvement of 3% over 1997/98.

  Hearing Targets
  Proportion of single industrial tribunal cases to be brought to a first hearing within 26 weeks; 85%.
  Proportion of single industrial tribunal cases to be brought to a first hearing within 26 weeks: minimum to be achieved by all offices; 65%.

  Decision Targets
  Proportion of industrial tribunal decisions issued within 4 weeks of final hearing; 85%.

  Appeals
  Proportion of appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal registered for preliminary hearing ready for listing within 6 weeks; 90%.

  User Satisfaction Surveys
  Proportion of industrial tribunal users expressing satisfaction in surveys with the service offered; 80%.

  Companies House
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets she has set her Department's Companies House Executive Agency for 1998–99. [40801]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have set Companies House the following targets for the 1998/99 year:

  Operational Targets
  To process 97% of statutory documents within 5 days of receipt at Companies House.
  To achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 95%.
  To ensure that a minimum of 98% of fiche provided to customers is error free.
  To ensure that there is a minimum of 95% error free work in current processing.
  To answer 90% of all incoming telephone calls within 20 seconds.
  241
  Questions Delegated to the Chief Executive
  The Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Complaints Handling
  To clear up 95% of complaints within 10 days.

  Financial Targets
  To maintain a cost reduction target of 3% on document registration.
  To achieve taking one year with another, a 6% average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets.

  EU Consumers Council
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Consumers Council held on 23 April. [40805]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Government achieved its key Presidency objective in the consumer field when the Council agreed by a qualified majority a common position on a proposal for a directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees.

  The directive provides European consumers with common minimum rights when goods are faulty. In addition to their existing rights to return faulty goods and to claim damages, UK consumers will gain the following benefits:
  a clear right to repair or replacement, except where this is impossible or disproportionate, where the defect appears within two years of delivery;
  in the absence of proof to the contrary, a defect appearing within six months will be presumed to have existed at delivery;
  the law will provide that manufacturers' guarantees are legally binding.

  In providing common rights the directive should give consumers greater confidence to shop in other Member States and benefit from the Single Market. At the same time it will provide remedies which are fair and reasonable, reflecting the approach most UK traders already adopt in fulfilling their legal obligations. The Directive makes all retailers liable for defects which are shown to have been present at the time of delivery and which become apparent within two years of delivery. Liability will be subject, amongst other criteria, to consideration of what can be reasonably expected from a product. For example, expectations will be different for perishable goods. The Directive gives the remedies of price reduction or rescission of the contract where repair and replacement of faulty products are, for example, not possible.

  The Council also adopted the directive on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests.

  The Commission gave presentations on:
  the effective application and enforcement of Community consumer legislation;
  its plans for the continuation of the European Home and Leisure Accidents Surveillance System (EHLASS);
  its proposals for the introduction of a voluntary scheme to facilitate out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes;
  a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers.
  242
  Two "A" points were agreed. A request by the European Parliament for a one-month extension of its examination of a directive on genetically modified organisms and a draft common position relating to preparation of the Non Proliferation Treaty.

  Confiscated Property (Internet)
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements she has made for publishing on the Internet the details of those whose property was confiscated under wartime legislation. [40803]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have today made available on the Internet the details of those residents of Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Japan and Romania whose property was confiscated during the Second World War by the British Government under Trading with the Enemy Legislation.

  The information on the website is the same as that already available on summary record cards at the Public Record Office. Each record consists of a name and, where we have it, the address, summary details and value of the property seized. There are over 25,000 records, covering individuals and commercial organisations.

  My Department also holds less detailed records of about 5,000 cases from other countries, which I intend to post on the Internet in due course.

  The website can be found at www.enemy property.gov.uk. It will be possible to search the records using a name and/or an address.

  I am also establishing a helpline, available between 9.30 and 5.30 on working days, for those who do not have access to the Internet on 0171–215–6374 or 0171–215–6160.

  As I announced on 3 April, the Government have decided to establish a claims procedure. This will be based on the principle that confiscated assets placed in the UK by victims of Nazi persecution should be returned to them by the UK where practicable and where claims can be validated. The Government have also accepted the suggestion that an independent third party should consult interested parties, and advise on the form of the scheme the Government should adopt. I will announce the appointment of the independent third party as soon as possible.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Euratom was informed of the proposed shipment of radioactive material from Georgia to the United Kingdom. [39901]

  Mr. Battle
  The European Safeguards Directorate in Luxembourg were informed three weeks before the shipment, when an approximate date for the shipment was given. Euratom were subsequently provided with formal advance notification of the import, as required under Commission Regulation 3227/76, ten days before the provisional date of arrival of the material at Dounreay. The advance notification was subsequently amended to give the precise date three days before the shipment arrived.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets she has set her Department's Patent Office Executive Agency for 1998–99. [40807]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have set The Patent Office the following targets for 1998/99:

  Patents
  To issue 14,500 search reports or combined search and examination reports on average within 3 months from the date of request, with 90% of all reports issued within 4 months from the date of request.
  To grant 8,500 valid patents on average within 2 years from the date of filing of the request for substantive examination, with 90% of patents granted within 3 years from the date of request.

  Designs
  to register 8,700 designs on average within 5 months from the date of filing of the application, with 90% of all registrations within 12 months.

  Trade Marks
  The aim is to process 70,000 trade mark class applications to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed within 9 months of application; the target for 1998/99 is to increase the proportion of trade marks registered within 9 months by 5% over 1997/98 outturn.

  Finance
  To pay 98% of bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later.

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
  The Chief Executive will aim to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Efficiency Target
  To increase output in relation to current expenditure by an average of at least 2% per annum over the period 1998/99 to 2002/03.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Enforcement Measures
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on fisheries enforcement measures. [39117]

  Mr. Morley
  Effective enforcement is a top priority for this Government and progress has been made on a number of fronts in the interests of conserving fish stocks and ensuring the long-term viability of the fishing industry.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle passports are issued each week by his Ministry. [39119]

  Mr. Rooker
  The average figure is 33,800.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what savings in the EU agriculture budget he will propose in discussions in the Council of Ministers on CAP reform. [39121]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government will continue to press for CAP reforms which deliver lower prices to consumers in the short term and savings to taxpayers in due course.
  244
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the European Commission's proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [39120]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The European Commission's proposals go very much in the direction the Government have been advocating, and build on the 1992 reforms which began to shift aid from production support to income support.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he plans to put to the Council of Ministers for the reform of the CAP during the UK presidency. [39132]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission presented its formal legislative proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to the Agriculture Council on 31 March. In many respects, these proposals go very much in the direction that the Government have advocated. The Government will progress discussion of these proposals as far as possible during the UK Presidency and will therefore seek to negotiate an outcome which reflects UK priorities.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of CAP reform on the next round of World Trade Organisation talks. [39134]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government believe the Agenda 2000 proposals for CAP reform are a welcome step in the right direction. The proposals will generally address the problems which arise from the EU's current WTO commitments, concluded as part of the GATT Uruguay Round. We do not, however, feel they prepare fully for the next round of agricultural liberalisation negotiations in the WTO, which are due to start at the turn of the century.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reform of methods of payment to farmers in the proposals of the European Commission to reform the CAP. [39136]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission's proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy go very much in the direction the Government have been advocating, and build on the 1992 reforms which began to shift aid from production support to income support. However, we are disappointed that there is no time-limit or degressivity for compensatory aids.

  Beef Export Ban
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with(a) the European Commission and (b) members of the European Agriculture Council about the total lifting of the beef export ban on UK beef. [39122]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  On 16 March, the Agriculture Council agreed to allow exports of deboned beef and beef products from Northern Ireland under the Export Certified Herds Scheme, and we have continued to discuss proposals for a Date Based Export Scheme with the Commission, which would apply across the UK.
  245
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made on securing the lifting of the beef export ban on the basis of a date-based scheme; and if he will make a statement. [39130]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are continuing to make progress with our proposals for a Date Based Export Scheme. Our officials have had productive discussions with their counterparts in the European Commission. As a result, the Commission is now preparing a draft proposal for presentation to the Standing Veterinary Committee in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Florence Agreement.

  Hill Farms
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the importance of hill farms to the rural economy in upland areas. [39123]

  Mr. Morley
  A recent economic evaluation of the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Scheme in England suggests that the relative importance of farming in upland areas in England is declining as the non-agricultural population increases. Agriculture, nevertheless, remains a significant employer in the Less Favoured Areas and we recognise the role that it plays in sustaining the upland economy, as well as the traditional upland landscape.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of dairy farmers who will cease milk production this year. [39124]

  Mr. Morley
  None. However, the number of dairy farmers has been falling for many years and it is likely this trend will continue.

  Food Safety Standards
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of food safety standards across the European Union. [39125]

  Mr. Rooker
  Much food law is harmonised at the EU level and it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that standards are applied consistently. The Government believe that UK consumers should be able to expect the same high standards of safety from food produced anywhere in the EU.

  British Beef
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to increase sales of British beef. [39126]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have continued to support various initiatives to help restore consumer confidence in beef and so promote sales. These have included Farm Assurance Schemes, the Assured British Meat initiative and measures such as beef labelling, raising hygiene standards and improving cattle traceability. We have also been in discussion with the 246
  Ministry of Defence recently to explore ways in which the volume of British beef purchased by the Armed Forces might be increased.

  Milk Prices
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with representatives of milk producers about the price of milk; and if he will make a statement. [39127]

  Mr. Morley
  I have regular meetings on a range of issues with fanning organisations. Some of these organisations have milk producers amongst their members. Apart from the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy, the price milk producers receive for their products is a commercial matter.

  Food Standards Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the draft Food Standards Agency Bill. [39128]

  Mr. Rooker
  We hope to publish the draft Bill later in the current Parliamentary Session.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers the Food Standards Agency will have in respect of imported food. [39014]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Agency will need to play a key role in import policy to ensure that food safety continues to be protected, and we are looking at how this can best be achieved whilst taking into account trade and animal health issues.

  The Agency will have responsibility for legislation and guidance on enforcement activities relating to imported food under The Imported Food Regulations 1997. Responsibility for enforcing food safety legislation in respect of imported food will remain with the Port Health Authorities and Local Authorities, but in future the Agency will have a key role in monitoring this work. In addition, the Agency will take on MAFF's current responsibilities for routine chemical and microbiological surveillance of foodstuffs, which makes no distinction between imported and domestic produce. Where surveillance gives rise to concerns, it will be for the Agency to decide—on the basis of advice from its expert Committees—what action to take.

  Beef Labelling
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made with regard to labelling of beef. [39129]

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he is undertaking of the beef labelling scheme. [39135]

  Mr. Rooker
  No evaluation of the beef labelling scheme can yet be undertaken, because of the European Commission's decision further to delay the scheme's full entry into force until 1 July. Nevertheless, some 11,000 beef outlets in the UK have already received approval for the detailed labelling information they supply, having
  247
  applied voluntarily since the scheme's launch last October. I expect more to receive approval before the scheme takes full effect.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has recently had with representatives of the UK fishing industry to discuss the prospects of the industry. [39131]

  Mr. Morley
  I am meeting representatives of the UK fishing industry today, 30 April, to discuss future prospects.

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce bureaucracy and the form-filling required of farmers by his Department and its agencies and officials. [39111]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have systems in place to check the necessity and usability of forms. We also have studies and trials to deliver schemes more effectively.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the names of the specialists from the commercial sector appointed to advise him on how best to achieve a secure future for the Central Science Laboratory, as announced by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9 December 1996. [37790]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Following the announcement by the previous Administration on 9 December 1996 a tendering exercise was launched to identify consultants to advise on the issue. These procedures were suspended over the period of the General Election and not proceeded with thereafter. Subsequently, it was decided by management that the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) would benefit from a period of consolidation at its new York laboratory, following the intense period of examination during the Prior Options review and other external management consultants' investigations.

  CSL appointed a Commercial Director from the private sector in September 1997 who is charged with taking forward initiatives in this area.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the case High Table Ltd. versus Horst (1997) for redundancy payments for mobile staff employed by the Central Science Laboratory in Norwich in the event that such staff refuse to relocate to York; and what are the financial implications for the Central Science Laboratory. [37949]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department is aware of the High Table versus Horst case. Our legal advice is that it would not have a material impact on the assessments for relocation costs that are being made in connection with the possible relocation of the work undertaken at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), Norwich. This being the case, there are no financial implications for CSL.
  248
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were employed by the Central Science Laboratory at(a) Slough, (b) Harpenden and (c) Worplesdon in January 1995; and how many were still employed by the CSL, at York, in January 1998, broken down (i) into (1) scientists and (2) non-scientists and (ii) into (A) mobile and (B) non-mobile grades. [37766]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: The information requested is as follows; although I should alert my hon. Friend that the information for the two dates is not directly comparable.

  January 1995

  January 1998

  Slough

  Harpenden

  Worplesdon

  York

  Total staff

  235

  168

  50

  181

  of which:

  Scientists

  147

  102

  38

  148

  Non scientists

  88

  66

  12

  33

  Mobiles

  128

  87

  26

  169

  Non mobiles

  107

  81

  24

  12

  A number of factors have influenced the level of staffing within the Central Science Laboratory over the period January 1995 to January 1998.

  Amongst mobile grades there were 6 retirements at normal retirement age and one medical retirement during this period. In addition there were two voluntary early retirement exercises conducted to reduce staff levels as a result of declining funding and where it was clear that the posts would not be required for the future. 26 staff in mobile grades, based at Slough, Harpenden or Worplesdon, took early retirement between January 1995 and March 1996, prior to the relocation exercise which commenced in September 1996.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answers of 5 March 1998,Official Report, column 728, 31 March 1998, Official Report, column 506 and 7 April 1998, Official Report, column 216, what assessment he has made of the discrepancy between the proportion of scientific staff who transferred from Tony, Aberdeen to York and the proportion of all staff in mobile grades which have transferred to York. [39001]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 20 April 1998]: The circumstances of the closure of the Torry laboratory differ from those of the major relocation exercise to occupy the new Central Science Laboratory (CSL) at Sand Hutton, York.

  With the closure of the Tony laboratory, funding for work which was of particular relevance to Scotland was transferred to the Scottish Office and work programmes and associated staff were transferred to the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen University and the Scottish Office Marine Laboratory.

  There was no such transfer of funding or staff for the work that was relocated to York from a number of CSL sites, including Slough, Worplesdon and Harpenden.
  249
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the Central Science Laboratory in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement.[40796]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have set the Central Science Laboratory the following performance targets for 1998–99.

  Efficiency
  1 per cent. improvement in utilisation of productive time.

  Delivery of Science
  At least 90 per cent. of work completed to time and within budget;
  Achieve a mean score of 3.5 on a scale of 0 to 5 for the assessment of customer satisfaction using the established methodology;
  Proportion of project milestones achieved to be at or greater than 82 per cent. (MAFF commissioned projects).

  Financial
  100 per cent. recovery of full costs after allowing for relocation costs;
  To operate within the net cost allocation as agreed by the MAFF Management Board.

  Allergic Reactions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the potential allergic reaction that could be caused by the transfer of a gene from one foodstuff to another, where the original foodstuff causes such a reaction. [40325]

  Mr. Rooker
  An assessment of allergenic potential forms an essential part of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes's safety assessment of any genetically modified food.

  Novel Foods
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of quantifiable risk must be reached before permission to authorise a novel food is refused. [40324]

  Mr. Rooker
  My Department has responsibility for novel foods. I receive advice on the safety from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) which assesses all novel foods in accordance with guidelines laid down by the European Commission (Official Journal L253, Vol. 40 of 16 September 1997). These guidelines, which reflect the views of internationally recognised experts in this area, are not based on the concept of quantitative risk assessment. Instead, each application is rigorously assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the product will not present a danger to the consumer, mislead the consumer or differ from foods or food ingredients which they are intended to replace to such an extent that their normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for approval of novel foods have been considered for each year from 1990 to date; for each year how many were(a) approved and (b) refused; and how many are outstanding. [40322]

  Mr. Rooker
  A complete list of the novel foods considered by the Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes (ACNFP) prior to the EU Novel Foods 250
  Regulation (258/97) coming into force in May 1997 is contained in Appendix XIII of its Annual Report for 1996, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This is a complete list of all novel foods that have been considered in the United Kingdom up to March 1997. Between that date and 15 May 1997, no further applications were considered.

  Since the Novel Foods Regulation came into force, the Committee has considered four applications requesting an opinion on substantial equivalence, for two genetically modified (GM) cottonseeds, a GM potato and a GM maize, and has requested further information for all of them. In addition, one full application for food safety clearance, on GM tomatoes, which were approved for use prior to May 1997 but for which not all applications had reached the market, has been considered and approved. A report on this will be forwarded to the European Commission shortly.

  BSE Unit
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the remit of the BSE unit; [39996]

  (2) how many persons work in the BSE unit; [39997]

  (3) what is the role of his Department's BSE unit in relation to the independent inquiry into BSE; [39998]

  (4) what is the total proposed budget for the BSE unit for each year of its operation; [39999]

  (5) how many staff are allocated to his Department's BSE unit by grade; [40000]

  (6) if he will give the name and grade of the civil servant who is in charge of his Department's BSE unit; [40001]

  (7) if he will make a statement on the arrangements for ensuring the accountability of officials in his Department's BSE unit to Ministers; [40002]

  (8) if his Department's BSE defence unit and BSE unit are the same organisations. [40003]

  Mr. Rooker
  The MAFF BSE Inquiry Liaison Unit was set up to assist the BSE Inquiry in establishing the relevant facts into which it is inquiring; to deal scrupulously and promptly with the Inquiry's requests for information; and to provide appropriate documentary and legal support for individual MAFF witnesses, including former Ministers, in their dealings with the Inquiry.

  In accordance with the conventions on access to papers of previous Administrations, Ministers are playing no part in the presentation of evidence to the Inquiry by their departments. The Liaison Unit's support to the Inquiry and to witnesses is therefore being provided under the authority of the Permanent Secretary, in accordance with guidance from the Cabinet Secretary. Staff working in the Liaison Unit otherwise remain accountable to Ministers in the normal way, including for support on the Government's policy towards the Inquiry.

  The Department does not have a separate "BSE defence unit". It is primarily for individual witnesses, including former Ministers and the then responsible senior officials, to explain in their evidence to the Inquiry their and the Ministry's part in the emergence and control of BSE. In

  251
  line with precedent, the Liaison Unit is providing witnesses with documentary, logistical and, where necessary, legal support in the task.

  The Unit's estimated budget for the current year is some £1.5 million, excluding the costs of legal advice to MAFF witnesses. The Unit reports to Mr. Neil Thornton, a member of the senior civil service, and then to the Permanent Secretary.

  My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Department has already provided over half a million pages of photocopies to meet the Inquiry's needs.

  The Unit comprises the following posts by grade:

  Grade

  Number

  SCS

  1

  Grade6

  1

  Grade 7

  3

  HEO (D)

  1

  E0

  5

  AO

  3

  AA

  4

  PS

  2

  Paperkeeper

  1

  Total Staff

  26

  In accordance with the Inquiry Chairman's wishes, the Department has also appointed Counsel to help with the presentation of evidence.

  Farming And Rural Conservation Agency
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [40792]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  With the agreement of the Secretary of Sate for Wales I have set the following targets for the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA) for 1998/99.

  Efficiency
  To deliver a 3 per cent. efficiency saving compared with 1997/98.

  Delivery of Services
  92 per cent. of work completed in time.
  98 per cent. of work completed to quality standards agreed with MAFF and WOAD customers.
  Design and carry out a user and customer satisfaction survey.

  Financial Performance
  To recover from Government Departments and Agencies the full economic cost (calculated according to accruals accounting) of its services.
  To operate within the net cash allocation as agreed for FRCA by the MAFF Management Board.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the Pesticides Safety Directorate for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [40793]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have set the following targets for the Pesticides Safety Directorate in 1998/99.
  252
  Quality of Service
  To meet the throughput and processing time targets set out in the table below.
  To deliver high quality policy advice to Ministers and to represent them effectively.
  To deliver scientific work of recognised high quality.

  Financial Performance
  To recover from industry and Government the full economic cost (calculated according to accruals accounting) of its service.
  To operate within MAFF's net cash allocation agreed for PSD by MAFF's Management Board.

  Throughput and processing time targets:

  Application Stream

  Planned completions

  Processing time (weeks)

  New Substances (Notes 1,2)

  Sift

  15

  22

  Evaluation UK

  6

  52

  EU

  8

  52

  Reviews (Note 3)

  Full

  —

  —

  Other

  26

  —

  European

  Non-UK rapporteur

  monographs

  20

  —

  Technical Secretariat (Notes 1,2)

  Normal

  370

  41

  Fast

  400

  17

  Extrapolated Experimental

  10

  16

  Approval

  5

  26

  Experimental Permit

  15

  12

  Emergency Off Label

  40

  34

  Non-emergency Off Label

  15

  52

  Departmental

  550

  4

  Administrative Fast

  45

  —

  Other

  —

  Total

  1,525

  —

  Notes:

  1. 90 per cent. of applications are covered by the processing time targets except the sift where the figure is 100 per cent.

  2. Completed applications have no outstanding actions eg approval issued or application refused.

  3. For UK reviews, completion is when all 5 regulatory Departments have given approval.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the Meat Hygiene Service for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [40794]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have set the following performance targets for the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) for 1998/99:
  253
  Operational and service delivery
  To take all measures necessary to ensure full compliance in licensed premises with Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 and other related statutory instruments.
  To develop a comprehensive training package for all current MHS staff and to ensure that all MHS contract and employed OVSs, Meat Hygiene Inspectors and Meat Technicians complete a formal training programme in HACCP and Quality (ISO 9002) by 31 March 1999, and to present a formal programme of evaluation of the results of this training.
  To ensure that by the end of 1998/99 on a rolling three-month average at least 93 per cent. of licensed premises are achieving HAS scores of more than 65 and that 75 per cent. of all licensed premises are achieving HAS scores of more than 70.
  To strictly implement the Clean Livestock Policy by ensuring that cattle and sheep classified into categories 3 and 4 on the clean livestock scale are only exceptionally, and subject to special precautions being taken, slaughtered for human consumption and that no animals in category 5 are accepted for human consumption.
  To ensure a strict prohibition on carcases showing any faecal contamination being health-marked for human consumption.
  To publish by 31 July 1998 the report on the MHS Welfare Survey undertaken in 1997/98. To provide instructions or training to MHS staff in areas where action or recommendations are made in the Welfare Audit.

  Financial Performance
  To charge plant operators the full economic costs (calculated in accordance with the relevant legislation and accruals accounting and Industry Charges Guide) of providing the statutory health inspection and controls at fresh meat premises.
  To recover from government departments, agencies and the Intervention Board the full economic costs (calculated in accordance with the relevant charging legislation and accruals accounting) of providing agreed services or other work undertaken on their behalf.
  To operate within the net cash allocation as agreed during the year by the MAFF Management Board.

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [40795]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have set the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science the following performance targets for 1998/99:

  Efficiency
  To achieve the savings forecast in the Efficiency Plan

  Delivery of Service
  To give satisfaction to its customers in the way that outputs are provided taking account of the relevance, timeliness and value for money of outputs and the achievement of ROAME milestones.

  Quality of Service
  To maintain a high standard of excellence, based on indicators of scientific and technical quality.

  Financial Performance
  To recover from Government Departments and Agencies and external customers the full economic costs (calculated according to accruals accounting) of its services.
  To operate within the net cash allocation as agreed by the MAFF Management Board.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [40791]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have set the following performance targets for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) for 1998–99:

  Safety and Quality
  Enter Suspected Adverse Reaction Surveillance Scheme (SARSS) reports on to the database as follows:
  human reports: within 2 working days
  serious animal reports: within 2 working days
  non-serious animal reports: within 10 working days.
  Report to the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) each quarter reviewing trends in SARSS reports and identifying areas requiring evaluation.
  Collect and analyse 95 per cent. of the samples in the national residues surveillance plan.
  Provide high quality policy advice to Ministers.
  Provide high quality scientific assessment work.

  Standards of Service
  100 per cent. compliance with timetables for centralised and decentralised authorisation procedures (including maximum residue limits).
  90 per cent. of new marketing authorisations to be determined or referred to the VPC within 120 clock days.
  100 per cent. of new marketing authorisations to be determined within 210 clock days.
  100 per cent. of valid applications to have first assessment by 75 clock days and to be determined by 150 clock days.
  100 per cent. of valid renewal applications to have first assessment by 90 clock days and to be determined by 180 clock days.

  People
  Achieve Investors in People accreditation by 31 March 1999.

  Financial Control
  Recover from industry and Government the full economic cost (calculated according to accruals accounting) of each of its main business activities (licensing and surveillance; policy work; residue monitoring).
  Operate within the net cash allocations agreed for VMD by MAFF's Management Board.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [40797]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have set the Veterinary Laboratories Agency the following performance targets for 1998–99:

  Efficiency
  Achievement of an agreed programme of rationalisation

  Service Delivery
  85% of ROAME R&D milestones achieved

  Service Quality
  Achievement of laboratory accreditation for Specified Pathogen Free Hatchery, the Brucella Biohazard Unit and the Protozoology Unit.

  Financial Performance
  Full cost recovery for all Veterinary Laboratories Agency services.
  To operate within the net cash allocation as agreed by the MAFF Management Board.

  Chemical and Nuclear Contamination
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department compiles on chemical or nuclear contamination incidents where there were potential food safety implications; if this information is available to the public; and if he will make a statement. [40798]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department compiles annual reports on all such incidents and the Department's response to them. These reports are available to inquirers, free of charge. The latest report by the Ministry's Food Safety Incident Response Team, entitled "Food Protection 1997" has been placed in the Library of the House. It contains details of 230 incidents dealt with in 1997.

HEALTH

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the cost of resolving the millennium computer problem, including the embedded chip problem, in the National Health Service; how much money has been spent on this to date; and if he will make a statement. [37992]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]: The National Health Service Executive required health bodies to complete detailed project plans including budget estimates by 31 March 1998.

  The returns are still being analysed and a statement will be issued in due course.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates his Department has made of the likely total cost to the National Health Service in achieving medical equipment compliance with the millennium bug; [37996]

  (2) what extra resources will be made available to the National Health Service in tackling the problem of millennium compliance. [37997]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 8 April 1998]: The National Health Service Executive required bodies to complete detailed project plans including budget estimates by 31 March 1998.

  The returns are still being analysed and a statement will be issued in due course.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the total cost to the NHS of achieving millennium compliance. [38061]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 8 April 1998]: The National Health Service Executive required health bodies to complete detailed project plans including budget estimates by 31 March 1998.

  The returns are still being analysed and a statement will be issued in due course.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 1998,Official Report,
  256
  columns 643–44, on Investing in Dentistry, if he will list the successful applications in the South West by parliamentary constituency. [39384]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table gives details of health authorities in the South West Regional Office area whose requests have been approved, the locations of successful schemes and the relevant Parliamentary constituencies.

