Sitting of 3 December 1998

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

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Ordered,
That Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mr. Ian Davidson be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Ms Karen Buck and Mr. Philip Hope be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Pope.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was asked—

  Post Office (Social Security Benefits)
  Mr. Steve Webb: What assessment he has made of the contribution to Post Office revenues derived from handling over-the-counter payments of social security benefits. [61292]
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Details of the contractual relationship between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. are commercially confidential. However, work carried out by Post Office Counters Ltd. on behalf of the Benefits Agency represents very broadly one third of all transactions carried out by the business, and a roughly similar proportion of its income.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which demonstrates how important benefits payments are to the Post Office's business, yet the Government are pressing more and more people to receive their benefits through bank accounts. The working families tax credit will be paid through pay packets, not over the post office counter. What assurance can the Minister give to the postmistresses and postmasters in rural villages in my constituency that that key element of their business will not be steadily eroded through Government policy?
  Mr. McCartney: The Government are committed to a national network of post offices. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have said many times from the Dispatch Box, we are also committed to promoting the development of those small businesses, alongside the capacity of the Post Office to deliver services on behalf of the Government. We want the network of post offices to be maintained on the basis of their increased capacity to do other types of work, in addition to delivering
  1024
  traditional services. The Government's review of the Post Office is critical because it will underpin that commitment.
  Mr. Alan Johnson: Although I support the work of my right hon. and hon. Friends in their review of the Post Office, and appreciate why the option of share sales must be included in a comprehensive review, is my hon. Friend aware of the deep disquiet felt on these Benches and in other parts of the House about share sales, and our concern that we do not go down that railtrack? Will he confirm that there is no earthly reason why a publicly owned Post Office cannot compete successfully against European postal administrations that have enjoyed the same commercial and financial freedoms for many years?
  Mr. McCartney: First, the Government are totally committed to the Post Office remaining in the public sector. Privatisation went out the door when the previous Government were kicked out by the British people. Secondly, for the Post Office to develop on an international and global basis, it needs commercial freedom, commercial discipline and resources to do that job. That is the purpose of the review. It will ensure a sound financial and commercial framework, so that the Post Office can move forward to become a major player in the global postal and telecommunications markets.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister may not know that I wrote to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about 10 days ago to ask what progress was being made in the Department with regard to the decision to introduce or not to introduce computerised swipe cards for the transaction of Benefits Agency business through sub-post offices and post offices. Can the Minister tell me whether his Department has made a decision on the matter?
  Mr. McCartney: Since the election, the Department and the Government as a whole have been developing a strategy to eliminate financial and social exclusion. We are trying to ensure that we get the resources which, over time, will allow us to provide social banking and a cost-effective and fraud-resistant means of paying benefits. We will ensure that information technology systems are put in place in the post office network to do that job for customers of the Post Office. We have cleared up the mess left by the previous Government in relation to those matters.

  Energy White Paper
  Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement about the impact on electricity prices of the measures announced in the Government's energy White Paper. [61293]
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): As we set out in the White Paper, "The Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation", that was published in October, the existing distortions in the electricity market make prices higher than they should be. We consider that as the market is refornied, wholesale price falls of at least 10 per cent. in real terms and possibly more can be expected in the medium term. That,

  1025
  of course, cannot be a guarantee, as the Government do not have power to set prices in open and competitive markets.
  Mr. Gray: Is the Minister aware that electricity prices fell consistently from privatisation onwards? Whereas gas-fired electricity cost 2.5p per kWh, coal-fired electricity cost 4p per kWh. Is he not concerned that his ending of the dash for gas on behalf of his friends in the trades unions will result in higher electricity prices, as well as greater environmental damage?
  Mr. Battle: The answer is no. We are working to reform a totally flawed wholesale market structure set up by the hon. Gentleman's party in government. I recall that it was my predecessor as Energy Minister, the noble Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who was responsible. I am tempted to say that to lose one leader of the Lords is unfortunate, as the great wit would put it, but to lose two in a day seems downright incompetent. However, the entire country now realises that that lot opposite are not capable even of joined-up opposition.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which demonstrates the Government's fair approach to the concerns of many of my constituents about employment in the electricity-generating industry and in the mining industry. I challenge the figures given by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for the price of electricity generated from coal. There are examples of it being much cheaper than gas, and I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that that pressure on the gas-generating industry to reduce its prices continues, so that we can have the benefit of the full generating of electricity from coal.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has championed a fair market in power generation throughout his time as a Member of the House. That is what the review was about. It is up to the coal industry to make its output commercially attractive to generators, but there was not a level playing field for coal to compete in that flawed market. That is the whole point, and why we will keep up the pressure to ensure that the pool is properly reformed and there is a level playing field on which one fuel is not unfairly stacked against another.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: But the Department of Trade and industry decided that it would reform the pool price—surely the Minister has left the market wondering what is going on. Cannot we have some decisions from the Government, rather than yet another bit of consultation and another hit of spinning? Clearly the energy industry wants to know what will happen with the pool, and any reform—which would be welcome, if it brought down the price of electricity to consumers—should be carried out now.
  Mr. Battle: The energy industry asked us to work at reforming the flawed structure of the pool. For example, it pressed for a challenge to the dominance within the pool of two major generators. What have we done'? We have taken action and suggested that power companies divest plant: PowerGen has agreed to divest 4 Gw of plant and National Power is looking at divestment opportunities. We have taken action—[Interruption.] That is within the
  1026
  pool, if the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) does not understand the pool. The power stations come on line to sell their energy, but they are being dominated by one or two generators. We are tackling that, and sorting it out now. We are not hanging about; we are mopping up the mess that we were left by the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that all those involved in generating electricity have responsibility to be more efficient and to ensure that electricity is produced at the cheapest possible price? Will he join me in congratulating NIGEN in Northern Ireland, which is introducing proposals to reduce electricity costs, in co-operation with the regulator'?
  Mr. Battle: Yes. Those Conservative Members who seem to think that prices are going up should consider time-weighted pool prices in the period from April to November when prices were about 1 per cent. lower than in the same period last year. Of course summer and winter prices cannot be compared, so we should look at the winter period. There has been a 3 per cent. fall in real terms in prices, and we hope that that will continue. We think that there is space for that to happen—through working with the regulators, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: But is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the great damage being done to the steel industry by the warped system of electricity prices inherited from the previous Government? Is he aware that the increase in prices charged to the steel industry allowed by the regulator are higher than the windfall tax paid to the Treasury by the electricity industry? The steel industry cannot wait until 2000, 2001 or 2002 for the review. Will he look urgently at what can be done now to allow our steel companies to have energy prices at a European level, not the high Tory prices that we inherited?
  Mr. Battle: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Electricity contracts are financial contracts, often outside the pool. It depends what contracts the companies have, but there is concern in the steel industry about rising energy and electricity prices. In the new trading arrangements, we will change the relationship between the generators and their customers.
  I have asked the Director General of Electricity Supply, who is responsible for prices, to keep a close eye on progress as it affects heavy industry to ensure that our industry is not priced out during the restructuring of the pool. In the light of my hon. Friend's question, I shall ask the Director General for a progress report on his views.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If he will make a statement on trade between the United Kingdom and Indonesia. [61294]
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): Indonesia was the United Kingdom's 37th largest export market in 1997, with exports totalling £701 million. This year has seen a 50 per cent. decrease in year-on-year exports to the end of September, whereas imports from Indonesia have remained steady at £740 million.

  1027
  In the short term, Indonesia faces a period of economic and political uncertainty. In the longer term, the pace of economic recovery depends on the Indonesian Government's management of political change and its continued implementation of the International Monetary Fund reform programme.
  Mr. Wareing: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, which gives some comfort. Last year, £118 million-worth of transport equipment was exported to Indonesia. Similar contracts have probably been implemented this year. Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that none of that equipment is used for the suppression of the Indonesian people, or for Indonesia's genocidal campaign in East Timor?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend's concerns are understandable. I assure him that, in the past, we have taken up with the Indonesian Government our concerns about the use of British-supplied equipment. It is the Government's policy that no equipment should be exported that would be used as my hon. Friend described. Every application for export licences to Indonesia is measured against that criterion.

  Worker Rights
  Mr. Robert Syms: Whom the Government plans to consult on the extension of trade union and worker rights. [61295]
  Ms Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the progress on implementing his fairness at work policies. [61300]
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): We have been consulting a range of organisations that wish to offer views on fairness at work policies. As stated in the Queen's Speech, the Government will be bringing forward legislative measures in this parliamentary Session.
  Mr. Syms: Will the Secretary of State publish those consultations, so that we all know the thinking of the Government and the trade unions on this matter? There is great concern that any extension of rights will increase the costs to industry, which will have a knock-on effect for employment. Dorset has already had some bad news today from GEC. The Marconi communications group is to lose 1,000 jobs, including many from the Wallisdown road site, which will affect many of my constituents in Poole and others in Bournemouth. Costs to industry are of great concern, especially given the current state of manufacturing in Britain.
  Mr. Mandelson: I have put a list of the more than 470 organisations that have submitted responses to the White Paper in the Library. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman contacts those organisations. When people submit their views to the Government, they do so in confidence. We listed those who have submitted their observations, and it is up to the hon. Gentleman to contact them. It is for them to let him have the information if they so wish.
  Ms Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principles of fairness at work should apply to all
  1028
  employees, including health service workers? Will he make clear his position on the application of the 40-hour rule to health service workers?
  Mr. Mandelson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The central objective is to support a new culture of partnership and co-operation at work, whether in the private or the public sector. That is what I want to see. I have been greatly encouraged by the responses to the "Fairness at Work" White Paper, many of which have been very supportive of the Government's proposals. It is important that people in the public and private sectors, including the national health service, feel encouraged by the Government's proposals. They will help create partnership at work and a committed work force, whether in private firms and companies or in public services such as the national health service.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) may have been referring to a report in The Times today, which states that the European Union may overrule the Secretary of State on the 48-hour week for junior doctors and thousands of workers in the haulage industry. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that is so? If it is, is it not a direct result of the fact that the Government, immediately they were elected, acceded to the social chapter? We are not able to veto these proposals, because they can be accepted by qualified majority voting. These measures will be imposed on this country whether we like it or not.
  Mr. Mandelson: It was not the present Government who signed the working-time directive; it was the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member.
  The hon. Gentleman says that the European Commission is seeking to overrule me. I do not know on what it can overrule me, as I have yet to reach a final view as a result of our current discussions with the Commission about the extension of the directive to other sectors, including junior doctors and the road haulage industry.
  My view is well known. I believe that the position must be examined on a case-by-case basis. It is important for us not to create either unacceptable inflexibility in the working practices of junior doctors, or unacceptable costs to the national health service. It is with both those considerations in mind that the Government will proceed with their discussions with the Commission.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Labour Members are pleased that my right hon. Friend is using expressions such as "the promotion of social partnership", and is trying to inculcate a spirit of co-operation in industrial relations. Has he received any representations from Members of the other House about proposals relating to unfair and, in particular, constructive dismissal?
  Mr. Mandelson: I do not know whether there will be a right of appeal for Members of the other place under our legislation. I am sure that someone somewhere in the Commission in Brussels will be prepared to hear such an appeal if the person concerned wishes to make it—but if he wants a friend during the disciplinary proceedings, I can think of no one better than my hon. Friend the Minister of State to come to his aid, and to hold his hand when he is next summoned to the headmaster's study.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Has the Secretary of State not observed that, during the last month, four of the five national broadsheets—The Guardian, characteristically and perhaps significantly, dissenting—have carried stories suggesting that he intends to perform what is described as either a U-turn or a climbdown in regard to powers for the unions? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House specifically—no spin, honest—whether he intends to impose a moratorium, or cooling-off period, if he prefers, on trade union membership, in order to meet the automatic recognition criteria?
  Would the right hon. Gentleman be content to go down in history—if I may slightly modify a deplorable ditty—as the man, the very smooth man, what waters the workers' rights?
  Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that there are many competing issues in regard to which I may go down in history.
  We are considering all the points that have been made to us in the consultation that we have undertaken following the publication of the White Paper, including a number of points made by employers' organisations. Some of those points are reasonable; others are not. Some are workable; others are not. I am confident that we will produce a Bill which, while not pleasing every single person in every respect, will be legislation with which everyone can live. It is important for a basis of consensus among both unions and employers to underpin legislation that will have serious practical effects and a considerable impact on people at work. Given its ramifications, it is right for us to spend as much time as we need to get that legislation right.
  The Bill will strike a balance. It will be true to its principles and aims, but acceptable to all in its application.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What steps his Department has taken to create a stable economic climate for manufacturing industry. [61296]
  The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government have established new frameworks for monetary and fiscal policy to ensure a platform for long-term economic stability and growth. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be publishing a White Paper, which will include a series of measures to promote the competitiveness of UK industry.
  Mr. Griffiths: While the whole country welcomes what the Government are doing to create economic stability, is all that not being undermined by the Conservative party questioning and challenging and talking down British business—questioning the independence of the Bank of England, challenging the new deal and the working families tax credit—and by the chaos that the Conservative party has created in the House of Lords by sacking Viscount Cranborne and the resignation of Peter Fraser?
  Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Government were prepared to sacrifice the economy's long-term health for short-term political gain. I also agree that, despite the present difficulties in the world economy, the tough and decisive action that this Government have taken means that Britain is well placed to steer a course for stability and growth. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped talking down the British economy and started to support British business.
  Mr. David Chidgey: Listening to that response from the Minister with responsibility for small business, I am sure that she will be pleased to know that a firm called Carbospar in my constituency has just been awarded millennium project status. It is its response to the Prime Minister's challenge to show that Britain is a creative powerhouse, but I hope that she will be appalled to learn that that same firm has lost 50 per cent. of its projected overseas sales as a direct result of high interest rates and the unstable value of the pound. It is clear that winning shiny plaques is no substitute for winning orders and keeping jobs, so will she take a message back to the Prime Minister that what Britain's industry needs is a clear commitment on Britain's entry to economic and monetary union, not bits of tin to stick on the office wall?
  Mrs. Roche: I congratulate the company in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I had the great privilege to be with the Prime Minister at the launch of that challenge. It is tremendous to see some of those products come forward and to see creativity.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, sterling is now at around the same level as at May 1997. The difference, of course, is that inflation is now under control, not out of control. What is absolutely clear is that the Government will make the right decisions in relation to EMU, based on the interest of the country and of our businesses.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: In seeking to create a stable economic environment, will my hon. Friend look at the situation that is faced by companies such as Bridon International in Doncaster, which is extremely concerned about dumping, through cheap imports, of steel wire ropes from countries such as India, South Korea and Mexico? What action can her Department take to assist companies such as Bridon's in my constituency?
  Mrs. Roche: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in that matter and in these issues. As the House will be aware, if imports are being dumped or unfairly subsidised, the European Commission has the power to take appropriate action. It is currently investigating the import of steel wire ropes into the Community. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is following that matter closely and we will ensure that we keep in touch with her.
  Mr. John Redwood: At a time of factory closures and mass redundancies in manufacturing, it is typical of the Secretary of State that he decides unilaterally to reduce Trade and Industry Question Time by 10 minutes, and then he sits there with a smug grin,

  1031
  unwilling to answer anything on manufacturing on today's Order Paper, but may I ask the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, who is a bit more sympathetic to manufacturing than the Secretary of State—that is not difficult—this important question, which many manufacturers are now asking the Government?
  Those manufacturers tell me that business needs lower and stable taxes, not the tax rises of this Government. Does the Minister agree that the Government's failure to stop France and Germany from pressing for higher business taxes is unsettling British business and potentially very damaging to it? Will she promise that the Government whom she supports will veto, first, the withholding tax on savings, which damages savings and the City of London, and secondly, any abolition of corporation tax breaks that are enjoyed in this country, sometimes on the advice and policies of the Government?
  Thirdly, will Ministers guarantee to veto any move from the Commission—it is now planning one—to make corporation tax a centrally controlled and centrally collected tax, which will be bad news for Britain and British business? All those things mean higher taxes. They will be bad for business and bad for democracy.
  Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Gentleman does try—he tries very hard. However, try as he might, there is no escape from the facts. It has been made absolutely clear—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear—that we will not support any action at EU level that will damage business competitiveness or jobs. There is no question about that and there is no question of changes being imposed on us.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues really have a cheek. Given that under the last Government Britain had to go through two major recessions when 2 million manufacturing jobs were lost and manufacturing output was devastated, it is rich to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about manufacturing. The Labour party is committed to our manufacturing sector. When I go round the country talking to businesses of all sizes, the one thing they say to me is that I should stop the Conservative Opposition talking down their businesses.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Minister join me in reminding Her Majesty's Opposition that, throughout their period in office they refused to take a close look at how the dumping of products affected the British cycle industry? Will my hon. Friend have a particular look at what is happening with cycles from Taiwan? The sale of cycles from Taiwan to the UK economy has increased by 55 per cent. in the past year and there is already evidence that the Taiwanese Government pay for the research and development and provide the advertising in the United Kingdom for that to take place. Will she look at the distortion of trade that such an intervention constitutes?
  Mrs. Roche: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in this industry. He will know that this is a matter for the European Union Commission to investigate. The Commission needs hard evidence and, if that exists, I am sure that the industry will supply it. As I said earlier, the Department will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  EU Trade Deficit
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What the total deficit in all trade with the EU has been since 1973 in 1998 prices. [61297]
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): Figures measuring EU trade since 1973 in 1998 prices are not available. In the first nine months of 1998 the deficit on trade in goods with EU countries was £3.2 billion.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that, since we joined the EEC, our deficit in overall trade has been £155,000 million, which is equivalent to £6,000 million every year or, put another way, £16 million every day of the week, including Saturdays and Sundays? Does that not suggest that those who argued that membership of the EU would improve our trade were perhaps over-optimistic? More significantly, does the Minister agree that, bearing in mind that we have a serious structural deficit in trade with Europe, it could create appalling problems for jobs and prosperity in Britain if we were to join the EMU?
  Mr. Wilson: I do not agree with the last proposition. Ultimately, it will be a decision for the British people to take, hopefully on the basis of rational argument and the evidence put before them. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will participate in presenting such evidence according to his own views.
  The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are highly selective and do not provide anything approaching the full picture of our relationship with the rest of the European Union. He must be aware that the sort of figures he was seeking are badly skewed by the fact that, although, as I said, there is a £350 million a month deficit on goods just now, in the late 1980s, under the Government of whom he was a supporter, the monthly deficit was £1.5 billion. The figures that he wants are not as simple as it may seem.
  He might also take into account the investment into the United Kingdom not only from the rest of the EU but from elsewhere that we certainly would not receive if we were not a European Union member.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister explain how our trading position with the European Union—and our ability to create jobs—would improve if we ever decided to hand over to the European Union power over interest rates, public expenditure levels and taxation?
  Mr. Wilson: Those are all evolving matters on which the Government and—on EMU—the British people will eventually give their verdict. This week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and, today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry have made it perfectly clear that nothing will be done by the Government that damages British competitiveness. That is the starting point. Attempting to adduce wholly anti-EMU arguments as if our relationship with Europe is an entirely negative one is unrealistic. It is an argument of the 1970s rather than the 1990s.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the 150 business men who signed the