  Health authority

  Location

  Parliamentary constituency

  Avon Health Authority

  Stockwood

  Bristol, South

  Avon Health Authority

  Bishopsworth

  Bristol, South

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Health Authority

  Cambourne

  Falmouth and Cambourne

  Dorset Health Authority

  Sherborne

  Dorset, West

  Dorset Health Authority

  Weymouth

  Dorset, South

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  Cheltenham

  Cheltenham

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  Cheltenham

  Cheltenham

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  Cheltenham

  Cheltenham

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  Gloucester

  Gloucester

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  Gloucester

  Gloucester

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  Dursley

  Stroud

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  Newent

  Forest of Dean

  Isle of Wight Health Authority

  Newport

  Isle of Wight

  Isle of Wight Health Authority

  Sandown

  Isle of Wight

  North and East Devon Health Authority

  Cullompton

  Tiverton and Honiton

  North and East Devon Health Authority

  Bideford

  Devon, West and Torridge

  North and East Devon Health Authority

  Torrington

  Devon, West and Torridge

  North and East Devon Health

  Exeter

  Exeter Authority

  North and Mid Hampshire Health Authority

  Whitchurch

  Hampshire, North West

  Portsmouth Health Authority

  Fareham

  Fareham

  Portsmouth Health Authority

  Hayling Island

  Havant

  Portsmouth Health Authority

  Leigh Park

  Havant

  Portsmouth Health Authority

  Havant

  Havant

  Portsmouth Health Authority

  North Portsmouth

  Portsmouth, North

  Somerset Health Authority

  Yeovil

  Yeovil

  Somerset Health Authority

  Langport

  Somerton and Frome

  Somerset Health Authority

  Somerton

  Somerton and Frome

  Somerset Health Authority

  Bridgwater

  Bridgwater

  South and West Devon Health Authority

  Tavistock

  Devon, West and Torridge

  South and West Devon Health Authority

  Brixham

  Totnes

  South and West Devon Health Authority

  Torquay

  Torbay

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  Romsey

  Romsey

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  Central Southampton

  Southampton Itchen and Southampton Test

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  Southampton East

  Southampton Itchen and Southampton Test

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  Hythe

  Southampton Itchen and Southampton Test

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  Southampton west

  Southampton Test Itchen and

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  Eastleigh

  Eastleigh

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  Southampton Central

  Eastleigh

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  North Baddesley

  Eastleigh

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Salisbury

  Salisbury

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Salisbury

  Salisbury

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Salisbury

  Salisbury

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Salisbury

  Salisbury

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Salisbury

  Salisbury

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Swindon

  Swindon, North and Swindon, South

  257

  Health authority

  Location

  Parliamentary constituency

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Swindon

  Swindon, North and Swindon South

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Swindon

  Swindon, North and Swindon, South

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Swindon

  Swindon, North and Swindon, South

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Swindon

  Westbury

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  Trowbridge Warminster

  Westbury

  Note:

  As at 21 April 1998

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that the sums from the 1997–98 fund for the Investing in Dentistry initiative which remain unallocated are spent on NHS dentistry; [39378]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 2 April 1998, Official Report, column 645, on investing in dentistry, for what reasons £6.9 million of the money available has not yet been allocated; [39697]

  (3) what criteria are used when allocating grants under the investing in dentistry scheme.[39695]

  Mr. Milburn
  Full guidance was issued to health authorities about making proposals under the investing in dentistry scheme, in September 1997. (Copies of (HSG(97)38) will be placed in the Library.) The scheme is operated only where the requirements of Section 56 of the National Health Service Act 1977 are met.

  The criteria used in deciding upon proposals are:

  (1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to justify making arrangements to supplement the usual general dental services (GDS) arrangements, under Section 56 of the 1977 NHS Act to address a significant local problem in the provision of GDS.

  (2) Whether the proposal would address that problem effectively.

  (3) Whether the scheme offers value for money.

  (4) Whether the dentists concerned are willing to take on a significant number of new NHS patients and maintain that commitment for a period of at least 3 to 5 years.

  Expenditure (that is, funds allocated to successful proposals) is dependent upon appropriate proposals being put forward by health authorities whose function it is to assess local needs, and upon their approval by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State.

  Funds reserved for the Investing in Dentistry initiative are not available for other purposes. The scheme will continue in 1998/99, with up to £10 million being available to meet the cost of approved grants or incentives and any associated in-year treatment costs for the extra patients brought into care.

  Spinal Injuries
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many spinal injury units there are in England. [39739]
  258
  Mr. Milburn
  This information is not collected centrally. It is currently the responsibility of health authorities to assess the health care needs of their population and to commission in-patient services, including specialist facilities such as spinal injury units, appropriately.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the type of treatment required by patients with spinal injuries. [39766]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since 1 September 1997, the Department has received 15 Private Office cases from Members of Parliament and 2 letters from members of the public and voluntary organisations about spinal injury.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the key targets for 1998–99 for the NHS Pensions Agency. [40808]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have agreed the Agency's key tasks and targets for 1998–99, and have placed copies in the Library.

  Northumberland Health Care Trust
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those appointed to the Northumberland Health Care NHS Trust Board, stating(a) the area in which they live and (b) their political affiliation. [40096]

  Mr. Milburn
  The names, area of residency and significant political activity of those appointed to the board of the new Northumbria National Health Service Trust are shown:

  Name

  Postal town

  Significant Political activity

  Brian Flood (Chairman)

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Labour

  Ian Swithenbank

  Cramlington

  Labour

  Rev. Mrs. Doreen Hood

  North Shields

  None

  Only information on candidates' significant political activity is collected.

  Morecambe Bay Hospital Trust
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason no member of the board of the Westmorland Hospital NHS Trust was appointed to the board of the new merged Morecambe Bay Hospital NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [40320]

  Mr. Milburn
  There can be no guarantee of non-executives from a merging trust being appointed to the new trust board. All appointments to the new Morecambe Bay Hospital National Health Service Trust were made on merit and in accordance with the Department's published procedures, copies of which are in the Library.

  Radioactive Isotopes
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what quantity of radioactive isotopes have been used in the treatment of cancer by the NHS in each year since 1992; [39902]

  (2) if he will estimate how long, at current usage rates the stocks of radioactive isotopes for the treatment of cancer in the NHS will last. [39903]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department does not have central records of the amounts of radio isotopes used for medical purposes. The Radioactive Substances Act (1993) requires users to register with the Environment Agency (or Scottish Environment Protection Agency) and to obtain a certificate of authorisation for accumulation and/or disposal of radioactive waste. There are nine pharmaceutical companies who hold current United Kingdom marketing authorisations for some 90 radiopharmaceutical products. The UK Atomic Energy Authority has confirmed that sources of high enriched uranium (HEU) in western Europe are almost exhausted. HEU is required to manufacture some medical radioisotopes

  Continence Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Warrington, North constituency are provided with continence services by the local health 260
  authority; and what budget has been allocated by the authority to continence care for each year from 1990–91. [40223]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, Warrington Community Health Care National Health Service Trust has supplied the details which are given in the tables. The trust is able to supply data from 1994/95 onwards, but the information requested is not available prior to this date. Warrington Community Health Care NHS Trust does not collect data by ward, and therefore, the information supplied concerns the whole of Warrington.

  Table 1: Budget for Continence Services, Warrington

  £

  Products only

  Total expenditure

  1994–95

  231,290

  323,640

  1995–96

  226,736

  298,370

  1996–97

  258,804

  332,216

  1997–98

  251,025

  351,081

  Source:

  Warrington Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Table 2: Current Client Base for Continence Services, Warrington

  Number

  Total clients known to service (at 31/10/97)

  2,168

  Domestic clients registered with home delivery service

  1,071

  Residential homes clients receiving products

  166

  Clients receiving catheters, advice, etc.

  891

  Clients receiving physiotherapy services

  40

  Source:

  Warrington Community Health Care NHS Trusts

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

EC Fishing Proposals: UK Stance
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in response to the European Commission's further consultative paper on working time restrictions, they will ensure that the present directive will not extend to British share fishermen.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, we shall be studying the Commission's proposals with interest, and any response will take into account the current arrangements in each sector. In particular, the Government recognise the important role played by share fishermen in the UK fishing industry and their unique employment status, and will endeavour to ensure that any Commission proposals take account of this.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. As British share fishermen are self-employed and do not have trade unions, are further consultations with employers and employees relevant to this industry? Will the Government oppose this extension despite the report that Labour MEPs supported it in the parliament's fisheries committee, though, from comments at Question Time yesterday, they may have been old Labour and therefore in the frame for replacement?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's great experience in the matter of fishing both from another place and indeed from Scotland, which will have its own views on the fishing industry. We are still in debate with the Commission, and until the Commission has finished its consultation and has heard all the submissions from the social partners, it is premature to say what position we shall take. We will be negotiating to achieve the position I put to the noble Lord in my first Answer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister accept that share fishermen and other fishermen are very concerned about the way, month after month, we are told, as with quota hopping, "Discussions are going on. Wait and see"? They really do wonder, first, whether the Government understand how the fishing industry works and how ridiculous a working time directive would be and, secondly, whether the Commission understands. Can the noble Lord at least give the industry some assurance that we will come to a decision about this sooner rather than later—perhaps as soon as possible or shortly, even—and,
380
furthermore, if we do come to a decision, that the British authorities will be as vigilant as the Spanish authorities are in enforcing fisheries-type legislation?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the length of time negotiations take is in part stipulated by the length of time of the consultation. The consultation is not due to close until the middle of May. Whether that is "shortly" or "very shortly" I shall leave to the Opposition to decide. The period after that will be one of further negotiation for all parties. All countries will be responding to the Commission and all will have views they wish to make as firmly as we do ourselves. The Government well understand the complexity of remuneration in the fishing sector and will take that into account in arriving at a balanced solution.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Commission's attitude towards the British fishing industry and its history is not particularly impressive? Will he avoid the position, if he can, whereby negotiations are continued by the Commission ad infinitum to a point where little advantage can accrue to the British fishing industry? Will he, on reviewing the situation very carefully indeed, come to the conclusion that it is now time to stand up rigorously in defence of legitimate British fishing interests?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the feature of the excluded sectors arrangement is that it allows all governments to reflect most carefully on the particular position of their industry. There are only eight excluded sectors, one of which is fishing. We will reflect as carefully and as rigorously as other governments in coming to a conclusion. We have no intention whatever of putting fishermen into a position where they are not well represented by the British Government in securing the balanced agreement that we need with our partners in Europe.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister says that the British Government will endeavour to ensure that the Commission and presumably eventually the Council behave in a reasonable manner. Can he confirm that the issue will be decided by qualified majority vote at the end of the day and that, if so and the vote goes against us, there is absolutely nothing the British Government can do about it?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I think it will depend on which features of the negotiation one wishes to specify. This is an agreement about the terms in which a Commission directive passes into UK law. How we do that and the circumstances under which we do it will depend on the way the negotiations with our partners are carried out. I would not like to specify at this stage whether it will even come to votes.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister able to say that the Government do realise that the conditions set out are quite impossible for share fishermen or any other fishermen?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the reason for having excluded sectors was that it was well understood

381
that some of the basic elements of the working time directive could not be applied in these defined areas. Hence the nature of the negotiation in understanding which parts of the directive can be applied sensibly in the eight excluded areas and which cannot. That is a sensible way of progressing matters and we shall negotiate accordingly.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that fishermen's fishing time is subject to the weather, which is not regulated by the European Commission but by the Almighty?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, we are aware of that, but we are working on it. One of the negotiating issues is indeed about how time is calculated in the excluded sectors. It is well understood that the special arrangements in fishing will have to take account of the fact that rest periods, in the normal sense of the phrase, are not able to be applied as they are generally throughout industry. That is certainly well understood.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my reference to old attitudes was not intended to be flippant? It is generally too little known that the large distant water trawlers have virtually disappeared from the British fishing fleet and with them the owner companies and the payment of wages to the fishermen, who were seamen, mostly in seamen's unions. That is now all past history.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I would not wish to comment on the change in the nature of the fleet. There must be many reasons for that because of the dynamics of the market place, fishing stock and the terms of competition. But I understand that for the 20,000 or so fishermen—it is quite difficult to get the exact numbers—who are currently being looked after in these negotiations the majority are share fishermen. Therefore, we shall have to take account of their special and unique circumstances both in terms of their fiscal treatment, their hours of work and the way in which they are remunerated.

Pensioners: Means-tested Benefits
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburnasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many pilot schemes to extend automatic help to pensioners not claiming the means-tested income support to which they are entitled have so far been launched, where they will be sited and when they will report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, from this month we are running pilot projects in nine areas of the country to find the best way of encouraging pensioners to make a claim for income support. We are also experimenting with ways of making the delivery mechanism more automatic to
382
prevent the problem recurring in the future. The pilots which my noble friend asked me about are taking place in York, Preston, Glasgow, Stroud, East Renfrewshire, Lambeth, Torbay, South Staffordshire and Torfaen. The results should be available by the spring of 1999, after which we will consider how best to proceed nationally.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: While I am grateful for the detail of that reply, could I ask the Minister whether these pilot schemes, of which she has given details, relate to automatic means of helping the poorest pensioners? I am sure that she would be the first to agree that that is not the same as encouraging people to take up means-tested benefits. Will the Minister therefore give me an answer to this question? How many pilot schemes are there into ways of ensuring automatic help, which, by definition, I would have thought means benefits as of right or contributory benefits? Are there any such pilot schemes, and if so, how many; where are they and when will they report?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that there clearly is a dilemma for the Government in that if one has an automatic entitlement, irrespective of income, to additions to the basic state pension, then the entire population over the age of 65, including a large number of your Lordships, would automatically benefit. I am not suggesting for one moment that your Lordships would not be meritorious, but noble Lords might regard themselves as not necessarily having the first claim on resources in this area. The moment one goes for targeting on a means-testing basis, as my noble friend said, there are real problems about take-up, given the issues of the complexity of the benefit, stigma and ignorance. As my noble friend queried, that is why in the pilot schemes we are looking to see whether we can get automaticity—an ugly word—in the passporting of benefits to elderly people. They are mostly single women over the age of 75 years. The kinds of projects that we are looking at in our pilot schemes include working with local authorities to see whether one can piggy-back, for example, off entitlement to council tax benefit and housing benefit, and whether with social services we can ensure everyone getting the attendance allowance is also claiming income support to which they are entitled. We are also developing an experiment in London for electronic claim forms. Just before someone reaches their 65th birthday they are telephoned and asked for details of their income and capital cut-off point to see whether we can get automatic entitlement to income support to them. In these ways I hope that we are addressing the concerns of my noble friend.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Does not the Minister agree that the administrative cost of helping pensioners through means-tested benefits is much greater than that of administering a state insurance contributory pension scheme? It is something like £5 per week per recipient. Therefore, this elaborate effort to get people to take up more is going to add to the cost. Could she tell us, please, what would be the cost if all the pensioners entitled to income support were now, as a result of these activities, to claim it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. The retirement pension costs 55p per week to administer per claimant, and income support entitlement, irrespective of age, costs something like £4.20 a week to administer. So my noble friend can see that if I million pensioners were to claim income support to which they were entitled there would be a substantial administrative cost as well as the much bigger cost of take-up. But we believe that it is important that poorer pensioners today get the money to which they are entitled. Therefore, it is a cost that we must accept.

"Shield Council" Defence Proposal
3.14 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their position on the proposals for the elimination of war between sovereign states set down in the Army Quarterly Defense Journal, Vol. 127, No. 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we do not support the proposal for a so-called "shield" organisation; a supranational council with a standing military force and nuclear weapons. Such an organisation would not be effective, accountable or politically acceptable. The UK is working to improve the ability of the international community to prevent and manage conflict. The United Nations is central to this effort. Collective defence through NATO will remain the cornerstone of the United Kingdom's national security.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I believe the support given to this document by a former president of the United States, Jimmy Carter, is unconditional, as is the support given by a former president of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev? I do not know what the position is as regards a former premier of France, M. Rocard, who has also added his name. But as regards my noble friend Lord Callaghan, the fourth very distinguished international person to have put his name to the document, his support is qualified and he made that very clear in a foreword which he supplied to the article printed in the Army Quarterly Defense Journal, which of itself is a document supported by distinguished military people. In those circumstances, although I do not expect the Minister to say that the Government support this, does she feel able to say, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan said, that the document is well worth consideration and discussion?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend has been very encouraging in trying to tempt me into saying that we would consider the document. But I must be clear both to my noble friend and the House that the Government do not believe that the document could command that degree of interest
384
or consideration. It involves the creation of another nuclear power and would be in breach of our nuclear proliferation treaties. The so-called "Shield Council" would be independent of states and the UN Security Council. Its members would have to forswear their national allegiances. Her Majesty's Government are most concerned about the accountability of such a council in those circumstances.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, while the Government may have reservations about individual aspects of this article's contribution to the consideration of international armed forces, nevertheless will they recognise that articles such as these do make a contribution to the developing debate about how we can obtain international security around the globe? Bearing in mind the current perception by a number of nations that international peacekeeping efforts appear to be dominated by the United States, does the Minister agree that every effort to ensure that international peacekeeping efforts are perceived and realised to be on behalf of the international community as a whole should be welcomed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would be very concerned indeed if anything I said in your Lordships' House in any way detracted from the two answers that I have already given about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to this particular document. As my noble friend raises other issues as well, I say to the House that Her Majesty's Government believe that the United Nations matters. For all its problems it is an indispensable institution. It is the only one we have at the moment which is capable of giving any real legitimacy to decisions taken by the international community. The Government rest on that position.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, there is plenty of time left. May I briefly say—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I briefly ask my noble friend to say that at least she agrees that this matter should be taken further? I hope that noble Lords will agree that this afternoon's discussion is only a preliminary stage. I hope that in future my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff will participate. Is my noble friend the Minister aware that I shall make it my business to ensure that an opportunity to do so is afforded to him?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Callaghan will know how much he relishes that opportunity—or not. I hope that I have been clear and unequivocal on this point. I cannot encourage my noble friend to believe that Her Majesty's Government will consider the document further. None

385
the less, the Government are, of course, always willing to listen to my noble friend's interesting point of view and I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to do so on this matter in future.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is my noble friend on the Front Bench aware that having listened first to my noble friend Lord Jenkins and then to her replies, I am not sure yet which side I am on? However, I shall certainly go away and see what it was I signed. I shall then be very happy to take part in any discussions that may ensue.

Convicted Criminals: Memoirs
3.21 p.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have held with book and newspaper publishers and radio and television companies about payment to convicted criminals for memoirs and related material concerning their criminal past.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am not aware of any recent discussions between the Government and book and newspaper publishers or radio and television companies about this issue, although I understand that my honourable friend Joyce Quin, the Home Office Minister of State, has recently written to Richard Charkin, the Chief Executive of Macmillan General Books, in her capacity as the Member for Gateshead East and Washington West, about the payment made to Mary Bell for her contribution to Cries Unheard.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has asked the Attorney-General whether anything can be done about the payments which have been made to Mary Bell. I understand that it is not clear whether the Attorney-General has any power to take action. None the less he is examining the possibility.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when a 14 year-old child is driven from her home into protective police custody by the harassment of journalists, that is shaming and shameful to us all? Will the noble Lord assure us that the inquiry which the Home Secretary announced today into these matters will deal with the question of loopholes in the present law and whether the present law is being pursued with due rigour? Will the noble Lord also ensure that the Press Complaints Commission looks into the matter of cheque-book journalism by proxy, by which newspapers can enter into contracts with authors who can then pay convicted criminals for their stories? These are matters of great concern. Problems coming down the track mean that this issue should be dealt with with due urgency.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in saying that it is repugnant that a 14 year-old girl should be hounded in this way. She is going through a severe trauma at the moment. I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that our thoughts and heartfelt
386
sympathies also go out to the parents of the child victims. We are examining the law as it stands. I refer to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, which was designed primarily to deal with offences which themselves generate profits. It is not clear whether its provisions would apply to Mary Bell because it can apply only within six years of a defendant's conviction if new evidence comes to light that the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct. That is why my right honourable friend is considering a review. This is a difficult area, raising complex issues. My right honourable friend has asked that the review begins immediately to see whether any steps can be taken to deal with any such cases that may arise in the future. The review will be completed as soon as possible but, as I am sure that noble Lords will agree, it is important to ensure that the issue is looked at thoroughly and that sufficient time is allowed for that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both payments to convicted criminals, either directly or indirectly, and harassment by journalists, are serious breaches of the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct? I can confirm that we have received a complaint; that we are conducting an investigation and that our report will be published as soon as it is available.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. I am sure that the whole House welcomes what he said. We look forward to receiving the Press Complaints Commission's report in due course.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, was it not unusual and perhaps unwise for No. 10 to take up this case? Was not that bound to increase the mass hysteria which has been whipped up by the popular press? Might it not have been better to have considered the consequences of raising this matter rather than going for some cheap, immediate, populist publicity?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I reject immediately the noble Lord's comment about cheap publicity. There was no such intention. I am sure that the Prime Minister was right—he was asked a Question on this in the House of Commons yesterday—to point to the gravity of the matter and to say that it is repugnant that anyone should benefit from such terrible crimes. The Prime Minister was portraying the fact that this Government are determined to ensure that no one else can benefit similarly in the future.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of us feel pleased that the Prime Minister had the courage to speak out against that vile practice? Many of us are very glad that he did. I do not consider that the Prime Minister was seeking cheap publicity.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for agreeing that the aim was not cheap publicity. This is a serious matter and it is extremely important that we consider the issue as quickly as possible to ensure that no one else can similarly benefit.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if investigations show that nothing can be done and that no prosecution can be laid against the people who perpetrated these matters, do the Government intend to introduce legislation to correct the position?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, as I said, we are undertaking a review. Although this is a difficult area, the Government intend to try to ensure that in the future no one else can benefit from such crimes.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, when the Minister and his colleagues are looking at whether the present law or any future legislation might prevent such payments being made, may I invite the noble Lord to ensure that there is nothing in the provisions of the Human Rights Bill to prevent such a law being enforced?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we shall, of course, consider that. This is a difficult area raising complex issues. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has asked his officials immediately to begin a review to see whether any steps can be taken to deal with such cases in the future. We shall certainly bear the Human Rights Bill in mind in such a review.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that where criminals participate in the publication of articles or the production of programmes, such publications or programmes have a strong tendency to exaggerate understanding of, and sympathy for, the action of the criminal and must therefore be seen as unfair to the victims and their families and that on that ground alone, quite apart from the question of profiteering, some law should be introduced to prevent it happening?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the review is taking place and we shall look at all matters relating to it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, referring to the answer given by the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, does the noble Lord agree that the Government are not under exactly the same constraints as the previous government to attempt to pacify the press in the run-up to the last election? Therefore, might not the present Government feel a little braver in approaching a privacy law in these important matters?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. He says that the previous government had to pacify the press in the run-up to the election. I can tell the noble Lord that the present Government do not lack courage in dealing with any issue whatsoever.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister particularly welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, since there have been attempts to dress up this exercise as an academic study when it has been hawked around Fleet Street to the highest bidder and marketed and cross-marketed very successfully by the promoting newspapers?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, like the noble Lord I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, this afternoon that immediate action is being taken in relation to this matter. We must await the outcome of the deliberations. But, like the noble Lord, it is a sorry matter that this has been the subject of a press war in relation to circulation and that this matter has been hawked around to find the highest bidder.

Whitsun Recess
3.32 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be convenient for the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun Recess at the end of business on Thursday, 21st May and return on Monday, 1st June.

Building Regulations (Energy Rating Information) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Building Regulations 1991 and the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 1985 to secure the provision of further information to purchasers and certain other occupiers of dwellings with respect to the energy rating of dwellings; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Nicol.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38(5) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday, 6th May to allow the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill to be taken before the Motion in the name of the Lord Geddes; and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Thursday, 7th May to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

389
Moved, That the Lord Razzall be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Wigoder; and that the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath be added to the Joint Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ceremony of Introduction: Select Committee Report
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard)rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Select Committee on the Ceremony of Introduction (HL Paper 78).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise as Leader of the House to move that the House take note of the report produced by the Select Committee on the Ceremony of Introduction. I begin with a few words about the procedure for this afternoon's debate. There are two Motions on the Order Paper today: one to take note of the Select Committee's report and a second to give effect to the committee's recommendations. The first Motion allows a debate to take place on all the issues arising out of the report. It is normal in your Lordships' House to take note of a report of the Select Committee when it is debated. In this case, however, in order to give effect to the recommendations of the report a further, more substantive resolution of the House is required and the second Motion on the Order Paper today has that effect. That Motion is the one to which noble Lords have tabled amendments, to which I shall return in due course. I hope that there will be one substantive debate, on the first Motion, to which I imagine the House will agree without a division. The amendments to the second Motion will then be called and decided without, I hope, further debate. The second Motion will then be put and decided.
I should perhaps explain why I am moving this Motion rather than the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who chaired the Select Committee with such distinction. There are two reasons. The first, as so often in your Lordships' House, is one of precedent. There is a recent one in the history of your Lordships' House. In 1663 a similar Motion to give effect to a report from the Committee of Privileges entitled "Concerning the introduction of Peers by descent" was moved by the then Lord Privy Seal. As that was only 42 years after the creation of the ceremony over 350 years ago, it is a worthy precedent. The second reason is that it was on my Motion that on 27th October last year the House decided, after going through the usual procedures for a humble Address, to refer this matter to the Select Committee whose report is now before the House. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will not mind my having first bite today; and I am very much looking forward to his speech.
Before I turn to the report itself, it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, back in his place after his operation. We missed him and we are delighted that he is back.
390
Turning now to the report itself, as Leader of the House I am very grateful to the Select Committee for the efficient and speedy way in which it conducted its work. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who chaired with his usual aplomb this Select Committee on which all parties and the Cross-Benches were represented, and which included both life Peers and hereditary Peers. It is a great tribute to the noble Lord's skills as chairman that the report was unanimously agreed. While it is a tradition of your Lordships' House that Select Committee reports are almost always unanimously agreed by the committee, on a subject such as this where many in the House hold strong and often contradictory views such unanimity could never have been taken for granted. I am greatly looking forward to the speeches by the members of the committee, in particular that of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, whose experience as a former Chief Whip was doubtless very helpful to the committee in forming those unanimous conclusions.
The House may allow me briefly to summarise the committee's recommendations as set out in Part 3 of the report. The Select Committee proposes that a ceremony of introduction for newly created Peers should be retained but modified. Robes would continue to be worn but hats would not, thankfully in my view. The ceremony of placing of Peers would be abolished, as would the practice of kneeling before the Lord Chancellor. The Clerk would read the Letters Patent but not the Writ. Instead of the placing ceremony, the Select Committee recommends that, following the procession into the Chamber, where each member of the ceremonial party should bow on reaching the Bar, the new Peer should move directly to the table for the Reading Clerk to read the Letters Patent and for the Oath to be sworn. Led by Black Rod, the new Peer would process behind the Clerks' chairs and, stopping at the front of the Cross-Benches, the Peer and supporters would bow to the Cloth of Estate. The procession would then move along the Spiritual side of the House with the new Peer shaking hands with the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
The Select Committee recommended that Garter King of Arms should no longer play a part in the ceremony as the placing of Peers is to be discontinued and as it is in this area that Garter performs his main function in the present ceremony.
The committee made three further recommendations not directly connected with the ceremony. First, the new Peer and his supporters should return, not robed, to the Chamber after the ceremony and sit for the first time in that part of the House where the new Peer intends to sit in the future. Secondly, new Peers should be given a leaflet explaining the significance of the ceremony to their future role as members of this legislature. Thirdly, no more than two Peers should be introduced on any one day, save in exceptional circumstances.
I have no hesitation in commending all of these recommendations to your Lordships today. I believe that the report of the Select Committee represents the best traditions of the House, which takes a sensible and balanced approach to reviewing both its work and its procedures. The House has always sought sensitive evolutions from existing practices. In recent years, we

391
have looked at a number of our procedures and have received and acted upon reports from Select Committees, notably the Select Committee under the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. That made substantial recommendations concerned with Committees off the Floor and other procedural reforms. I have in mind also the decision to televise proceedings in your Lordships' House, which was made a number of years before a similar change took place in another place, and which again followed consideration by the appropriate committee. Throughout, our aim as a House has been to maximise the efficiency with which we conduct our business while retaining the best of our constitutional practices and procedures.
The House might recall that when the Select Committee on the Ceremony of Introduction was being established I argued that some form of ceremonial should he retained, but that it should be modified to make it more appropriate to present times. I am delighted that the Select Committee has taken this general line in its recommendations. As paragraph 21 of the report states:
"after considering all the views put to us and the need to present a solution which we believe could be generally accepted by the House, we agreed that a formal ceremony of introduction to the House of Lords should he retained, but some aspects of it should be modified".
The recommendations of the committee show a balance between retaining the dignity and traditional values of the ceremony and improving it, in line with the objective I expressed in October that the ceremony should not lead to,
"boredom in the House and disdain for our procedures".—[Official Report, 27/10/97; col. 886.]
I believe that an appropriate ceremony for modern times should provide a proper introduction for new Peers to the rest of the House; should be dignified and in accordance with the traditions of the House; and should be conducted in a manner which avoids tedious repetition and avoids bringing the House into disrepute. I am delighted to say that, in my view, the recommendations from the Select Committee admirably meet all these objectives.
The Select Committee has proposed doing away with what seemed to me to be the most arcane elements of the ceremony. The doffing of hats and bowing to the Lord Chancellor, and indeed the whole of the ceremony of placing of Peers, may have their roots in some dim forgotten past, but appear quaint and irrelevant to many today. These elements no longer carry meaning in the House—placing indeed conflicts with the doctrine that all Peers are equal—and add to the impression that the ceremonial is overlong.
Perhaps I should at this point remind the House why I have not argued, and never have, for the ceremony to be abolished. This is because it is quite clear that the day on which a Peer first sits in the House is a great occasion for the Peer, and the Peer's family and friends. I believe that a ceremony of introduction is an important part of that sense of occasion and I would oppose its abolition, as I have previously made clear.
Your Lordships will see from my second Motion that I have gone a little further than the Select Committee's report in recommending that the ceremony for Bishops should also be reformed. The Select Committee heard evidence from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who had consulted his colleagues. The Select
392
Committee noted (in paragraph 10) that the ceremony for the introduction of Bishops to the House of Lords was considerably shorter and simpler than the present ceremony for life Peers and that the Bishops themselves did not recommend any change. The Select Committee noted that there was no criticism of the Bishops' ceremony and made no recommendations on the grounds, I believe, that the Bishops' ceremony was outside its terms of reference.
In tabling the Motion for your Lordships today I considered this position most carefully and concluded, after discussion within the usual channels, that it would be anomalous not to allow the House today to have the opportunity of combining a reform to the ceremony for temporal Peers with a parallel reform for Lords Spiritual. After discussion with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich, I am happy to say that he agrees with my Motion as it stands. It is the intention that a newly introduced Bishop will, immediately after shaking hands with the Lord Chancellor, proceed, with his supporters to the Bishops' Benches. All three Bishops will be robed. Otherwise, the changes proposed by the Select Committee will be applied to the Bishops' ceremony. I look forward to the speech of the right reverend Prelate on these points.
I turn now to the recommendation from the Select Committee that Garter King of Arms should no longer play a part in the ceremony. In this regard, the Select Committee has gone further than I suggested in my speech to the House when we debated the Motion on 27th October last year. The committee made this recommendation because of its other recommendation that the placing of Peers—the part of the ceremony in which Garter has a direct and special role—should be removed. I am sure all Members of the House would wish me to say how grateful we are for the work which Garter has done and will continue to do behind the scenes. I note that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has tabled an amendment to reinstate Garter. I should perhaps say that I was a little surprised to see the noble Duke's amendment on the Order Paper today, in the light of the robust evidence he gave to the Select Committee, that:
"Anything that is historical must be updated the whole time. I was appalled when I came to your noble Lords' House to see all this kerfuffle going on when a new peer comes in. I was even more appalled when eventually I was told that the Earl Marshal and Garter were responsible."
I will listen with great care to what he has to say and will listen most closely to his explanation of why he does not take this wholly sensible and consistent attitude towards the recommendation relating to Garter. I have to say that I hope the House will consider carefully before seeking to undo this element in the carefully crafted package of recommendations from the committee. However, perhaps I may emphasise that the reinstatement of Garter is a matter for the House when it votes on the noble Duke's amendment.
Two other amendments have been tabled. The first, from the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, would delay change,
"until this House has had the opportunity to consider Her Majesty's Government's further proposals for Lords reform".

393
I look forward to the noble Lord's speech, in which I am sure he will tell the House just exactly what he has in mind. At the moment, I have no idea what he has in mind. I also look forward to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in which he will no doubt make the case for his amendment, the effect of which would be to accept the need for change, but to delay change until next Session.
We have the chance today to make a small but important piece of history. It is in the best spirit of the House to look initially at itself and to modify its activities when it is right to do so. We had an opportunity only this week to see the ceremony once again, so our evidence is recent. My noble friend Lord Sheppard of Liverpool took his seat on the Government Benches on Tuesday. I know that my noble friend will not object if I say that as a result of the committee's report he may be the last person to do so by means of the ceremony as it stands at present. Since it began as long ago as 1621, it is perhaps not ignoble to be the final recipient of the honour of that procedure.
I think I have said enough. I look forward to the debate ahead and to the contributions of the noble Lords who have indicated a wish to speak. For the moment, I commend the Motion to the House and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the report of the Select Committee on the Ceremony of Introduction.—(Lord Richard.)
3.40 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for explaining the procedure for the debate and the two Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper. My amendment is no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and his colleagues on the Select Committee. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, it is a remarkable achievement that he has managed to obtain an agreed report. Apart from the proposals regarding Garter, who I agree should not be excluded, I believe that the Select Committee has retained the essential elements of the ceremony and its dignity. We like ceremony in this country; we are good at it, none better; and life would be very drab without pageantry.
I am glad, too, that the Select Committee proposes to retain the traditional words of the Letters Patent. Such ceremonies should have phrases in them which are not in common use. The Authorised Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer have an enormous hold on the people of this country. It is partly because the language was flowering so beautifully when they were written, but it is also because they are different.
My main criticism of the Government's substantive Motion concerns timing. I invite the House to consider the question: why now? This is not a party matter. It is an important domestic issue which concerns the whole House. When the Government were first elected, they said that they would listen. That was a very welcome statement. It is disappointing that the Government did not decide to listen first to the House before tabling their substantive Motion. Had they done so, it may well be that
394
they would have avoided some of the amendments, particularly that relating to Garter, now on the Order Paper.
My second and main point has been made before on many occasions by the Liberal Democrats, from the Cross-Benches as well as by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest to the House that it really is not possible to reach an informed judgment on introductions in isolation from other reforms of your Lordships' House which the Government have not yet presented to Parliament. In major constitutional matters of this kind, I do not believe that a piecemeal approach is satisfactory. We need to see the whole picture if we are to take an informed view.
I give one example to your Lordships of the difficulties which may arise if we proceed now. We are told that the Government may propose an elected element in this House. If that were to happen, it would involve a completely new ceremony. Instead of the Monarch creating and summoning, electors would send. We should then need an introductory ceremony similar to that which exists at present in another place. Therefore, we should need another change. I do not believe that it is wise too often to make changes to venerable ceremonies of this kind.
My amendment would not postpone by one single day the Government's reform proposals. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is a senior Member of the Government and is also the Leader of the House. I know that he listens very carefully to views which are expressed in all parts of the House. I submit to the noble Lord that he could accept the amendment in my name without in any way harming the Government's programme. In doing so, the noble Lord would earn the gratitude of the House.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will allow me to correct one point. I do not move the Motion on behalf of the Government. I made it very clear that I am moving it as Leader of the House on behalf of the House, the Select Committee having been set up.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I stand corrected.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for the typically genial and fair-minded way in which he introduced the Motion standing in his name. I fully understand the point which he has just made. This is essentially a House of Lords matter. He has carried out his proper duties as Leader of the House. But whatever views we may have and whatever advice we may give to our noble friends, it is for us individually to make up our minds as to what we wish to do.
There are those—and we should acknowledge this—who may think it a curious order of priorities to be discussing the ceremony of introduction today. This is a very busy parliamentary time and the House was kept until after midnight on two occasions earlier this week. With late nights and a heavy programme of legislation,

395
there are many better constitutional, political, economic and social issues with which to concern ourselves. However, I was among those who accepted the case for a fresh consideration of the ceremony when the Leader of the House proposed his Motion on 29th October last. I, too, am grateful to your Lordships' committee and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for the speed of the inquiry and the clarity of the report. I believe that it is now better to settle the matter.
Perhaps I may say, in advance of dealing with the main substance, which is the report of the committee, that if your Lordships are disposed to support the Motion before the House and the following resolutions, I can see no reason for postponement of the implementation of the proposals. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. I heard what he said about making no informed judgment in advance of wider changes. But I do not regard the ceremony of introduction as a high constitutional matter. It is a matter of concern to this House, and very properly, as noble Lords have shown. But beyond that, we should not extend its importance.
For a moment, I thought that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, was hoping that his amendment might be a wrecking amendment and that, in effect, no change in the ceremony of introduction would take place. If that were the assumption, it has proved to be false. Whatever the case, I do not believe that there is any point in supporting either his amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, to whom I shall also listen extremely carefully, if it merely means delaying for a short while the decision which your Lordships' House has made.
I am relaxed about the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I agree with the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal that the noble Duke's evidence to the committee was robust; I enjoyed it; and perhaps that has made me softer or more sympathetic to a role for Garter. I am relaxed on that matter if the House took that view, although I can see the argument of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal that it is better not to start unravelling the recommendations of the report before the House.
My starting point is not one which may be shared by all noble Lords. However, this is primarily a place of work in partnership with the House of Commons in constituting Parliament. We sit for 140 or so days in a year, many of them long days filled with the detailed scrutiny of legislation. Many of your Lordships are regular attenders and contribute substantially in debate and in Committee. We all acknowledge the special role of the Cross-Benches, bringing to the House, as they do, men and women with distinguished careers outside the political mainstream.
I make those obvious points because your Lordships are rightly upset when newspaper reports and especially television programmes dwell on what they seek to portray as our infirmities, eccentricities and archaisms, making us sometimes rather like a Sotheby's by the Thames. Whatever others may suggest, we know that we are not part of the heritage industry. But if we are to take our presence here seriously and uphold public respect for the role of the House, then the ceremony of introduction
396
should reflect our relevance and our practical role. At least, it should not too obviously push in the opposite direction.
I am not over-impressed by two arguments, although very sincerely held, put forward for retaining things as they are. First, there is the family and friends argument. That is simply that the ceremony of introduction provides a nice day out for a new Peer and his guests. Indeed it does and I begrudge nobody any such pleasure. I am sure that my own family and friends enjoyed the occasion. But that can hardly be a serious test of whether the ceremony is justified in its present form and at its present length. We are not joining a club or winning a race. We are starting a new stage in our careers. At least, the House will be respected if that is how the world sees it.
Then there is the argument that the present ceremony, at its present length, enables us to identify new Peers and recognise them later. I respect that point, but do not share it. I may be in a minority, but I find that the ceremony and the wearing of robes disguises as much as it identifies and I am happier spotting and getting to know my new colleagues in the Lobbies and corridors.
There is also the contrary point, made as I understood it in the report, that hereditary Peers taking their seats for the first time do so without ceremony and without robes. I acknowledge the historical basis of that, that their faces were well known to their peers before they arrived here. But that does not stand up today and does not carry sufficient weight to justify such an exemption making the rule that the present ceremony should remain unchanged.
Listening to the debate last October and reading the evidence to your Lordships' committee, I found that almost all the arguments for retaining the ceremony in its present form convinced me of the reverse. The best argument for so doing seems to me to be the simplest one, and the one put by, among others, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers: "it is part of the history of Parliament, it doesn't harm anyone, why all the fuss?"
I return to my starting point, that this is a place of work and is becoming more so. The ceremony should not take up more precious time than is necessary. It should be business-like and, as far as possible, relevant. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in his evidence said that the ceremony should be much the same as that for the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, while not sharing that view, described the by-election procedure in another place as: bow to the bar, march three paces, bow again, march to the Table, bow again, swear the Oath and shake hands I found that an entirely adequate ceremony nearly 40 years ago and would not have felt let down by something similar when I arrived here. I am against copying the House of Commons but not against doing something similar on merit if circumstances justify.
But a majority of noble Lords are clearly not happy with such a functional approach and at this point, I confess that I begin to waver myself. Businesslike and relevant: I have said it once, I have said it again and, yet, I hope so. But every institution has its rites of passage to help give it a sense of unity, coherence and loyalty. Where tradition does not exist it is often invented. In this House we have no need for invention. Our traditions have

397
evolved through the centuries and, like most traditions, they include the initiation ceremony that we are discussing today.
I am also prepared to believe—it may be too far fetched, it may be a form of wish fulfilment—that a ceremony taking at least a little time and trouble and embodying a degree of continuity may modestly contribute towards the more consensual approach of your Lordships' House that makes it a calmer and less rhetorical place than the other Chamber.
As we shall see during the course of debate, there are probably almost as many shades of opinion on this matter as there are active Members of your Lordships' House. What your Lordships' committee has proposed—and proposed, as the Lord Privy Seal says, unanimously—is a reasonable compromise. It is not precisely what I might have preferred, but I am very happy to commend it to my noble friends for their favourable consideration.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I have sat in your Lordships' House for the best part of six years, so I thought that today was the day when I might come out in my true colours. I do that because I signed this report, as it were, from the radical perspective. I shall rehearse the radical argument in order that those who might not be so radically persuaded might understand that this was a very delicate and difficult consensus, reached with much labour. I pay tribute to both our clerk, Dr. Tudor, and our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for having reached that consensus.
I should like to ask three questions. First, what is this House? Quite simply, for me it is the second Chamber of a European legislature. Unfortunately, I do not have a full experience of all European legislatures, but I have not yet met one whose rites of passage quite match this place. That is the first question.
The second question is this. We shall hear in the course of this debate much of tradition—and I shall speak for only four minutes, or try to speak within that time. Tradition only exists in the present. I would argue that for a tradition to be meaningful it has to be targeted to the future. To repeat a set of social signs in the present because they happened in the past is no longer meaningful. I see muttering historians on the other side, but I would expect that. The meaning of a tradition is in the present context.
We must ask ourselves what sense the present extended ceremony of introduction has. Speaking personally, I found it demeaning, difficult and objectionable. It was a rite of passage which I did not enjoy passing through. I am a kind of Welsh democrat, and therefore to be dressed up, cross-dressed and doing all these things was not meaningful. It is put to me, when I say these things, that because I happen to be a high Welsh Anglican—which is very high, even for your Lordships' House—I should support the notion of ceremony, but the ceremonial of the Church is designed for the participation of believers. I do not know how many true believers in this Chamber or outside see our ceremony as conveying a meaning of belief in democracy to the outside world.
398
The other issue we have to discuss is to what extent the notion of representation here is enhanced by the ceremonial. Those of us who come here come nominated through a specific process. Why do we need further induction or introduction or enhancing of our positions when we come here? Surely we are all representatives of a particular context. We represent a profession, we represent an experience of public life or, in my case, we represent a political nomination. When we come here we are all equals and, therefore, I agree with my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
The ideal ceremony here would be an introduction on a similar basis to the House of Commons, where unrobed, naked into the conference chamber, we become accepted equal peers—well, not quite naked—suitably dressed in proper Armani or Crombie suits we become part of this Chamber. That would give the sign that this building is not about amateur theatricals; it is part of a post-modern democracy.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. A good starting point for this discussion is the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I remind your Lordships that Garter is the person delegated by the Crown to introduce a new Peer. That is how Garter described his own functions in evidence to the committee. In his evidence to the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government Chief Whip, certainly did not suggest that the Queen's representative of all people should be excluded from the ceremony. The suggestion that Garter should no longer have a role of any sort, not necessarily in the placing of the new Peer, is so odd that I am reminded of the 13th stroke of the crazy clock which was not only erroneous in itself but cast doubt on everything that had gone before.
I do not wish in any way to be critical of those who served on this committee and the way in which they laboured. However, one is tempted to think that a committee capable of coming up with such a completely bizarre recommendation—that the most important person in the exercise apart from the new Peer himself should not be present in some capacity or other—should not expect to be taken quite as seriously as the noble Lord, the Leader of the House suggested.
The next point is the length of time for which the present ceremony has been in existence. Of course, the fact that a ceremony has lasted for nearly 400 years does not mean that it cannot be improved. That is not my argument. However, it is a very strong argument against precipitate change. If people have for hundreds of years been prepared to accept a ceremony as an appropriate way of marking someone's elevation to the peerage, there is certainly no need to rush into change. There is certainly no reason for telling those who may be created Peers during the remainder of this Session that, somehow or other, they will not be treated the same as those introduced earlier, that they are not going to be introduced in the traditional way, and that their ceremony is to be downgraded.

399
As regards the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, I shall not rehearse the arguments which he advanced. But I shall just remind your Lordships of the wording of the Labour manifesto which talked of,
"a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative".
We are surely entitled to know how this more democratic House is to be composed before deciding the appropriate way in which new Members should be introduced.
I now revert to my amendment, which, of course, I hope will fall on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dean being carried. It merely provides that the new ceremony should not come into effect until the beginning of the next Session. What on earth will be lost by such a delay? Are noble Lords opposite really prepared to tell the country that, while not prepared to turn up for major debates like the one last week on the reserve forces, they begrudge spending just a few minutes listening to a new Peer being introduced into the House in the way in which new Members have been introduced for hundreds of years?
To sum up, the Government are proceeding with indecent haste. They are putting the cart before the horse when they ask us to decide on the ceremony for entering the House before telling us what sort of House it is to be; and they are asking us to endorse a fundamentally flawed report. I shall hazard one guess today: there will be very little support for the recommendation of the committee that the second most important person at the time of an introduction—namely, Garter himself—should be excluded from the Chamber.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, of course, as a member of the Select Committee I support the report and its recommendations. However, I also support the Motions tabled in the name of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. Although the Committee did not consider the changing of the introduction ceremony for Bishops, we nevertheless invited the Bishops to give evidence and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich appeared before us. I must say that that was most helpful from many points of view. Indeed, it was from the right reverend Prelate that we learnt that the wearing of hats probably dated only to the 19th century. We also based many of our recommendations on the more simple procedure of the introduction of Bishops.
In a way, it was a strange Select Committee. When we started every member had his or her own views, ranging from the complete abolition of any ceremony at all to the suggestion that the present ceremony not only remain intact but also should be extended to Peers by succession. It is, therefore, all the more remarkable that we ended up with a unanimous report and recommendations. Here I, too, should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for his chairing of the committee and to our Clerk, Dr. Philippa Tudor, who produced for us some most fascinating historical information.
Our first problem stemmed from the fact that there were no real expert witnesses in the usual sense of the term as used by Select Committees. What expertise there was we
400
hope we tapped into; for example, the Earl Marshal, with his experience and historic connections with the Throne and with the other ceremonies of this House generally. In a sense, he encouraged us, as his evidence has clearly already suggested to Members of this House, by indicating how other ceremonies in this Chamber have changed over the years. Garter, too, gave evidence from his role and that of his historic predecessors. As has already been said, Garter is the link between the Monarch and Peers. He was also equally informative and open minded in his evidence. Then there was the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who brought us the contrast with the introductory ceremony in the other place, which was also helpful.
All that gave us a balanced and historical context for the inquiry. But, in the end, it was a matter of judgment and consensus because, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, there was a great deal of give and take in the committee. What we were looking for was a dignified and purposeful ceremony in keeping with the role of a hard-working and distinguished legislative Chamber at the end of the 20th century and one that would do justice to the eminence and achievements of the new Member being introduced. Moreover, we had to bear in mind that the ceremony could be witnessed not only by those present in the House at the time but possibly also by the entire world through the services of television and other media.
We had a number of considerations in mind. They included the sense of occasion for the new Peer and his or her family. Unlike the House of Commons, the new Peer would not have been through the public process of an election, nor an investiture at the Palace. So it had to be an occasion to be remembered. But we did not think that, because there is a possibility that the House will be reformed in the future, this should delay our consideration of immediate reform while the House is in its present state and probably has a lot of work to do before it is reformed.
Secondly, the new Peer was being introduced to the House and the House to the new Peer. As we were no longer concerned with a small group of families, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, indicated, who had probably known each other from birth, but with a large legislative Chamber composed of people from all walks of life who were not likely to know very many people before they came here, we decided that the ceremony should not be too short and peremptory, as, I must say, is the case with current Peers by succession.
The third point that we had in mind was the fact that the Chamber, while still of an independent mind—as has been shown to many governments by decisions of your

401
Lordships' House—is now organised on a party basis and not on the basis of a hierarchy of Peers descending from Dukes to Barons. Therefore, "placing" had to have more sense of realism. Fourthly, in keeping with the traditions of the House any changes need to be incremental.
I believe that our recommendations take account of these considerations. The procession, led by Black Rod with two sponsors, all robed, gives that sense of occasion. The procedure we recommend is simple and dignified. It retains the reading of the historic Letters Patent which are unique to the Peer being introduced. All this process will last sufficiently long to enable the new Peer to be seen by the House—and perhaps better seen if hats are not worn.
The placing appears to be one of the most controversial aspects of the report. The placing that we recommend in effect comes after the introduction, with at least one sponsor being required to conduct the new Peer to the appropriate Benches. Such placing will no longer require the presence of Garter in the House, although of course—as was recognised by the committee—he will still have the important role of preparing the title and arranging for the new Peer to be introduced. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has to say about this when we discuss his amendment.
I believe that the other amendments that have been spoken to this afternoon have little to do with the fundamental recommendations of the committee and the fundamental thrust of the committee, which is that this is a busy, important and effective legislative Chamber and we need changes now. I believe that this simplified introduction procedure serves the traditions of the House. I hope that the report and its recommendations will be supported by the House.
4.22 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I reiterate the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who has just said that we need changes now. As regards the two amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Harptree and Lord Waddington, respectively, I hope that your Lordships will reject them. I think that we should tackle the problem. Who knows what will happen in the future? It appears that more life Peers will be introduced. I think the time has come to update the procedure of their introduction. We should deal with that now and shorten it, as the committee has said.
I turn to my amendment. I say, with humility, that I want to take your Lordships back into history. All your Lordships know that a peerage is the greatest honour that a monarch can confer on any subject. It is a greater honour than the Order of the Garter or of the British Empire. In medieval times a monarch conferred that honour himself or herself. In the reign of James I too many Peers were created. That is a subject on which one can read all kinds of stories. It is a period before the Cromwellian revolution. It was then decided—I imagine
402
by the House—that a curb should be put on the number of peerages that were being created.
On 29th August 1621 the Earl Marshal was told to organise a ceremony to take place in this House. That was organised by the Earl Marshal with Garter, or one of the other "kings" representing him. I see the three "kings" in Black Rod's Box now listening to the debate. Black Rod has kindly allowed them to be present. It was then agreed that this ceremony should take place here. However, it is a royal ceremony. It is the Crown who confers the peerage, not the government. With the permission of the government the Crown confers the peerage. This great honour to a subject of this Kingdom takes place now in this House.
Once the Crown decides to confer a peerage, the Crown must be represented in this Chamber when it takes place. The person who represents the Crown is Garter⁁the principal King of Arms. He has already had a big hand in the creation of the peerage in question. The new Peer goes to see him. The Garter consults the records and says, for example, to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, "I can make you Lord Richard, the Lord Privy Seal, because there is no other Lord Richard. You cannot be called Lord Howard because there are 10 other Lord Howards in existence". The noble Lord cannot be called Lord Howard of Glossop, like my great-grandfather. One of the Howards in my family led the defeat of the Armada. I just mention that quietly. Garter must reach agreement with the new Peer as regards the name the latter is to adopt. Then Garter, with the Home Office, writes the Letters Patent. He produces the Letters Patent and at the introduction of a new Peer he comes to the House and gives the Letters Patent, which he has framed and written, to the new Peer who gives them to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Garter is a vital person in this ceremony. Without him the Crown would not be represented.
Black Rod is also an important person in this House. His function in this House at the moment is to represent the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Lord Great Chamberlain runs this House but not the House of Commons, which has asserted its authority to run its own House. However, the Lord Great Chamberlain still runs this House. His deputy is Black Rod. Black Rod joins the procession of a new Peer to organise the administration of the little ceremony. But the Crown is represented by Garter.
I end simply by saying that the placing of the new Peer—which will be abolished according to the excellent committee of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—is not, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said, the most important function of Garter. It is unimportant. When the House sat by seniority it was of some importance but the House no longer sits by seniority; it sits by opposition, government and so on. Garter's ceremony and function is to represent the Crown. Our constitution consists of the Crown, the Lords and the Commons. The Crown is the fount of honour.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, before giving evidence to the Select Committee, I consulted the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the 10 most senior Bishops in the House of Lords. They appreciated the arguments for simplifying the ceremony of introduction for life Peers, but saw little need to change the ceremony for Bishops, mainly for two reasons. Our ceremony is already shorter and simpler than that for temporal Peers, since there is no reading of the Letters Patent and we conduct the ceremony ourselves without the aid of Garter King of Arms. Because we are used to taking part in ceremonies on a weekly basis, not to mention the fact that two of us were trained at Sandhurst, we believe that our ceremony is conducted with precision, and I think that on the whole people enjoy it. It is also the case that the introduction of a Bishop is a relatively infrequent occurrence. The year 1997 was a record year, without precedent in living memory; it saw the introduction of eight Bishops. The average is two or three introductions each year.
We believe that the changes proposed to the ceremony for life Peers are minor and sensible. The simplified movements that are proposed do not in our view detract from the proper dignity of the occasion. I am entirely in agreement with the argument that hats are unnecessary. (That may sound a strange thing for a Bishop to say.) They form a relatively modern feature of the ceremony. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, noted, they have been in existence for probably no more than 150 years. I also agree that we should do away with the three bows. There has been much discussion about the significance of the three bows, and speculation that they symbolise the three persons of the Trinity. That is a worthy and pious suggestion, but almost certainly has no basis in fact. It is of course always open to us to put interpretations on ceremonies, or indeed to invent new ceremonies if we wish. One of my brother Prelates suggested that we should increase the number of bows to 10 in commemoration of the Ten Commandments, which would serve as a reminder to Lords Spiritual and Temporal of their ethical priorities. It was not an entirely flippant suggestion. It would surely be approved by that high Welsh Anglican, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
We believe that it is also reasonable for the Clerk to read the Letters Patent only, and to omit the Writ of Summons. In the case of Bishops, the reverse would happen. Because we receive our Letters Patent before our entry into this House, we shall continue to have the Writ of Summons read.
The Lord Privy Seal has already referred to the Select Committee report, which makes this comment:
"The ceremony of the introduction of bishops to the House of Lords is considerably shorter and simpler than the present ceremony for newly-created temporal peers, and we encountered no criticism of it".
The section ends:
"we make no recommendations in this report about the Bishops' ceremony".
The Bishops naturally presumed that, following publication of the report, there would be no changes to the Bishops' ceremony. However, the Motion of the
404
Lord Privy Seal made clear that changes were to be proposed. I was therefore grateful for the postponement of this debate since it enabled me to consult my brother Prelates once more. As I said, we agreed in general with the proposals for the introduction of life Peers, and we appreciate the reasons why it was thought sensible to align the Bishops' ceremony with that. My brother Prelates were reasonably content with the Motion as it affects us, except in one respect.
The Select Committee proposes the abolition of "placing". The reasons why the committee did that are understandable. However, we wish to make known our conviction that the notion of placing has symbolic importance, and its total disappearance would mean the loss of something significant. In ecclesiastical ceremonies a Bishop is placed in his throne. Deans, cathedral canons, and incumbents are all "installed" in places from which they will exercise their ministry and authority. The same is true of the sovereign; and placing is important in military ceremony for similar reasons. The logic in this House would be that a Peer, temporal or spiritual, would be placed, during his or her introduction, based on the same principles. But that is more difficult here. Placing in the rear row of the Barons' Bench has become meaningless in terms of the place from which authority is exercised. That is not so in the case of the Bishops. We are the only Members of this House, apart from the sovereign and the Lord Chancellor, whose places have continued unchanged for centuries. The placing of a Bishop at his introduction, particularly in the second row rather than the rear row, would mean that the placing ceremony had very obvious meaning.
We felt that quite strongly, and a number of my brethren urged me to table an amendment to exempt the Bishops' ceremony from any change until we had had time to arrive at a common mind. Because we were in general agreement with the proposed changes, I thought this a bit cumbersome. I told them that, as their representative, I was not prepared to go to the stake about it—not least because, in their reforming zeal, the Government might use that martyrdom to reduce the number of Lords Spiritual. But then the Lord Bishop of Chichester, the Father of the House of Bishops, came to my rescue with an elegant compromise, which has allowed us to make our point and at the same time to support the Motion proposed by the Lord Privy Seal.
At the end of the ceremony for the Introduction of temporal Peers, the Select Committee recommends that the newly introduced Peer, with his supporters, after removing his robes outside the Chamber, should return immediately and sit in his normal place. It has been agreed that something similar should happen with the Bishops. Because we do not need to leave the Chamber to remove our robes, immediately after the Lord Chancellor has greeted the new Bishop, he will, with his supporters, take his place in the second row of the Bishops' Benches. This will not officially form part of the ceremony of introduction, but will follow it immediately. This little piece of variety is a positively good thing because it will serve to remind members of an ancient ceremony which used to apply to all but has been kept as a residual ceremony for the small number