  1033
  Financial Times advertisement, which already carried more than 100 signatures—so we are talking about 250 or so business men—stating that they want the Government to provide greater clarification on the EMU entry timetable did so precisely because they are worried about trading prospects for United Kingdom companies after 1 January, when one single currency will dominate 80 per cent. of the single market? Will he assure the House that he will take up with the Treasury the need for it to be much clearer on how British economic policy will achieve convergence, so that the Minister himself can achieve the Secretary of State's objective of ensuring that the question is "when" not "if"?
  Mr. Wilson: Since May 1997, the Treasury's policies have been absolutely clear and have carried widespread public support. Part of the problem for the Treasury and the Government in the debate on Europe is that, for the last 18 years, that debate has been skewed by irrational hostility of exactly the type we heard again today from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does the Minister accept that, by any measure, our trade deficit with Europe would be much worse if we were not in the European Union? Does he also share the concern of many Labour Members, most Liberal Democrats and the few remaining sane Conservative Members that our exporters will suffer a disadvantage as long as we remain outside the euro zone?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the other side of the coin of our trade relations with the European Union: more than half our exports are to the European Union. I was certainly very pleased to note in last month's trade figures—particularly against the background of difficulties elsewhere in the world—that the value and volume of our exports to fellow EU countries increased in that period. Moreover, we still have a very substantial inflow of investment from EU countries. In general, it is a healthy and balanced relationship. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, if by any mischance we were outside that relationship, the United Kingdom's economic prospects would be very much worse than they are now.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Tim Loughton: What discussions he has held with the Community Pharmacy Action Group in relation to resale price maintenance. [161298]
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): None. However, during the passage through Parliament of the Competition Act 1998, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) met representatives from the Community Pharmacy Action Group to discuss resale price maintenance in that legislation.
  Mr. Loughton: Does the Minister think that he knows better than the Community Pharmacy Action Group, which has warned that at least 3,000 community pharmacies could close because of changes to resale price
  1034
  maintenance in the Competition Act—a view that was echoed by 150 Labour Members in early-day motion 643? What comfort can he offer community pharmacists in my constituency, particularly in Worthing and Southwick, who offer vital services—such as 24-hour opening, emergency cover and free delivery, particularly to pensioners—but who now face going out of business?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is talking arrant nonsense. During the passage of the Competition Bill, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) admitted that the action group had accepted the way in which the Government were carrying out the proposals and had dropped its objections. The Director General of Fair Trading has applied to the restrictive trade practices court for leave to have the continuation of resale price maintenance reviewed. If the court concludes that resale price maintenance for over-the-counter medicines continues to be in the public interest, it will benefit from a five-year exclusion from the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements in the Competition Act 1998. The Government are committed to community pharmacies. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health increased resources to that sector in his recent review.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: If competition from superstores puts local chemists out of business, will not the elderly and the poor lose most?
  Mr. McCartney: The Government are more committed than anyone to community pharmacy services. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)—the vice-chairman of the Conservative party—is taking a legal action on the issue. That is typical of the Conservatives. They are in favour of big business and do not defend small business.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Given the Government's rhetoric during the passage of the Competition Bill about the importance of community pharmacies, will the Minister undertake that the Government will give evidence to the restrictive trade practices court during the forthcoming hearings on the importance of community pharmacies in maintaining a service on competition grounds, and will put forward the health evidence and the primary care benefits of community pharmacies?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman knows that the issue is before the court. The Government have no power to say anything because the issue is sub judice.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on the latest figures for investment in manufacturing (a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of GDP; and what the comparable figures are for the United Kingdom's main competitors. [61301]
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): In 1996, the latest year for which internationally comparable figures are available, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that

  1035
  the value of manufacturing investment in the UK was £15.4 billion, or 2.1 per cent. of GDP. Manufacturing investment accounted for 3.1 per cent. of GDP in Germany, 2.3 per cent. in France and 2 per cent. in the United States.
  Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures, which show once again that manufacturing investment in Britain lags behind that in our competitor countries. Why have we consistently invested less in manufacturing industry over the decades? What have the Government done to tackle the problem and what further action does the Department of Trade and Industry intend to take to boost manufacturing investment?
  Mr. Battle: Since the general election, manufacturing investment has been greater as a share of manufacturing output than at any time since 1985. The Government are taking key action to support manufacturing. We are investing in the science base to benefit engineering and technology. The DTI is a catalyst driving forward innovation, supporting the smart and link programmes that link government together in practical working partnerships focused on the future. We have taken action to strengthen supply chains, such as the industry forum masterclass that the DTI has set up. We are working on a detailed action plan with the textile industries to get designers nearer to manufacturers. I shall address the shipbuilding forum on 16 December. The forthcoming competitiveness White Paper will provide a framework within which we can all work to support manufacturing and the regeneration of some of the older industries.
  Mr. John Redwood: Investment is under threat from the Government's policies of high taxes, high exchange rates and high interest rates. I am sure that the Minister agrees that a competitive exchange rate is crucial to future manufacturing investment and success. Given that the Secretary of State—who once again does not want to answer on manufacturing—thinks that it is a question of "when" rather than "if' we join a single currency, again showing his normal disregard for public opinion and Parliament, will the Minister answer these three questions? One: will he confirm that all 11 states entering the single currency are doing so at their exchange rate mechanism mid rates? Two: will he also confirm that our exchange rate mechanism mid-rate is DM2.95? Three: does he accept that entry at such a rate would be a hammer blow to manufacturing and manufacturing investment? Are he and his boss the Secretary of State proposing that we go cap in hand to seek a devaluation of our ERM mid-rate or are they saying that we should go in at that rate and that manufacturing can go hang?
  Mr. Battle: We have made it absolutely plain that we will join at the appropriate rate. The right hon. Gentleman's questions come way down the course, but it is interesting that he asks them now. I am tempted to ask him whether he has cleared them with the leader of his party, who at least seems to be rather tougher than his previous leader, with whom the right hon. Gentleman fell out.

  European Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Michael Jack: What support his Department has given towards strengthening the performance of the European aerospace industry. [61304]
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Since the general election, the Government have agreed to invest in the United Kingdom aerospace industry through launch investment. We have also strongly encouraged the sector to play a leading role in international restructuring in Europe and we are involved in partnership with the industry in a range of measures aimed at improving its global competitiveness.
  Mr. Jack: I am disappointed that the Minister did not mention the civil aviation research and demonstration programme, which has played a leading role in enabling the United Kingdom's aerospace industry to contribute to the strength of the industry in Europe through developments such as the Airbus wing and the RB211. There is disquiet in the industry about whether the Government are considering cancelling the programme and cutting the remaining £20 million of help that is given through that mechanism. Will he give the industry the reassurance that it needs and say that the Government will continue to support technical development through the research programme, and that resources will not be cut?
  Mr. Battle: The Government are investing up to £323 million, with a return over the next 17 years, which is a heck of a lot more than the previous Government invested in the industry. We have worked hard to ensure that the Airbus project comes together. Last December, the Prime Minister, with the Germans and the French, drew up a trilateral statement saying that the industry in Europe needs restructuring to face international challenges. We accepted the need for investment; indeed, we are investing more than the previous Government did, as companies acknowledge and welcome rather more than Conservative Members do.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: The regulatory and competition issues in the aerospace industry are so important that the Secretary of State has had four meetings with British Aerospace in the past few weeks—indeed, I am surprised that he is not answering this question. He also in the past few weeks announced major BAe sponsorship of the dome. Does the Minister accept that the only way in which the Secretary of State will ever be seen to be an impartial regulator is if he gives up his sponsorship of the dome?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman isn't half trying hard. He can try his luck during questions on the dome if he waits seven minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two."' There is no question of my right hon. Friend's integrity and impartiality. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in the aerospace industry, he should be celebrating the fact that Airbus announced at Farnborough this year a record £7 billion in orders, which is more than the Americans ever had—there are orders for 135 aircraft. We have worked hard with the industry to ensure that it will win orders and have a successful future.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: We cannot let the carping and criticism of the right hon. Member for Fylde

  1037
  (Mr. Jack) go unchallenged. Have not companies such as Rolls-Royce in my constituency benefited hugely from the Government through launch aid for the Trent engine? Launch aid has also been given for the development for the Airbus.
  We have been reading in the newspapers about the large number of redundancies—48,000—that Boeing is planning to make in the United States. Will my hon. Friend say what the ripple effect will be? What are the implications for the European aerospace industry?
  Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. The industry is undergoing a mega restructuring and we are watching carefully to see what the ripple effect will be on the supply chain in this country. We need to work hard to ensure restructuring in Europe so that the industry can withstand the changes and work towards a positive future. I sometimes have the impression that Conservative Members talk down manufacturing and the economy at every opportunity. Just because their party is sinking, they do not have to drag the economy down with them.

  MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE

    Opening and Closing Ceremonies
    Mr. David Chaytor: What progress has been made with plans for the opening and closing ceremonies at the millennium dome. [61327]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The beginning of the year 2000 will be celebrated right across the country. The New Millennium Experience Company's plans for the opening ceremony are progressing well. The company is liaising with the relevant London authorities, Government Departments and broadcasters to ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach to the new year's celebrations at the beginning and end of 2000. Plans for the closing ceremony are, understandably, still at a slightly early stage.
    Mr. Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend make every effort to ensure that the opening ceremony truly reflects the diversity of life in this nation, which some of our national ceremonies—I am thinking of the state opening of Parliament, for example—do not always do? Everybody in the United Kingdom would agree that we want a ceremony that reflects north and south, young and old, black and white—the whole nation together.
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend's points are at the heart of the millennium experience and the year-long millennium festival that will take place during the year 2000, and at the heart of the national programme, the millennium challenge, that will take place next year in the run-up to the opening of the dome and the millennium experience itself. The opening and closing ceremonies will reflect the Christian significance of the celebration and the diversity and creativity of the UK as a whole. Both ceremonies will be fitting occasions, uniting the entire country and giving everyone something to be proud
    1038
    of in a unique marking of the millennium by Britain which will bring together the best of British—pride in our past and, I foresee, considerable confidence in our future.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: With so much still left to achieve—but as we begin to look towards the opening ceremony—may I ask the Secretary of State to join me in congratulating the on-site contractors, the team of the New Millennium Experience Company and, in particular, Jenny Page, on their heroic efforts so far—in circumstances not entirely helped by the involvement of the Secretary of State—to ensure that there will be something worth while opening on 31 December next year? Given that the project suffers almost daily from a round of unhelpful and unwelcome rumours and press comment, will the right hon. Gentleman accept—as he has not hitherto done—the vital importance of clarity, frankness and openness in all future statements relating to the dome as the best way to instil public confidence in this project in the 393 days which remain until the opening ceremony?
    Mr. Mandelson: I shall try to make my answer slightly shorter than the question. I take enormous pleasure and pride in joining the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the New Millennium Experience Company and the scores of people who are working round the clock to make the dome—and the millennium experience—the success that it deserves to be. I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman at long last saying something remotely positive about the millennium experience. I only hope that that becomes contagious among his right hon. and hon. Friends.

    Sponsorship
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What is his latest assessment of the private sector's financial input to the millennium dome. [61328]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): As announced on 26 November, the New Millennium Experience Company has confirmed private sponsorship support of £120 million: 80 per cent. of the £150 million target. That is a remarkable achievement and already represents more than double the amount raised previously for any single event in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Chapman: Those are indeed remarkable figures. Do they not confirm that the Labour party is working in dynamic partnership with the private sector; that the pessimism of the Conservative party has again proved unfounded; and that the Conservatives' determination to talk down Britain on this and on other matters is misguided?
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In this, as in so many other aspects of our national life, the Conservative Opposition are desperate for us to fail, and we do not intend to give them that pleasure. I applaud those in the private sector who have shown their commitment to the millennium experience, which will be a great and unique British event. They recognise that their commercial interest coincides with the national interest.

    1039
    I am pleased to say that, in addition to the information on sponsorship that I have already given to the House, I expect a further £15 million to be announced shortly, and an additional £25 million is subject to detailed negotiation. That is a great achievement by the New Millennium Experience Company, which organises, procures and negotiates the sponsorship, and it deserves our hearty congratulations.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Are the contracts with the sponsors already binding and irrevocable? If not, when precisely will they become so?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am pleased to tell the House that all the sponsorship agreements that I have announced have received full boardroom approval.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend considered the fact that, to improve the financial input, we need a history section in the dome? It could have a prehistoric zone, in which we could have 750 hereditary peers lined up. They could be photographed with young children and others outside McDonald' s, dressed in their ermine, and they could be led by Baby Dome, the Leader of the Opposition. The result would be a magnificent financial success. We could call it the millennium new deal experience.
    Mr. Mandelson: As ever, my hon. Friend is most persuasive. I have decided to consider introducing a Cranborne memorial zone, to commemorate a unique contribution to the future of Britain.
    Mr. Graham Brady: How many companies have been approached with requests to sponsor elements of the millennium experience. [61329]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company has approached 50 companies with requests to sponsor elements of the millennium experience.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Secretary of State for that remarkably and uncharacteristically brief answer. Given
    1040
    the number of major British companies that have been approached by him and his colleagues, touting for sponsorship for the dome, there will clearly be concern about apparent conflicts of interest for as long as he is in control of the project's sponsorship. That is thrown into sharp relief by reports in the press this weekend suggesting that he has been personally involved in seeking sponsorship from the Hinduja brothers, in stark contrast with the assurance that he gave the House on 9 November, saying that he would never be involved in procuring or negotiating. Will he apologise for apparently misleading the House, inadvertently or otherwise, and make it clear that he will no longer be involved in touting for sponsorship for the dome?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am pleased to say that the Hinduja Foundation is indeed considering making a contribution to the sponsorship of the spirit level zone. That is a much better use of its money than its long-standing financial contributions to the Conservative party.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: In the various consultations that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, including those on sponsorship, will he remember the important role for the British tourist industry? Does he recall that the Prime Minister has said that Greenwich should be the gateway to the whole of Britain and, in that spirit and in the spirit of a festival of Britain, does he accept that a great industry such as tourism, our fifth biggest, should be given due regard?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am pleased to say that the tourism industry throughout the United Kingdom has been heavily involved in all the planning and organisation of the millennium experience. Everyone who works in that industry or stands to benefit from it will enjoy huge financial benefits and an economic dividend from our organisation of the millennium experience. I predict a halo effect of some £1 billion for the British economy as a result of the decision to organise the millennium experience.