405
of Lords Spiritual who are introduced each year. As a footnote, it is interesting that in the 17th century, when the introduction was reduced to its bare minimum, every bit of ceremony disappeared, except the placing of the new Peer.
A few weeks ago I was in hospital for an operation on my knee. At the same time an eminent Norfolk parishioner, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was in another London hospital for an operation on his hip. We used our bedside telephones to commiserate with each other. I assured him of my prayers. He sent me champagne. It seemed to me a model of what a good relationship between Church and state should be. We hope that he will soon be fully recovered and restored to his place in this House, fighting fit. I am glad to say that relationships between these benches and the Government Front Bench are equally cordial, though I have yet to receive champagne from them. The Lord Privy Seal has been immensely helpful to us over the question at issue, and I want to express our gratitude for his willingness to accept the compromise we have proposed.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the committee of which I had the privilege of being a member represented in its composition the whole range of views, from making no change at all in the ceremony of introduction to its total abolition. A committee formed in this way has its disadvantages. If, for example, we had sought to address ourselves to the main question—namely, was any change necessary or even desirable?—our discussions would never have got off the ground. On the other hand, the committee was very well equipped to achieve a working compromise. If your Lordships want a change—and it is not yet clear whether the House as a whole does—I believe the package that we have suggested is the one that is most likely to achieve general support.
I had three main reservations about seeking to change the introduction procedure in this way. They are still unresolved. Perhaps my mind may be set at rest over some of them this afternoon.
The first is whether any change in procedure that we might agree to now is likely to have any adverse knock-on effect on other ceremonies and traditions of your Lordships' House and even beyond. After all, this House runs on traditions and one should change them only by deliberate intent, when it is beyond all question that it is right to do so. I tried to raise this when the committee first met but I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, the chairman—and this was reinforced by Dr. Philippa Tudor, clerk to the committee—that it would not be proper for us to discuss anything other than the introduction ceremony itself. Of course I accepted that ruling without further question, but if the committee were to be debarred from considering the wider future effects of any of their recommendations, the corollary must also be true: that it would be equally wrong for anyone to cite any of them as a precedent in support of other changes that he might in the future wish to make.
406
My next concern is that it has long been my experience that political compromises are liable to be regarded by one side as a binding agreement and by the other as a stepping stone towards going the whole way. If this should happen in this case, gone will be the protection of the validity afforded by unbroken usage of over 300 years. I think therefore that the House should only accept this package if it is prepared to regard it as sacrosanct for at least a considerable number of decades and that, if noble Lords are not so prepared, we should retain the status quo.
My third concern, and I touched on this at the beginning, is whether your Lordships may not be drifting involuntarily into accepting a change that perhaps the majority do not in fact want. When this suggestion was last debated 23 years ago, the House rejected any change by a majority of over three to one. This time, your Lordships accepted the proposals for a Select Committee without a vote, out of courtesy to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the House, which is the master of its committees and has not yet had the opportunity of expressing itself on whether it really wants this or any other change.
But whatever the solution we accept this afternoon, it must be seen to be the genuine wish of the House as a whole. In that connection, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has authorised me to say that noble Lords on these Benches have a free vote. I hope that when the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal comes to reply, he will confirm that similar freedom will be allowed to his noble friends.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise to support the Select Committee recommendations. I believe that it has managed to arrive at a ceremony which is befitting the honour being bestowed on any individual, while removing the less dignified aspects of the ceremony which, coincidentally, are the ones that the new Peers dread the most. I think that the Members of the Select Committee have achieved their aim of arriving at a dignified, simplified and sensible procedure.
It is also important to stress that the supporters of change are not trying to throw away the inherited traditions of the House. The ceremony has a long and complex history behind it, one that should not be forgotten or treated with contempt. But it has to be in keeping with our developed role as parliamentarians. We have to acknowledge that, irrespective of whether we are hereditary Peers, Peers who came in through the honours system or mere working Peers like myself, we are legislators and a fundamental part of the enactment of legislation in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, your Lordships' House is a working House.
There are, however, arguments in favour of change that I reject. I do not believe that these proposals have anything to do with the concept of modernisation—a much over-used word. Nor do I believe that the time argument and the consequent boredom of some Peers is

407
relevant. What is relevant, however, is striking the right balance between the sense of history which surrounds your Lordships' House and the appropriate procedures for your Lordships as serious politicians.
Another common theme that has run throughout the debate has been that of dignity, which I believe is absolutely essential. It is why I make the next few comments. It is in that context that I want to consider briefly and examine the placing ceremony. I maintain that there is nothing dignified about the awkward business of climbing the steps to the rearmost Benches in unaccustomed robes, often too long or sometimes fastened with safety pins. There is nothing dignified in Members of a parliamentary legislature bobbing up and down three times—sometimes in unison, more often not. Nor is there anything dignified in the often unco-ordinated sweep of hats by male Peers. It is remarkable that a team of three Peers manages to produce such eccentric movements.
Much has been said about the origins of that part of the ceremony and clearly the placing of Barons is understood. But why do we have to doff three times? That was a question asked frequently in the Select Committee itself and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. There are many different explanations and I appreciate that the number three has its place in history, that it is often perceived as a magic number. But in reality, as Garter told the Select Committee, on page 16, at paragraph 95 of the report, nobody knows the reason. There is no better argument for elimination of something than not knowing why we are doing it.
Equally, while there was a logical reason for the placing of Peers in order to distinguish their rank, that is no longer the case, for two reasons. First, the Barons' Benches as such no longer exist. In 1954 the House abandoned its seating arrangements as laid down in the Act of Henry VIII. Secondly, it is often said that one of the great assets of your Lordships' House is that we are all equal, although of different rank. So not only is that part of the ceremony open to ridicule, lacking in dignity, it has also ceased to be relevant. But as the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk said, that does not necessarily mean that there is not a role for Garter King of Arms as the Queen's representative. We should give that further consideration.
Now to the positive, my Lords. I believe that the Select Committee is right to retain the wearing of robes. I believe that they add to the dignity of the ceremony and, importantly to my mind, they distinguish us from the other Chamber. Equally, they add to the sense of occasion and pride, not only for the new Peer but also for family and friends. I am, however, glad to see that it is proposed that hats be no longer worn. I can only speak from a woman's perspective. I have always been in constant dread that my hat will fall off, to my consequent embarrassment. If a ceremony is to be truly dignified, there should be no part of it that can be potentially embarrassing to its participants.
I do not believe that so far the role of sponsors has been raised in the debate. I have always felt great pride in being asked to act as a sponsor. In my evidence to
408
the Select Committee, I made the point that for the Peers being introduced, having sponsors whom they have personally chosen gives them an immediate sense of belonging and also gives them someone to whom they can turn for advice and support. I also said in my evidence that an important part of the sponsor's duty should be to accompany the new Peer back into the Chamber after the ceremony to their appropriate seat. I am pleased that the Select Committee supported that view.
I wish to make one further point before my conclusion. It relates to the taking of the Oath. The taking of the Oath and the signing of the Scroll are crucial and rightly retain their place as the core of the ceremony. But also of great significance is the need for your Lordships' House to acknowledge the Peer's right to sit and vote as a newly created Member of your Lordships' House by the reading of the Letters Patent. I believe, although I note from the Select Committee Report that not everyone agreed, that they should be in their original language.
As has been said, it is the document by which the peerage is created. It is only received once and is distinctive to the individual Member. That does distinguish it from the Writ of Summons which is in common form to Peers by creation and by descent and which is issued before each Parliament. However, the Writ is a vital document in the peer-making process and while it is not necessary for it to be read out, there should be within the procedure some means for it to be handed to the Lord Chancellor.
In conclusion, I do not believe that there has been any logic in the argument put in favour of delay. If it is felt that the introduction procedures warrant change, why should we delay? It is important that we act instantly.
The proposals before us satisfy the criteria identified in the documents issued to the procedure committee last October. They have due regard to the needs of the sovereign, the House and the new Peer. They improve on the dignity of the occasion; they retain the sense of ceremony and are befitting for a working parliamentary legislative Chamber. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the Select Committee report.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, though I listened with admiration to the Members of the Select Committee who spoke in support of their recommendations, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, unlike everyone else who has so far spoken, I am unhappy with the recommendations with which the committee has come forward. I have always made it perfectly plain that I do not see a need for a change in the introduction ceremony at this time.
I should make it clear at the start of my remarks that I very much support the view of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. I agree with his main argument: why change now? The Government have said, time without number, that it is their intention to reform this House. If that is indeed the case, the time to look at all these matters is at the moment of reform.

409
What it means—my noble friend Lord Denham put it far more eloquently than I can—is that we are seeing a kind of death by a thousand cuts: "First get rid of one thing and then we shall get rid of another". Put inelegantly, it is a kind of constitutional "dumbing down". I see no advantage in doing this at this particular time.
The only real reason adduced by the report for the suggestion that we need a change is that we have had exceptional circumstances—59 new Peers being introduced in the past year. But, in my experience of public life, legislation introduced because of exceptional circumstances is usually bad legislation and one comes to regret it. I am bound to say that the analogy which the Leader of the House—I am sorry he is not in his place at this time—made with the changes recommended by the Jellicoe Committee are not exact. We were there talking about the administrative procedures of the House, which is quite different.
On the detail, I should like to say this. Of course we can all make jokes about ceremonies. There is not a single ceremony, whether it is in the Church, the state, the services or anywhere else, which one cannot regard as funny and therefore mimic. Many people have done that very well. I was particularly entertained by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I feel that he should be put into a glass case and kept as something special!
Everybody referred to the question of hats. As someone who spent a large part of her life in the academic world, I can say that one only needs to attend a degree ceremony to see how often hats are doffed. There can be few, if any, Members of your Lordships's House who have not experienced such a ceremony—many on more than one occasion—particularly if they have received an honorary degree, and who therefore know how often hats are doffed. We can laugh at that too. Academics above all love dressing up in robes—the most magnificent of robes; often far more magnificent than those worn in your Lordships' House.
If one asks oneself the simple question, "Why does all this happen?", the answer is because, in universities, it is felt to be a serious matter. It is a serious matter to obtain a degree. It is a great honour to receive an honorary degree and I do not see why, if we accept ceremony under those circumstances, one should think it funny here. It is only funny if one is trying to downgrade the House of Lords, and that is what I suspect is behind this. The Leader of the House may believe me to be quite wrong. However, I suspect that there is a hidden agenda about which we do not know.
The other point I should like to make is that I was very moved by the remarks of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. Like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I find the suggestion not only bizarre but, more than that, offensive that the Garter should not be included in the ceremony. I find it incredibly offensive that, as a House of Parliament, we should be prepared to agree to a report in which that conclusion is reached. I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that she believed it was something which should be looked at
410
again should the report be carried, and I hope that that will be the case. However, I do not believe it is right for a Select Committee of this House to dismiss somebody who has had a role in this specific ceremony for hundreds of years on the say-so of a few weeks' consideration. It is offensive and I cannot possibly accept it.
I believe that at this time we should not change these procedures. I stand by what I said. It will lead to a gradual taking away of parts of your Lordships' House which have existed for hundreds of years. It in no way detracts from the House as a working Chamber. It is because the House is a working Chamber and is of significance in the constitution—it is now recognised outside Your Lordships' House by the British people as being one of the few parts of the constitution where issues are discussed properly and effectively—that we should keep its procedures to indicate how important it is as a House.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, your Lordships will be happy to know that I will be briefer than I intended because almost everything I wanted to say has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. However, perhaps I can begin, as I have on previous occasions in your Lordships' House, with a text which I regard as being almost sacred in these contexts; that is, a comment made many years ago by the Viscount of Falkland, an ancestor of the noble Viscount who sits in the House today. The quotation may be familiar to many Members of your Lordships' House. He said,
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".
I believe that that is the position with which we are now faced. I have heard nothing either from the members of the Select Committee or from the Lord Privy Seal to persuade me that change now is necessary. It may be a good idea for the further modernisation of our society, of our habits and our ceremonies. But is it necessary? The answer clearly is that it is not. I therefore follow the Viscount of Falkland in saying that it is necessary not to do anything about it at all.
However, if we are going to do something about it, I hope that better arguments can be adduced than those put forward by the Select Committee. The Lord Privy Seal spoke about a ceremony appropriate to the present time. We do not necessarily need ceremonies appropriate to the present time. We have traditions which have stood us well in this country, not just for decades, but for centuries. Why do we want something that is appropriate to the present time? I should not have thought that the present time was all that admirable.
In that context, the Lord Privy Seal went on to speak of the ceremony—I am not sure whether he was referring to the ceremony or other aspects of this House-as "quaint" and "irrelevant". There are many things that could be characterised as quaint and irrelevant. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that is usually the language of people who want to downgrade, ridicule and undermine something. I believe that is what is being done with the change to the ceremony in this House.

411
The Lord Privy Seal went on to say something which also appears in the report of the Select Committee and with which I wholeheartedly agree; that is, that the ceremony of the introduction of a Peer is a great day for the Peer, for his friends and for his family. For me, when I first came into this House and was introduced by the present ceremony well over 30 years ago, it was a great day. What was great about it was the sense of history that I felt coursing through me as I came into the Chamber with my supporters and went through the ceremony. It is a sense of history which I still get when I walk into this House every day, and I think it would be a great shame if we were to do anything to remove that sense which I think most of us have when we sit in your Lordships' House.
If I may, I will briefly refer to the question of Garter, because I share the views that have already been expressed. It is shameful—I use that word advisedly—that we should be recommending the removal of the Garter King of Arms from the introduction ceremony. I think it is especially ironic that this document, The Origin of the Introduction of Peers in the House of Lords, is written partly, indeed largely, by Sir Anthony Wagner, who was the Garter King of Arms when I was introduced into this House. It does seem strange that the man who has produced the definitive history of the origin of the introduction of Peers should now be on the verge of being "sacked" because he should no longer be part of this quaint and irrelevant ceremony.
My real point is again one that has already been made, and it is this: if we ask is any change necessary, my answer is no. But I would refer specifically to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. Why is it necessary now? What is there so magic about this time that requires us suddenly to be fiddling around with the ceremonial of this House? I would like to know, as many other noble Lords would, I think, what the big picture is in the minds of the Government. I do them the honour of accepting that there is a big picture in their minds and that they must know—somebody must know—what sort of House this is going to be in the future. What they have in mind I do not know. We know from the manifesto of one project which they have in mind—a project which we are moving quietly towards—but I should like to know what they think this House will look like when they have finished its reform.
It may be of course a House in which ceremonial of any kind is totally quaint and irrelevant so that later on we can do away with it altogether; but I do not know what kind of House this will be and, quite frankly, I do not believe that they do either. Therefore I would strongly resent and oppose any form of piecemeal change in which single measures are brought forward without anybody knowing what is going to follow. I shall not sit idly by—and I think many of my noble colleagues will share my view—while stage one is first dealt with and then in due course and in good time we will move on to stage two. It is for that reason that I support wholeheartedly the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, in saying that until we know what kind of a House this is going to be—and none of
412
us knows that at the moment—we should not start tinkering around with ceremonial or with procedures unless we know what the end result of it all will be.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this ceremony affirms affinity with the Sovereign, as described by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. It also acknowledges allegiance and it replaces personal investiture. I do not share the concept of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that your Lordships' House is just a second chamber of a European Parliament. I stand wholly behind what has been said by my noble friends Lord Harptree and Lord Denham, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and just now by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who asked what kind of a House it will be.
The argument I deploy is that, notwithstanding broad approval of the recommendations, subject to the retention of the attendance of Garter always, implementation should be delayed until the substance of the proposals of Lords reform has been considered by your Lordships. Such is the purpose of this speech. And why so?—because nobody has any idea as to the nature or the purpose of the proposed modernisation, reform and reconstitution of your Lordships' House, save as regards this stage one abolition of the hereditary entitlement.
It is accepted that stage one, as such, would not render implementation inappropriate. But what about stage two? Is there ever going to be a stage two? This could well involve some new constitutional settlement for consideration of both Houses. What sort of a House are we to become? —a repository of patronage for political placemen? Is our ethos and independence to be slighted as guardians of the constitution and as a curb on Executive power? Shall we, for all one knows, become a subservient mirror image of another place to nurture some form of unicameral government? We simply do not know. And, if so, the spirit of affinity with the Sovereign would evaporate. The purpose of the symbolism would no longer subsist and the retention of this ceremony would not be appropriate.
Implementation as proposed in the Motion is no mere matter of domestic concern relating to changes in our procedures, as is the opinion, with respect, of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, it was not within the remit of the terms of reference for the Select Committee to consider whether proposed reform of your Lordships' House could render implementation of the recommendations wholly inapposite. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, referred to an initial conversation at the Select Committee, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he comes to speak, could clarify not only that this was not within the terms of reference but that the Committee did not and could not have taken this aspect of implementation into account, that being wholly a matter for the business of your Lordships' House.
There is grave and justified anxiety as to the nature and purpose of the proposed reform. This Motion to implement forthwith raises untold problems of

413
pre-emption. If we had known that such a Motion, as distinct from the "take note" Motion, would have been tabled when setting up this Select Committee was before your Lordships' House, perhaps arguments along the lines to which I have referred, and support, would have been advanced. However, would it not have been reasonable to assume that the House would merely have a "take note" Motion and that thereafter implementation could be considered in the light of such debate?
It is all very well. But on 20th April the noble Lord, Lord Richard, informed your Lordships that the substance of proposed reform would not be known when the stage one abolition Bill came before your Lordships' House; that there would be no better informed debate; and there would be no option paper on alternatives for reform. Without knowledge—
Lord Richard: My Lords, this is rather more important than the ceremony of introduction. I have never said that there would be no options paper before the stage one Bill was considered by this House. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether I would produce an options paper now, and I said no.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I must not argue a point of understanding or misunderstanding. All I can tell the House is that I transcribed these notes from Hansard—I gave the noble Lord notice, as it so happens, because he is a friend of mine in another sort of way—and this is by my lights an honest representation of what he said. It certainly represents what I understood him to say.
Against what the noble Lord has said, however one interprets it, without the knowledge of the substance, how can we implement the trappings? My noble friend Lord Denham has put it so clearly. If it is to be a short-term exercise, if the recommendations are to have mere interim effect, why not retain, as my noble friend Lord Denham put it, the status quo?
5.11 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I rise after these speeches as somewhat of an anomaly in that I am in favour of the recommendations made by the Select Committee. They are sensible. A dignified ceremony has been proposed. It is one which would give pleasure both to the recipient of the peerage and to his kinsmen or family and it would also enable the House to have a look at him. The only possible problem is the one raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who, as Earl Marshal of England, I was so pleased to see in support of the main proposals of the committee. The only question that he raised was the status of Garter.
When I was made a Peer I wrote to Sir Anthony Wagner, at whose father's school I was when I was aged seven, and asked whether he could help me. He said. "I am very sorry. I cannot do anything to help you because you are, by Scottish descent, a matter for Lyon King of Arms to attend to". I got in touch with Lord Lyon and he said to me, "What do you intend to call yourself?". I said that I hoped to be able to call myself Lord Annan, as to the best of my belief there
414
was no other Lord Annan. He said, "Who's the head of your family?". I said that I did not know. He said, "You can't call yourself Lord Annan unless you are Annan of that Ilk". At this point I became terrified. He said, "You must change your name at once". So I consulted and looked at the map of Annandale and I found a small tributary called the River Ae, which flows into the River Annan. I asked Lord Lyon whether I could then become Lord Annan of Aeside and would have to sign my name in that way. He said, "That would be so".
At this point my family intervened. My 13 year-old daughter said, "Do you realise that pop records on the gramophone have an A side and a B side and that I shall call you Lord Annan of B side if you accept this?". So I went back to Lord Lyon and said that my family was very unhappy. He said, "Your family is a very foolish lot". However, when I pressed the point it appeared that there was no problem at all. I did not have to change my name, though I had the great honour of being allowed to be Lord Annan, of the Royal Burgh of Annan. But that did not mean that I had to sign my name in a different way.
I say this because there is an element of something ludicrous in our procedures as they have been until this date. There is something ludicrous in the idea that you become a different person, a different class in society, someone superior to the hoi polloi in the rest of the country. That is what I do not like and that is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, dislikes, although he has been ridiculed for holding these views.
The problem we are facing is one of how to make a dignified second Chamber slightly less absurd. I say that because I know it is difficult for noble Lords to accept that this may be true. We know how hard the people in this House—the working Peers (not people like myself)—work, the hours they keep and the little recompense they get for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about how the rest of the country regard this House as a splendid place and as one of the few bulwarks of liberty left since the decline of the other place. That is a view which I understand many of your Lordships will hold but it is not a view which is held in the country at large. In the country at large we are still a slightly absurd body because of these eccentric customs. That is why I think this modest move to make our introductions less eccentric but still dignified is a move in the right direction.
The noble Lords, Lord Dean of Harptree and Lord Waddington, asked why we should do it now. On that small point, whether or not we should do it this Session or next Session, it seems to me absurd to have the debate today and then go over the whole thing again in a few months' time. Why delay the matter, which is not essential to any part of the business of the House, and then consider it again? On the question of whether we should do it today or tomorrow, I think it is clear that it should be today.
Then we come to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we should never change anything until we know everything that could possibly be said about

415
changing the House of Lords. That is a splendid argument: never change anything until you know what you are going to do for the whole of the rest of time; not merely in this century, but in the next. I know that is a well-known device for delaying any kind of decision about the membership of this House until the Greek Kalends. That argument has been put forward again and again by those who want to delay any major discussion of the powers and the membership of the House. I hope that we will not allow these considerations to deflect us from coming to a sensible conclusion on this matter today.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, he misunderstood those of us who are speaking along the same lines. We are saying that it is not a question of today or tomorrow: not that we must know every little thing, but the substance of the reform, and that it ought to be debated in both Houses. Surely that is not an unreasonable suggestion.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I agree that the reform is bound to be debated in both Houses, but the matter which we were discussing is not a matter of substance. If I may use the medieval scholastic term about Transubstantiation, this Motion concerns mere accidents and not the essence or substance of the House of Lords.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, rather like many other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I would not have instigated this change. However, there are some good recommendations in the report. I particularly agree with the Select Committee's opinion on page 8 that affirms its belief,
"that a formal introduction marking the solemn recognition both of the achievement of the new member of the House and of his or her new duties and responsibilities as a member is justified".
There is no doubt that that is greatly appreciated both by the new Member and the watching friends and family, as emphasised by the Lord Privy Seal this afternoon.
As many other noble Lords have said, this is a hard working House. It is also important that new Peers appreciate the fact that they are taking on duties and responsibilities. It is not at all obvious from the reports of our work in the media. That is why I particularly want the Writ of Summons to be read out, as it will continue to be done for the introduction of Bishops. I would be happy if it were read only once if two Peers are to be introduced. The words,
"considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending, (waiving all excuses)",
"we shall attend and speak", certainly emphasise for me, together with solemnly taking the oath, the historic nature of the ceremony and therefore my future duty for playing a responsible part in the work of this House.
Each new Peer will continue to receive the Writ and Standing Orders. I am glad that in future they will also receive a leaflet explaining the significance of the ceremony to their future role as Members of a legislature. New Members also now receive an induction seminar which is very helpful. In another
416
place the Speaker keeps order. In our House it is each Member's personal responsibility to help preserve order in the House, which in my view makes a very important contribution to the whole philosophy of this House and the regard each Member has for each other's point of view. It contributes to a greater sense of tolerance across parties, and Cross-Benchers are a very important part of our House, too, not present in the Commons.
I am glad that robes will continue to be worn, but I do not mind particularly about hats or their doffing or kneeling to the Lord Chancellor on what are often well-worn knees. As all new Peers go to the College of Heralds to agree with Garter their title, and possibly their coat of arms, I feel deeply that Garter should take part in the ceremony particularly, as has been said by noble Lords, he is the present representative of the Crown. I agree with the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk which I support wholeheartedly. I hope that it will be agreed by the whole House.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, wishes to delay the new ceremony until the House has had the opportunity to consider Her Majesty's Government's further proposals for Lords' reform. The more I hear suggestions for possible root and branch reform in place of the hereditary peerage, the more I believe that this matter should receive much deeper, further consideration than has been accorded so far before any action is taken. These suggestions include a fully elected House, fewer Bishops, a fully-paid House—and there will be many others.
These possible alterations will affect in a complex way many other long-accepted traditions of our country. They might—and almost certainly will—cost a great deal more and would certainly affect fundamentally the balance of power between the two Houses. I believe that a commission should be set up consisting of Members of both Houses, of all parties or none, to consider all the full implications of change before any change is made in the composition of our House. I would therefore prefer the amendment of my noble friend Lord Waddington so as not to delay this change in the introduction ceremony too long, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said earlier, but at the same time giving much fuller consideration to the whole question of the composition and powers of the two Houses. That is bound to take a much longer period of time and must not be carried out in stages. I believe that that is vital before any further decisions are made for change.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, much of what I had intended to say has already been said and I will therefore not repeat it. However, I did note that the Government Chief Whip, as the sole Government representative to address the Select Committee, stated,
"I would like to put the discussion in the context of the desire to modernise Parliament".
The report is not, therefore, to be considered as a stand-alone situation, as has been argued. It should be part and parcel of a review of all the existing customs, practice and fabric of Parliament and should be