Teachers
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's consultation on the reform of the teaching profession. This statement relates to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will report separately in the new year.
Over the past eighteen months, the Government have shown their determination to raise standards. Children are learning to read effectively in the new literacy hour. Infant class sizes are falling for the first time in a decade. We are rapidly expanding specialist schools and developing education action zones. We have tackled failure whenever and wherever it exists and we are providing £19 billion of investment to improve education across the United Kingdom over the next three years. That money for reform and modernisation is to give our children opportunities denied for far too long.
Teaching is at the heart of our drive to raise standards. Good teachers are our most precious asset in raising aspirations and achievement. That is why today I am proposing a fundamental step forward for the profession. Our first objective is to develop a new career structure that will recruit, retain and reward the teachers we need.
Under the present system, after seven years, a good classroom teacher earns around £22,500. Further reward is paid only for responsibility, rarely for performance. The Government believe that must change; that is why we are proposing two new pay scales for teachers, separated by a new performance threshold. There will be a tough new appraisal system. Up to the threshold, teachers would progress as now. To cross the threshold, teachers will need to demonstrate high and sustained levels of achievement and commitment. Heads will appraise and review teachers' progress, underpinned by external assessment. That will ensure credibility and consistency.
Success in crossing the threshold would mean an initial salary increase of up to 10 per cent., or around £2,000 a year, and access to further pay steps on the higher scale, based on appraisal of performance. Teachers could then either take on more leadership responsibilities or concentrate on high performance in classroom teaching. Over time, we would expect a majority of teachers to be of a standard to cross the threshold.
Our second objective is to strengthen school leadership. Good heads are the key to success. We need to develop strong leaders, reward them well and give them the freedom to manage. Successful heads who have turned around the most challenging schools could earn up to £70,000 a year, with strengthened appraisal and the option of fixed-term contracts. We also propose to set up a national college for school leadership, drawing on the best that education and business have to offer.
We also want to reward staff for teamwork in raising standards. Our new annual school performance bonus would provide a significant number of schools with a financial reward—payable as a bonus available to all staff—for improved performance achieved year on year and for sustained good results.
Our third objective is to have a well trained profession. We are establishing the General Teaching Council, and have introduced a curriculum for initial teacher
1042
training—with Ofsted inspection—and the induction year for newly qualified teachers. I can announce that we intend to go further by introducing a new national test for all trainee teachers in numeracy, literacy and information technology. Additional help in achieving the standard will be available for mature entrants.
It is vital that we attract the best graduates into teaching to ensure that our most outstanding teachers can move quickly up the profession. Industry and the civil service have fast tracks. We plan to introduce a fast track for teaching to enable good new teachers to make rapid progress. All teachers should keep their expertise up to date. To help them to do so, we are investing in better training in literacy, numeracy and information technology, and in improving the quality and availability of teachers' professional development. A pilot scheme of individual learning accounts will encourage all school staff to invest in their skills over and above Government funding. We will enable more training to take place out of school hours, to minimise disruption to pupils' education through over-reliance on supply cover.
Our final objective is to provide better support for teachers in the classroom. From the investment in repair and renewal through to the learning grid, we are committed to creating the classroom of the future. Today I propose a new targeted fund to improve the working environment for all staff, giving teachers access to the equipment that they need.
The teacher of the future will also make better use of the talent of support staff in schools. Many teachers already use teaching assistants to help with literacy and numeracy, or to support children with special needs. Over the next three years, we will fund at least 20,000 additional qualified teaching assistants with improved training, qualifications and opportunities. We are also keen to see the use of undergraduate and postgraduate students earning while learning, together with those from the wider community.
We also want to support small schools in sharing facilities, technicians or bursary support. I can announce today that a new small school support fund will pilot new ways of working together. It will benefit many rural schools.
The Green Paper contains radical and modernising proposals that will help to transform the standards and status of teaching in this country. It is about something for something. For the first time in years, a commitment has been made to invest and reward teachers in return for a new professionalism. That will mean greater individual accountability, more flexibility and higher standards.
We intend to consult widely with teachers, parents, local authorities and governors, for whom we will provide support and expert guidance to help them implement our proposals.
The vision of a world-class service for our children in the next century is one I believe we all share. Good teachers and support staff are the key to achieving that vision. It is to prepare for that new century, to celebrate the value and worth of our teachers, and for the sake of our children, that I commend these proposals to the House today.
Mr. David Willetts: May I begin by putting it on record that the Opposition believe in proper rewards for good teachers, and that we agree with the Secretary of

1043
State that we are not recruiting and retaining enough good teachers? It is a problem that needs to be tackled, but it is also a problem that has got significantly worse during the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship. Does he recognise that many teachers attribute that fact to the bureaucratic burdens that he has imposed on them?
How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to recruit more people to the teaching profession if he does not treat them like professionals, instead denouncing them as "sneering cynics"? Now, he wants to test them for basic literacy and numeracy. Will he estimate how many of the teachers who are currently being recruited would fail his new test? What has happened to the advanced skills teachers scheme, which only this morning the Prime Minister put at the heart of the Government's proposals? Perhaps even the Secretary of State could not face relaunching it yet again. On 30 March, he claimed that there would be 5,000 so-called super-teachers. Will he confirm that, so far, only 50 have been ecruited?
The Secretary of State talks about paying teachers properly. Teachers would regard it as hypocritical of the Government to launch this exercise today and then fail to implement the recommendations of the pay review body, which are due next year. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure teachers that he will accept its recommendations in full? Can he confirm that his Department wrote recently to that body to urge it to hold down teachers' pay; and will he place in the Library a copy of his correspondence with it?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a new threshold for a new structure of teachers' pay, but how quickly will a teacher reach it? How long will it take for the majority of teachers to cross it? He says that he wants to strengthen school leadership, but he well knows that there has been a disastrous decline in the number of teachers applying for the national professional qualification for headship. Does he agree that the reason is that they are all too busy responding to his instructions and initiatives?
We need better ways to encourage top-quality graduates into the profession, but the right hon. Gentleman's fast-track scheme is a vague plan, which gets five paragraphs in a 72-page document. Will he confirm that his fast-track scheme applies only to a small percentage of the 450,000 members of the teaching profession? As the Prime Minister might say, these are policies for the few, not the many.
Once more, the Secretary of State puts his trust in plans and targets, rather than the professionalism of teachers and the judgments of parents. Does he know what is already happening to his grand plans in practice? Only yesterday, I came across a school that has set targets in its educational development plan which are lower than its current level of attainment. Is the Secretary of State proposing a crude tick-in-the-box school performance awards scheme, with every incentive to set soft targets without any fear of being challenged; or will he rely on outside consultants—and how much will that cost?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the initiatives are to be paid for out of central funds, bypassing local education authorities? Will he confirm that the proportion of school funding from standard spending assessments is steadily falling as, instead, head teachers have to spend all their time applying for individual packets of money, under his personal control? The Secretary of State is exasperating teachers with his
1044
ceaseless flow of initiatives. At the last count, schools and LEAs were having to submit 17 plans to him. Now he even has a working party to cut the paperwork produced by all the other working parties.
We are told that education action zones are the most radical initiative of the lot. Indeed, the main appeal of joining such zones is that the initiative enables schools to opt out from all the other schemes that the Secretary of State has imposed on them. Will he therefore confirm that schools in education action zones will not be bound to implement whatever changes he introduces to teachers' pay and conditions?
The statement is warm words and ambitious claims, but as always with the Secretary of State, there is little about the practicalities. We want practical, flexible measures to recruit, retain and reward good teachers—measures which rest on local flexibility and local discretion. Instead, the Secretary of State has produced another cumbersome scheme, based above all on his belief that the man in Whitehall knows best. We very much doubt whether it can be made to work. Teachers, parents and children deserve better.
Mr. Blunkett: I think the House deserves better than that. A party that presided over the largest exit of teachers in memory owing to its inept messing about with the pension scheme and severance pay is ill prepared to come here this afternoon and talk about difficulties with recruitment. We are facing up to those problems in a way that the Conservatives failed to do in their 18 years in office. The whole programme is geared to recruiting, retaining and rewarding. We know that there is a serious problem: 35 per cent. of those who train do not go into teaching within two years, which is a tragic waste of resources. Let us work together to attract people and keep teachers in the profession.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about basic literacy and numeracy. The fact that many of those who were educated in the past 18 years do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills is not down to the Labour party, but is a result of the Conservatives' failure to provide the necessary phonics, grammar and spelling, which the hon. Gentleman attacks every time he rises to speak.
I tried to ensure that Opposition parties had the Green Paper long enough to allow them to take a look at it this afternoon, instead of giving them only the usual half hour. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would at least see that the advanced skills teacher posts form part of the new leadership tier—they are in there. We are pleased that 1,100 people have already applied in time for the target date for the 1 April roll-out; and 80 per cent. of local authorities have put in schools for the advanced skills teacher posts.
What about the pay review body? Who was it kept holding back teachers' pay and did not implement awards in full? I love the way in which the Conservatives, whose instructions to the pay review body to hold down pay and not to implement awards resulted in the catastrophe that occurred in the teaching profession a year or two ago, come here and have the cheek to tell us what the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has said today. No, I did not tell the review body to hold down teachers' pay; I told it to take account of the circumstances of inflation and, above all, to take account of the fact that we did not want to stage the review from next April. We are clear about that.

1045
How quickly will teachers reach the threshold? We have instigated the fast track for new entrants and the figure will be about 1,000 people a year, which, given the numbers coming into teaching, is a substantial figure. Others who are already in the teaching profession—new teachers in years one and two—will be able to multiply the number of increments through which they can move as part of the new system of appraisal. Fast track linked to appraisal will enable people quickly to reach the point which currently takes them seven years to reach. The whole system is based on appraisal and external assessment—a light touch that enables heads to do their job, but with assessment being carried out from outside to secure fairness and consistency, which is what I described in my statement.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of getting money to schools. It would be grossly unfair if we used a system that resulted in schools that did not have a large number of teachers passing through the threshold getting the money, while those that legitimately had a large number of high-performing teachers could not afford to pay them. That is why, in the early stages, we shall ring-fence the money and consult on ensuring that the money reaches the schools where teachers require the pay. The teaching profession has for years asked us to make sure that there is no block on the ability to pay good teachers well, just because they happen to be in the wrong authority or the wrong school, based on the distribution system.
Education action zones will pioneer our programme. They will be one step ahead of it and they will be able to reward good teachers extremely well. That is why we set them up and why I am sure that the whole House will support the new programmes.
Mr. John Gunnell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which appears to be one that must give the teaching profession new life and expectations of a far better time in the future under a Labour Government.
I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made such poor use of the advance sight of the document that the Secretary of State gave him. He clearly approached the Green Paper in the wrong way: he looked to see how he could carp and criticise instead of offering constructive suggestions about education in the future. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity to show support for our teachers and instead concentrated simply on the mess that he knows his Government made of the same programmes—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I must correct hon. Members. This is a time for questions, not speeches. Is the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) coming to his question?
Mr. Gunnell: I am coming—
Madam Speaker: Good. The hon. Gentleman is providing a good example of how not to put a question to the Secretary of State. It is the first Back-Bench question,
1046
and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my using it as an example of how not to question the Secretary of State.
Mr. Gunnell: I welcome particularly the fact that teamwork is rewarded, because there is no profession where it is more important. If I may give a specific example—
Madam Speaker: No, I am sorry. A joke is a joke—I have a sense of humour the same as anyone's, but I cannot allow speeches. There will be no examples. Just ask a question, please.
Mr. Gunnell: In order to exploit his skills, a science teacher often relies on a laboratory assistant who does the preparation work. Under such circumstances, how will a school recognise both the excellence of that teacher and the role of the laboratory assistant in preparing his work?
Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree entirely with the preamble to his question.
Those who assist and support teachers will benefit from the school bonus programme, from the development of the individual learning account and from new training and support. Many of them will want to progress in their professions and some will want to begin teacher training. We will encourage them to do so on a modular basis so that they may continue to earn their living while preparing to enter the teaching profession.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the approach adopted by the previous Administration, nearly 20,000 experienced but demoralised and disillusioned teachers left the profession in just one year? We need to do better. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Liberal Democrats welcome the broad thrust of the proposals? Will he confirm that performance-related pay will not be paid according to results? It should be based on the skills, experience and competence of teachers, not the performance of their pupils.
Will the Secretary of State further confirm that the opportunities for higher rewards will be available to all teachers and that he expects the majority of teachers to benefit from them? However, will he also acknowledge that he is relying a great deal on the assessment procedure, and that there will be complications if that procedure is used simultaneously to judge teachers' salaries and an appropriate amount of continuing professional development?
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that, although his proposals will assist in the longer term, there is an immediate crisis? May I therefore welcome his clear and unequivocal statement today that the teachers pay award will not be phased? Can he confirm that, at a minimum, it will be sufficient to meet the real inflation costs hitting teachers' pockets?
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. We can work constructively to get the proposals agreed. On the final point, the recommendation is entirely in the hands of the review body and must be independent. I will respect that.

1047
I shall deal with the essential points that the hon. Gentleman raised. Teachers will move to and will be appraised for moving through the threshold on their performance and their commitment, not on the quantum of past exam results of students whom they may well not have had a hand in teaching. That aspect falls into the teamwork approach and will be dealt with separately through sophisticated arrangements for the school bonus. There is nothing crude about that which would punish teachers for working in challenging schools in difficult areas.
Sufficient resources will be available over the initial period to ensure that a majority of teachers can access the programme, bearing in mind that many teachers will be entering the profession and will be in the early stages. About £1 billion will be available in 2000–01 and 2001–02 to put the proposals into place. It is the best promise that teachers have ever had.
Miss Melanie Johnson: Unlike the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I believe that the national professional qualification for headship offers great scope for the development of head teachers. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about how valuable and important heads are in the lives of schools and the quality of education. How does my right hon. Friend see the NPQH developing through the new structures that he outlined this afternoon?
Mr. Blunkett: The development of the college that I described will play a signal role in helping us to extend the NPQH. As hon. Members know, great enthusiasm for it has been expressed by heads. In the initial period we, together with the Teacher Training Agency, have been appraising how we can improve it and build on the experiences of head teachers.
We want to be able to fast-track those willing to undertake leadership, in order to allow them to do so on a modular basis and to accelerate their professional development. We want to put in place as heads those enthusiastic young men and women who see their role in education in the future and have the natural skills to lead the profession in the new century.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Secretary of State recall that the 1995 Conservative Government's Blue Paper on teacher training began with the words
"In education the role of the teacher is central"?
Any aspects of his proposals that stimulate higher standards in the teaching profession, if fulfilled, will be welcome to us.
Nevertheless, may I raise two points with the right hon. Gentleman? The first is a technical one, relating to the basic skills requirements for teachers. Is it not high time that those were built into the standard suite of qualifications—the GCSE, A-level and degree level performance of teachers—so that they do not need re-examination? If anything, existing teachers may need some strengthening in that respect.
Secondly, does the Secretary of State accept that there is likely to be a severe strain on resources, both in assessment and in paying for this substantial pattern of incentives? If so, is there not a danger, while the proposals are being worked through, of a two-tier profession? They can in no sense be a substitute for the adequate
1048
remuneration of ordinary classroom teachers who are doing their best and largely succeeding in doing a proper job for their pupils.
Mr. Blunkett: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sensible questions in the spirit in which they were delivered. The lag between now and the underpinning of A-level and advanced year NVQ in respect of key skills must be addressed—hence the development of the literacy, numeracy and IT programme that I described. We must help mature entrants to catch up without feeling at a disadvantage.
The question of how we implement that is important. We will have performance management systems in place, which will be monitored by Ofsted and the Audit Commission. The performance management systems will be crucial to ensure that the appraisal and review are non-bureaucratic. The outside assessors will give consistency and fairness to the system, so that people cannot claim that there has been discrimination or the blocking of a teacher's application for movement through the threshold. It is important that we get that right in the early stages. If we can move quickly after the consultation period, I should like to start the appraisal and begin the assessment process before implementation in 2000 so that we can move people on to the new scales as quickly as possible.
Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how welcome his promise to improve the environments in which teachers work will be? As a teacher who spent at least two years in an asbestos-riddled hut, I know how many of my colleagues would have been pleased to benefit from that.
I invite my right hon. Friend to use the opportunity that the proposals present to reconsider the requirements that university institutions put on entrants to the primary postgraduate certificate of education. I am concerned that such entrants are required to have degrees in national curriculum subjects. That requirement was introduced in advice by the previous Government.
There are, therefore, people with excellent degrees—in subjects such as modern languages, which do not apply in primary years but develop skills that are relevant to literacy teaching—who are not eligible for the primary PGCE. If we have ways of testing literacy and numeracy skills, as well as information and communications technology skills, there is a strong case for changing that requirement. Will my right hon. Friend consider doing so?
Mr. Blunkett: I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend that we were concerned about the way in which that previous advice was being interpreted. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has sent out a letter clarifying that, so that there will be no future misunderstandings. I hope very much that it will help to alleviate the problem.
My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. She and my advisers and officials have worked incredibly hard with me on the Green Paper, and I appreciate that greatly.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State will be well aware that the results

1049
achieved by the secondary modern and grammar schools in the borough of Trafford are once again among the best in the country. That is largely because we have a great number of excellent teachers in those schools.
Will the Secretary of State make it clear—I think that he gave such an assurance and I welcome it, if he did—that there is no upper limit on the number of teachers who can qualify, and that there will be consistent interpretation according to the quality of their performance and nothing else?
Will the Secretary of State also make it clear that schools or the local education authority will not have to fund the programme; and—this is important, given the large numbers involved—how quickly does he envisage all teachers who may qualify being able to go through the qualification period? What are the implications in terms of cost and the number of external assessors who need to be part of that programme?
Mr. Blunkett: There were a large number of questions rolled into one there, so I shall be brief. I have made it clear previously and this afternoon that money in the initial stages would have to be ring-fenced and directed so that schools could afford to implement the programme. Obviously that will need to be consolidated; otherwise schools would accelerate every teacher whom the head thought was appropriate as quickly as possible, without any constraint whatever.
The hon. Gentleman should not presume that teachers in schools with high performance would automatically go through the threshold. Teachers who are doing a first-rate job in challenging areas with schools that have enormously challenging intakes may find themselves equally able to access the threshold and the progress that needs to be made. I hope that they do.
As I told the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), we have to get as many teachers as possible moving towards and through the threshold, to accord them the status that they deserve and to reward them for the work that they are doing.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comprehensive statement. It is important to emphasise that it is comprehensive and not only about pay levels. Will he outline further the measures in the Green Paper for encouraging the collaboration of teachers to raise standards?
Mr. Blunkett: The bonus system will encourage all staff to perform and work together, and the collaborative fund for small schools will complement the work that is already taking place. In education action zones, schools are beginning to collaborate and work co-operatively to develop ways of supporting and helping each other. They are establishing intranet systems, so that they can share information and advice. The more schools work together to lift standards for children rather than compete with each other in a marketplace, the better it will be for our students.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: When will the Secretary of State realise that my postbag is filled with complaints from head teachers and governing bodies as a consequence of his initiatives? Perhaps the most talented
1050
primary head in Hampshire is to be lost to the private sector as a consequence of the Secretary of State's initiatives. He is contributing to this problem, and it is time that he addressed it.
Mr. Blunkett: I am always slightly amused, if not mystified, by Conservative Members who say that good state heads and teachers are moving into the private sector and then criticise the measures that we are taking, which aim to match the standard and the methodology that the private sector claims to be using. Our proposals are aimed at providing good leadership, clear discipline, a decent environment, good equipment, low class sizes, and literacy and numeracy strategies that place emphasis on phonics, grammar and spelling—but they are opposed by Conservative Members.
Jacqui Smith: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that the reason I left the teaching profession in May 1997 was not that I was demoralised, but that the country was demoralised by the Conservative Government? Conservative Members have provided good evidence of that this afternoon. One of the most frustrating features of my 11 years in teaching was the reduction in the funding and opportunities for professional development and training, so I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement on individual learning accounts for teachers. Will he outline how those accounts will be administered, when we can expect them and when teachers can begin to benefit from the effects they will have on professional development and improving standards?
Mr. Blunkett: We are establishing a pilot programme—initially with £5 million—to test the commitment of teachers and non-teaching staff who want to develop their skills and professionalism. That is on top of the resources that we are already allocating to continuing professional development through the standards fund—£60 million this year for literacy and £60 million next year for numeracy—and the additional £230 million for the training of all teachers on information and communication technology. This is a small pilot programme on top of the enormous investment currently going into the system.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Would it help or hinder a head's leadership role if he were given more freedom of manoeuvre in the hiring and firing of staff?
Mr. Blunkett: No, I am sure it would not.
Helen Jones: May I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which goes a long way towards keeping good teachers in the classroom? Will he explain how the system of appraisal will be balanced and fair as between schools and between teachers teaching different types of classes in the same school? One teacher may have a lot of A-level teaching and another may teach slow learners. Will he give the House a few more details on how the outside assessors will work in conjunction with the heads, and how teachers will be able to appeal against their assessment if they are dissatisfied with it?
Mr. Blunkett: The appraisal will be personal to the teacher, so it will appraise the worth, commitment and performance of teachers in the circumstances with which they are faced and according to the work they are doing.

1051
The management performance system, which will itself be monitored, will be crucial to ensuring that appraisal works, is rigorous and is seen to be fair. The assessor's job will be to sample the way in which appraisal is working, and to test the claims of teachers who consider themselves to have been badly treated against an assessment of those teachers' performance.
Ultimately, however, the success of the system will depend on the right management and leadership, so that appraisal is not second-guessed by the assessors, but reviewed and monitored. The system must be transparent, and there must be no discrimination.
Judy Mallaber: I welcome the proposals, which will enable good classroom teachers to progress. Many teachers are currently being blocked: they cannot progress without taking on extra responsibility.
What rewards or incentives will be available to schools where teachers are shown to have made progress as a team—where all staff members have made a contribution? We should not only reward individuals for their ability to show the quality of their own teaching.
Mr. Blunkett: I have already stressed the need for us to view schools as consisting of a range of men and women who are contributing to an improvement in standards. It is crucial for the future that the professional teacher should be a learning manager, able to direct and use paid staff, volunteers and parents imaginatively, and to bring out the best in the school.
I am hoping that some two thirds of schools will have access to the bonus system, to which we are allocating £60 million each year. Not only will staff be rewarded; we shall give new opportunities to non-teaching staff to display their talent and to develop professionally, which will, I think, be widely welcomed in the profession.
Caroline Flint: I welcome all the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced, which will benefit teachers in terms not just of pay, but of the school environment and the whole school community—teachers and non-teachers.
What will be the structure of the consultation? One of the criticisms made of the last Government was that not enough time was allowed for consultation on important measures. As we are now discussing the need for modern teachers for a new century, and a new professional status for teachers, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend gave us some idea of how much time will be allowed, so that we can do our job as Members of Parliament and ensure that we hear comments from the grass roots.
Mr. Blunkett: Four months will be allowed for consultation, which can take place until 31 March 1999. The consultation will be open to everyone who wants to contribute to getting the system right. In a week or two, a technical paper will be published to back up the Green Paper. We want to ensure that the details of implementation can be discussed not just with the profession but more widely—with, for instance, governors' representatives and - local education authorities—and that everyone with something constructive to say is heard and responded to.
Charlotte Atkins: I, too, welcome the statement. I particularly welcome the long consultation period, which will enable teachers in the classroom to respond to the proposals.
1052
How does my right hon. Friend intend to recognise, and boost, the vital role of the classroom assistants who help teachers to raise educational standards?
Mr. Blunkett: I have mentioned the 20,000 additional assistants who will be provided over the next three years. I consider that a major contribution to changing the way in which we use the talent that is at our disposal, so that teachers can undertake the key professional tasks for which they have been trained, and can develop constructively over the years.
The use of assistants should be seen as part of the development of their own future, and their own talents. Many are making a substantial contribution, not just to literacy and—in the years to come—numeracy, but to special needs education. Many special needs children would be in a much more difficult position if it were not for the talent of the non-teaching staff who help them so much.
Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which I am sure will do much to improve the quality of education in our schools. However, I wonder whether he could say a bit more about how he envisages school governors working with head teachers on staffing structures and the skills mix for the school, and, in particular, how he sees governors going about the appraisal of head teachers, which I imagine will be a difficult task.
Mr. Blunkett: I want to make it absolutely clear that governors play a crucial role. Often, many of them feel overwhelmed with what they are being asked to do, without the necessary advice and support, so putting in place new guidance and support systems for governing bodies, providing a new role for education authorities where schools are local education authority community schools, and making available the resources to Church and foundation schools will all be crucial. We must ensure that, this time, governors are in a position to be able to do the job and to benchmark what is taking place in other schools, so as to learn about the way in which other governing bodies and schools have worked. In that way, governors can both hold the head to account and support the head in the key management job of raising standards.
Mrs. Theresa May: For clarification of a point raised earlier, will the Secretary of State place it on record unequivocally that he will accept in full and implement the recommendations of the school teachers review body next year?
Mr. Blunkett: Just to be helpful, the answer to that is: no, I will not, for the very reason that I spelled out earlier. It is an independent review. We recommended that the award should take into account our desire—our will—to carry out the recommendation in full; but—so that we all talk in a sensible, mature fashion—should for some reason the review body come up with an award that was simply unaffordable next year in all circumstances, no one in his right mind would expect us to have committed ourselves on 3 December, before the review body had reported, to implementing that award. And I do know that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is in her right mind.

NHS (Wales)
4.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the future of the health service in Wales.
The national health service is one of Labour's proudest creations, especially in Wales. It is a tribute to the people who work in the NHS that it continues to give such a high standard of care and retains such public confidence. People want the NHS to be modernised and strengthened, rather than undermined or replaced.
I will not labour the point, but the NHS in Wales has not been given a fair chance in recent years and 18 years of damage cannot be repaired in 18 months. Lack of coherence in the long-term planning of the health service in Wales has frequently left clinicians, managers and officials trying to make the best of a bad job.
I saw that in my area, where the failure to develop an adequate 10-year plan in the early 1980s was compounded by a lunatic scheme to build a third district general hospital in the Cardiff area. The abandonment of that plan and subsequent piecemeal decisions have been bad for morale and for the aim of providing high-quality health care. I hope that today's statement will lay the foundations for a new partnership approach which strengthens the health service to create one NHS to serve the people of each community in Wales, replacing the two, three or four divided services in some areas.
Standing still is not an option for acute services. The Royal College of Surgeons generally wants specialist services to be centralised in fewer units. Instead of being forced to respond to clinical advice in a piecemeal and expensive way, trusts will be able to organise safe specialist services across different sites cost-effectively. A new, coherent pattern of trusts is needed to replace a situation in which many act as if they are mediaeval city states each competing with the other, rather than organisations which need to be partners with each other in providing health care.
Before we came to power, the then shadow Minister with responsibility for health in Wales pledged that we would cut the number of NHS trusts in order to direct resources away from administration and into patient care. The new configuration of trusts, which I am announcing today, follows 18 months of widespread consultation. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) who played such a leading part in those consultations and discussions? Configuration is not an end in itself so I wish to spell out clearly the new shape and direction of the NHS in Wales and the way in which I expect board members and managers to carry out their work in future.
Unproductive competition and piecemeal changes in recent years have led many people to worry about the future of a specific hospital in their area. People rightly identify with "their" hospital and that is to be encouraged by the trusts, not seen as old-fashioned or irrelevant. I can reassure people in every part of Wales that the approach they want, reinforcing the hospitals and institutions they respect and depend upon, will be the way forward for the future.
1054
Wherever possible, we have followed three principles. First, we want to bring together neighbouring trusts which provide acute services in order to eliminate competition, promote collaboration, reduce unnecessary duplication, tackle financial problems and attack waiting lists. Secondly, we want to combine community health and acute services to create a single health service for each area. That will allow clinicians in both sectors to collaborate in providing a seamless service to each patient. I expect that to be of particular benefit to the elderly. Thirdly, wherever possible, the new trust will share the same boundaries as unitary authorities to simplify relations with social services and within the new local health groups we are establishing.
Those principles will better provide for the co-ordination of care for each individual patient, whether on an acute ward or in a community hospital, a nursing home or at home. The changes will remove the problem of bed blocking and release resources for more urgent cases.
Those principles have won general support in Wales, but applying them can be difficult. The distribution of the population, the distribution of hospital services and the geography of Wales are all against us—otherwise it is straightforward! As a result, several themes came up consistently from the consultations. I wish to be absolutely clear on our response to these for the benefit of the public and for the benefit of planners and managers in the health service.
First, reconfiguration in itself must not stop anyone going to a local hospital. As at present, general practitioners will be able to refer patients where they believe it is in their clinical interests to do so. Secondly, mergers will not be takeovers, but the creation of a new partnership. Key services must not be moved to the larger hospital. Community and mental health services must not be ravaged for the benefit of acute services. No hospitals will close as a result of reconfiguration. If health services should change or a hospital should close, such events must occur for objective reasons, not as a result of reconfiguration.
Some people have asked for reconfiguration to be put off for a year or more. That is not an option. We have to keep the pre-election promise of cutting bureaucracy, and create health service structures that will enable the new Assembly to undertake its work of accountability. Reconfiguration is essential if trusts are to plan their services effectively, to deal with the mounting pressures upon them and to make real inroads into waiting lists and cope with current financial pressures.
Reconfiguration must not be just a question of merging organisations or drawing lines on a map. I am prepared to take time to explain the reasons behind each decision and to demonstrate that I have listened to people's concerns. For that reason, I have prepared a much fuller statement explaining my decisions which will be sent to trusts, health authorities, community health councils, local authorities, trade unions and the press. I am placing a copy on the Board this afternoon for every hon. Member with a Welsh constituency and for representatives of the Conservative party. I will also send a letter to trust chairs to pass on to staff to allay concerns.
I have approved the establishment of eight new trusts on 1 April 1999, but I wish first to refer to two areas where I am not going ahead with the proposals on the basis on which consultation took place. I do not intend to

1055
agree to a merger of the Powys Health Care NHS trust with Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS trust. On each of the visits I made to Powys during my period as a shadow Health Minister for Wales, I was impressed by the degree of local unity, which was reinforced by GPs and nurses during my recent visit to Newtown hospital and by views expressed by local MPs, Labour party members, trade unions, and local councillors as well as the trust itself.
The decision leaves challenges for the Powys trust, and I shall insist that it delivers on the assurances given to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, that the benefits and savings of reconfiguration can be delivered without the need for a merger. I hope that local Members and others will support the board in delivering on those commitments.
I am very much aware of the isolation of Ceredigion's acute services, but those problems would be hidden in a combined trust. I therefore expect the development of close collaboration between Ceredigion and acute services in other trusts. I shall in the near future discuss those issues personally with representatives of the Ceredigion trust and other local representatives.
In Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, the proposal to split the Llandough hospital from community services now managed by Llandough NHS trust is entirely opposed to the principle of creating a single health service for each area. The way forward for Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan is the creation of a single integrated trust for the area—excluding Velindre, because of its specialist nature. However, immediately to create one trust would involve an operation of far greater complexity than any of the other mergers.
I have, therefore, reluctantly accepted that a two-stage process is necessary. It is important to give certainty to staff and management by setting a clear time scale for both stages. I intend to merge the University Hospital trust with the Llandough trust—including the community element—and to combine Cardiff Community trust with the University dental hospital. There will be speedy consultation on the proposal, but I am confident that it meets most of the objections to the previous proposal. My intention is that the merger will proceed on 1 April 1999. As soon as possible, I shall make a further announcement on the second stage.
The new NHS trusts to which I am giving the go-ahead are: North West Wales NHS trust; Conwy and Denbighshire NHS trust; North East Wales NHS trust; Carmarthenshire NHS trust; Swansea NHS trust; Bro Morgannwg NHS trust; Pontypridd and Rhondda NHS trust; and Gwent Healthcare NHS trust.
I intend to take a personal interest in the way in which the changes are made, and I will strengthen the role of community health councils which, with local authorities and local health groups, will help to create an effective and inclusive structure for the NHS in Wales.
Major benefits are available, for example, by bringing the Gwent health authority's three trusts together. Moreover, the merger in Gwent—unlike the merger in Cardiff—can be achieved immediately, as it is a far less complex operation. I am convinced that the future of Nevill Hall hospital is secure because of its key strategic position, but appreciate the fears that have been expressed in north Gwent.
I am requiring the new trust to state clearly how the pattern of services will be developed across hospitals in Gwent. Local authorities, hon. Members, and community
1056
health councils and the new local health groups will have a chance to comment, and I hope that that transparency will ensure that the reconfiguration is seen as a new partnership in Gwent and not as a takeover of one hospital by another.
The same principles will be emphasised with every one of the new trusts. We are interested not only in the pattern of services, but in the nature of management and the way in which services are delivered. For example, I have more reason than most people to understand the local importance of Llandudno hospital, which is where, after an operation in 1950, I left my tonsils. Community links and expectations might suggest that Llandudno hospital should be linked to Ysbyty Gwynedd, but doing so would fail to provide the critical mass of acute services in north-west Wales that are essential to effective local care.
Llandudno will stay with Ysbyty Gwynedd, but the way in which it provides its services must respect local expectations in Llandudno and the surrounding area. I am therefore requiring Gwynedd Hospital NHS trust to consult Glan Clwyd District General Hospital NHS trust and other local partners, including the local authority and local health group, and report back to me on how those matters can be reconciled.
Mechanisms such as the one that I have proposed are the way in which we can ensure that there is proper co-operation in the best interests of local areas, in which the principles I have stated are inevitably in conflict with each other.
Similarly, the merger of the Llanelli Dinefwr and Carmarthen trusts is intended to improve patient care across the county. However, I understand also the fears in the Llanelli area and the strength of support for a hospital that local people have supported enormously strongly over many years.
I am determined that reconfiguration will not lead to the closure or downgrading of Prince Philip hospital. The hospital will not lose its accident and emergency unit or its magnetic resonance imaging scanner. I am requiring the new trust to state how it will meet those requirements, and the views of local hon. Members and other local partners will be sought to ensure that our intention becomes a reality.
Finally, I am aware of the concern that changes in patient flows as a result of creating a single new trust could damage services in Swansea. I shall hold Iecyhd Morgannwg health authority to its pledge not to allow patient flows to change because of reconfiguration. My officials will have the clear task of working with health authorities and the new trusts in as transparent a way as possible towards an improved style and quality of management in the new structures directed entirely at providing better patient care and respecting the needs of local communities.
It is central to the role of the new trusts that they should make themselves accessible to their communities and engage them in their decision making and planning, as our NHS White Paper requires. That is the only way in which to reassure communities about the impact of reconfiguration and to reap the benefit of better patient care that the changes are intended to achieve.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post. I believe that this is his first statement as Secretary of State for Wales. I am grateful