417
considered in the reform of Parliament en globo, not piecemeal. I therefore wholeheartedly support my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree.
In the context of reform being considered—and this ceremony is part of that consideration—I fully support my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Garter stated that the first aspect of the ceremony was that it is the ceremony of introduction, not the ceremony of taking the seat or of taking the oath. It is therefore a Crown matter. The Crown has created a new peerage and Garter is delegated by the Crown to introduce that new Peer into the House. That should obviously continue.
Incidentally, in sifting through the evidence given to the Select Committee I can find no suggestion that Garter should be totally excluded from the ceremony. I therefore wonder why the Committee has included that in its recommendations. It was certainly not apparent from any evidence given to it. None of us should forget that the horse designed by a committee ended up a camel.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, here is one camel who is not going to take the hump. It has been a good humoured debate and a very serious one. Divisions have occurred because there are those who feel that after 350 years there is no need to change the ceremony of initiation to this much respected, much valued and much treasured second Chamber.
Many of us are members of clubs, institutions and associations. I cannot believe that they have not taken part at least in looking at ways in which the process of initiation can be changed or improved. That is what we are doing now. When the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the Leader of the House, said last year that he felt it was time to look at our procedures, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was quite right in that, out of respect to the Leader, the Motion was not interfered with. The committee was set up and comprised noble Lords from the various Benches and it was ensured that among its members there were those with long experience and those with less. I believe that it has done a very good job. It has certainly unearthed a lot of facts and background which I appreciate very much.
Like everyone in this House, I would not have missed the introduction ceremony for the world—as it was then. I valued it, as did my family and friends. However, that is not to say that I did not feel that, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, we need a procedure which is dignified but less eccentric.
We all know that the process by which this House was peopled heavily—in fact, peopled solely—with hereditary Peers is a medieval anachronism. It is less than 50 years since Harold Macmillan brought about a tremendous change in the composition of this House by recognising the need for life Peers. I sense that noble Lords opposite are uneasy about the speed or undue haste of any proposed changes.
I happened to go though my papers the other day and I came across a marvellous card, which is a facsimile of a poster. It shows the House of Lords, with its doors
418
being beaten down by a group of working men. It says, "Labour clears the way". It is a Labour Party poster of 1910, challenging the rejection by the House of Lords the year previously of Lloyd George's "People's Budget". After 90 years, we have not made much progress in terms of change. Indeed, there are noble Lords opposite—they are entitled to their view—who would not seek any change in the composition and powers of, or method of introduction to, your Lordships' House.
My predecessor as Labour Chief Whip was right. This change may not stand alone. It may or may not be part of a grand plan. However, we must consider exactly what we are being asked to do. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, summed it up very well. There are those who would proceed to do nothing until they have everything. We know that that is a ploy. It is a device that we have all used. If the first stage cannot proceed until the details of the second stage are known, once those second-stage details have been produced, the argument, "Is there any more?" is raised.
What did Labour's manifesto say? The noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, argued passionately that both Houses should be involved in change. Labour's manifesto said:
"A committee of both Houses will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further changes and then to bring forward proposals for reform. We have no plans to replace the monarchy".
Those words are in our manifesto. It is all very well for noble Lords opposite to argue about this point, but they had 18 years in power, absolute power, to bring forward changes—any change—but they brought forward nothing. So, it is all very well to say to the Labour Government, these Benches and others that we are acting in haste, but experience tells us that if a government have a strong point of view, now is the time for them to act.
It has been argued that we have no right to make changes to what I have referred to as a medieval anachronism in terms of our composition. I believe that we are entitled to put that change not only before this House and the other place, but also before the people of this country. That is what we did on 1st May. If there is any value in the doctrine of the manifesto commitment, there it is. I believe that all noble Lords recognise that there are times for change and, as has been said, this is a modest change.
I was very impressed by the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. Reference was made earlier to the emotion in his speech. That is absolutely right. There is no disagreement about that.
When answering a question about the relevance of Garter, my noble friend Lord Carter said:
"I think it is a part of the ceremony which I do not see any particular advantage in dropping. It provides the link with the creation of the title which we know we have to agree with Garter and so forth. He is colourful and it gives that sense of occasion. I would not see any particular reason, so long as Garter himself thought that it was the right thing to do, unless he had overwhelming objections, but I would have thought, as I have said, to retain the present ceremonial file with Garter, with Black Rod and the three peers, it does give it a sense of occasion".

419
I hope that those Members of your Lordships' House who feel that too much is being attempted too quickly will remember 1621, that no substantial changes have been made since then in the method of introduction and that what has been proposed is modest. I support my noble friend Lord Carter in saying that the link between this House and the Crown is something that we should not abandon lightly. There is merit in that argument. The report merits the support of this House. I believe that there are times when change is right and I believe that the time for these changes is now.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he reply to a possible criticism of what he said with respect to just one word? He said that the party now in opposition enjoyed 18 years of "absolute" power. Is it not more correct that it had 18 years of "constitutional" power; otherwise does he think that his noble friends are now enjoying a power that is "absolute"?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hesitate to say that that is a play upon words. I am sure that the noble Earl understands what I meant by "absolute" power. The party opposite formed the government for 18 years, with big majorities that withered away at the end. Whether the right word is "absolute" or "constitutional", I do not know whether I am constitutionally absolute to comment.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am privileged to have been appointed a member of the Select Committee, under the masterly chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh,
"to consider alterations in the ceremony of Introduction, and to make representations".
The House has already heard in detail from the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, about how we came to our recommendations. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about how diverse our views were at the start and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, another member of the committee, about his serious reservations which he so effectively expressed from his great experience in this House.
I took my seat only one-and-a-half years ago, so the ceremony is still fresh in my mind. That wonderful day and ceremony brought me through those great doors, symbolically and literally, to a new life, to a new declared commitment to serve my Sovereign and my country under God. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I believe that the great ceremonies of life allow and mark our passage. Human beings have always needed them and where they have been destroyed, they are quickly replaced by others.
Perhaps I might refer briefly to my very first ceremony, which sticks in my mind and has many significant points in common with the ceremony that I experienced in your Lordships' House. At the age of seven I became a Brownie. I stood by my toadstool, decked out in a splendid uniform, hands up in the special salute, making my Brownie promise, before Brown Owl, who was looming huge and important, with
420
my parents and family proudly standing by. Special ceremonies, moments marked and recorded mean a life for ever changed.
Members of the committee on which I was privileged to serve came together and shelved our differences to reach a set of proposals which I hope retain a dignity, tradition and sense of occasion that will achieve general support in the House—if your Lordships are minded to change the ceremony of introduction to this House. It is a serious decision in a self-governing House, which runs on traditions which seem to serve the purpose very well. We must be aware that altering one ceremony might mean that others must perforce alter as well. If it is hats off in this ceremony, where then the ceremony of Prorogation?
In the committee meetings we were reminded quite forcefully by our chairman, amply reinforced by Dr. Tudor, that it would be improper for us to discuss anything other than the introduction ceremony itself and certainly not its content. We accepted that ruling. Alas, the ground was already moving under our feet. The context was changing. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was telling the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to remove Bishops from Parliament, seeking to diminish the episcopal presence in your Lordships' House and leading to what constitutional changes we know not. It causes me concern, but the changes before the House today, to which I am party, will be appropriate and relevant in the context of plans and proposals for Lords' reform by Her Majesty's Government as yet not revealed to your Lordships.
For today, if it be your Lordships' wish, the protection of the validity afforded by unbroken usage of over 300 years will be gone and this House will stand exposed. Sometimes to make changes in isolation is in my experience not efficient or effective. Having in my career run production units, changes to a flow system work only if everyone on the floor knows the plan and can see how their particular functions fit in. I encourage the Lord Privy Seal to urge Her Majesty's Government to share with this House as soon as possible their proposals for reform so that the House may the more enthusiastically, to quote his words,
"look at itself and modify its activities",
confident in the knowledge that those changes will stand the test of time as well as those that they are to replace.
5.41 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I shall certainly support the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, but my support would have been even greater had his amendment ended after the word "introduction" so that he opposed change altogether. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Marsh and the Select Committee, who had a very difficult job to do, I do not agree with their recommendations. I share all of the reservations referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and other noble Lords who support the status quo. I cannot see that anything is to be gained by the proposed changes except a little more time for possibly nefarious government

421
business, of which there is always too much whatever government is in power. The other reasons for changing the ceremony appear to me at best invalid or at worst frivolous, as I said in the debate on 27th October last.
Of the submissions received by the Select Committee, 11 were in favour of change and 11 were against. When in a Division this House divides 50–50 on an amendment, that amendment is disagreed to. To the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk I say that, while I am horrified that Garter should be excluded from any ceremony, I cannot accept his amendment because it supports the Motion of the Lord Privy Seal.
The present ceremony has been in use for nearly 400 years. It is colourful and unique, like so many other peculiarly British ceremonies which have made the life of this country so rich and varied. There is a great deal of history concealed in the detail of ceremonial. If one begins to look into the origins of ceremonies one discovers a good deal about history that may otherwise be forgotten. The paper on the introduction ceremony by Sir Anthony Wagner and Sir John Sainty is an example of this. Much fascinating history also lies behind the detail of the ceremony of the Opening of Parliament and most of the ceremonial of public life. The history of almost every town in this country is perpetuated in its street names, where they have not been changed by councillors bent on erasing the past in order to immortalise themselves and their friends.
I am very worried at the present Government's passion for what they call modernising Britain. I am afraid that it is the beginning of a process of erosion of things that are rather fragile and precious which, once lost, can never be regained. Since this particular change was mooted, I have read in the papers and heard that the Government would like to modernise or abolish the ceremony of the Opening of Parliament. Goodness knows what else will be for the bin, all in aid of some nasty concept of what their spin doctors call "Cool Britannia", which seems to me to be a sort of grey, dreary, colourless, soulless, utilitarian place where speed and efficiency are the only gods.
The country is not going to gain prestige in the world, in the business world or any other world by throwing out everything that makes us special. No doubt I shall be accused of being against modernisation, but I am against the wrong kind of modernization—modernisation for modernisation's sake. That is what I believe this to be. Let us concentrate on sensible modernization—modern communications systems, the health service, etc.—and leave our lovely colourful ceremonies alone. Most foreigners are deeply envious of them anyway.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I begin with a general point. I believe that the Burkean distinction between another place and this House—the difference between the fulfilment of the electorate's wants and its needs—is important. If only on that basis it is justifiable that this House should have a ceremony of introduction
422
that is quite distinct from another place. The committee's acknowledgment of this in paragraph 50 of the report is welcome.
I turn to the committee's specific recommendations. I am not wedded to the existing form of ceremony. I believe that it is very much to the credit and skill of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that the recommendations of the committee are on balance measured and sensible. That said, like other noble Lords, I have substantial reservations about the proposals for Garter. As to this matter, I cannot help but agree with my noble friend the Earl Marshal. We should be mindful of the contents of the memorandum by the Clerk to the Parliaments to the Procedure Committee which echoed a similar paper produced in 1964. I am a little surprised that so few noble Lords have picked up the point made in that memorandum that changes in the ceremony of introduction should have due regard to the needs of the Sovereign, the House and the new Peer. I believe that the role of Garter is a potent symbol of the constitutional position of the Sovereign in our proceedings. On that basis I find it extremely difficult to justify the abandonment of this essential constitutional link.
I should like to make a few personal observations. In evidence Garter commented:
"The Earl Marshal has told us that the three bows are to do with the Trinity. I think that is a nonsense, nobody knows".
I do not dispute that. It may well be that the symbolism of the ceremony owes more to the somewhat romantic associations that we make with the occasion rather than any accurate interpretations of its original intent, but that should not blind us to the potency of the symbols at an individual level. A performance of, say, "Hamlet" will evoke in each and every one of us an entirely different, even contradictory, reaction or emotion. Every time I see the current ceremony my mind is drawn to a political "rule of three" and a constitutional trinity: the people, Parliament and the Sovereign. I find this extremely valuable in focusing my attention upon the duties that attend us, but this is very much a matter of individual interpretation, taste and preference.
Further, I have sympathy with those who find the ceremony awkward. Nor do I disagree with those who have described elements of it as being Gilbert and Sullivan in character. There is something faintly ridiculous about it. But it is a sad truth that occasionally we fall into the temptation of taking ourselves too seriously. Every now and then it pays to have small elements in our rituals that seek to remind us of the need for humility and to accept our fallibility, perhaps even to dent our egos a little. These represent a personal perspective, and on that basis I do not seek to stand in the way of the committee's recommendations, apart from the issue of Garter. Viewed in the round, they are on balance a sensible approach to the issue. But it is worth noting that in his original memorandum to the Procedure Committee the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal advanced:
"several good reasons why the introduction ceremony needs looking at".
These included such matters as the ceremony being,
"out of tune with perceptions of how Parliament should operate at the end of the 20th century";

423
its repetitive nature impacting upon the dignity of the occasion; the "unprecedented number of new Peers"; and the length of time it takes.
With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, I cannot help feeling that all these reasons owe as much if not more to the Government's proposals for reform of this House and constitutional change generally than they do to any overriding need to modify the ceremony. On balance, therefore, I find myself very much drawn to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. It has about it the great virtues of pragmatism and common sense. It really does seem much more sensible that any new composition of this House should be the final arbiter—a la Welsh assembly or Scottish parliament—of how its procedures and business are conducted.
I feel slightly mischievous, so I shall conclude by failing to resist the temptation of citing a quotation—I concede that it is out of context—from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Only recently, the noble Lord said:
"it would mean effectively abandoning a reputation built up over more than 300 years. It would mean an irrevocable break with the past. The risk that I see is that such a change would send the wrong signals".—[Official Report, 23/3/98; col. 965.]
My Lords, there is some food for thought!
5.51 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Select Committee. I am one of 17 hereditary Peers who take the Labour Whip. Some people have said that we are an endangered species, but certainly not yet. I have never been through the ceremony, but I have watched it and therefore I can comment with a certain amount of objectivity.
First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for his excellent chairmanship of the committee. It contributed to our producing a unanimous report. I also pay tribute to the Clerk, Dr. Tudor.
I approached the task of the committee by judging the ceremony on how it is viewed from three separate perspectives: by the new Peer, by the House and by the public. It is an important ceremony to mark the appointment of a Peer to an important role in his life. The ceremony must have dignity and it must be purposeful, but it is sometimes alarming. As was said by my noble friend Lady Gould, the fear of tripping over one's robe when kneeling down or climbing up to the Barons' Benches does not make one feel comfortable. The ceremony must have dignity, and I believe that the robes bring a sense of ceremony, whereas the hats do not. However, it is a great occasion for the Peer, his family and friends.
Secondly, the House must have time to identify, recognise and welcome the new Peer. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich noted the difference between Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal in the matter of placing. Perhaps I might remind him that at paragraph 43 the committee recommends that the temporal Peer should come back into the Chamber with his supporters and take his place on the Benches where he intends to sit in the future. The only difference is that
424
he will not be wearing his robes. Therefore, there is a sense of placing after he has shaken the hand of the Lord Chancellor and taken off his robes outside.
The House is also concerned with the time factor. Last year I occasionally timed the ceremonies. On occasions, three introductions took 33 minutes, which is 11 minutes each. My noble friend the Chief Whip reckoned that each took nine minutes. However, half an hour is taken for three introductions. That may be all very well at half-past two in the afternoon, but by midnight, when half-an-hour has been added to the day, it is not much fun for noble Lords staying until then. This is a working House.
Thirdly, I turn to the public perception. The committee took evidence from Peter Riddell of The Times. I do not know whether colleagues believe that he represents the public—perhaps not—but he produced interesting evidence complimenting your Lordships' House on the quality of its debates. He expressed concern about the ceremony, stating:
"I felt we were in danger of getting into the territory of The Magic Flute and Masonic ritual with that".
Other noble Lords mentioned Gilbert and Sullivan, of whom I am a great fan. It is important that occasionally we laugh at ourselves, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, but we should not retain elements which cause others to laugh at us. There is a great difference between the two.
I turn briefly to the role of Garter. His role in representing the Crown through the Earl Marshal is well known. He has an essential role in finding suitable titles for new Peers. However, I have heard a number of concerns from Members on all sides of the House about his role in providing the services of the College of Arms for the production of coats of arms. Occasionally I am subject to a sales pitch asking whether I would like a coat of arms. I say, "No thanks, I have several, or my ancestors have, and I am not really interested". I sought information on that from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He wrote to me on 13th April stating:
"It is entirely for each individual Peer whether or not to seek a grant of Arms upon elevation to the Peerage or thereafter".
It is good to see the three Kings of Arms in Black Rod's Box, but I note that they have divided up the territory as Clarenceux south of the River Trent, Norroy and Ulster north of the River Trent, Northern Ireland and Scotland Lord Lyon. Under exiting competition law, that might not be seen to be quite right. Perhaps I might quote from Schedule 4 to the Competition Bill. They have not been excluded from the Competition Bill under professional services. It lists patent agents and engineers. My noble friend Lord Howie often speaks of engineers being excluded. I suggest that it may be possible to obtain three quotes on a competitive basis. I have no strong feeling about whether Garter takes part in the ceremony, provided it can be fitted in with the new Line of Route. However, I hope that he can separate that duty from the commercial aspect of acquiring coats of arms. Several of our colleagues have expressed concern about feeling that they must spend several thousand pounds before they can enter your Lordships' House. That is a great shame.

425
It is easy to say about the ceremony, "Do nothing until the final role, responsibility and membership of this House are decided". But that could take several years. In the meantime, we have work to do at an ever-increasing rate. We have spent three hours debating this fascinating subject today and time is precious. The work of this House is well respected outside. Let us keep that respect and modernise sensibly to make it a ceremony not taken from "Iolanthe" but appropriate to the present day as seen by the new Member and his family, the House and the public. I strongly support both Motions standing in the name of the Lord Privy Seal.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I support the change in the ceremony of introduction recommended by the Select Committee and will vote accordingly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the changes are modest but necessary. I congratulate the Select Committee on suggesting a ceremony simpler than the present ceremony but which preserves the necessary dignity.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree—and I count him as a real friend, I hope, and not just as a political one—is very persuasive, both publicly and privately. I talked to him at some length the day before yesterday about this subject and he almost changed my mind as to the force of his amendment. However, having reflected upon the matter, I have decided that I cannot agree with him.
I do not believe that a change to the composition of the House need necessarily be connected with the ceremony of introduction. Even if there were no question of a change to the composition of the House and it remained as it is at present, I should still be in favour of the proposals which the Select Committee recommended. I agree with those who have said that the present ceremony has grave drawbacks. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, expressed that aspect very well indeed.
Also, I cannot agree with the amendment in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I should not have dared to disagree with him some years ago when I was a major serving with my regiment in Germany and he was my divisional commander. However, I recognise the arguments that he has propounded so well this afternoon. I hope that the office of Earl Marshal, which he holds with great distinction, will not be reformed. His family and that position are far older than the ceremony of introduction to your Lordships' House.
One point which I do not believe has been mentioned is what the media comment would be should this modest reform be thrown out. There might not be a big headline on the subject but the media would certainly portray this House as an historic relic of little value. That would be a great pity. In conclusion, I support the recommendations of the Select Committee.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I might say what an incredible pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord,
426
Lord Harding. I thought that his comments were to the point, highly intelligent and extremely welcome. They were a great morale booster and certainly at the end of this debate perhaps he might care to pass by the Bishops' Bar, where I shall be found, because one should keep one's promises.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and other noble Lords raised the issue as to whether the committee report was a sighting shot for other reforms to come. If I had at any point thought that that were the case, I would have resigned from the committee. On the other hand, it did not cross my mind because, while I obviously treasure this report, it has not been a childhood ambition realised. I have had to discipline myself not to become passionately interested in the origins of medieval ceremonies. However, we probably exaggerate the report's influence and importance if we believe that the Government—with a majority in excess of 200, with four years to run and with the ability to guillotine Bills in the House of Commons—are dependent on it to push through their proposals; and, so that there should be no misunderstanding, proposals with which I profoundly disagree. But that is not the issue facing us in this debate.
Perhaps I might say a few words about Garter, who is a very distinguished and able occupant of his office. The recommendation which we should have outlined more carefully—and it is my fault—was no reflection on him at all. It is a question of logistics. Garter's job in the ceremony is, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said, an infinitesimal part of his normal work and duties. Once that moment in the placing ceremony has gone, he actually has no role in the ensuing ceremony. He is not garbed in his working clothes in a way which makes him unnoticeable. It is simply that we did not believe that that fitted in with the ceremony, because the situation is that at one point Garter and Black Rod have to change ends. That is untidy and not particularly dignified. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Black Rod is also an officer representing the Order of the Garter.
As regards the whole issue of Garter, I have now been a Member of the Privy Council for in excess of 30 years. I hope that I am fairly sensitive to the matters which would cause embarrassment arising from this House. I have no idea whatever—and for obvious reasons it would be impertinent of me to ask—of the advice which Her Majesty's advisers gave her. But it is a matter of public record, since it is listed in the evidence, that I had conversations with both her Private Secretary and with the Lord Chamberlain and they were aware of the recommendations. I do not know what views they formed on any of those matters. I simply state that as a fact.
The matter of Garter is not a major issue, any more than the recommendations as a whole are a major issue. Just as we believe that the recommendations make the ceremony tidier and more attractive to more people, in Garter's case it is simply a question of whether it fits in aesthetically with the changes. That is a matter for your Lordships to determine. It involves some quick footwork, but I am sure that they are perfectly capable of adapting to that if that is your Lordships' wish. That is not a matter for me.

427
At our first meeting I raised two issues with my colleagues. First, I made the mistake of asking them to do a quick Second Reading description of where they stood. I was horrified by the result. Literally, we ranged from Roundheads to Cavaliers on a rather bad day after a few drinks. Nobody came to fisticuffs in the course of the meetings but that was simply because the table was between us.
However, initially the matter was raised as to whether the time taken by the ceremony should be any part of our considerations. We had a brief discussion and agreed immediately that it was irrelevant to the issue. Saving two minutes, three minutes or four minutes is not a serious issue when dealing with such a ceremony. At no time was the ceremony timed by the committee, nor did we discuss that. Therefore, I put that out of the way.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and other noble Lords asked whether we had any right to consider the question of whether the proposed changes and reforms of this House should be taken into account. It was in fact the second issue which we discussed. We concluded that it should not be taken into account, not just because of the terms of reference but because re-organisation is a feature of modern life in every aspect. The last time I took part in serious discussion about the removal of hereditary Peers was just over 30 years ago when it was part of the Labour Party's manifesto at that time and it was prepared to put it through. If every time there was a proposed re-organisation you ceased to look forward, the Ministry of Defence, the National Health Service, local government and much of British industry would come to a total standstill. Therefore, we reached the conclusion that that was not relevant to our discussions. But I shall return later to the broader point.
There was then the question of whether any member of the committee believed that the ceremony should be abolished. Since a wider discussion revealed that there was also a strongly held view that it should not be touched at all, we decided that the sensible thing was to move on to our first witness. All the views which have been put forward in this House were expressed by members of the committee, and I say this seriously and literally. The only differences is that tonight we may not get a unanimous outcome.
At this stage I should like to pay tribute to the members of the committee. I repeat that the views on this subject—and it is difficult for people outside to understand this—are held very strongly by the people who hold them. They were argued passionately in committee, to a point at which it became increasingly clear that its seven members, representative of the three political parties, the Cross Benches and, for the first time I believe, the Welsh Nationalists with a different hat on, ranged in their views on this subject from one extreme to the other. But if they, representative of your Lordships' House, were to announce after two months of consideration that they could not reach agreement on whether the hat doffing ceremony should remain, that really would not enhance our reputation. I start from the proposition that it will not enhance the reputation of this House either, and I shall come on to that in a moment.
428
That is particularly true in the light of the overwhelming desire for change demonstrated by the evidence. That is the big difference with the past. On past occasions, in 1970, 1971, 1974 and before that 1964, when this matter was discussed, it was never allowed to get to this point. But now the proverbial cat is out of the bag. The evidence is published showing what people think of the ceremony in this House and, indeed, outside it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, in evidence—and this is on the record—said:
"First of all about the wearing of hats and the doffing of hats. It seems to me that there is no reference to this before the 19th Century, there is no written reference. I have tried to read as much as I can about it. It does seem, therefore, perhaps to be a relatively modern introduction. I would doubt very much whether the custom of doffing the hat, whether it is a bicorn or a mortar board, with a very elaborate sweep and bow has always happened. I would guess it is a more modern custom and it seems rather to have derived from school productions of Shakespeare rather than an ancient thing. I rather wonder about the necessity perhaps. I cannot really see any justification for it".
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has always had very trenchant views of this subject and has more knowledge of ceremonial in this country than any other person. He said:
"The present system is as old as 1621. To my mind it is totally out of date and wants cutting like hell. If I might now, having given those preliminary remarks, go on to what you have said here. 'Do you think any change to the present ceremony of introduction for temporal Peers is desirable?'. Yes, most certainly, I have never seen a greater waste of time going on in your Lordships' House than that ceremony of introduction".
That is the Earl Marshal of England.
Mr. Peter Riddell, Parliamentary Correspondent of The Times, said:
"When a very old friend was introduced, I felt that the placing and the hat-wearing were faintly ridiculous in the context. They did not have any relationship at all to what the people would do otherwise, whilst the reading of the Letters Patent and the Writ were fine. That was, I thought, rather elegant, the historical, traditional aspect of it, but I remember discussing with the Peer concerned about the sponsors wearing a hat and that the particular sponsor concerned did not wear a hat, so you can perhaps work out which of your colleagues that was. That did appear to the people concerned a slight embarrassment as to whether they would get that bit right but it is not like, say, the State Opening or something like that. It is just something which is faintly embarrassing for those concerned which there is not in other parts of the ceremony, so yes, it did change my perception and I thought that there is a danger of that part of your Lordships' work being part of the heritage industry rather than perhaps what it should be".
These are people's comments which are now on the public record. These are not wild rabble-rousing revolutionaries—well, not most of them, with the possible exception of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, a distinguished former Speaker said this when one more question was put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Denham:
"You would not think it was the end of the world if this Committee, I do not say it will, were to decide that there should be no change in the ceremony?".
He replied:
"I would deeply regret it".
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would just mention what the noble Lord,

429
Lord Weatherill, said about keeping every bit of ceremonial there was in the House of Commons but being prepared to waive all our ceremonial here.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I shall not go into the detail of who and where, but some of the evidence we took, which happens when you have an unscripted exchange of views and they are taken down verbatim, did not follow, as they say, seriatim in the logic of the argument. But I have to say that if anyone wishes to criticise and make fun of this House, these will be the references they choose, not the others.
A very short letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, stated:
"I think we should definitely cut out the doffing of the hats three times on cue from Garter. It wastes time and is too Gilbert and Sullivan".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, stated:
"If one starts from the premise that the latter (even if for only one introduction) is unduly prolonged and, to be honest, faintly ridiculous, one must surely also conclude that the former is unduly brisk and informal".
Similar sentiments were expressed on each of the earlier occasions, but there is one fundamental difference—and now I come to the amendment. On each of the other occasions it was not allowed to get onto the record. I was told it was out of courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I am bound to say that I have known him a long time and it never occurred to me to do anything that I did not want to do out of courtesy to him, particularly on this occasion—one would be taken apart very quickly. But there was a debate in this House. There were 16 speakers. The matter was then brought back to this House, and it was announced that the usual channels, those strange creatures who lurk in the dark, had unanimously agreed to recommend a Select Committee; and your Lordships agreed with that. Your Lordships then decided to choose the people to sit on the Select Committee. The Select Committee then met.
I made a quick calculation. It spent something in excess of 400 man-hours interviewing 34 witnesses, with a not inexpensive and highly able Clerk to assist us, plus a team of verbatim recorders of the entire process. We then sat down and produced the report. Nobody came up to me and said, "Marsh, one chap to another, you're wasting your time". We were allowed to go through the whole of that. Now it is said that suddenly the Labour Party is contemplating changing the status of this House. But that was known from the very beginning. Of course it was known.
It would have been sensible to have intervened. Noble Lords who felt that way could have stopped the proceedings at any point along the line, but they did not. As they did not, either they are irresponsible in coming up with this now or, alternatively, this is just part of a Westminster jolly jape in some cases. If that is the case, I find it deeply offensive. None of us was looking for a job that involved this sort of activity.
If we decide in a Division in these circumstances, with this sort of evidence on the record, "On second thoughts we, the Second Chamber of the British
430
Parliament, cannot make up our minds on a simple series of small propositions", I believe that we shall make this House a matter of fun and absurdity. This House is worth a great deal more than that. I beg noble Lords to think this through carefully before they vote.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he, in the interests of accuracy, invite his noble friend Lord Denham to re-read my evidence to the committee? I believe that he slightly misinterpreted what I said.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, in his own interests, I beg the noble Lord not to get involved in arguments with members of this committee on the subject.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it was predictable that a subject as fundamentally important as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made this subject out to be should attract such a very remarkable number of your Lordships to attend, late on a Thursday afternoon, before a Bank Holiday weekend. I am sure that more minor matters—like, for example, the future of European monetary union—would, quite rightly, not attract the attention of noble Lords in quite the same way.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, addressed your Lordships with—dare I say it?—even more than his customary passion. If I may say so, there is nothing like a young political hack watching an old political expert teach us all a thing or two about the art of leading a House of Parliament down the path that he would like it to go. In view of the more passionate final remarks with which he favoured your Lordships during the course of his peroration, I shall simply say to the noble Lord that it is open to both Houses of Parliament—and noble Lords who have more experience of the other place than I have will tell me if I am wrong, as I was only there for two Parliaments—to consider the reports of Select Committees and to decide whether or not they agree with them. No one is suggesting that parliamentary government is in any way an efficient or particularly economical process. All we know is that we would prefer to be governed by parliamentary government than any other; and we are prepared to put up with a certain amount of wasted time and money, even as regards the ablest people, so that the proper procedures of parliamentary government can be followed.
I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with whom I find myself substantially in agreement more often than perhaps a former Member of a Labour Cabinet would like. However, I hope that he, in turn, will agree with me that, despite the time and energy spent by very able people like him, the members of his committee and indeed the Clerk who so ably supported the labours of that committee, it is so often their lot to find that their labours may have been wasted. That is the price we pay for parliamentary government. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I would suggest to him that that is something we would do well

431
to remember, seduced though we may have been—and I believe we all were—by the passion with which he put his final arguments. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Marsh: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. The point I was making is that, of course, this House has the right to do whatever it will—and, indeed, will do whatever it wishes—with a report of a Select Committee. I was simply suggesting that on at least four previous occasions this Chamber decided to stop the process because it had made up its mind in advance, before it went through this particular process. My concern is not about the amount of time involved as regards members of the committee, but the use which will be made of the report by people who are not at all friendly to this House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall deal with the matter of ridicule in a moment. I agree with the noble Lord. However, although I do not want to prolong this personal exchange more than is absolutely necessary, it is equally possible to argue that it is only with the benefit of the evidence that has been set before us with such clarity by the noble Lord and his committee that we are able to take a balanced view. Of course, that balanced view must be influenced by the committee's conclusions. But, with the greatest respect and gratitude to members of the committee for all their work and the expense that they have incurred for the taxpayer, it is open to the rest of the House respectfully to disagree.
As I shall make clear fairly shortly, I do not wholly disagree with what the committee has said. Therefore, if noble Lords feel that my opening remarks suggest that conclusion, I have perhaps misled them. However, with the permission of the House, I should like to deal later with that aspect. Like the noble Lord the Leader of the House I am hugely grateful to the committee and to the noble Lord. Lord Marsh. I found reading the evidence as set out in the publication not only instructive but also, in many cases, extraordinarily diverting, especially as regards the evidence of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. If I may, I shall turn to the somewhat regrettable tendencies of the House of Howard a little later in my remarks.
I believe that I should also point out that, during the course of my remarks, I shall be speaking purely for myself. We on this side of the House feel that this is a matter for the House as a whole, as I believe the noble Lord the Leader of the House made entirely clear. Indeed, I associate myself with the remarks that he made and with the correction that he put in a little later in the debate. Of course, we are not whipped either to appear or to vote in a certain way, as I believe was made clear by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harding. In fact, even if we had whipped him, I am sure that my noble friend would have voted the same way as he always does; namely, in the way that he believes. As with so
432
many of the people sitting behind me, it is not always easy: we can get them to turn up, but we cannot always make them vote the way that we want them to—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Cranborne: Well, noble Lords may be amused by that, but I shall merely refer them to the number of times Members on our side of the House supported Labour amendments during the last Parliament. Therefore, let us not quibble about such matters.
In view of the signs of approval for what I have just said on the face of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I assume that the supporters of the Government have been treated in exactly the same way in the matter of whipping and that not only has there been no assumption that they have to appear, but also they will not be induced to vote in the way that the Government would like.
I shall not attempt to repeat, because it would be more than usually tedious, all the arguments that have been put forward. However, I am extraordinarily glad, like the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal that the committee recognised the importance of ceremony. The right reverend Prelate, quite rightly as a Churchman, gave us to understand, far better than I could, not only by what he said but by the extraordinarily considered nature of his remarks, the importance of ceremony in all affairs, notably Church affairs. I should like to associate myself with what he said. It does, indeed, emphasise the dignity of an institution. I have noticed that revolutionary regimes have always recognised that their initial reaction, which is to abolish ceremonial, leaves a void in the daily life of the institutions which have replaced the ones that they have thrown out.
I well remember reading with some amusement about what the French revolutionaries put in the stead of the ancien régime in the 1790s; indeed, they introduced all sorts of ill-considered ceremonials, which were eventually laughed out of court. So new ceremonials are at least as open to charges of absurdity as old ones. Funnily enough, my memory of the other great revolutionary regime of relatively modern times—the Soviet regime—is that those involved were rather better at it, especially the military ceremonial. Perhaps that reflected above all the extraordinary sacrifice that the Soviets suffered as a result of what I believe they came to call "the great patriotic war". That is perhaps why the ceremonial that those of us who have been to Moscow and elsewhere witnessed in front of Lenin's Tomb and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier has become something of a serious ceremony.
For all those reasons—however revolutionary the regime the Government may introduce—I am delighted that we are not thinking of abolishing ceremonial altogether. Noble Lords have rightly said that to have a dignified ceremonial is not only important for the dignity of this House, but that the families of new Peers also find it an important occasion. It has also been said that hereditary Peers do not enjoy that ceremony. It has been suggested—although perhaps not quite in these terms—that the reason the hereditary Peers do not have

433
that ceremony is that they have known each other since childhood, and no doubt the playing fields of Eton and the bar at White's is enough for them! There is at least some reason for any changed ceremony to take into account the position of hereditary Peers if they are to enjoy for much longer the privilege of being Members of this House. I shall return to that point in a moment.
I believe that the main burden of those who have supported the recommendations of this report is one which we ought to take extraordinarily seriously; namely, that the present ceremonial of introduction is no longer dignified but absurd. I set aside any unworthy thought about the ability of any supporter or member of a government to judge such matters when one considers the bouncy castle they have erected in Horse Guards Parade! One wonders whether such people have a sufficiently established record of judgment in matters of dignity for us to take such judgment seriously. However, that is an unworthy thought which I set aside as soon as it occurs to me.
However, I believe it is perfectly clear that many noble Lords feel that there is something Gilbertian and faintly ridiculous—I use the expression used on a previous occasion by the noble Lord the Leader of the House—about the ceremony of introduction, perhaps particularly as regards the doffing of hats. However, I believe it is also clear that a large number of noble Lords do not take the same view. Just because someone takes one view and not another, it is curiously totalitarian to assume that the view one takes is necessarily the one that everyone else should be morally obliged to take. That is my main difficulty with the report. This House is equally divided on whether it accepts or rejects the report. We do not have a House which is unanimous in its view about the dignity of our introduction ceremony.
I said that I would discuss my personal views. Speaking for myself, I am about to say something which will confirm what a Member of your Lordships' House once said to me. In view of the content of his remarks it is important that I should not mention his name. He said to me, "I am very sorry to see Cranborne that you are exhibiting some of the regrettable radical tendencies of your family". He said that in a slightly different context from that of our debate this evening.
I have considerable sympathy with the idea that we could with advantage change the ceremony of introduction and that we should allow it to evolve. The, I suspect, determined chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has produced the extraordinarily skilful compromise that we have before us this evening that is about as close to being accepted in this House as anything one could possibly suggest. I have some difficulty with only one part of it, which—I am sorry to say—happens to be the same difficulty as was so ably expressed by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I believe he used the phrase, "cut it off". I do not know why he used that phrase. In our private conversations he spends most of his time accusing me of being the descendant of a family which cut off the heads of some of his ancestors. I can only assume that this has entered his soul so deeply that that phrase rises to the surface of
434
his discourse at every possible opportunity, particularly when I have anything to do with the subject in question. In spite of that rather regrettable historic sortie into the not always harmonious relations between the families of Cecil and Howard, I am delighted to say that in this instance at least I firmly agree with my noble friend.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I say only that when I go to Tower Hill I shudder at what the Cecils have done to us.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend speaks for his family and not for the nation! Were this House to remain unreformed, I would feel much happier about supporting the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. However, as many of your Lordships have already observed, I note that the Government lose no opportunity to advise us not only that they intend to change the composition of this House at some time in the future but also that they intend to introduce a Bill in the very next Session of Parliament; in other words, this autumn. It is not a case of introducing it at some stage down the road in the indefinite future, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I said no such thing. The sooner the better, as far as I am concerned.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I was happy to hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House that an options paper on possible reforms of your Lordships' House may be forthcoming. If the noble Lord is kind enough to allow this House an opportunity to discuss its future before the end of the summer Recess, perhaps there will be an options paper which could act as a text for our debates. I hope that the noble Lord will refer to that matter when he replies to the debate.
I an conscious that I have spoken for far longer than I should have done. I apologise to the House for that. However, whatever one may think about the present ceremony, I cannot help but consider that despite its absurdities it substantially reflects the ethos of the present composition of the House. That was evident from the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. Therefore it seems to me natural that a reformed Chamber would want to examine the ceremonial of this House to enable it to reflect the new governing ethos, whatever that may turn out to be. However, the Government do not appear to be entirely clear how they wish this House to be reformed. That has been revealed in a number of the speeches this evening. I hope that the Government will respond to that point. Bearing in mind the apparent imminence of reform, it is a little odd that the Government seem so keen to change these matters. That seems to be a case of putting the cart before the horse. If the House is radically reformed, its Members will no doubt want to dispense with most of the paraphernalia of the hereditary peerage—for example, the robes and other such matters. I understand that it is highly unlikely that I shall be a Member of a reformed House. However, from the outside I would

435
cheer any reform which got rid of such paraphernalia because the reformed House will not reflect the hereditary Chamber that governs our ethos at the moment.
If we impose changes now, we do so in the knowledge that a reformed House will have to return to the matter. If we impose changes now, we shall also leave the House as at present composed as divided on this matter as it was before we accepted the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, however extravagantly we may have been in favour of them or against them. It therefore seems to me perfectly clear that the sensible thing to do is to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Dean. Let us wait for a reformed Chamber to reform its own ceremonies. If, by some extraordinary miracle, the House were not to be reformed—and that is not necessarily a course that I advocate—then certainly I should take a different view from the one that I have ventured to take in this debate.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with great attention to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. There is sometimes a predictability about the noble Viscount. I do not understand, although I have tried, why it is that the hereditary peerage in this House is so obsessed with preserving the minutiae of a ceremony in which they do not take part. If they were abolished, those Peers remaining in this House would be the only people who were concerned with it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords—
Lord Richard: That was quick!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise. Your Lordships have heard far too much of me this evening. However, I must point out to the noble Lord that the only reason we do not take part in the ceremony is that not many people seem to be creating hereditary Peers any more.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Viscount, the only reason we are considering this proposal is that during the past 50 years life peerages have been created. Of course the country and this House could live with this somewhat arcane ceremony for 300 years—it was rarely used. Looking at the list of hereditary Peers on the Benches opposite, those peerages were created once. In the past 50 years, how many life peerages have been created? Without looking up the figures, I venture to suggest that there have been more life peerages created in the past 50 years than there were hereditary peerages created in the previous 300 years. Of course the ceremony was appropriate. People did not use it; people did not have to go through it. I say again: why
436
the hereditary Peers who do not go through the ceremony are so fascinated with the minutiae of a ceremony which, after dissolution—after reform—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Richard: My Lords I am tempted yet again into indiscretion!
Earl Russell: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal to do hereditary Peers the courtesy of not assuming that we intend to vote as a block against his Motion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, that is a very fair comment and one that I am delighted to receive. However, I return to my point that many of the speeches today, and much of the argumentation from the other side, is based on what the Leader of the Opposition was reduced to describing as the "ethos" of the present composition of the House. According to him, that ethos demands that new life Peers have to go through a ceremony which involves putting on a bicorn hat, sitting on the Back-Bench, taking the hat off and waving it at the Lord Chancellor three times. If that is the ethos of the present composition of the House, then it only underlines my determination to change that composition.
I wish to make two or three other points. We have had a fascinating debate, though rather a disappointing one. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, said that I did not listen to anyone on this issue. A full debate was held on the matter. It went to the Procedure Committee. It came back from the Procedure Committee to this House. This House decided that the way to deal with the issue was to set up a Select Committee. A Select Committee was set up. It deliberated. It took evidence. It reported. It certainly did not have anything to do with me. I did not give evidence to the committee. I did not try to influence it in any shape or form. The report has come back to this House to be debated. For it to be suggested in those circumstances that I have somehow behaved in a totalitarian or undemocratic way is, frankly, beyond me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in a fascinating speech, likened the ceremony of introduction in this House to the ceremony in which she took part when she was seven when she was introduced into the Brownies and went round the bonfire. That is her comparison, not necessarily mine. I am bound to say that the thought occurred to me: did she have to bow three times to Akela as she went round?
Baroness Wilcox: Brown Owl!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I apologise. I am always prepared to take a factual correction.
The other point that occurs to me is this. If the noble Baroness had had to bow three times to Brown Owl, does she really think that the ceremony would have been less moving and less significant to her had she not had to bow three times? Really! What are we suggesting?
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, the noble Lord gives me the occasion to be able to stand up and again declare

437
how delighted I was to take part in the ceremony of becoming a Brownie. My point was that the ceremony has stayed with me all this time. It was an inclusive ceremony. The fact that I am able to remember it as well as I do means that it is an important ceremony.
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course it is an important ceremony. I am not decrying it. I should not dream of taking away the rights, or indeed the duty, of Brownies to be presented to Brown Owl at a suitable bonfire. I am in favour of bonfires, Brownies and Brown Owls. All I am pointing out is that it was the ceremony that was important, not the minutiae of the ceremony. Provided that a ceremony is maintained in this House for the introduction of life Peers which is dignified, is sufficiently important for the person being introduced and his or her family and friends, which means something, and during which the House sees the new Peer—that is absolutely right. That is what we are trying to achieve. In my respectful submission that is precisely what the Select Committee has sought to achieve.
I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, gave us a sermon on the virtues of inertia. Its message was: do not change unless you can prove that you have to change. I think that is a fair description. With respect, that is a recipe for total inaction: the necessity has to be proved and the matter still has to be considered. It takes away your Lordships' right of initiative. It seems to me, looking at this ceremony sensibly, that things ought to be done to it to bring it more up-to-date.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, talked about the effect that it could have outside this House if we do not do something about the ceremony. I am bound to say, not as a party politician but as Leader of the House, that your Lordships will look slightly foolish if the House of Lords is seen tonight to reject a basic proposition that during the introduction of a Peer the doffing of hats should be abolished. That is what this debate is supposed to be about. It is not about the Labour Party's proposals to reform the House of Lords. It is not about any great constitutional argument. It is very simply about whether or not the ceremony of introduction should be reformed.
Perhaps I may say a word about the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I have heard strong speeches today in defence of Garter King's role. I emphasise again that the noble Duke's amendment is a matter for the House. In that connection, I reassure the noble Viscount that there is of course a free vote on this side of the House. This is an issue for the House, not a party-political matter. But I wonder whether the House might feel able to decide the matter of Garter King's role by collecting the voices. If the House felt that it could decide the matter in that way, I personally should not shout, "Not-Content", when the Question is put on the noble Duke's amendment.
Finally, I say only this. This seems to be a modest, sensible proposal for producing a more up-to-date ceremony than the one that we have. The House would be extraordinarily foolish if it were to reject this Motion. I commend the proposal to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ceremony of Introduction
Lord Richard: My Lords, we have had a long debate and I beg formally to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House agrees with the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Ceremony of Introduction (HL Paper 78) and resolves that they should be implemented forthwith, and that the ceremony of introduction for Lords Spiritual should be altered in line with those recommendations.—(Lord Richard.)
Lord Dean of Harptreemoved, as an amendment to the second Motion of the Lord Privy Seal, to leave out from ("House") to end and insert ("declines to approve the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Ceremony of Introduction (HL Paper 78) until this House has had the opportunity to consider Her Majesty's Government's further proposals for Lords reform.").
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Gormanston, V.

Annaly, L.

Greenway, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Attlee, E.

Hambro, L.

Blaker, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Bowness, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kingsland, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bumham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Butterworth, L.

Leigh, L.

Byford, B.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock,L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L

Chalfont, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Mancroft, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Marlesford, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cranborne, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Davidson, V.

Monson, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Donegall, M.

Munster, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elles, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Gainsborough, E.

O'Cathain, B.

439

Onslow, E.

Seccombe, B.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Stockton, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strange, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Rawlings, B.

Swansea, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Reay, L.

Teviot, L.

Rees, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Vivian, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Waddington, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hattersley, L.

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Annan, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Barnett, L.

Hooson, L.

Berkeley, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Berners, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Borne, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Brightman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Burlison, L.

Carlisle, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Jeger, B.

Carrick, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kennet, L.

Chandos, V.

Kilmarnock, L

Clancarty, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cobbold, L.

Lyell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Curric of Marylebone, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

McNair, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Maddock, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Marsh, L.

Dholakia, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughuc, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Elton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Erroll, E.

Nathan, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Norfolk, D.

Flather, B.

Norton, L.

Freyberg, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Gallacher, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plant of Highfied, L.

Gilbert, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goodhart, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rea, L.

Hacking, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hardie, L.

Renton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Haskel, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

440

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Runcie, L.

Tenby, V.

Russell, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Thurlow, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Thurso, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Tope, L.[Teller.]

Serota, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shannon, E.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Simon, V.

Warnock,B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Weatherill, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Whitty, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolkmoved, as an amendment to the second Motion of the Lord Privy Seal, after ("78)") to insert (", with the exception of the recommendation to exclude Garter King of Arms from the ceremony").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Waddingtonhad given notice of his intention to move as an amendment to the second Motion of the Lord Privy Seal, to leave out ("forthwith") and insert ("from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the result of the earlier Division, I do not intend to move my amendment.
[Amendment not moved.]
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill
7.2 p.m.
The Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a great privilege today for me to launch a Bill on this important subject affecting the welfare and well being of our senior citizens. I trust that those noble Lords who remain will give it their full support.
The Bill is short, simple, straightforward and, in my view, not at all controversial. Its purpose is to close a small gap in the legislation relating to the provision of residential and nursing home care by local authorities. It will ensure that anyone entering a home—the majority of whom are elderly people—will be able to safeguard a set amount of their capital assets.
It is of great significance to anyone entering residential care and to their immediate family and relatives to have any uncertainties about what will happen to their assets clarified at that stressful point in their lives. We need to make certain that elderly people know that care home fees will not completely devour their modest savings, nor swallow all the proceeds from

441
the sale of their home. Many of those people have been saving all their lives to put something aside for the future, for their old age and, in many cases, it has been a great struggle. Many will have done without in order to buy their own homes. After having sacrificed and saved all their lives, they can endure an overwhelming sense of loss and worthlessness seeing all their prudent efforts shattered if that last small amount of savings is taken away.
This set amount of capital fixed by Parliament, which is known as the capital limit, is currently £16,000 and is set down in the Assessment of Resources Regulations for residential accommodation. Those charging regulations provide that anyone with less than that amount of capital should receive financial support from their local authority.
The need for the Bill came about because of a judicial review case which revealed a flaw in current legislation; that is, the National Assistance Act 1948—that old favourite on which so much community care law is based.
I should like, if I may, to give the background to this case. Almost two years ago a local authority—the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton—was found to be operating a policy of refusing financial support for people in residential or nursing home care, until their capital had fallen to a very low level (around £1,500—or the average cost of a funeral). That was contradictory to the government policy that anyone needing residential or nursing home care could receive financial support from their local authority if their capital came to less than the £16,000 national capital limit (as set out in the Assessment of Resources Regulations); and that the local authority should assist with the cost of care for people funding themselves in care homes once their capital falls below that level.
Sefton council was taken to court by an individual who was adversely affected by this policy, and by the charity Help the Aged. Unfortunately, the High Court found in Sefton's favour. Until the High Court judgment in this case, it had been accepted that anyone needing residential or nursing home care could receive financial support from their local authority if their capital came to less than the national capital limit. But the National Assistance Act does not expressly state that. It provides that local authorities may make arrangements for providing residential accommodation for persons,
"in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them".
It is only the charging regulations which refer to the "capital limits".
The High Court ruled on 27th March 1997 that the capital limits do not apply unless and until someone has actually been placed by their local authority in a home, because it is only at that stage that the local authority should assess a person's finances. The judgment sanctioned that local authority's practice of letting people place themselves in residential care and pay for it out of their own capital until it reduced to £1,500.
However, the High Court judgment was overturned on 31st July 1997 by the Court of Appeal which ruled that an authority is not entitled to assume that a person
442
could pay the full cost of their care if they have less than £16,000 in capital. In that ruling, the Court of Appeal confirmed the Government's contention that the will of Parliament was clear and that that limit of savings should be protected.
Sefton initially petitioned for leave to appeal to this House against the Court of Appeal judgment but has since withdrawn the application, so the case is not being taken any further.
So why, your Lordships may be asking, is there still need for a Bill? Although the policy intention is clear, it is not necessarily secure in case law. There is still scope for a different view. Any local authority now operating a "Sefton type" policy could certainly be challenged by judicial review, and although the High Court would be bound by the Court of Appeal decision, it is possible, (albeit unlikely) that if the matter were to be considered by the Court of Appeal, it could depart from one of its decisions and deliver a different judgment.
I believe that until the policy intention is explicitly written into the law, social services departments feeling pressed to meet community care demands could be tempted to continue to seek new loopholes.
For those reasons I think that there is a very strong case for putting the policy position beyond doubt by amending the wording of the Act itself. It is clearly more appropriate and sensible for parliamentary opinion and government policy to be explicitly set out in primary legislation rather than left to case-law. It would ensure that this area—the balance of responsibility between the state and the individual—would not in future run the risk of being left to local policy makers. It will reassure the very many older people who feel disenfranchised and are afraid—many of them severely afraid—that they will lose all their hard-earned savings in paying for long-term care.
The Bill intends to remove further doubt about the policy intention that people who are entering residential accommodation should be able to retain a nationally set amount of their capital, as determined by Parliament. Clause 1 of the Bill will amend Section 21 of the National Assistance Act so that local authorities will have to disregard a person's capital up to the limit set out in the Regulations, when considering whether care and attention are "otherwise available" to them. Clause 2 deals with the situation with regard to Scotland and Clause 3 cites the Title.
I must reiterate to your Lordships that there are no financial implications, because the Bill is not imposing new duties or powers on local authorities: it is simply ensuring that local authorities carry out their functions under the National Assistance Act in accordance with the Government's policy intention, which will provide security and peace of mind for elderly people by ensuring that they will be allowed to retain a moderate amount of their capital and that they know explicitly what that amount is.
Finally, I would point out that there is nothing about this Bill which is party political. When the Chancellor in the previous government increased the capital limits

443
to their present levels there was full cross-Party support and I very much hope that your Lordships will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Pitkeathley.)
7.11 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on this Bill and I hope that when the Minister comes to reply she will also welcome the Bill, as it is a necessary tidying-up measure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has very ably described the reasons for the Bill and the content. In this matter I am briefed by Help the Aged, who took part in the original court case and fought it through to appeal. There are, however, still major concerns about other aspects of access to residential and nursing home care by older people which concern them. Help the Aged receives calls all the time from older people and their families about the difficulties they are experiencing in gaining access to community care services and to residential services. They have analysed these calls, and believe that there are outstanding problems in some areas in the following fields.
First, local authorities have a duty to assess the needs of those older people who may require community care services under the National Health Service and Community Care Act. However, it appears to them that some local authorities do not offer an assessment to people whose assets are over £16,000. In other areas there may he considerable delays in assessment. As I understand it, local authorities have a duty to assess the needs of people who are elderly or otherwise in need of care.
Secondly, having made an assessment and agreed that residential or nursing home care should be provided, the local authority may leave it to the older person or their relatives to make the necessary arrangements, if they will be "self payers". This is a very and difficult painful decision for people to make, and few people have the experience to know what it is they should be looking for and what to guard against. I believe that people need good support and advice in making such a major decision, which could affect the quality of life for their remaining years—or possibly only months.
Even in circumstances where the local authority will be meeting the cost of care home fees, there are not infrequently delays between identifying the need for residential or nursing home care and actually providing the services. This varies from authority to authority, but Help the Aged is well aware that in some areas waiting lists for residential or nursing home placements are very considerable. Also, under the Direction on Choice 1992, people should have a reasonable say about the home in which they are to live, whether they are paying for it themselves or whether the local authority is meeting all the fees. However, it is clear that not everybody has access to a home of their choice, even if that falls within the financial parameters set by that particular authority. The reason for this seems to be that some authorities
444
"block purchase" beds in certain homes, leaving little money available to meet the fees of people who make alternative choices.
Help the Aged receives a great deal of anecdotal information through its free advice line about the problems experienced by elderly people and their relatives in gaining access to residential and nursing homes of their choice. As a result, they commissioned research into what is happening in those areas where there appears to be a concentration of problems. The research focused over a very limited period on only five local authority areas. There is reason to believe, however, that similar problems are occurring in other areas, but there is no reason to believe that such practices are universal or even widespread among local authorities.
So far as concerns assessments, local authorities have a duty to undertake an assessment of people who may need Community care services under the National Health Service and Community Care Act of 1990. The research revealed that assessments do not always happen. If people have more than £16,000 worth of assets and are therefore self-funders, they may be sent a list of homes and told to make their own arrangements. In other instances, older people are being advised to use the benefit system to put together a package of benefits which will go some way towards meeting residential home fees, and make up the difference themselves. In both circumstances older people may not get a community care assessment.
I am told that Manchester has a confused policy. One informant told Help the Aged that people with over £16,000 would not get an assessment; another informant said that they would get an assessment but that the social services department would not arrange a placement. Last July an internal memorandum was sent out, instructing care managers not to assess people with over £16,000, but after pressure from the local Age Concern and others, this was retracted. However, a "no assessment" policy seems still to be continuing in some parts of the city. There is also some anecdotal evidence of people not getting assessments in Cambridgeshire if they have more than £16,000.
Turning now to waiting lists, most older people only consider residential or nursing home care in extremis. The noble Lord, Lord Woolf, in his Court of Appeal judgment on the Sefton case, made it quite clear that if an older person is assessed as needing residential care according to local eligibility criteria, the local authority has a duty to arrange such care. The research evidence indicates that this is either not happening in some areas or that there are long waiting lists if people require social services funding to meet residential home fees.
Turning now to the choice of a home, Direction on Choice made it mandatory for people eligible for residential or nursing home care to have a choice about which home they go into. Cultural, religious and personal preference should all be taken into account. However, in some areas such choice appears not to be available to those who require social services funding. I am told that in Liverpool beds in council homes are "block purchased" so that they are already paid for and