1057
to him for giving me a copy of his statement earlier this afternoon so that I had an opportunity to read it. He may have other matters to divert his attention these days, particularly the battle with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), and his hopes to be parachuted into a position in the Welsh Assembly, but I hope that he will be able to get his head out of the clouds for long enough to give sufficient attention to those issues that need it, including the national health service.
We fully appreciate the fact that the health service in Wales needs special extra attention. The consultation document "Better Health, Better Wales" mentions on page 5 that health service provision and the health of people in Wales is poorer than in England and the rest of the European Community. There is no reason why that should be allowed to continue.
I applaud the work of the nurses, doctors and support services in the hospitals in Wales. They do a superb job and deserve our recognition, not just today but every day.
The people of Wales will want to know how the reconfiguration of trusts will improve services. Will it reduce waiting lists and waiting times? I am sure that the Secretary of State saw the Western Mail on 12 November, which said that more people were waiting 12 months and 18 months for operations in Wales. That is unacceptable and we need to ensure great improvements. Many people believe that there is more fiddling with waiting list figures than Stephane Grappelli has ever seen. The Western Mail article features the comments of Jan Williams, the chairman of the confederation, who welcomes extra money to tackle waiting lists, but believes that sustained improvements will need increased funding on a recurring basis. Can we have assurances that we shall get such continued extra money for the health service?
I am concerned about the comments of Dr. Dewi Evans of Singleton and Morriston hospitals on the scandal of youngsters having to wait for operations in certain specialties in Wales. Will the reconfiguration of the trusts ensure an improvement in the health service, particularly for our young people?
The Government have talked about the reconfiguration resulting in savings. Initially a figure of £10 million was mentioned, although that has changed to £7 million recently. Those who work in the NHS have grave suspicions that the savings cannot come simply from the reconfiguration and that the extra money will come from front-line services. We are concerned that if the savings cannot be made as the Secretary of State has outlined, he will have to turn his attention elsewhere in the NHS to secure them. We want to ensure that the front-line services are improved, not damaged, by the changes.
The Secretary of State has also said that he has not acted on all the recommendations initially, with particular reference to Powys and Ceredigion, which I applaud. When I was in Powys, I too listened to the concerns of many members of the public—the people who are on the receiving end of the health service in Wales. People were worried that the acute service would completely swamp the community-based treatment that they received. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has listened to their concerns.
Yesterday, a statement was made on the millennium bug problem. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention it today, but as the changes in the health service will take
1058
place in 1999—exactly when the millennium bug might affect hospitals that have not taken proper action—will he assure us that the problem will continue to be treated as a priority? The Audit Commission reported earlier this year that the treatment of the problem in the NHS was extremely patchy.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that people who live in rural areas will continue to receive the community services on which they have come to rely? He will appreciate that those people do not have adequate public transport to go to larger hospitals many miles away.
Will the Secretary of State reassure us that, in the reconfiguration, waiting list lengths will be tackled? I understand what he says about the geographical problem in Wales, but we must not allow those hospitals that he says will not be closed to be generally downgraded; the reconfiguration must not be used as an excuse to downgrade services. Will he assure us that there will be no downgrading of provision in, for example, the Nevill Hall hospital, which he mentioned?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to Swansea. That is where I grew up and where my family live, so I have particular reason to attend to what happens to the hospitals there. I remember that, when the emergency service in Singleton hospital was threatened with closure, there was an almighty outcry, even though extra provision was being made elsewhere. Will he guarantee that, even with the flows of patients between various hospitals in the area, that service will not be damaged?
If the Government paid as much attention to the real doctors in Wales as they do to their spin doctors—on whom they spend twice as much money as the Conservative Government did—the services would be much better in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there will be elections in Wales next year. Many people will wonder why, as it is only a few months until the Assembly takes responsibility for the health service in Wales, he did not delay his decisions on the reconfiguration and let the Assembly take them. The Assembly may want to look again at what he has announced today and make further changes, and that could be extremely expensive. He should remember that, in the elections to the Assembly, the Government will be judged not on their words, but on their deeds.
Mr. Michael: There was a good deal of knockabout in that contribution. The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to talk about parachutes. I have represented a Welsh constituency for 11 years and, before 1 took up other responsibilities, I spent four years as shadow Health Minister for Wales. I have been immersed in the politics of the Labour party and Wales for more than 30 years, but he had to go to Ribble Valley to win a seat in the House. I take it that he left his parachute outside the Chamber before he came in and had the cheek, as someone who represents an English constituency, to talk about the health service in Wales.
I suppose that we should take his contribution as a belated apology for the damage that the Conservative party did over 18 years to the health service in Wales. His recognition of the importance of nurses is also belated. I speak for all Labour Members in saying that we value the nurses, doctors and the other health service staff who have a variety of functions; they all contribute enormously to the quality of health care.

1059
It is important that we do not become frozen in immobility because of the Assembly. I believe that the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), agrees with that. We must lay down foundations and make sure that structures are in place so that the Assembly will be able to call the health service to account, to examine the management of the health service and to look at the outcomes and the outputs that are important to the people whom we represent.
The proposals will help to reduce waiting lists and waiting times, and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) should recognise that waiting lists dropped by 1,700 last month. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, will have more to say next week to embarrass the hon. Gentleman further. The separation of elective and emergency work within the new trusts will help to tackle waiting lists.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was worried about the extent of savings, but the Pembroke-Derwen merger made continuing savings of £750,000 per annum—well above the estimates given of resultant savings. We can have some confidence in the estimates. I will talk to people who have concerns about achieving the savings and about the way in which they are fed back into health care. The hon. Gentleman seems to get most of his information from the Western Mail, and I can tell him that I will listen to those who work in the health service, including the representatives of Unison. They have genuine concerns about these matters—they do not want to score points in this Chamber.
The hon. Member wanted to know about the millennium bug. He must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for something to say at that point. Yes, the changes will take place on 1 April 1999, and we are making sure that the millennium bug will not damage the emergency services and health services generally in Wales. We give priority to that matter. I have been a member of the Cabinet Committee that is emphasising the need for every organisation to be aware of the issue. If new IT systems are needed as part of the reconfiguration, they will be millennium compliant.
The hon. Member asked about rural areas, and I have recognised the need for flexibility. That is precisely the reason for the decision in Powys, and why I have recognised that the situation in Ceredigion is difficult, but must be addressed. Problems of rurality, sparsity, mountains and other matters cause problems in the provision of services in virtually every part of Wales. That is one of the issues that we are trying to address through the flexibility provided by the reconfiguration. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman noticed the geographical problems of Wales. I am not sure how long it took him to come to that conclusion.
I emphasised in the statement the answers to a number of questions that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked, such as the future of Nevill Hall, which I said should not be downgraded. I made it clear that in each of the trusts, there should be no asset-stripping of one hospital by another or any undermining of confidence, so that services are available where people need them. The ability to maintain those local services and different centres of provision will be strengthened, not weakened, by the way in which we have undertaken the
1060
reconfiguration. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is all good news and that he can leave the Chamber cheering at the news that he has been given.
Mr. Win Griffiths: First, I pay tribute to the civil servants in the Welsh Office, and to the managers, medical staff and others at all levels in the health service in Wales for the immense efforts that they have put into the reconfiguration process, which has been incredibly important. It is estimated that it will save between £7 million and £10 million by the end of this Parliament. Given the small adjustments that have been made in individual proposals, will there be any effect on those savings? My trust was confident that it could do better in savings terms than the figures in the proposals.
It is very important that we get the message across that permanent savings from administration will go directly to patient care. Will my right hon. Friend confirm and underline that the future of hospital and community services in the health service in Wales will, in the near future, lie in the hands of local health groups, doctors, nurses, midwives and local authority representatives, who will have the job of seeing how hospital services fit into the new health service in Wales?
Mr. Michael: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those people who are going through a difficult process, and who worked closely with him during his period as the Minister with responsibility for health in Wales. I repeat my tribute to my hon. Friend for the hard work that he undertook in difficult circumstances. It is always more difficult to start when one is clearing up a mess than if one is starting from a strong position. Frankly, the former is where we found ourselves 18 months ago.
I am confident that the adjustments will not cause a problem in relation to savings. In Powys, the health authority has given the assurance that the necessary savings can be effected in ways that it is happy to achieve itself. I am certain that the dismemberment of the Llandough trust in order to put it back together again in a couple of years as part of stage 2 would have been an expensive way of doing a job badly. I am confident that the savings will not be any lower as a result of the decisions on Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan.
We will look specifically at Ceredigion in light of our decision, but I hope that my intention can be carried through and that we can strengthen partnership and co-operation between Ceredigion and other trusts to make sure that difficulties are not caused. I underline the point that savings are to be diverted back into health care, and I am sure that all my hon. Friends want to see that happen.
Finally, I can give my hon. Friend the answer he is looking for in relation to community services. It is very important that there is a proper balance between hospital and community services, which must be integrated and complementary. My hon. Friend is right to stress that the future is in the hands of local health groups, which will bring a new degree of accountability at the most local level. That matches the developments that will take place in the coming year, when the overall strategic accountability will be in the hands of the new elected Assembly for Wales.
Mr. Lembit öpik: May I offer the Secretary of State and his Minister my profound gratitude

1061
and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and the people of Powys at today's decision? The people of Powys have worked so hard to protect the continued existence of Powys health trust, and have won a common-sense victory today. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this will be regarded as an indication that, for once at least, Ministers have been willing to listen to the concerns of the public and to act accordingly—something that is extremely welcome? That will bring great cause for celebration to the professionals working in health trusts in Powys.
Does the Secretary of State agree that while this decision may not please everyone in Wales, few in Powys will be disappointed? Does he agree that it was somewhat mean-spirited of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to seek the negatives and to make irrelevant party political points at a time when it is important for us to recognise that the decisions have been altered according to the consultation process that involved effort on both sides? That process has led ultimately to a pleasing result in terms of the modification of the plans.
The Secretary of State mentioned the need for Powys to achieve savings, and that has been mentioned on a number of occasions. Will he accept my assurance that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will honour the commitment to work with Powys health trust to ensure that those savings are found—recognising, none the less, that the process presents us with a further challenge that we must not avoid?
More broadly, there will be debates and concerns in other parts of Wales, especially about the financial savings that must be found. Does the Secretary of State agree none the less that the Powys decision should be regarded as an example of what can be done when parties listen and work together—[Interruption.]—when the public are genuinely consulted and, perhaps most importantly, when the public interest is put above party political concerns, in this case leading to the maintenance of a health service that is loved by the people of Powys and highly respected by all those who have cause to use it?
Mr. Michael: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. To those Conservative Members who mocked some of his points, let me say that I welcome his reasonable approach. This is the new politics: to disagree when there are things to disagree about, but to agree when we can agree. In particular, I would stress the importance of one thing that he said: it is a matter of integrity that he acknowledged the fact that there are difficult decisions for Powys Health Care trust to take in order to make the savings that will be necessary for it to deliver on its promises.
I have heard Labour party and trade union voices arguing in the same direction as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). I look to Members of Parliament, local authorities, trade union representatives and others to help to deliver on the promises that have been made. I am
1062
convinced that, with a reasonable and co-operative approach, we can achieve an outcome that is satisfactory for everybody.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have given some leeway to Front Benchers and to the former Health Minister in Wales, but I now appeal for shorter questions and answers, as we have other important business to cover.
Mr. Alan Williams: I accept entirely the logic of the proposals for Swansea, which reflect the consultation that was held in the area. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new trust will start with an enormous problem, with the overhanging shadow of the £8 million debt that Morriston will bring? If the new trust is not to start in an atmosphere of cutting and holding back on developments, we must deal with the debt. Recognising that it should not have been built up in the first place, will he consider writing it off?
Mr. Michael: There are proposals to deal with the problem to some extent. A recovery programme is being set up, and my right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point when he says that the debt should not have been built up in the first place. The reconfiguration will help the process, but I recognise that the problem to which he alludes is extremely difficult. We will be conscious of it when we consider how the new trust is to develop its work.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: There is widespread cynicism in Wales about the reconfiguration exercise. People think that it has more to do with a pre-election undertaking than with actual need and the provision of a more efficient health care system. There will be widespread dismay at the failure to take the opportunities for improvements in health care delivery in mid-Wales— especially in relation to the integration of services—that were carefully described in the consultation process.
Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the development of services and of clinical excellence that has taken place in Ceredigion, and particularly in Bronglais general hospital, will be able to continue? Does he accept that accessibility is also vital, and that the royal colleges need to—and are in fact beginning to—understand that? May I warn him that any diminution in the status of Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth or reduction in its range of services and specialties would evoke a furious public reaction in the area, compared with which what we have witnessed in Powys would pale into insignificance?
Mr. Michael: I agree that there is widespread cynicism in Wales. That is precisely why, when I took up my post, I delayed the announcement of the reconfiguration in order to examine the proposals and ensure that I would not be announcing something that I could not put my hand on my heart and say would improve patient care. That is my objective in today's announcement. That is precisely why the announcement is about not only lines on the map, but the way in which the new arrangements will be put into practice.
I would have hoped that the way in which I made the announcement would have set some of the hon. Gentleman's doubts to rest. He asks whether I can

1063
guarantee that the development of clinical excellence in Bronglais will continue. The whole point of the way in which I referred to Bronglais and services in Ceredigion is that I recognise that there is a specific problem there. That problem would not have been helped at all by simply merging it with another set of problems at Powys Health Care trust: that would have been running away from the problem.
I fully intend to address the problem, and I will be quite happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and to listen to any constructive suggestions about the future of the health service in his area. The reference to co-operation and partnership with other adjoining trusts is precisely about trying to find a formula that will protect the future of Bronglais.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about accessibility. It is not an easy situation to protect, but I am determined to do so, and I look forward to working with him, with those who work in the trusts and with other interested parties in the area. It is not my intention that there should be any diminution in the standard of care available.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable anger in Llanelli at the decision to abolish the Llanelli Dinefwr hospital trust and that the anger will be compounded by the fact that the decision was taken by a Labour Secretary of State? Is he further aware that there will be widespread cynicism about the consultation process, because all groups in my constituency—health professionals and others—were totally opposed to the Welsh Office plans? Is he finally aware that all his fine words about not downgrading hospitals will carry little credibility because there is real concern, as a result of the decision that he has taken, that Prince Philip hospital in Llanelli will be downgraded and we will lose our medical services?
Mr. Michael: I know and understand my right hon. Friend's passion for the health services in his area. I hope that he will help to ensure that nobody pursues the approach of either cynicism or promoting the belief that there is any threat to Prince Philip hospital. I have made it clear that that is not the basis on which the reconfiguration is proceeding. I have been absolutely explicit—I hope that he will pass my words on to those of his constituents who have expressed concerns—about the requirement on the trust, the board and officials at the Welsh Office to ensure that none of the dangers that he fears will come about.
I understand the fears and cynicism that have arisen from the way in which health service decisions have been taken over the past 20 years. Many of us have had worries about our local services. The whole point of making my statement in a clear and considered way, measuring each word, is to ensure that the changes that I have to accept as necessary to concentrate on health care are implemented in such a way that high-quality care is provided, but with a proper regard for factors such as the affection of people in Llanelli for their own hospital. I hope that that offers the reassurance that my right hon. Friend seeks.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I agree with 80 per cent. of the statement, but I want to ask my right hon. Friend about the two-stage reorganisation of the
1064
trusts in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. We heard enough about two-stage reorganisation yesterday to last us a lifetime, although I understand that today's announcement does not involve any grouse moors or the resignation of any Tory Front-Bench spokesmen, however popular that might be in Wales.
How long does my right hon. Friend expect the period to be between the completion of stage one reform, with the two mergers that he has announced today, and the ultimate merger of the two newly merged trusts into one mega-trust covering the whole of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan? How high will morale be among the top management, the clinicians and everybody working in the health service in the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan area when they work for two organisations with such a limited shelf life?
Mr. Michael: I accept that a two-stage reform is not ideal, but nothing else was on the cards from the beginning of the consultation, as my hon. Friend knows. I hope that not only will we have no grouse moors, but no grouses at the end of the process. I have made our direction clear, following much uncertainty in the health service in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. People suspected that we would have stage one and that stage two would never happen. I am determined that we shall have a short first phase, leading to the completion of the job as soon as possible. I will consult further on how quickly that can be done, so that a time scale can be produced that gives some certainty to clinicians and staff in the area.
It is only fair to point out that the complexities in the area, of which my hon. Friend is aware, include the moving of the accident and emergency unit from Cardiff Royal infirmary to the University hospital of Wales and a variety of other movements in the acute services in the area. We do not intend to dismember the Llandough hospital from community services, thus producing a mish-mash and pretending that that is a second stage towards a single trust. Instead, we will merge existing arrangements in a manageable first stage, which will quickly lead to a sensible second stage and the degree of certainty that my hon. Friend rightly suggests should be achieved.
Mr. Don Touhig: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as far as Gwent is concerned, because I believe that the single trust is the proper solution. However, I know that my hon. Friends have some concerns about that and I am sure that they will express them to him. Will he confirm that his decision will provide us with an opportunity in Gwent to shift resources from bureaucracy to patient care and how does he intend to ensure that that happens?
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right: the purpose is to shift resources from bureaucracy into patient care by having only one level of bureaucracy and ensuring that services are available to people in appropriate and convenient locations. We wish to strengthen services in the northern half of Gwent, about which there has been some concern, and we want to ensure the safety and long-term security of Nevill Hall hospital. I am certain that the reconfiguration can achieve the improvement in patient care in Gwent for which my hon. Friend hopes.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I agree that the best