445
the money is already committed. They say they can only put people in private homes when cash becomes available and then they can "spot purchase" an individual bed for a specific person in a home of their choice. People are told they can go into a council home specified by social services almost straight away, but if they want a private home of their choice they will have to wait a long time. This of course can lead to very much greater pressure on the older person and that person's family.
There is another matter, where local authorities seem to wish to maximise the income from the older person for the council. As the House will appreciate, most older people want to stay in their own homes for as long as possible. One of the aims of the National Health Service and Community Care Act was to support people in the community and divert them from unnecessary residential or nursing home care. However, when people need a relatively high level of support it is financially advantageous to the council to place them in residential or nursing home care, since the people contribute their own incomes, including pensions and benefits to which they may be entitled, and the net cost to the council is reduced—the well -known perverse incentive. If residents have assets in excess of £16,000, including the value of their home, the cost to the council is, of course, nil.
I understand that Cheshire seems to have adopted a deliberate policy of increasing the use of residential care in order to reduce its own spending. On 14th January last year, in a report on special transitional grant and placement activity, it stated:
"There continues to be a gradual shift in favour of residential care associated with the Group's corrective action strategy aimed at reducing the current overspend. There is a perverse incentive to looking after people in a residential setting as opposed to their own homes as greater access to DSS benefits and statutory charges results in higher income levels for the authority when people are in residential care".
I understand that for the past 18 months the service has been delivered on a strictly cost minimisation basis and that there has been a significant negative impact on clients. I also understand that in some homes, not necessarily in Cheshire, the residents do not receive the £14 a week to which they are entitled out of their own income to spend on themselves—on soap, bath essence or presents for the grandchildren. That is disgraceful.
I am coming to the end of my speech. I am sorry that it has been rather overlong. Will the Government make certain that local authorities carry out the following acts: first, that they carry out their statutory duty to assess the needs of those older people who may require community care services, in accordance with the National Health Service and Community Care Act; secondly, that they make arrangements for the provision of residential or nursing home care for those who are assessed as needing it, in accordance with the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the Court of Appeal in the Sefton case; thirdly, that they minimise delays in assessment and take steps to reduce the length of waiting lists for the provision of services; fourthly, that they implement the Direction on Choice so that older people have a reasonable say about the home in which
446
they are to live; fifthly, that they offer people support at home where their circumstances allow that and not propel people into residential or nursing home care merely because it is financially advantageous to the council to do so; and, finally, that they abide by the national regulations with regard to charging for residential and nursing home care? I support the Bill.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, certain Bills come under the heading, which I first saw in 1066 and all that, "Basically, this was a good thing". This Bill comes under that heading. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, deserves praise not only for bringing forward the Bill but also for doing so after we have chewed our way through so much ham in the previous debate. It was nobly done, if that is not an overly-used phrase in this House, and it is certainly a measure that should have been brought forward before now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out, the Bill is not a panacea to cure all the evils in this sector. There is still considerable diversity of quality of care throughout the sector, but giving a finite limit of £16,000, after which one is entitled to support, is a positive step forward. It stops worry and it stops stress. It means that elderly people will have a better idea of where they stand. It is probably a description of just how creaking a ship we are dealing with here that we have to have a Private Member's Bill to get a degree of clarification into the regulations. If people stop worrying about this, they will know how to plan.
I support the Bill. I hope that there will be less need for courageous Back-Benchers to bring forward Bills and that the Government will be able to give us an indication that they will take this problem away and deal with it across the board in the near future.
7.24 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for introducing the Bill and for the capable way in which she has done so. This is a measure designed to establish firmly in law a decision taken during the previous Parliament by my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, to improve the lot of those elderly people of modest means who are in need of residential or nursing home care. That decision to increase the relevant monetary limits which determine entitlement to state support was subsequently approved by Parliament and was widely welcomed.
It was welcomed as a recognition of the principle that those people who have worked and saved during their lives should be entitled to look to the state to support the cost of their care in old age without, as a pre-condition of that support, having to forfeit all of their private capital. Unfortunately, as the noble Baroness has explained, the legal position surrounding the changes to the means test is unclear.
It was placed into doubt by the decision of the court to uphold the actions of Sefton Borough Council, which took it upon itself to ignore the thresholds that had been laid down and to refuse assistance to a considerable

447
number of people whose entitlement to it should have been indisputable. While, as we have heard, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, it is unsatisfactory to have a situation whereby another hard pressed local authority might perhaps seek to pursue the matter in the courts at the point where Sefton Borough Council left off and, in the meantime, cause a great deal of stress and anxiety to a further group of elderly people. It is not right that the law should be ambiguous or that it should not fully reflect the clear wish of Parliament. From these Benches we have no hesitation in supporting the Bill whose purpose is to put those defects right.
I should very much like to believe that our worries on the matter could end here. It strikes me that in any area of the law it is always possible for an ingenious lawyer or an ingenious local authority to find a way round inconvenient obstacles. Indeed, worries were voiced in another place, and again today by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, that a local authority, if so minded, might deliberately delay assessment of an individual for community care services. When the Minister comes to reply, I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness will say whether any sanctions are available against a local authority seeking to evade its responsibilities by adopting deliberate delaying tactics. Will she also confirm that once a person has been assessed as needing residential care and as being entitled to such care at public expense a local authority is not able to delay or refuse that care on the grounds that it has insufficient resources to do so? In other words, are there rules in place which are sufficient to close off those avenues?
I have a further question to which I should be glad of an answer. The Bill and its Explanatory Memorandum make clear that the capital thresholds which determine an individual's entitlement to care are as laid down in regulations from time to time. Will it be necessary to bring forward regulations under the National Assistance Act 1948, as amended by the Bill, prescribing the new thresholds; or is it the case that Parliament is being asked in this measure to accept an element of retrospection which will render a further statutory instrument unnecessary?
The Minister in another place, Mr. Boateng, described the Bill as modest and uncontroversial. That is so. But it is nonetheless necessary for that. The Government have declared their support for it. The only puzzle perhaps is why they have not brought it forward as a government Bill. Whatever the arcane reasons for that decision, I believe we should all acknowledge that great credit is due to Help the Aged for its role in pursuing these issues in such an assiduous way. I am very pleased to offer the noble Baroness my support for the Bill and I wish it well in its passage through your Lordships' House.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I would like to congratulate very warmly my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley on bringing forward this Bill and to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate for their general support for her measure. The Bill has the complete support of the Government and I commend it to the House.
448
One of the reasons why the Bill has not come forward as a government measure is largely the pressure on the legislative time that we have before us. I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in thinking that perhaps if this House spent more time on these sensible measures and not on some of the things that we have discussed at length this afternoon, it might not have been such an issue. But at this point in the evening I do not wish to be controversial. As my noble friend said in introducing the Bill, it is a simple measure but of considerable importance, particularly to elderly people seeking to safeguard a fixed amount of their capital assets. Nonetheless, it is a tightly focused Bill on one specific issue.
Although I heard, for example, the extremely authoritative list of proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, suggested to improve access to and assessment of residential care, the Bill is designed, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, simply to deal with the loophole created by the so-called Sefton decision. I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss some of the broader points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on general policy in this area, but tonight I shall confine my comments to the specific matter of this Bill.
Like the noble Earl, I would like to take the opportunity—since the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that he, too, was briefed by Help the Aged—to acknowledge the important role that the voluntary sector plays not simply in providing the great care that it does but in advising and helping us in Parliament on some of the broader issues.
As your Lordships will be aware, the treatment of capital in the residential charging system, which is the point of this tightly focused Bill, has in recent years been the subject of considerable controversy. But safeguarding a set amount of capital is of great importance to everyone who enters residential or nursing home care and indeed to their families. Most of the people entering such care are, as one would expect, very elderly and sometimes quite vulnerable and many of them have saved all their lives to prepare for their old age. We owe it to these senior citizens to protect a modest amount of their life savings and/or, for example, the proceeds from the sale of the family home which might indeed be passed on as a nest-egg either to grandchildren or children or simply kept by themselves for small luxuries in the way that has been described.
I know that there are those who question, in strict fiscal policy as it were, why it is that someone at this stage of their lives and whose primary needs are presumably entirely catered for in a residential home should be allowed to keep this amount. But I do not believe that this provision is based on need but on a humane and reasonable approach, which I believe has support all round the House, towards those people who may have worked for many years and often struggled to save in modest circumstances to pay for a mortgage or to buy their own home. We believe that for those people there should be a reasonable balance between the state and the individual in paying for their social care.

449
As your Lordships have heard, last year the Court of Appeal upheld the view that has been taken by successive governments and decided that this level of saving should be protected. But the very fact that at least one local authority had sought before to ignore the capital limits and had to be taken through the legal process showed that the position was not secure. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley pointed out, even with a Court of Appeal judgment some unequivocal statutory provision seemed to us to be needed.
We turn now to the very important example that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, introduced about waiting lists. It has come to our attention recently that, despite the Court of Appeal judgment, some local authorities are ignoring the capital limit by establishing waiting lists for residential care. As the noble Lord said, that can result in elderly or disabled people being forced to put themselves into a home and use up their capital savings until they reach the £16,000 level in order to receive the care that they need.
Unfortunately, it has become clear that until the policy intention is explicitly written into primary legislation, some social services departments will continue to side-step the law, and that is why the loophole needs to be closed.
I would like to respond to the noble Earl's point about the loopholes. I am advised that all the legal loopholes about personal capital assets are covered by this provision. But the questions about guidance and regulation to local authorities become slightly more tenuous, shall we say. It is based on guidance rather than primary statute.
We believe that the guidance to local authorities which is binding and which is issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act should meet the concerns about some of the issues which were raised. That will be monitored by local social services inspectorates. As regards the issue of personal capital assets, I am advised that those legal loopholes have now been closed.
The noble Earl also raised the question of the element of retrospection in this law. It was raised in another place, too. I believe that, although it might normally be regarded as unacceptable and bad practice as far as law-making was concerned, there was a general understanding that concerning this very specific measure covering the small area of revising and improving the statute, the element of restrospection would be agreed. I very much hope that that will also be the attitude of your Lordships' House—to approve what I believe we have agreed is the uncontroversial and simple purpose of the Bill, simply to enforce the current capital threshold, which was the original intention of Parliament, so that it is applied equally to anyone in the United Kingdom needing residential accommodation. Therefore, I reiterate the Government's support for this excellent Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend and those noble Lords who support it. I commend it to the House.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions tonight and for the general
450
agreement that the Bill is a good thing. It emphasises, as noble Lords' contributions have done, the cross-party nature not only of the support for this Bill but of the concern about general community care issues. As someone who has spent her working life working and campaigning on these issues, it is pleasing to have that support confirmed and emphasised.
This Bill is modest, as has been pointed out, but its provisions will be of great importance in offering clarity to older people and their families about what they can expect and in setting their minds at rest about how much of their capital they may retain. Anxieties about this run very high, as noble Lords have pointed out. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for re-affirming the Government's support for the Bill and the original policy intention to safeguard modest savings.
The Bill will most certainly not solve all the problems faced by older people and their families when it comes to residential care or waiting lists and whether the current capital limits are adequate or the current system for funding long-term care is right. It will not address any of those things. But the wider issues are being considered by the Royal Commission on long-term care which is due to report at the end of this year. The fact that the Government made a manifesto commitment to set up a Royal Commission shows that they recognise, as do all your Lordships, how important the provision and funding of long-term care for older people is. This Bill makes a small but important contribution towards the development of policies which will be clearly set out so that everyone will know what they can and, equally important, cannot expect from long-term care provision. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EC Chocolate Directive: ECC Report
7.39 p.m.
Lord Reayrose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on The EC Chocolate Directive (19th Report, HL Paper 85).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a life-long, confirmed chocaholic, a category known, I believe, to the supermarket manager as an "indulgence-oriented customer", it gives me particular pleasure to introduce this debate.
Sub-Committee D interrupted its inquiry into the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposal—an inquiry which has subsequently been completed with the resulting report awaiting debate in your Lordships' House—in order to conduct in parallel a much shorter inquiry into the Commission's chocolate directive, because of the indignation with which certain amendments introduced by the European Parliament to the Commission's proposals have been received in this country and because of the threat that those amendments, if they passed into law, would pose to British chocolate manufacturing interests.

451
The issue between this country and other member states on the subject of chocolate consists of two elements, both of which have their origin in differences in traditional manufacturing methods. If I may, I shall follow the example of most of the report in dealing with their respective histories in turn. One concerns the use of non-cocoa vegetable fats in the manufacture of chocolate; the other concerns the percentage of milk in milk chocolate.
I shall take the non-cocoa vegetable fats first. When the UK and Ireland joined the European Community in 1973, we were the first member states which permitted the inclusion of non-cocoa vegetable fats up to a limit of 5 per cent. in the manufacture of chocolate. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis at this point that non-cocoa fats, for example, palm oil or oil from shea or illipe nuts, are valued in chocolate for imparting hardness and other qualities, and are widely used in other foods.
In 1973 the Council then adopted a directive which permitted chocolate with a 5 per cent. non-cocoa fat content to be manufactured and traded within the European Community, but it also allowed those member states which did not permit the inclusion of vegetable fats in the manufacture of chocolate also to forbid the import of chocolate containing them, even from other member states. So no single market for chocolate existed. No further progress was made until 1996, when the Commission brought forward a new directive which set out to introduce this single market. By then, five other member states which allowed non-cocoa fat in the manufacture of chocolate had joined the EC.
The 1996 directive sought to open the market fully by requiring both sorts of chocolate to be allowed to circulate freely throughout the Community, but would have required chocolate containing non-cocoa fat to carry a label containing a
"clear, neutral and objective statement"
to that effect, in addition to the list of ingredients.
The European Parliament then, in the autumn of last year, adopted its amendments to the Commission's proposals—amendments which caused so much alarm—one of which introduced the requirement that this label should be "conspicuous", and that it should appear on the front of the product.
The Commission then in March produced a revised proposal, which rejected most of the European Parliament's amendments, but took over the European Parliament's wording that the statement should be "conspicuous", although not the proposal that it must appear on the front of the product.
In the course of our inquiry, we received written evidence from several sources, and oral evidence from the BCCCA, the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate & Confectionary Alliance, which is the British industry's chief representative body. The industry does not welcome extra labelling requirements, as they involve expense, especially if they are introduced without adequate warning.
However, for the sake of obtaining an agreement that would open up new markets for its products, it appeared that the industry would be willing to accept a measure of double labelling, provided it could be given sufficient
452
notice, and provided any statement additional to, and separate from, the ingredients list should not have to appear on the front of the product. Front-of-package labelling in its view and in our view bears too much similarity to a health warning, and would not be acceptable. We take the view that any double labelling is inherently unnecessary and undesirable, and that a requirement for it in this case should only be temporary.
The Commission's revised proposal was only published after our report went to press, but in a subsequent letter to the Government we drew attention to the danger of the Commission's revised double labelling wording leading indirectly to a requirement for the statement, in order to be "conspicuous", to appear on the front of the product. To counter this danger, we have suggested that where the label is placed is a matter that should be left under the directive to the discretion of the manufacturer, not of the importing member state.
As far as milk in chocolate is concerned—the second area of contention—Ireland and the United Kingdom have both traditionally used a higher percentage of milk, up to 20 per cent., in chocolate than have all other member states even to this day. For them, the limit is 14 per cent.
The 1973 directive placed the two types of milk chocolate in separate categories, and required the British and Irish type to be sold as
"chocolate with a high milk content",
although this was in practice in the directive at the time translated into other Community languages as "household milk chocolate". At the same time, the UK and Ireland were given a derogation which permitted
"milk chocolate with a high milk content"
to sell as "milk chocolate" on their own markets.
The 1996 directive proposed no change to the 1973 directive so far as concerns milk chocolate. The European Parliament, however, when it came to consider the matter, amended the directive so as to remove the Irish and UK derogation, with the effect that milk chocolate would no longer be able to be sold as such, even on their own markets. The Commission, in its revised proposal, has restored the derogation.
The industry believes that the pejorative way, in its eyes, in which the description
"chocolate with a high milk content"
was allowed to be translated in the 1973 directive into other member states' languages, has led to it being sold among groceries rather than confectionery, and must be held at least partly responsible for the negligible sales of UK milk chocolate in some Community markets. We record our surprise that the industry seemed willing to accept a directive that did not address this issue. This may be due to its assessment that as only the UK and Ireland are affected, support in Council for the changes desired will be difficult to obtain.
In the long run, we see no good reason why there need to be two separate products, "milk chocolate" and,
"milk chocolate with a high milk content",
and why both products cannot be allowed to compete against each other under the description "milk chocolate" although I think that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, may give a different view and I look forward to

453
hearing what he has to say. If there is to be a separate description for British-style milk chocolate in our view it should at least be neutral in all languages.
A new directive along the lines of the present one, if and when it comes into effect, may highlight this issue of derogatory labelling because the opening of the Community market to chocolate containing non-cocoa fats will also mean that more British-style milk chocolate will have the chance to appear on other member states' markets. Any discriminatory treatment may then be both more noticeable and more damaging. That is the reason why we describe the issue of milk chocolate as an unresolved issue which may need to be revisited in the future.
There, in a nutshell, are, I believe, the two issues at stake. I shall leave it to other noble Lords taking part in the debate to supply the adjectives that properly reflect the indignation felt by them and others at the attempts made in some quarters, notably in the European Parliament, to restrict by unfair means the sale in other markets of the Community of traditional, good quality British products.
As far as the interests of developing countries are concerned—and they tend to be prayed in aid in argument by those seeking to preserve the status quo—any increase in the sales of non-cocoa fats is likely to help those developing countries that produce the raw materials for those fats, and any comparative reduction in the use of cocoa is likely to be more than offset by the continuing growth in the consumption of chocolate in Community markets. Cocoa is currently in short supply, and as a result, has been rising in price. In any event, in the eyes of many, the artificial distortion of natural trade patterns is an unsatisfactory method of providing aid to under developed countries.
In their recent pronouncements on this subject, Her Majesty's Government have been admirably robust in their stated determination to defend British manufacturing interests. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us this evening of their continuing resolve to obtain justice for this important, traditional British industry, and will be able to report to us significant indications of progress in this long campaign.
It only remains for me to thank all those who provided the committee with written evidence, the BCCCA for its most useful oral evidence, the members of the sub-committee for their essential help and assiduous attendance and our admirable new clerk, Mr. Andrew Mackersie, for his diligent organisation of the inquiry and preparation of the report. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on The EC Chocolate Directive (19th Report, HL Paper 85).—(Lord Reay.)
7.50 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am a member of the Select Committee on the European Communities. However, I am not a member of Sub-Committee D which did all of the real work in taking evidence and writing the report. I hesitated therefore before tabling my name for this debate. I very much respect the work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and his colleagues, but this evening I venture to put forward a view somewhat at variance with their conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has already said that there are two key elements in this directive. Unlike him, I shall simplify the matter by ignoring what the European Parliament has said. I believe that I am entitled to do that and to make the point that when considering this subject the Commission itself ignored the Parliament's basic and rather extreme comments.
The first element in the directive is that chocolate containing up to 5 per cent. non-cocoa fats—the United Kingdom industry norm—should be allowed free circulation in the Community. This is marvellous; this is something that has not existed for some time. As the report states, it is a welcome measure. After 25 years the Community is at last helping to implement the single market. Certainly, it is helpful to UK chocolate manufacturers since it will apply even though the domestic legislation of eight member states, including all six original members of the Community, banned the use of non-cocoa fats in the manufacture of chocolate as manufactured by their own industries.
However, the directive states that the presence of non-cocoa fats should be indicated not just in the list of ingredients but also by a clear, neutral and objective statement. In principle, the report is against what it calls double labelling as an unnecessary burden on industry, but it goes along, perhaps reluctantly, with the directive's proposal that so long as it has a strict end in point of time—an end date—and does not have to be on the front of the package that is acceptable.
The other element of the directive relates to milk chocolate where the directive proposes no change in the current position whereby the type favoured on the Continent, which is 25 per cent. cocoa and 14 per cent. milk, and the type favoured only in the United Kingdom and Ireland, which is 20 per cent. cocoa and 20 per cent. milk, are treated as distinct products, the latter having to be sold as "milk chocolate with a high milk content". That is translated into other European languages in a variety of ways as "household milk chocolate" and similar terms. The directive allows the derogation for milk chocolate sold within the United Kingdom and Ireland. Such chocolate can continue to be labelled simply "milk chocolate".
The report sees no reason why there should be two separate products: milk chocolate and milk chocolate with a high milk content. It strongly objects to what it calls misleading translations of the phrase "milk chocolate with a high milk content" because it has a discriminatory effect. As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has pointed out, such chocolate is sold among groceries

455
rather than confectionery. Paragraph 36 of the report is particularly robust—if I were unkind I might even say that it was tendentious—when it says:
"Those who argue for two separate denominations are attempting to restrict competition within the Community".
I believe that if there are perceived by consumers to be significant differences between products then consumers, whether in the United Kingdom, Germany, France or anywhere else, are entitled to accurate and reasonably full information on which to decide what to buy based on what they like from their experience.
I believe that there can be true and fair competition between producers only if consumers are enabled to make well informed choices based on clear, consistent and useful information from competing suppliers. I note that the report favours the view that in respect of chocolate with up to 5 per cent. non-cocoa fats it should at least for a period of time have some form of additional labelling apart from the ingredients list. The report recognises
"that to consumers in eight Member States chocolate containing non-cocoa fats will he a new and unfamiliar product".
I am not sure why this greater clarity of information should have a strict end date. After all, there are new consumers of chocolates coming along all the time. For example, children become purchasers of chocolate and so on. I am not sure why it should be only on the back of the packet where it may be less likely to be seen.
In my experience, the phrase "burden on industry" is one that trips very easily off the tongue of those giving evidence. It is less easily justified. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, he said that manufacturers could not really object to changes to the packaging given that they were making those changes themselves every so often as long as they were not required to incur the additional expense of a special change at a particular point in time without much or any notice.
I am sorry that the evidence of the Consumers' Association given to the sub-committee was so limited. For reasons best known to the association, it claimed that the subject was not a high priority for it. It did not deal at all in its written evidence with the subject of milk chocolate. Contrary to the report, I believe that United Kingdom-style milk chocolate is a different product. It is a sweeter, more milky product. I agree with the report that misleading or pejorative translations of the phrase "milk chocolate with a high milk content" should not be permitted by the European Community authorities. We want a description that indicates the difference but which is neutral in all languages, is clear and distinct.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee that produced this report, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Reay for his exemplary chairmanship of the sub-committee during its inquiry. I join him in thanking our clerk for his organisational abilities. My noble friend has already put the sub-committee's views very clearly and I shall not weary the House by repeating those in detail now. There are however a few points that I believe are worth underlining.
456
I begin by congratulating the Commission—a somewhat rare event—on its first unamended directive in 1996. If one must have a chocolate directive, which is highly questionable, at least that directive was adequate, in that it proposed that chocolate products containing vegetable fats could be marketed in all member states provided they were labelled with a clear, neutral and objective statement in addition to the list of ingredients, that these substances were present in the finished product.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, took exception to that and believed that there should be an additional statement. Surely, the requirement for double labelling, the vegetable fat declaration being separate, is superfluous. Where else should vegetable fat be included as an ingredient if not in the list of ingredients? I cannot see the necessity for double labelling. I understand that the industry is prepared to accept the requirement in the short term as superfluous but not seriously damaging.
The Commission did a good job up to a point. But, then, enter left the European Parliament, galumphing on stage, drunk with the power of co-decision, with a series of discriminatory, ill-thought-out and unworkable amendments which, as we have heard, would be damaging to British and Irish chocolate products and utterly at odds with the requirement of the single market.
I hope that I shall not test your Lordships' patience too far if I enlarge briefly on the requirements of the European Parliament. First, and astonishingly, its amendments demanded that all British and Irish milk chocolate made in Britain, sold in Britain and consumed in Britain—let us call it Cadbury's Dairy Milk for the sake of argument—could no longer be sold as "milk chocolate", but only as "milk chocolate with a high milk content". The arrogance is quite astonishing. It is all part of the self-evident benefits of our membership of the European Union, as we are often told.
It appears that we have given away so many of our rights to Brussels that Cadbury's milk chocolate can only be sold in the UK thanks to a derogation which, as your Lordships are aware, is no more than a temporary waiver. Perhaps I may remind the Minister of that when it comes to renegotiating our inshore fishing rights.
The European Parliament voted in its amendment to end that derogation. Another of its amendments also required double labelling with conspicuous wording on the front of the packet, as one might expect to find a health warning on a packet of cigarettes. I do not know whether that is the kind of warning which the noble Lord, Lord Borne, would wish to see; a prominent warning stating, "This product can seriously damage your health if eaten in excess by a chocoholic", as my noble friend Lord Reay tells me he is. I believe that that amendment can be ascribed to a post-prandial lack of focus on the part of the European Parliament.
The Commission, in its recent reply to those amendments, rejected most of the dafter content. The UK/Irish derogation has been restored—at least that is the proposal. Nonetheless, the Commission has accepted the principle of double labelling without any clear indication of where this should be placed on the packet.