1065
solution is to concentrate the strengths of the services into a single trust. All the alternatives would have meant that administrators would have been appointed unnecessarily, and bureaucracy would have been doubled or even trebled at the expense of patient care by doctors and nurses. Given what my right hon. Friend said about the problems in the north of the county, may I remind him that the area of Wales with the worst health record is a ward in Newport? The solution will help all parts of Gwent to save money and enjoy a stronger health service.
Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right to suggest that we should focus on seeking to improve health care where it is worst, including wards in his constituency and areas in north Gwent. The purpose of the reforms is to ensure that everyone, wherever they live, has access to high-quality health care from acute and community services and from the complementary services of local authorities.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to express my disappointment with the statement as it affects my constituency. The policy of forced mergers of trusts that my right hon. Friend has inherited from his predecessor and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is mistaken, because mergers should be voluntary. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend provide for my constituents and people in Llanelli that services will be available in both areas and will not be affected by rationalisation?
Mr. Michael: I can understand my hon. Friend's disappointment, but I am not sure about the concept of voluntary mergers because that might mean leaving the management of trusts that may have been established on an unsatisfactory basis to choose whether to merge. The overriding consideration must be the need to provide the best quality of patient care, as I know my hon. Friend agrees. I am happy to give the reassurance he seeks that the quality and choice of care in his part of the new county area will not be downgraded, and I shall remind those who will run the trusts of the need to ensure that there is no asset stripping of one hospital for another. That applies equally to both sides of the combined trust.
Mr. Llew Smith: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to Nevill Hall hospital, people in Blaenau Gwent will still be angry about the statement. My right hon. Friend quoted the Royal College of Surgeons, but if he had quoted the local authorities, such as Blaenau Gwent, Monmouthshire and, even, Newport he would have found opposition to a single trust for the county of Gwent. The vast majority of general
1066
practitioners in Gwent are also opposed. The community of Blaenau Gwent has some of the worst health problems in the United Kingdom, including heart and respiratory disease and cancers, and the people are terrified that they will again have an authority that will be unable to relate to and respond to their health problems.
Mr. Michael: I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend presents on behalf of his constituents. I accept that different voices have different views, but I mentioned the Royal College of Surgeons because it has argued for larger concentrations of acute services, which can cause problems for more localised services, unless they are a part of a combination. I have proceeded with the interests of his constituents and the services at Nevill Hall hospital in mind. I accept my hon. Friend's concerns for his local area, but I believe that the creation of the local health groups and a stronger voice for community health councils will be a way in which to achieve our intentions. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend and his colleagues the changes to community health councils, because they will be important to our scheme.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I remind my right hon. Friend that, when the previous Government introduced the trust system, they included no consultation whatever. The Government should take some credit for having a consultation process on this occasion. My right hon. Friend will know that I campaigned with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) for a separate trust for north Gwent and I must express the disappointment of campaigners that my right hon. Friend has decided not to implement that. Will he give us an assurance that Nevill Hall hospital will be maintained as a district general hospital, that there will be no drift of resources to south Gwent and that the Government's commitment to combat social inequalities in health will work specifically in the interests of the people of north Gwent?
Mr. Michael: I am happy to give those assurances. Nevill Hall will continue as a district general hospital. As I indicated earlier, there must not be an exercise in asset stripping. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there was no consultation when the previous group of trusts was created, but we have listened, and I would be more likely to share the concerns expressed by some of his constituents if the trusts were to be of the type set up by the previous Government. We have made it clear that the trusts must be totally different, and must involve partnership and co-operation. They must provide an integrated health service in which there is no question of hospitals or acute services winning over community services, but, instead, complementing each other. I shall be happy to work through those issues with my hon. Friend and his colleagues as time goes by.

Business of the House
5.10 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the business of the House. The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Water Industry Bill.
TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on decommissioning and the release of prisoners, followed by a debate on tax. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on section 155 of the Finance Act 1998.
THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on prison sentences and alternatives to prison sentences, followed by a debate on new deal pathfinders and pathways into work for lone parents. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates, the votes on account and supplementary defence votes A.
FRIDAY 11 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill.
TUESDAY 15 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, conclusion of Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill,
Debate on the Common Fisheries Policy on a Government motion
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
WEDNESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons.
THURSDAY 17 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Scottish Enterprise Bill.
FRIDAY 18 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House will rise for the Christmas recess from Thursday 17 December until Monday 11 January 1999.
[Thursday 10 December:
Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day]—Class 1V, Votes 1 and 2: Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales, and prisons, England and Wales, in so far as they relate to prison sentences and alternatives to prison sentences. Relevant reports: the Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Alternatives to Prison Sentences (HC 486).
The Department for Education and Employment and Office for Standards in Education Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1998–99 (Cm 3910).
The Home Office Annual Report 1998 (Cm 3908).
Class 1, Votes 1 and 3: Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services and Employment Service and Class X11: Department of Social Security, in so far as they relate to New Deal Pathfinders and Pathways into Work for Lone Parents. Relevant Reports: the Seventh Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1997–98, Pathways into Work for Lone Parents (HC 646); and the Government's response thereto (HC 1122); the Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1997–98, New Deal Pathfinders (HC 1059)and the Government's response thereto (HC 1123)
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the business and for the dates of the Christmas recess, which are a sensible response to our suggestion that there was no point in bringing the House back after a non-sitting Friday for one or two days during Christmas week when we want to be busy in our constituencies.
On the Greater London Authority Bill, I am grateful for the right hon. Lady's response to my suggestion of allowing extra time for debate. Will the House be able to sit until midnight on that day so that debate is not duly constrained? May I repeat my request for sections of the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House as they affect the constitution?
The right hon. Lady trailed a debate on modernisation of the House, not on a Thursday, but on a Wednesday. Can she confirm that the report on how we manage Thursdays will be published in good time for that debate? Does she recognise that Members have strong and conflicting views on that matter? Can she confirm that Members will be able to vote for a range of options, including the status quo, on a free vote?
On Monday, will the Prime Minister be making a statement on the Anglo-French summit, and will he be able to explain his increasingly isolationist language on European matters? When we debate tax on Wednesday, will the Chancellor try to make good his disappointing performance on the "Today" programme on tax harmonisation? Will he be able to tell us which United Kingdom businesses are being targeted by the working group on harmful competition, which is chaired by the Financial Secretary? Will the Chancellor explain what he meant when he signed a code to tackle harmful tax competition? Will he give the same messages in the UK that he gives when he is in Europe?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we intend to suspend the rule and to allow debate until midnight on the first day of consideration on the Greater London Authority Bill. We hope that debate on the second day will conclude at around 7 o'clock.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would take sections of that Bill on the Floor of the House. We can discuss that through the usual channels, and I understand both the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and their anxiety to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly.

1069
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I expected the report on modernisation of the House of Commons to be published in time for the debate. I expect it to be published on Monday, leaving many days in which Members may consider it. He also asked about voting. It would be wrong of me to attempt to comment on how we might handle decisions when the report is not yet before the House. I am sure that the matter can be discussed through the usual channels, although if hon. Members wish to vote for the status quo, all that is required is that they reject any proposal for change. There will certainly be a free vote.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would make a statement on the summit. I expect that my right hon. Friend will do so. As we have made clear, informal councils or meetings might not be followed by a statement, but we certainly expect the Prime Minister to make a statement after the summit. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on the Prime Minister's stand, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is drifting back in time. The Government are not isolationist; on the contrary, we seek, successfully, to put together alliances across the European Union, which is one reason why we—unlike the previous Government—were successful in lifting the beef ban, a lifting long promised by the Conservatives, but never delivered.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the finance debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will speak about some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. As for the targeting of UK businesses in any proposal under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands that matter. We have had many complaints—I am sure that the previous Government had many such complaints in their day—about unfair taxes and concessions elsewhere. United Kingdom businesses have complained to us, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is addressing those complaints.
Mr. Tony Benn: Have the Government given any consideration whatever to making a statement about the information that came out casually yesterday that there has been a major change in Government policy towards the second Chamber? The House has been completely bypassed. Was the matter discussed by the consultative committee on which the leader of the Liberal Democrats sits? Is Lord Cranborne now an unofficial member of that committee, as part of the patriotic alliance? Will the hereditary peers who are elected be elected by proportional representation on a closed-list system, or will they be elected in the traditional hereditary manner of first past the bedpost?
Mrs. Beckett: As my right hon. Friend will be well aware, the Leader of the Opposition chose yesterday to publicise discussions that had been undertaken. If the matter was put casually before the House, that was not the doing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Indeed, had agreement been reached in the ordinary and customary way, it would have been properly announced to the House when we discussed the way in which the
1070
Bill on the Lords would be handled. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) chose instead to publicise the matter before any formal announcement had been made about the handling of that Bill. That is a matter for him, but given the way that Lords are leaping off the Tory Front Bench even as we speak, I imagine that he regrets his handling of it.
My right hon. Friend also asked me about the general issue of the second Chamber and how widely the matter was discussed. I understand that it was not widely discussed because the relevant discussions were continuing. Attempts were being made to reach agreement so that the matter could be handled by consensus and on common ground, according to how the Government had said from the outset that they wished to handle it, if and where they could. That has been the Government's position from the beginning, but it was clearly not the position at least of some parts of the Opposition, and it is still not their position.
As for whether Lord Cranborne is an unofficial member of any coalition, I am not sure where he stands at present. Should the agreement be put in place, how the hereditary peers will choose who should continue in the transitional House until all hereditary peers go—the Government have said from the outset that that is the intention at the conclusion of the legislation—is, I am happy say, for another place to decide.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I have a more serious question about the events of the past 24 hours. Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that the sensible management of the business of Parliament and, in particular, of this House, depends to a considerable degree on mutual trust and confidence across parties? Does she agree that that will be especially true not only for the business that she has announced for the next few weeks, but in the new year? Has the leadership of the Conservative party assured her that that mutual trust can be restored and that, when those who appear to be speaking on behalf of the party—appropriate spokesmen—enter into an agreement in good faith, they will stand by it? Has she received assurances to the effect that the Conservative party will now agree in good faith to the assurances that it has given?
Mrs. Beckett: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that mutual trust and confidence are important in this place and that, if assurances appear to be given but the situation then changes, it shakes that confidence. However, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received assurances of the sort that he suggests. I do not want to rub salt into any wounds, but it seems to me that such is the confusion that exists on the Opposition Benches that no one is in a position to give an assurance.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I know that my right hon. Friend is highly efficient, so will she use the extra time that she will undoubtedly find in the legislative process, as a result of those interesting and rapidly arrived at decisions, to establish a strategic rail authority? That would not only be widely welcomed by all our constituents, but would produce positive results for all the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will appreciate and as I said a moment ago, there is such confusion that it is

1071
a little hard to know what will happen. If, as seems possible, that agreement is adhered to, in particular in another place, we may well be able to introduce the strategic rail authority Bill, which will give not only my hon. Friend but many hon. Members considerable pleasure.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), can the Leader of the House tell us whether, when the Chancellor speaks to the House about taxation on Wednesday, he can explain why the Financial Secretary told European Standing Committee B that she believed that our "domestic tax system is fully consistent with the principles of the code"—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 26 November 1997; c. 2.] that the committee that she has been chairing is studying, when it turns out that 10 of our domestic tax measures will have to be changed?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not familiar with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is seeking the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom from the discussions on the tax code. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will raise that matter in the debate next week.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement on family leave? Is she aware that a commission reported recently to the United States Congress on family and medical leave, stating that it has a good effect on families and no significant effect on competitiveness? The Government have referred to parental leave in their programme, but unless there is some arrangement for payment that will be a hollow right for many people. Will she undertake to communicate that fact to the relevant Ministers?
Mrs. Beckett: I much respect my hon. Friend's strong feelings on that matter and take the point that a sensible balance between rights and the understanding and recognition of mutual responsibilities in the workplace facilitates competitiveness and economic success. He raised two slightly different issues. The first was family and parental leave; the Government have been discussing family leave in general rather than merely parental leave. Secondly, he mentioned a pay scheme and we are certainly some distance from that, although I understand the importance of his argument.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on early-day motion 56?
[That this House notes that from April 1999, 300,000 non-taxpaying pensioners and 330,000 other non-taxpayers will lose an average of £75 each because of the Government's decision to abolish the dividend tax credit; further notes that 80,000 of the pensioners affected will lose over £100 per year; considers that it is unacceptable that basic rate taxpayers and higher rate taxpayers are unaffected directly by this decision which only affects non-taxpayers, half of them poor pensioners, who by definition must be poorer than taxpayers; calls on the Government to act on the promise made to the House on 30th June when the Paymaster General stated 'I am aware of the growing anxiety among poorer
1072
non-taxpayers who have been hit by the measure so I know that we need to make our position utterly clear as quickly as possible', Official Report, 30th June, column 175; calls upon the Government to now honour this pledge by announcing that non-taxpayers will be able to continue to reclaim a 10 per cent. tax credit from April 1999 in the same way as taxpayers who hold PEPs or ISAs will be able to do; and further notes that this is still a 50 per cent. cut from the current 20 per cent. dividend tax credit.]
It has been signed by Members representing all three main political parties and concerns the plight of more than 300,000 pensioners, who will lose on average £75 a year because of the Government's decision to end the repayment of dividend tax credits.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not in a position to allow an early debate on that matter, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in the business statement that there will be a debate on tax matters. He will be able to raise it then.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm if there is to be a statement or a debate on the proceedings with which we have been deluged in the past 24 hours, that is, the demise of the hereditary peers? Although I, for one, want to see the end of the House of Lords, there is a delicious irony in seeing 750 hereditary peers sign their own death warrant-to-be, like the dead parrot, defunct and caput. In those circumstances, would it not be advantageous to introduce in the time that would be made available a strategic rail authority Bill, a food standards agency Bill and one or two other measures? The net result would be a benefit to the House and to the Labour party in particular.
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's strictures on the general handling of the issue. It is noteworthy that a most respected former Speaker of the House and other peers on the Cross Benches have put forward a proposal that commands support in another place. As my hon. Friend observes, that would mean that the Government could achieve a clear aim, namely, the removal of the right to sit and vote in another place on the basis of heredity. Indeed, we may well succeed in that aim faster than would otherwise have been the case. If the agreement can be implemented, we may well be able to introduce not only the strategic rail authority Bill but, one hopes, legislation on the food standards agency. Since the Conservative party has made so much of that latter measure, saying how important it is, I am sure that that would please Conservatives, too.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Lady find Government time for a debate on early-day motion 69?
[That this House believes that the statement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 9th November, Official Report, column 14, that he has never been, and does not intend to be, involved in procuring or negotiating sponsorship deals for the New Millennium Experience Company is totally inconsistent with newspaper reports that he entered into discussions with S. P. and G. P. Hinduja in January with a view to persuading them to abandon support for a millennium project in the Midlands in favour of the dome at

1073
Greenwich and met the Hinduja brothers on 6th October at the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the dome and other trade and industry matters; and is of the opinion that the Secretary of State should now apologise for having misled the House and should give up his position with the NMEC immediately.]
It draws attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry misled the House when he said on 9 November that he had never been and never would be involved in securing sponsorship for the New Millennium Experience Company. This afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to explain and apologise for his actions on that day. In an answer to a very reasonable question from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), he did not deny the facts or that he had misled the House. He sought, however, not to apologise, but to ridicule my hon. Friend and, in so doing, he made a fresh and totally false allegation against Mr. Hinduja.
Madam Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to call the House's attention to early-day motion 69, but he should not use the colourful language that he is using, or introduce new charges. He has done perfectly well in putting down that early-day motion, but he should stick closely to its wording, of which I am well aware.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker. You were here this afternoon when the issue was put to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and you heard his response. Will the Leader of the House demand that he comes to the House to explain his conduct? At the moment, he appears to be above the law.
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot undertake to give the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends an opportunity to raise afresh a matter that has clearly been raised once already today. From the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it seems to me not that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not deal with the matters raised, but that the hon. Gentleman does not like the answer that my right hon. Friend gave. I fear that that is not unknown in this place. It remains the position that my right hon. Friend does not procure or negotiate sponsorship deals. I understand that, in early October, he had a meeting with the Hinduja brothers to discuss several issues relating to the Department of Trade and Industry, but there is no record of any discussion of the millennium experience at that meeting.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if there was a statement on the hereditary peers next week, it would provide the Government with an opportunity to respond fully to the quite extraordinary—there is no other way to describe them—antics of the Leader of the Opposition? One would like to see the right hon. Gentleman respond accordingly. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as far as one can ascertain, there is widespread Labour support for any compromise and practical solution that would deal with most of the hereditary peers? I welcome what appears to be an arrangement that would help the Government and
1074
provide an excellent opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to move forward. It will certainly be appreciated in the country.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to all my hon. Friends who share the view that he expresses. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future to debate the developments of the past few days, although I agree that that might be an entertaining debate. Unfortunately, we are not here to enjoy ourselves, but to get on with legislative work.
One most noteworthy aspect of the events of the past few days is that the hypocrisy of the Conservative party has been completely exposed. Conservative Members have repeatedly claimed that the measure on Lords reform should not even be in the Gracious Speech, because it would take time from matters that are of far greater concern to the British people. On the other hand, we have made it quite plain that our chief interests in the Queen's Speech were indeed those other issues, such as health care, which are of far greater importance, but that we felt that Lords reform was a matter that had to be dealt with in its proper place. It is we who have been trying to find a way of not taking up excessive time to discuss the matter, although the proper time will, of course, be made available. Therefore. it is now crystal clear that it is Conservative Members who want to spend all their time discussing a matter which they say should not be a high priority.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in calling for a debate in Government time on funding for the millennium dome? I ask that not least because it struck me that the original answer at Question Time was that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had not sought extra funding for the millennium dome from other sources. I would have asked the right hon. Gentleman directly whether the matter had been put to the Hinduja brothers at their last meeting, but I failed to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State is a fairly slippery customer, and 10 minutes is a short time—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.
Mr. Blunt: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I withdraw that remark. The right hon. Gentleman is capable of evading a point for 10 minutes of questions in the House, and he has shown his ability to do so. However, a full debate on the dome would not only allow that question to be properly addressed. but would enable us to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the extraordinary claim he made this afternoon, that the millennium dome would somehow create £1 billion-worth of economic growth for the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has raised the same issue as his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and he will get the same answer. All I can add is that, as Conservative Members have of late spent so much time arguing that the House should devote itself to high-priority issues, the notion that we should spend a day debating the Conservatives' ridiculous accusations about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is quite ludicrous.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on the banking industry, especially the role