457
Although, thanks to derogation—and I suppose that we should be thankful for very small mercies—milk chocolate will still be allowed to be sold as milk chocolate in the United Kingdom, the fact is that under the Commission's current proposals our chocolate will still suffer from discriminatory and pejorative labelling in the rest of the European Union where it will be known in various translations as "household milk chocolate", or "chocolat de ménage", which will not be sold as high quality confectionery but down the counter among the cake mix and Brobat. Do we need the European Parliament?
I read the Government's response to the most recent of the Commission's proposals and I strongly support their sensible and robust line of continued opposition to any double-labelling requirement. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government will take the opportunity of the UK presidency to go for the full Monty and also press for a single definition of milk chocolate which could be sold as such throughout the European Union. Surely, this is a matter for personal consumer preference and should not be subject to EU or member government interference. That is what the single market is all about and if we cannot get it right with milk chocolate where can we get it right?
Finally, will the Minister give the House an indication, however veiled, of the Government's chances of achieving their aims in the Council of Ministers? In another place, the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was unequivocal and robust in the extreme. He stated:
"I make it absolutely clear that the Government will not agree to any situation that discriminates against traditional British products—we simply will not have it".
It is not as simple as that. The process is subject to qualified majority voting. Do we have the backing of enough of our partners to carry the day? I much look forward to the Minister's reply and wish him and his colleagues every success in those negotiations.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to all noble Lords who have worked hard to contribute to this interesting and commendably brief report. It is no secret that I am a Euro-sceptic, to use convenient if not wholly accurate shorthand. Like most Euro-sceptics, however, I am open-minded and open to persuasion. In this instance, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, I believe that the European Parliament has got it partly right—and I stress the word "partly".
The argument about how many tropical producers will gain and how many will lose if a greater switch away from cocoa butter is made is inconclusive. One suspects that there is little in it. So I wish to concentrate on the interests of the consumer and to a lesser extent the manufacturer. It is important that the consumer should be able to discover exactly what he is eating without having to use a magnifying glass to find out. Some people, including many of my best friends, do not mind about the ingredients so long as the end product tastes all right. Others, including many people on the
458
Continent, particularly in France and Belgium, and myself take the opposite view. I contend that we have a right to know in order to enable us to choose.
Perhaps I may try to dispel a few red herrings. Chief among them is the obsession among continentals about "chocolate with a high milk content". We know that it is possible to make chocolate with a high milk content without using any non-cocoa butter. All British manufacturers did so before 1950 and a few still do. Conversely, some chocolate with no milk content—that is dark chocolate—is made with vegetable fat, notably Bournville. I am astonished that such chocolate is not mentioned anywhere in the report. Therefore, there is no necessary correlation between milk content and the presence of vegetable fat. I suppose that the right description would be "non-cocoa fat" because surely the cocoa bean is a vegetable. No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong.
The exact ratio of milk to cocoa which people prefer in their chocolate can readily be determined by trial and error. After all, a chocolate bar does not cost much. Therefore, I wholly agree with the committee that there is no need to re-label milk chocolate as "household milk chocolate", or "chocolate with a high milk content", or whatever.
The second red herring or misconception is that this is a question of Britain versus the rest. In fact, many British manufacturers use only cocoa butter, not only Payne's, whose evidence is given in the report, but also Terry's, a distinguished and old-established Yorkshire firm whose chocolate, almost without exception, is entirely made of cocoa butter, Green and Blacks, the makers of excellent organic chocolate which is more expensive than the rest but worth it, and so forth.
Yesterday, I conducted a brief consumer test in advance of the debate. I visited Tesco's, Safeway's, Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer's but did not manage to visit Waitrose. Without exception, their own-brand chocolate contained only cocoa butter. Some had been made for them on the Continent and put under their own label and some had been made in this country. It is perfectly possible for the British and anyone else to produce "pure" chocolate at a reasonable price.
I turn to the interests of the manufacturer. I do not often agree with the Belgians, but they are right to be worried about the possible long-term adulteration of a product for which they are internationally famous. Food adulteration has a long history the world over. After all, the BSE crisis arose from a desire to cut corners in the interest of keeping prices down. I am not comparing chocolate with beef, but the principle is the same.
Therefore by all means let those who are content with what might be described as popular chocolate—chocolate containing vegetable fat—be free to buy it right across the EU. I agree with the committee about that. But let the labelling of the fat content and composition be clear and prominent so that the more fastidious consumers among us get what we consider to be the genuine article. After all, most of us want to know whether we are buying butter or margarine. That is highly relevant to the labelling of ice-cream. Non-dairy ice-cream has to be prominently labelled as such, and

459
rightly so. It would be wholly consistent with the regulations governing the labelling of ice-cream if it were to be made obligatory to indicate the presence of non-cocoa fat in chocolate with equal prominence.
I agree with the committee that it would be going too far to insist that any such indication should be on the front of the packet. On the other hand, I contend that it should be printed in a reasonably large and legible type-face, requiring the minimum alteration of machinery and the precise minimum size to be determined but at any rate to be larger than that used for the other ingredients.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly and in support and amplification of what other noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, has just said. It follows that I am afraid I will not be able to agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said.
I really just want to point out, not for the first time in your Lordships' House, that the single market is not really working as we hoped it would when the Conservative government supported it so strongly in 1985. The aspect which so often goes against our interest is the system of qualified majority voting, to which my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke referred.
Thanks to single market legislation this system now applies to all our industry and commerce, to our environment, transport, European culture (whatever that turns out to be), and the workings of the common agriculture and fisheries policies and, of course, there are further extensions to qualified majority voting and the co-decision procedure in the Amsterdam Treaty which your Lordships are considering.
I suppose, once again, just for the record, it is worth spelling out how that system of qualified majority voting works. There are 87 votes among the 15 member states, of which 62 are required to carry a motion and 26 to block one. We have only 10 votes and we are often alone. We are often alone because our global economic interests are not shared by the other EU nations.
This is the system which makes us powerless to defend so many other British interests such as our international art market, the impending destruction of which is threatened by a new Euro tax—droit de suite—and much increased VAT. These additional taxes will not apply in New York or Geneva which are the principal competitors of London and so much of our trade is already moving away from London to these centres. For details of this comic, if it were not so tragic, situation, I would recommend that your Lordships read debates in this House of 10th December 1997 and 11th December 1996.
For other examples of the detailed way in which this system works to prevent EU reform in general and against United Kingdom interests in particular, I recommend your Lordships' debate on the fruit and
460
vegetable regime of 18th March 1996, enlargement and the common agriculture policy on 15th October 1996 and the tobacco regime on 9th June 1997.
There are dozens of other examples of British interests which are being threatened or are already damaged by Euro-legislation and which we can do nothing about. These would include, for example, waste disposal, slaughtermen, the working week, herbal medicines, dairy farmers, cheese makers, food transporters, whisky distillers, pheasant shooting, market gardeners and paper rounds. And as I have mentioned before, there is also the excellent lavatory designed by Thomas Crapper.
Obviously I am going to ask the Minister if he can tell the House whether this qualified majority system of voting will apply in this case and with what confidence he thinks the Government face the prospect of carrying their way.
There is one difficulty for my noble friend on the Front Bench, as I have indicated, which is that the Conservative Party, of which, of course, I am proud to form part, still claims that the single market, as opposed to the common market, is its greatest achievement in Europe. Therefore, many Conservatives are reluctant to acknowledge the damage caused by the way the EU's QMV system often works to our detriment.
Apart from that, the single market legislation throws up masses of red tape which is particularly damaging to our smaller and medium-sized enterprises. As I said earlier, generally speaking, it is not working as we hoped it would. But in the particular case of this very irritating situation over chocolate, I really look forward to the noble Lord telling us whether he agrees that the system is not ideal or whether he can assure us that the Government will carry the day in Brussels.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for his excellent chairmanship of the committee. I shall reserve my comments to chocolate alone.
I must admit to a great deal of disappointment at the start of my membership of the committee because I was under the impression that we were going to be given vast masses of chocolate to see whether we could detect the difference and taste the vegetable fats. However, I believe that we were following the example set by the Select Committee on Science and Technology which was looking into the medicinal use of cannabis in directing ourselves away from testing the product.
When it was introduced, this directive had the support of all parties, including the Conservative Party. Therefore, it could not be accused of being left on its own. I believe that everybody welcomed the directive. It did not set out to achieve total harmonisation, although that was another of the amendments which was rejected by the parliament. However, it goes quite a long way towards breaking down the barriers to the sale of British-style milk chocolate in Europe.
One of the problems demonstrated by the report is that the report was in reaction to amendments tabled by the European Parliament. Perhaps we should put that in

461
perspective because many of the amendments by MEPs were put forward to protect their own chocolate industries. I took out the press cuttings and looked with interest at the outrage expressed in the British media about the destruction of the chocolate industry in this country and how we were no longer to have milk chocolate. But many of the amendments were tabled in the European Parliament by MEPs from Belgium to protect their own traditional chocolate. It is amazing how culturally divergent the European superstate still is.
I do not believe that the amendments which were tabled should have been carried. I can understand the reason for them. I can understand also the support which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, expressed for clear labelling on chocolate. He expressed support for labelling on the front of the product. As a member of the committee, I could not support that because I believe that the purpose of the amendment was to denigrate the product itself. I believe that the vegetable fats should be listed among the ingredients. I do not see that there is any difference between the percentage of vegetable fats and any other ingredients. Even though, in theory, E-numbers can be quite harmful to health, they are not put on the front of products.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that vegetable fats are already listed among the ingredients? What the noble Lord suggests would introduce nothing new. They are already listed among the ingredients upon any bar of chocolate that can be purchased in this country.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, that just emphasises the point. I do not believe that there is any need for vegetable fats to be highlighted to the extent that the amendments pushed for. I believe that people within Europe already travel, and taste and test different types of chocolate, without significant labelling, in countries throughout the European Union without harmful consequences.
I understand the worry expressed by chocolate manufacturers in other countries: that there will be a flood of imported chocolate which would be significantly cheaper and therefore would undercut their traditional markets.
As overseas development spokesman I also take on board the important point raised that countries which produce cocoa are worried about the threat to the price of what is a staple product. The effect that the disease to the plants in Brazil has had in reducing supply should not be underestimated. That has sent up the price recently. However, there are other African countries, some of the poorest in the world, Mali and Burkina Faso, which could happily profit from the production of vegetable fats. I support the view that an increase in the range of products will automatically lead to an increase in consumption. There are few people in this country who eat less chocolate than they did a few years ago.
I believe that the aim of the report, to support the directive, is going in the right direction. I hope that reason will prevail and open markets will be the way of the future.
462
I conclude by asking the Minister whether he can give the House an assurance that he will look closely at any recommendations that are to be discussed as regards drinking chocolate and the use of the word "chocolate cake".
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the committee for all its work on producing such a robust and clearly argued report and in particular to the chairman, my noble friend Lord Reay, for giving the House the opportunity to debate the issues covered in that report this evening.
This debate goes to the heart of what should comprise the functions of a European trading community. The questions to be answered are these. What powers should be exercised by the Commission and Parliament in determining three things: what manufacturers can make and sell in the United Kingdom; whether they can sell that product freely to others within the European Union, and whether they can sell those products without being forced to adopt labelling which makes them appear to the consumer to be a second class product. These questions fall to be answered with respect to the chocolate directive. There are two main issues, as noble Lords have outlined tonight: the use of non-cocoa vegetable fat, and the sales name for our style of milk chocolate with its high milk content.
I welcome in most respects the Commission's 1996 proposal to revise the cocoa and chocolate products directive. It makes the single market more of a reality. It would allow chocolate with up to 5 per cent. vegetable fat to move freely within the European Union provided that it is properly labelled, although some member states may prohibit its domestic production. I note as others have this evening, that the Commission's proposal for labelling was neutral. A simple statement adjacent to the list of ingredients which informed the consumer that the product contained vegetable fat would surely be sufficient. Several of those who submitted evidence to the committee pointed out that this would introduce `double labelling', but that it would be acceptable as a sensible way out of arguments over labelling. They argue that after all, those manufacturers who do not use vegetable fats could always be free to make a claim to that effect if they so wished.
I note that the committee's report states that it is willing to accept the double labelling as a temporary measure, whereas it is against the matter continuing on a long-term basis. I find arguments against long-term existence of double labelling persuasive. I would, however, go further and say that I believe there is no argument for double labelling to exist in any form. As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, mentioned in opening this debate, double labelling is inherently unnecessary. If so, I could not recommend it to persist now.
Before I entered the Chamber this evening I approached my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and said that I was to make a statement with regard to my European beliefs which might dismay him. But we have recognised that we are happy to be part of the same party. We have the same objectives, I would imagine, on

463
99.9 per cent., if not 100 per cent., of issues. Tonight, although we may come from slightly different approaches towards our views on the European Community, I am sure that we agree on the ultimate objective. I consider myself to be very much a European in the sense that I feel at home with the culture and structures of countries within the European Union. I note some scepticism tonight about how one might define culture. All I can say is that, wherever I am within the European Community, I feel that I have some commonality with it.
It is from that angle that I approached the question of this directive and the amendments that were proposed by the European Parliament. I was deeply disappointed by the fact that the European Parliament had decided to vote for an amendment which would discriminate so unfairly against UK producers in two significant ways. First, it would have required front-of-pack labelling of the fact that the chocolate contains vegetable fat. This was clearly intended to make UK chocolate with vegetable fat appear inferior. I cannot believe that it was done for any other purpose. As the report points out, front-of-pack labelling in this country is associated in the public mind only with health warnings. Secondly, the amendment would have meant that the UK designation "milk chocolate" would be replaced in the UK by the term "milk chocolate with high milk content"—gobbledegook that would have served only to confuse consumers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned, the Consumers' Association responded, perhaps not with sufficient length to provide him with the information he might have been happy to see. But I noted that one of its comments in its submission was that,
"one recipe is not inferior to the other, they are just different".
With that, I agree. It is not the case that one chocolate is pure and therefore conversely the other must be impure or that one is adulterated and one is real chocolate. They are simply different types of chocolate.
Thirdly, I was disappointed, to say the least, that the definition of United Kingdom milk chocolate was to be confirmed for use in other European languages as "household chocolate", a name which conjures up the idea that it is only suitable for cooking. Certainly, I would say that some cooking chocolates are extremely good, but if one talks of "household chocolate" as a general description, it is certainly one which would appear to denigrate the contents of that chocolate.
Chocolate with a high milk content is traditionally very popular in the United Kingdom and reflects our dairying tradition. I have grown up in the post-war period when "Milk is good for you" was the accepted wisdom—accepted by my parents, at least. Wise or not—and of course I believe they were wise—the taste of our milk chocolate is excellent. I note that the Minister agrees, and he is quite right: it is an excellent taste. I note that in the United Kingdom we consume up to½ million tonnes a year—over 9 kilograms a person—and I confess, as I stand here, that I enjoy my fair share.
On a more practical note, vegetable fats have been used for many years in small quantities to complement the cocoa butter to give the chocolate characteristics we
464
consumers like. My noble friend Lord Reay explained the technical advantages that such use can give to the chocolate.
The amendment moved by the European Parliament and other attempts to denigrate the traditional United Kingdom product ignore the fact that it is in the ultimate interests of all, including cocoa producers, to ensure that the production of chocolate responds flexibly to consumer demand. I understand that many Members of the European Parliament voted for that amendment because they said that they were persuaded that the reduced portions of cocoa in chocolate would damage the economies of developing countries, such as the Ivory Coast and Ghana. I believe that to be a fallacious argument on two counts.
First, as my noble friend Lord Reay said, any expansion of world trade in chocolate and cocoa products is good for primary producers of cocoa beans; it has to be. Whether or not chocolate contains 5 per cent. vegetable fat, any expansion of the market will still require more cocoa to be used. Secondly, the raw materials used to produce the speciality non-cocoa fats also come from developing countries. The shea nuts harvested in Burkina Faso, in villages where the work is carried out almost entirely by women, are a case in point. The trade there has important social and progressive consequences. The women do most of the work. They combine to form village co-operatives to shell and paste the nuts. The profits that they achieve make it possible for them to send their children to school and achieve some measure of economic independence; for example, by forming small businesses such as market gardening. The shea nut trade is at least as important to the economies of countries like Burkina Faso and Mali as cocoa is to the Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana.
A more cynical mind than mine—and I heard echoes of this from the Benches to my right from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—might come to the conclusion that some Members of the European Parliament were hiding the pursuit of their own national advantage behind the camouflage of a professed concern for the economies of certain developing countries. I hope that we have seen the end of such arguments and the end of those amendments.
Of course, as has been mentioned tonight, there are some producers in the United Kingdom who do not use vegetable fats in their production of chocolate. They are notable, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, commented, for the high quality of their product. As so many products have been bandied around in the debate, perhaps I may add the name of Thorntons to those already mentioned. However, I regret to say that I did no market testing before entering the Chamber; but perhaps I will do so later. There is no reason to believe that they or their continental counterparts will be at a disadvantage in trading or that they will change their recipes if they have to compete equally with traditional UK milk chocolate in the EU. I note that Thorntons recognised that fact on giving evidence to the committee.

465
It is essential that we avoid putting the interests of individual classes of producers above those of the consumer. The European Parliament amendment was indeed an unwarranted discrimination against an excellent product that our consumers have enjoyed for over 100 years. As I said, I hope that we have seen the end of it.
We on these Benches support and welcome the Government's general approach, which is generally the line that we took when in office. Can the Minister tell the House tonight what progress Her Majesty's Government have made during their presidency of the European Union towards reaching agreement on a new directive, especially bearing in mind the Commission's recent pronouncements? Can the Minister also tell us what bilateral meetings the Government have been able to hold with other member states? Further, can the noble Lord say when the Government expect an agreement to be reached?
On a practical level, if by any chance there were a failure to reach such an agreement—I hope that that will not be the case and I understand that the Government are making all best efforts in that respect—what would the legal position be for our UK manufacturers? Would they return to the status quo? Further, what would they be allowed to manufacture and under what conditions? Above all, we on these Benches would urge that any new legislation on chocolate should allow different chocolate-making traditions to co-exist in a market where EU consumers are free to choose from a wide range of chocolate products.
8.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, marked by a near consensus, although I noticed some faint inclination towards the margin of differentiation from my noble friend sitting behind me, and greatly assisted by contributions from three members of this distinguished committee which has produced such a fine report.
I should like, first, to thank the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for providing me with a welcome opportunity to respond formally on behalf of the Government to the Select Committee's report on the proposed new directive on cocoa and chocolate products for human consumption. My speech tonight should be viewed as our formal response to the committee.
I shall begin by congratulating the committee. The report provides an excellent summary of a complex subject and a useful analysis of the issues involved which are of particular importance to the United Kingdom. The written evidence also makes interesting reading and demonstrates the range of interests that have been consulted.
The Government are pleased to note that the committee welcomes the stated objectives of the proposed directive, the most important of which is to secure free circulation of chocolate containing
466
non-cocoa vegetable fats, as a measure to implement the single market. Like the previous administration, we firmly believe that different chocolate-making traditions within the European Community should be allowed to co-exist in a genuine single market.
We welcome the committee's rejection of the European Parliament's amendments. I can confirm that, as anticipated, the Commission's amended proposal for the directive (which was finally published in the Official Journal on 17th April) also rejected the majority of the Parliament's amendments. As indicated in the explanatory memorandum that we have submitted to the scrutiny committee, the amended proposal takes account of part of the Parliament's amendment on the labelling of products containing non-cocoa vegetable fats. It now requires such products to be labelled with a "conspicuous and clearly legible" statement, in addition to the list of ingredients and clearly distinct from it, that the product,
"contains vegetable fats other than cocoa butter".
However, contrary to the Parliament's view that the statement should be on the front of the package, the Commission has sensibly concluded that the location of the statement should be left to the manufacturer. Your Lordships' committee has suggested that any requirement for manufacturers to include a separate statement indicating the presence of non-cocoa vegetable fats should be a temporary measure as a possible compromise. The Government understand the merits of this suggestion but remain of the view—and I stress this to my noble friend Lord Borne, while respecting his opposing view—that additional labelling is unnecessary and are opposed to it in principle. But, like the committee, we fully recognise the need to seek to ensure that manufacturers have adequate time to implement any changes in labelling, or otherwise, in a new directive.
It may be helpful if I confirm that the Commission's amended proposal only takes account of three other minor amendments proposed by the European Parliament. These clarify the reference in the text to the Community rules on additives used in foodstuffs and would provide a clearer definition of two specialist types of chocolate—I hope that I pronounce them correctly"—Gianduia" and "Gianduia milk chocolate". All the other amendments proposed by the European Parliament, including the removal of the current derogation for UK milk chocolate, have been rejected by the Commission.
The Government note the importance that the committee attaches to the retention of the derogation for UK milk chocolate and its view that ultimately there should be a single definition of milk chocolate. I should like to assure your Lordships that we will take a robust stance in relation to our own "milkier" milk chocolate and will do all we can to ensure that when the product is sold in other member states it is not labelled in a derogatory manner. I think a point that is often overlooked by our European neighbours is that the higher milk content of our milk chocolate provides a higher value product. It is also "farming friendly" by providing an additional outlet for the milk produced by European farmers.

467
The Government welcome the conclusion of the committee that the option of using non-cocoa vegetable fats in chocolate throughout the European Union will not necessarily have a negative impact on cocoa-producing countries; and that those developing countries which produce the raw materials for non-cocoa vegetable fats will benefit. There are, of course, significant uncertainties about the possible effect of the proposed directive on cocoa producers and other developing countries. The Government share the view of the committee that long-term development strategies should be based on helping countries respond to shifts in consumer demand patterns.
With regard to methods of measurement for non-cocoa butter vegetable fats, the Government fully agree with the committee's view that there is no need to delay implementation of the proposed directive until more accurate tests are available. Methods which already exist for those fats are no less precise than those for other components in chocolate and these are complemented by in-factory checks of records and recipes, which provide far better reassurance and would be capable of being undertaken on a pan-European basis if genuinely harmonised provisions can be agreed.
I now turn to some of the points raised during the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked about progress towards reaching agreement on the directive. I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other colleagues, especially the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, have taken every opportunity to raise the subject in bilateral talks with their counterparts. At a debate in the internal market Council last November we were only five votes short of the necessary qualified majority in favour of the use of vegetable fats. We want to do all that we can to ensure that other member states understand our concerns and to see whether we can find a solution to this matter during our presidency. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that it would not be appropriate to disclose details of negotiations at this stage. As regards timing—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can help the House. When he says that we were only five votes short—of course I accept that we should not press him into revealing from which countries the general voting structure emerged—can he tell us whether he is looking for 26 votes to block an initiative, or 62 votes to promote a new one, out of the 87 votes which I mentioned?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not propose to reveal our strategy in this House. Therefore I would rather not answer that question.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is not a matter of strategy; it is a matter of fact. Are we trying to block something or are we trying to promote
468
something? We need 62 out of 87 votes to promote what would be a new policy, and we need 26 votes out of 87 to block something that we do not want.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am aware of the figures that the noble Lord has put before the House on more than one occasion. However, I do not propose to go beyond my previous reply. This is a matter of qualified majority voting.
As regards timing, I hope that it will be possible for the Council to reach a common position on the proposed directive during our presidency. The existing directive will continue to be implemented until a new directive is agreed. UK manufacturers will be able to continue to use non-cocoa vegetable fats in their products in accordance with existing conditions. They will also be able to continue to make milk chocolate with a higher milk content and sell it as milk chocolate in this country. But when it is exported to member states it will have to be called the equivalent of milk chocolate with a high milk content. In some languages this is translated in a derogatory way as household milk chocolate, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out.
As regards our legal position, if there is a failure in that regard I shall write to the noble Baroness about it. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked about a single definition of milk chocolate. I have already touched on that. I point out that the Government have proposed such a single definition on several occasions but so far the majority of member states want two separate definitions.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked whether vegetable fats should be listed on labels. Our reservation about that is that it would be unnecessarily restrictive for manufacturers and could limit technological developments. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was a member of the committee. He referred to drinking chocolate and chocolate cake. I reassure him that the proposed chocolate directive safeguards the use of such customary names. We shall certainly resist any attempts to change that. I believe the noble Lord said that few people eat less chocolate now than they did a few years ago. I agree with that in general but, sadly, I must confess that it does not apply to me. I am deprived of all the delights of market testing that have been mentioned. This debate has revived happy memories of chocolate delights enjoyed long ago.
In conclusion, I refer to the central question of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I should make it clear that the Government will not agree to any solution which discriminates against traditional British products or narrows the effective range of choice of British consumers. I say in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that during our presidency we shall do our utmost to search for a genuinely inclusive single solution which allows all the different chocolate-making traditions in the Community to co-exist within a fair and genuinely harmonised single market. As I have said, my noble friend the Minister has had discussions with colleagues and we remain hopeful that the Council will reach a common position on the proposed directive during our presidency.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this brief debate, both those who were members of the sub-committee and those, such as the noble Lord, Lord Borne, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who were not members. It is always uplifting for members of European Community sub-committees to find others who are interested in what they say.
As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, pointed out, the debate was characterised by a considerable measure of agreement. I felt quite comfortable with the support that we received from some of this House's most notable Euro-sceptics—a situation in which, some years ago, I should not have expected to find myself.
I agreed with almost all the remarks of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, and with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said—although it is perhaps worth pointing out that non-cocoa fats are contained in many foods without there being any separate statement of that fact on the package. As regards my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, he went into areas which I should not want to go into myself, at least in this particular debate.
470
With regard to the slightly dissentient viewpoint of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I agree with him that the two types of milk chocolate are in some respects different products, and should, I entirely agree, be free to compete with each other on the market with proper descriptions of their differences for the consumer. Our view was that they should be allowed to compete with each other as different forms of milk chocolate in the same product category. We did not see why British and Irish milk chocolate should not be allowed to be sold as milk chocolate. It seems to us that the problem for British and Irish milk chocolate has derived from the fact that they have been obliged to occupy different product categories in the directive.
I thank the Minister for his reply, which I note is to be treated as the formal response to the report. We shall want to study it carefully. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord repeat his firm stance on milk chocolate, and also more generally in his concluding remarks. I appreciate that there is a need for him to be cautious in his remarks about government strategy in the Council of Ministers. I hope he is right in his belief that a conclusion can be reached within the period of the UK presidency. I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before nine o'clock.

  Dunblane: Role of Central Scotland Police
  Dunblane: Role of Central Scotland Police
  Grampian Police: Report
  Grampian Police: Report
  Terrorist Weapons
  Terrorist Weapons
  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Property Confiscated in Wartime: Internet Information
  Property Confiscated in Wartime: Internet Information
  Peers and MPs: Salaries and Expenses
  Peers and MPs: Salaries and Expenses
  New Deal Employment Conditions
  New Deal Employment Conditions
  Tax Return Penalty Notices Issued in Error
  Tax Return Penalty Notices Issued in Error
  War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia: Detention and Trial of Accused
  War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia: Detention and Trial of Accused
  Human Rights: Annual Report
  Human Rights: Annual Report
  Israel: Human Rights
  Israel: Human Rights
  Maritime Affairs: Ministerial Responsibility
  Maritime Affairs: Ministerial Responsibility
  A.12, Witham: Advertisement Hoardings
  A.12, Witham: Advertisement Hoardings
  Gypsy Site Provision
  Gypsy Site Provision
  DVLA, Vehicle Inspectorate and Vehicle Certification Agency: Targets
  DVLA, Vehicle Inspectorate and Vehicle Certification Agency: Targets
  Water Companies' Obligations
  Water Companies' Obligations
  NHS Pensions Agency: Key Targets
  NHS Pensions Agency: Key Targets
  Public Analyst Services: Review
  Public Analyst Services: Review