1075
played by Lombard banking and National Westminster bank in inducing customers to invest in The Tanning Shop franchisee business, when the bank knew, because that business was one of its major customers, that it was collapsing? If it is possible to have that debate, will my right hon. Friend ask Ministers at the DTI to ask inspectors to interview Mr. Peter Stern, who is the NatWest franchise manager? He knows the whole truth and he should tell the whole truth, so that the bank learns the whole truth. It is his failure to tell the bank the whole truth that is costing franchisees all over the country millions of pounds.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to hear of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised and of the losses he has identified as being made. I understand that DTI officials are looking at those issues and that the matter may have been referred to the banking ombudsman. I believe that my hon. Friend may have secured a meeting with the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). He is the relevant DTI Minister and I know that he will share my hon. Friend's concern and be anxious to ensure that anything that can be resolved is resolved. However, I fear that I cannot promise my hon. Friend that I shall be able to arrange a debate in the House on the matter in the near future.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: In the light of the right hon. Lady's remarks about faith and confidence in the House and given the comments that have been made today about the business yesterday, does she think it appropriate for an urgent debate to take place in which this House can discuss and debate the conduct of the Prime Minister? In the Queen's Speech debate, the right hon. Gentleman led the House to believe that he was keen to scrap hereditary peers at an early stage and made it a point of principle; yet, at the same time, through his offices and others in his party, he was making secret deals and negotiating how many hereditary peers could, through a Dutch auction, be retained in order to expedite the Government's business.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been paying attention to what has been going on. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it plain that it is a point of principle in the Labour party that an hereditary position should not be a qualification for sitting and voting in the other place and that we want to see that change at an early stage. It is clear that part of the purpose behind the discussions that have been held is indeed to make sure that that eventuality does occur earlier than might otherwise have been the case—in fact, I am beginning to wonder whether that is the Conservatives' real objection.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend had a moment to glance at the amazing, bewildering, breathtaking, fascinating and mind-boggling second report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on "The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy"? Not since Rip van Winkle, or at least since St. Paul was struck on the road to Damascus, has there been anything quite like it. Has she read paragraph 32, which states:
"Two aspects of the way in which the constitutional reform is being implemented give us particular cause for concern. One is the belated addressing of the English dimension."?
1076
Well, better late than never, but where on earth have our colleagues been all this time? Is it not about time that the House of Commons addressed itself seriously to what is actually happening to the constitution of this country and in Scotland?
Mrs. Beckett: I must confess that I have not committed to memory every word of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I have a further confession to make: the connection he makes with Rip van Winkle escapes me for the moment, although I am sure that if I think about it afterwards, I shall realise what it is—I shall work on that. I can say only that I know and understand my hon. Friend's strong views about devolution, which he has held for many years. However, regardless of the evidence given to the Select Committee, the remarks made or opinions quoted, I understand that the report welcomes the Government's proposals overall.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the right hon. Lady is aware that I asked her predecessor many times whether we could have a debate on the inordinate amount of time that Ministers take to reply to letters from Members of Parliament. She will probably also know that I put a series of questions to Ministers asking how long they took to reply to such letters. My questions were referred to a report that was published just before the summer recess. However, the report told us what had happened in 1997, not 1998—which is not satisfactory.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a letter that I received from the Department of Social Security in response to a question about why pensioners in my constituency had been told that they would receive a guaranteed minimum income of £75 a week. After three and a half months, the reply eventually came that there is no guaranteed minimum income of £75 a week because people must have less than £3,000 in savings in order to qualify. Why must we wait three and a half months to discover that our constituents have been misled in that way?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not intend to sound as though I am treating the hon. Gentleman's concerns about answers to letters trivially. That is an important matter, and I know that all my colleagues do their utmost to answer correspondence as speedily as possible. However, as to the specific issue to which he referred, I take it that he was asking a rhetorical question as I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman is much too intelligent not to have known the answer before he wrote the letter.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the rather strident language that has been used today? Lord Pilkington described Lord Cranborne's deal as his "crowning glory", while the Daily Mail described the actions of the Leader of the Opposition as "treason". In light of those comments, will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate about constitutional reform? Finally, in light of Baroness Strange's departure to the Cross Benches and the changing balance of power in the other place, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will not lose their resolve to reform the hereditary peerage system?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the remarks to which my hon. Friend referred. Every time one turns on the

1077
television one learns that a fresh member of the Conservative Front Bench in the House of Lords has departed—no doubt as a vote of confidence in the party's overall leadership. Although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's request to have an enjoyable and amusing debate in what is normally a festive season, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for it.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I thank the Leader of the House for her courtesy in responding to questions put to her by the Northern Ireland Select Committee about the powers of Select Committees in the devolved territories and remind her that we corresponded about that issue in July and November. Is the Leader of the House aware that the deadline for settling those matters is 1 February? Although we are making progress, I hope that that deadline is firmly in the Government's mind.
Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman both for his kind remarks and for the manner in which he has raised the issue. If by any chance the matter was not strongly in people's minds, I assure him that it will be from now on.
Mr. John Cryer: The Leader of the House will be aware that the chief fire officer for London proposes to cut five fire pumps across Greater London. That proposal comes on top of the removal of 14 fire pumps in the three years since the docklands bombing. It is also proposed to cut one of two pumps in my constituency—a move that will be resisted every inch of the way. The legislation governing the fire service, the Fire Services Act 1947, is woefully out of date and in need of review. Could we have a debate or at least a statement about that matter?
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend has correctly identified, that legislation has been on the statute book for some time. Responsibility for provision of the fire service rests locally with the fire authority, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the approval of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is required if such an authority wishes to reduce the number of stations, appliances or fire-fighting posts. I understand that no application has been received to date from the London fire and civil defence authority in respect of Hornchurch fire station.
As a result of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, the fire service standard spending assessment for London should increase by almost £10 million—or 3.8 per cent. That may assist to some degree with the difficulties identified by my hon. Friend. I take his point about the concern regarding those issues, but I fear that I cannot offer to provide a debate or a statement before Christmas.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Bearing in mind the current confusion in the ranks of the Conservative party to which my right hon. Friend correctly referred, can she confirm whether the progress of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—which was supported by a majority of hon. Members many times last night—will continue to be impeded by hereditary peers in the other place?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend asks a very interesting and pertinent question. I am grateful for the opportunity
1078
to put on record Labour Front Benchers' appreciation of the devotion to duty shown by many of our hon. Friends on the Back Benches who toiled through the Division Lobby on many occasions last night. I share my hon. Friend's hope that we are well on the way to disposing of the Bill. It is not yet entirely clear what attitude will be adopted in another place—whether as a consequence of the potential agreement or otherwise—but it is not impossible that we may finally be able to dispose of the matter in a manner that allows the efficient conduct of elections. That seems to me to be common sense.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Lady's answer to the question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was no less extraordinary for the fact that I drew her attention to the report at business questions last week. On that occasion, she replied that she did not read The Herald of Glasgow. So that we may be ready for next week's business—particularly Wednesday's business—will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be prepared to explain why he is now so ready to use the veto on tax harmonisation measures when he signed up to that agenda by acquiescing in "The European Way"?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that last week he asked me to comment on a leak reported in The Herald, not a Select Committee report that was published only today. I am sure that he has been in the House long enough to know that it would have been wrong for me to pre-empt the publication of a Select Committee report.
As for his remarks on tax harmonisation and the views of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is a constant source of astonishment to me that Opposition Members forget that the only taxation powers given up were those surrendered by the Conservative Government under the Maastricht treaty and on other occasions. For example, we could not reduce value added tax on fuel any further than 5 per cent. because of an agreement made by the Conservatives in government. Opposition Members also complain frequently about the use of the qualified majority vote. I remind the hon. Gentleman that no Labour Government ever gave up the veto: that was the Conservatives' doing.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about the Gulf war veterans who claim that they may have been affected by depleted uranium while on active service in the Gulf? Will she draw the Secretary of State's attention to the particular importance of that matter, bearing in mind that Ministry of Defence police have raided the homes of some veterans in the past 24 hours, apparently in an attempt to recover evidence and stop that claim proceeding?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not familiar with the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but I have no doubt that they will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I am aware that there has long been discussion about the difficult issue of illnesses suffered by many Gulf war veterans. The Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), devoted much time and sympathetic attention to the matter in his previous post as Minister for

1079
the Armed Forces. I am not familiar with the immediate issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Tony McNulty: First, may I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing the dates of the Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, and welcome the publication of the Bill today? Will she resist as far as is practicable any scrutiny of the Bill on the Floor of the House, rather than Upstairs? It needs detailed scrutiny, which is far better done elsewhere.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend resist the fatuous trivialisation of the issue dealt with at Prime Minister's questions yesterday in terms of patriotic alliances? Will she be assured that, whether it takes one year or two years, as long as the end result is that we get rid of all hereditary peers, this party, which has waited 90 years to do it, will wait a little longer?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The clear wish of the Government, and of the people who elected us, is to make a long, long-awaited reform in another place. Anything that brings that about will be welcome. If it brings it about more quickly, all the better.
I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Greater London Authority Bill. We will consider the issues with care. I can assure him that the Government will discuss through the usual channels the best way of handling the Bill, because we all want it to be properly scrutinised. We shall attempt to get agreement about how that can best be done, in whatever way those discussions take place.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 1?
[That this House enthusiastically supports the Government's proposal for a £75 guaranteed minimum income for pensioners; notes that about a million pensioners entitled to income support do not receive it; and urges that the guaranteed minimum should be implemented for all by raising the basic pension to £75 per week in 1999 without a means test.]
The amendment to it reads:
[Line 3, leave out from 'it' to end and add 'congratulates the Government for honouring its commitment to uprate the state pension at least in line with prices; applauds the extra help given to all pensioners through the new winter fuel payments, reductions in VAT on fuel and the restoration of free eye tests; believes that the Government is right to give the highest priority to the poorest pensioners; further congratulates the Government on establishing pilot projects to encourage pensioners to claim those benefits to which they are entitled; and looks forward to the extension of this initiative, in partnership with local authorities and voluntary organisations, to the rest of the country.']
It supports enthusiastically the many beneficial measures introduced by the Government to improve the income of pensioners, but also sadly notes that, according to recent answers by the Government, up to 1 million pensioners will not receive the guaranteed minimum income of £75, principally because they regard claiming income support as claiming a handout?
1080
Many of those pensioners have worked their entire lives without claiming any handouts or any welfare whatever, and they rightly say that if the level of the basic pension had been increased since 1980 according to the level of inflation, as the contributions that they made over 50 years increased by the level of inflation, the basic pension would now be not £66 a week, but £90 a week. Is it not right that we should say to those pensioners that they have earned the £75 on their basic pension? Would not that be the most dignified and best-value way of giving it to them?
Mrs. Beckett: I know of the huge amount of work on social security issues that my hon. Friend has done over the years, and of the great concern that he has shown. I can assure him that the Government whole-heartedly share his wish that the poorest pensioners, who in many cases are the poorest because during their working lives their earnings or their pension arrangements were such that they could not save, should receive a guaranteed minimum income.
I entirely share my hon. Friend's view—I think that I am right in my interpretation of his final remarks—that it is hugely important to encourage such pensioners to claim their entitlement and not to feel that they are discouraged from doing so. If, however, my hon. Friend was suggesting that massive increases should be made across the board to the basic pension, I understand and sympathise with the good will that lies behind that suggestion, but it is a much more difficult matter to give substantial increases on the basic pension, including to people who have—as so many now have, as a result of the scheme introduced by the last Labour Government—substantial second pensions.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the Leader of the House would not want to mislead the House, even inadvertently. I thought I heard her say, in answer to a question, that the Labour Government had not conceded the veto in any areas. She should, of course, be aware that the treaty of Amsterdam, which was taken through the House and signed by her Government, conceded qualified majority voting in no less than 14 areas. I am sure that she will want to put the record straight.
Mrs. Beckett: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall reply to that point of order.
I certainly did not intend any misinterpretation to be put on my words. The point that I was making, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, was that it was a Conservative Government who breached the important principle of whether or not everyone should enjoy a veto. Now that the issue of qualified majority voting is in place, thanks to the actions of the Conservative party, of course there are occasions when it seems sensible, in the national interest, that it should be used. It remains my view that it is quite accurate to say that no Labour Government gave up the veto: it was the Conservative Government who gave up the veto, and it is about time the Conservative party stopped making such a fuss and trying to pretend that we are culpable.

European Union
[Relevant documents: Developments in the European Union, January-June 1998 (Cm. 4152); The Commission's Work Programme for 1999: the policy priorities (EU Document Number 12841/98); The Commission's Work Programme for 1999: new legislative initiatives (EU Document Number 12840/98); Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 1st December, HC42-i.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
5.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): This debate gives the House its traditional opportunity to debate the issues under discussion at the forthcoming European Council in Vienna. It may be of assistance to the House if I outline what those topics will be. Such is the commitment of the hon. Members who have stayed till this hour that I am anxious to be of as much assistance to them as I can.
On the first morning the Council will approve the employment guidelines for 1999 and discuss how Europe can pursue policies to boost jobs and tackle unemployment. In the afternoon, we will examine progress on the Agenda 2000 dossier, reform of the common agricultural policy, modernisation of the structural funds, and the maintenance of budget discipline.
There will also be discussion on the debate on the future of Europe that was launched during the British presidency. This discussion will examine how we can ensure that decisions within the European Union are taken as close as possible to the peoples of the European Union in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
In the evening, there will be a discussion on enlargement, which will focus on a review of the Commission's report on the preparations by each of the dozen candidate countries.
Chancellor Klima of Austria, who will chair the European Council, visited London last week when he outlined that agenda. At his press conference after his meeting with the Prime Minister, Chancellor Klima said, in answer to a question:
"We will talk maybe only one minute about tax co-ordination."
Ever since he said that—or for the past two weeks—public debate about Europe in this country has been about little else but taxation. Today therefore provides the House of Commons with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate leadership of that public debate by exploding the myths and mischief that have been peddled as facts for a fortnight.
Ghost stories about bogy men can be very entertaining for children, but the electorate are entitled to be treated as adults when we debate our relations with our closest neighbours and our most important trading partners.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Cook: I see a bogy man.
Mr. Cash: The Foreign Secretary said that decisions, especially with regard to matters such as taxation, should be dealt with on the principle of
1082
subsidiarity, and decisions made as near to the people as possible. The Government continually say that there is no constitutional bar to economic and monetary union. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how they can make such an assertion, given that taxation clearly lies at the heart of economic and monetary union? When all the statements made by Oskar Lafontaine and others indicate that that is on their minds, why do the Government deny that taxation is on the agenda?
Mr. Cook: Of course, fiscal policy—the degree of the Government deficit—is highly relevant to monetary union. It was the hon. Gentleman's Government who agreed at Maastricht to tight targets on fiscal policy. We see no reason why those commitments on fiscal policy, given by hon. Members on the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench, necessarily require any country in Europe to have the same rate of taxation as any other country in Europe.
The best way of helping the hon. Gentleman and others to overcome fears of bogy men is to remember that we are not alone. Not just Britain but many other member states will oppose the harmonisation of tax rates. Yesterday the Italian Finance Minister told the Financial Times that harmonisation of corporation tax would be
"untimely, questionable and above all hardly feasible"
and that it
"would be wrong in any event."
Yesterday the Prime Minister of Spain spoke out against what he called the "dumbing down" of tax harmonisation, and opposed a single rate of direct tax because
"it would be a recipe for inefficiency".
There is no majority for the harmonisation of tax rates in Europe, never mind the unanimity that would be required for action. Nor will the need for unanimity change. That would require all members of the European Union to agree on a change to qualified majority voting on tax, and most member states will not agree.
As so much has been made of this debate over the past week, let us look at the record on tax harmonisation in Europe. The greatest harmonisation of tax rates adopted by the European Union was under the previous Conservative Government—the harmonisation of value added tax agreed by the then Conservative Chancellor Lord Lamont. It provided that, throughout the European Union, there would need to be a minimum standard rate of 15 per cent.
If the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) intends to attack tax harmonisation as wrong in principle, perhaps he would be good enough to share with the House what objections he raised in the Cabinet of which he was a member when it agreed to harmonise rates of VAT. There has been no change, and no proposals for change, in the harmonisation of VAT, since the election. Indeed, the only substantial change in VAT since the election is that the Government have cut the VAT on domestic gas and electricity bills which the last Government introduced. Those powers to vary the rates will of course continue. Only those who are out of touch with the EU would think otherwise.
So much for the past; as for the present, let me set out the Government's position. Britain will vigorously support the interests of British trade and investment throughout the single market by constructive engagement. There cannot be a Member of the House who has not been

1083
lobbied by an industry in his or her constituency about unfair tax loopholes, state aids or special tax privileges in a country with which that industry is in competition. Many of those tax breaks are now under review in a working group chaired by a British Treasury Minister. That is a good example of British leadership where we believe European co-operation on tax would benefit British industry and jobs.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on the point about British leadership in that particular field. I refer to British leadership in another field, which he did not mention when he referred to the agenda for the Vienna Heads of Government meeting—the common foreign and security policy.
Continental Europe is alight with views about what the Government and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence mean in respect of a new EU defence policy. I quote my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence:
"We are not talking about a standing European army. We are not talking about removing defence from the control of national governments. And we must not do anything that would undermine NATO, which will remain the cornerstone of European defence and security".
I know what we are not talking about. Perhaps—not at this moment but at some point in his speech—my right hon. Friend will tell the House and continental Europe what we are talking about.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the Foreign Secretary responds, may I say to hon. Members that we have had two very wordy interventions? The custom is that interventions should be brief, rather than mini-speeches.
Mr. Cook: I am glad that I have given my hon. Friend the opportunity to make his point, although I am not sure that it naturally arose from the passage on which I was addressing the House. He asked what we are exploring with our French partners, and with other partners throughout the EU. We are exploring how we can make decisions within the common foreign and security policy more effective and more rapid, and how we can ensure that there is a better transmission between the security policy decided by the Foreign Ministers of the EU and the defence policy that we implement through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
We have been clear about the fact that we do not see that as in any way weakening NATO. On the contrary, we would hope that the initiative that we are taking on European security would strengthen the effectiveness of security policy in the EU and the European identity within NATO.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but I should remind him that he should have been addressing the Chair, just as much as his hon. Friend.
Mr. Cook: I am justly rebuked, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall make a point of addressing the Chair. If you would allow me to return to the trend of my observations—
Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to intervene later.
1084
I was outlining the fact that we would vigorously support the interests of British trade and investment, wherever they were served by co-operation on tax. Where there is that British interest, we will support it. Successive British Governments have tried to get a level playing field on excise duties so that British spirits have fairer competition in their export markets. I pay tribute to the previous Government, for once. They also pressed for more harmonisation of export duties, and they were right to do so.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on the issue of harmonisation. Hans Tietmeyer has said:
"A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wages policy as well as in monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold onto their autonomy over taxation policies."
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree or disagree?
Mr. Cook: I have already made it perfectly clear that I do not accept that becoming a member of the single currency—if that were something that Britain were eventually to become—would logically involve a transfer of decision making on taxes, still less on wages policy. There would need to be harmonisation of fiscal policy and budget deficit, but that would not require us to have common tax rates. It has not required common tax rates throughout the United States, which also operates within a single currency.
Not only Britain, but many other member states, still insist that direct taxation is a matter for the nation state. There is neither any proposal, nor any prospect of a proposal, for harmonisation of income tax in the EU. Neither Britain nor many other member states believe that there is any case for a European rate of corporation tax. Even the President of the Commission, which alone can initiate any proposal, has said that
"income tax, corporation tax, social security … are sovereign, national matters and will remain so."
We need to have a debate about tax and Europe that treats British voters as adults. Where there are limited proposals for co-ordination on tax rules which are of benefit to Britain, we should support them. Where there are proposals that would damage Britain, we will oppose them, but for the rest of my lifetime, and that of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe—whoever manages to outlive the other—the member states of the EU will continue to have tax systems which remain distinctive, even sometimes eccentric.
Germany has a special tax on coffee. I cannot see the French, with their famous affection for coffee, swallowing that one. France has a special 30 per cent. tax allowance for journalists. I do not imagine that other countries will want to copy it, but it could be the one measure which, at a stroke, could convert the British press to enthusiastic support for tax harmonisation.
Mr. Letwin: In the light of his remarks about treating the British public as adults, will the Foreign Secretary explain why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not treat the members of European Standing Committee B as adults when she told us:
"We believe that our own domestic tax system is fully consistent with the principles of the code."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 26 November 1997; c. 2.]

1085
The right hon. Gentleman rightly told us that the Financial Secretary chairs the group that is working on it, but 10 of the measures will involve changing our tax system.
Mr. Cook: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, the 85 measures at the back of the report that went to the Economic and Finance Council this week are being examined by the working group. That does not imply that the working group has taken a view on any of those 85—far less on the 10 that affect Britain, and even less on the five within that 10 that concern United Kingdom, as distinct from Gibraltar, issues. We shall look carefully at those issues as the working group continues its task.
If we are serious about tackling unfair tax loopholes and tax breaks in other countries that distort the market and are to the disadvantage of our industry, we should be prepared—openly and robustly—to look at those areas where other countries may have criticisms of us and where we are confident that we can rebut those criticisms.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Cook: I will give way, then I must move on.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does not that mean that we may not always be able to maintain some rates of taxation that are radically different from those of other nations? We must occasionally assume that, as part of the negotiations, we will be required to abandon British taxation.
Mr. Cook: Perhaps I may correct my hon. Friend. The working group is not examining tax systems, tax rates or tax rules. Under examination are the special, privileged tax breaks that some countries have used unfairly to attract investment, which does not reflect the competitiveness of the general economy. We are confident that we can assert that we will not have such tax breaks in Britain.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make progress with my speech. I am sure that he will catch my eye later.
The real agenda for Vienna shows Britain's success in influencing European priorities. Last December at Luxembourg we secured employment guidelines that reflect Britain's strategy of getting people back into work by increasing their skills. We have successfully retained the broad thrust of that strategy in the new guidelines for 1999. We have also secured some improvements. In particular, we have secured a new stress on gender equality, which reflects our commitment to ensuring that opportunities for work are open to both men and women.
We shall continue to make progress on our objective of ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is put into effect across all decisions of the European Union. We hope to reach agreement in Vienna that the protocol on subsidiarity of the Amsterdam treaty will be brought into effect early, even though the treaty as a whole has not yet been ratified by all member states. We shall receive at
1086
Vienna the first annual report on the implementation of subsidiarity. Both those steps take us further towards our goal of a Europe in which decisions are taken closer to the people.
Britain's objective in the discussion on Agenda 2000 will be to keep on track for its conclusion at a special European Council next March under the German presidency. We welcome the commitment that has been given by the new German Government to keep to that timetable. On Sunday, I shall join Foreign Ministers to discuss Agenda 2000 in advance of the Vienna Council. Progress so far on the three main elements of Agenda 2000 is in line with British interests.
On the common agricultural policy, we welcome the Commission's proposal for a cut of 30 per cent. in beef intervention prices; a cut of 20 per cent. in cereal prices; and a cut of 15 per cent. in milk prices. Collectively, the price cuts add up to a saving for the British consumer of £1 billion a year, which is a saving of £84 for the average household budget.
On structural funds, we support efforts to streamline the present seven objectives into three. Two thirds of all structural fund spending will remain concentrated under objective 1, and our success in securing new agreed regional boundaries should ensure that Britain continues to get good support from objective 1, with three new areas qualifying: South Yorkshire, Cornwall and west Wales.
On budget discipline, we welcome the broad consensus that there should be no increase in the ceiling of the European budget. We shall continue to impress on the Commission and the Council that the budget ceiling should remain a ceiling and should not become a target.
Mr. Nicholls: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one of the unfair tax breaks that attracts investment into this country is the comparatively low rate of corporation tax? In the light of what he said, how does he propose to resist moves from other countries that want our corporation tax to be at the same rate as the equivalent tax in their countries, so that the so-called unfair tax competition is eliminated?
Mr. Cook: I was unwise to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who plainly does not understand what is under review by the working group on the code of conduct. The rate of corporation tax has nothing whatever to do with that working group.
Mr. Nicholls: Yes, it does.
Mr. Cook: The code of conduct has nothing to do with the overall rate. It deals with those countries that provide specific, targeted exemptions to attract privileged industries to their country in unfair competition with other countries. For that reason, this country has nothing to fear from a rigorous examination of the problem. If Conservative Members were to acquaint themselves with the truth of what is actually under discussion in the European Union, they might not feel so threatened.
Before the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) intervened, I was referring to budget discipline. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have made it plain at successive Council meetings that there can be no question of reopening negotiations on the British rebate. In its recent financial

1087
perspective, the Commission admitted that, even after the rebate, Britain continues to make a higher net contribution per head than other member states that are in a better position to pay. In those circumstances, we see no case for reopening negotiations on the British rebate.
It will, of course, not be possible to fund the enlargement of the European Union within a fixed budget unless we can reduce spending within the existing member states. It is vital that the European Union maintains its momentum on the reforms in Agenda 2000 to match the preparations that the candidate countries are making for membership.
The Vienna Council will review the Commission's report on the preparations in each of the dozen candidate countries. The Commission identifies two or three candidates whose progress on preparation has been disappointing, but the overall picture is positive. For the first candidate countries, screening has now been completed in 17 chapters of European law, and substantive negotiations have been opened in seven. If we can maintain that momentum, by the end of the German presidency we shall have commenced negotiations in half the chapters of European law. That would be good progress, and would demonstrate the strength of the arrangements for enlargement that Britain established during our presidency.
Britain continues to be the firmest ally of the candidate countries in the debates on enlargement. I was the only Foreign Minister of any of the major member states to attend last month's accession process with the candidate countries. That strong support is warmly acknowledged whenever I visit any of the candidate countries. Their good will for Britain is in our national interest, because they will soon be full voting members of the European Union.
I do not underestimate the real difficulties in securing the biggest ever enlargement of the European Union. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the problems of enlargement are much less important than the benefits. There could be no more valuable prize than a united, stable, democratic and prosperous Europe.
Britain has left its mark on the major issues that will be on the agenda at Vienna.
Mr. Roger Casale: My right hon. Friend rightly says that we should not lose sight of the fact that the enlargement of the European Union is an historic opportunity for Europe. Does he accept that it is also an historic opportunity for Britain to show clear leadership in Europe by ensuring that countries that want to accede to the EU are ready to join, and that the EU is itself ready for accession to take place? This is the moment for British leadership to come strongly to the fore.
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that Britain has shown that leadership in the past 18 months. We have pressed for the successful launch of the accession process, and at all the Council meetings we have constantly spoken in support of enlargement. We are keen to ensure that the Agenda 2000 dossier is completed by next spring, so that we can match the real efforts that are being made by many of the candidate countries. All around central and eastern Europe, there are improvements in good governance, changes to the market economy and improvements on trade. That is a direct
1088
reflection of the commitment of those countries to achieving membership of the European Union. We should respond to that action within Europe.
Britain is, of course, demonstrating leadership. Our leadership is shown in the step-change that the Government have made in our relations with our European partners. A key part of that step-change is a much greater partnership between Ministers and their opposite numbers throughout the European Union. It is now routine in European business for Britain to take the initiative along with one or more of our partners.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just made a declaration on employment jointly with Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, and early next year we will hold the first of our new regular summits with Spain. My noble Friend Lord Simon has launched an initiative on boosting enterprise with his French opposite number. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is engaged with the Minister for the Chancellery in Gerhard Schröder's office to promote a common approach to a broad range of policy issues.
I have agreed with Joschke Fischer on a structure of regular meetings between ourselves, and between our European Ministers. We are nearing completion on a British-German initiative on human rights. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I travelled to Paris to meet our counterparts jointly, to explore how we can work together more closely on our ideas for the security of Europe.
In parallel with that increased partnership with Ministers in European countries, we are demonstrating the step-change in our relations with Europe by strengthening our diplomatic team throughout Europe. Last week, I announced that there would be 33 more staff at our embassies in the European Union. That will mean more commercial attachés to promote British trade, more labour attachés to promote our dialogue with social partners throughout Europe, and more desk officers to support them in the European command in the Foreign Office. That constitutes a new investment in our relations in Europe—a good investment, because this Government are determined to make those relations work.
In the past week, we have seen an example of our success in making those relations work for Britain: both the Agriculture Council and the European Commission voted to lift the ban on the export of British beef. We were, of course, able to achieve that result only because of the majority voting that the Conservative party insists on regarding as merely a threat to Britain. Nothing illustrates more effectively than that success the contrast between the present Government and their predecessor. The last Conservative Government launched a war on Europe over the beef ban; they lost that war. They surrendered without securing the sale of a single sausage.
The consequences of that war, however, were worse than mere failure. It provoked the maximum resentment of Britain, and produced the minimum respect for it. Britain is now respected as a leading partner in Europe. Even before we go to Vienna, the agenda for that summit demonstrates Britain's influence. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will travel to Vienna confident that we shall be able to secure conclusions that are in Britain's interests.

1089
In any other European country. the strength of that country's government in Europe would be a matter of national pride. An eve-of-summit debate in any other European country's Parliament would express unity in support of the nation's interest in a successful summit.
Mr. Michael Howard: Paradise!
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say "Paradise", but I do not expect what I have described to happen tonight. I fear that, if this debate runs true to form, we are doomed to a succession of speeches demonstrating the maximum division over our European policy from Opposition Members who, I suspect, would secretly prefer seeing the European summit to end in disarray that was bad for Europe to seeing an agreement that was good for Britain.
I do not really expect the Government to secure agreement from the Opposition on our European policy tonight. That would be too much to hope, given that the last Conservative Government could not secure agreement either. But, as long as the Conservative party insists on regarding Europe only as a threat, it will be unable to offer Britain a Government who can seize the opportunities of membership of the European Union.
Europe is our largest market, and buys half our exports. Europe's strength means that we have more clout in trade talks than Britain could ever have on its own—and the more we are seen to have influence in the capitals of Europe, the more respect Britain has in capitals throughout the world.
This Government recognise the tremendous opportunity that Europe represents for Britain, and in Vienna we will again demonstrate that we are a Government who can take full advantage of that opportunity.
6.25 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: This is a significant debate, and the Vienna summit will be a particularly significant summit.
It has become crystal clear in recent days, even to the most blinkered observer, that the European Union is at a crossroads. We now face pressure on all fronts to move towards the goal that the German Foreign Minister has declared to be his objective: a single European state. One currency, one tax policy, one employment policy, one defence policy, one legal area, one state.
There is a great march towards a single European state, and the British Government will have to respond to it. It is not something that the Government can fudge. This is the moment when the new Labour project collides with the real world. The time has come at last for the Government to stop talking about hard choices and start making some.
The omens are far from encouraging. At the recent summit in PÖrtschach, the Prime Minister had an opportunity to say no; instead—in the words of an authoritative British source—he decided to go with the flow. If he continues to go with the flow in Vienna, it will be disastrous for Britain and disastrous for Europe.
1090
The decisions made in Vienna during the Germany presidency in the first half of next year will set Europe's course for the early part of the next century.
This should constitute an historic opportunity to ensure that Europe responds to the needs and wishes of its peoples. With nearly 20 million people out of work across Europe. job creation should be the number one priority. With the institutions of Europe being seen as ever more remote from the people of Europe, genuine subsidiarity should be high on the agenda. With the countries of central and eastern Europe desperate to cement their political and economic freedoms by joining the European Union, the requirements of enlargement should inform every decision that Europe now makes.
By their actions in Vienna, Europe's leaders will be able to provide answers to some fundamental questions. Are we to have a Europe of nation states, or will the process of European integration continue indefinitely? Will we be part of an outward-looking, free-trade Europe, or part of a fortress Europe? Will Europe take the route of genuine subsidiarity, or will it move yet further from its citizens? Will it be a high-tax or a low-tax Europe, a competitive or an uncompetitive Europe, a job creator or a job destroyer?
Since their election, all too many of Europe's left-wing Governments have already provided the answers to those questions. The tragedy for Britain is that, so far, the British Government have been content to go with the flow. It is now time for British Ministers to tell the British public where they stand.
Britain is, after all, in an ideal position to take a principled stance. Ministers should know what policies are best for Europe, because they have seen them work in Britain. Ministers in a country that, during the last Parliament, witnessed stronger growth than took place in any other major European Union country should know which economic policies are required to foster prosperity, because they saw them work in practice. Ministers in a country that, by 1997, had a lower unemployment rate than any other major European Union country, and a higher proportion of the working-age population in work than any such country, should know what policies are required for job creation, because they saw them work in practice. Ministers representing a country whose citizens believe in co-operation and free trade, but who are proud of their nation and do not wish it to be submerged in a single European state, should know precisely when to call a halt to further integration.
The British Government should therefore be putting a case for British principles—British Conservative principles—the free market, low taxes and less interference from Brussels. Alas, they are not doing so. Indeed, they are not arguing for any principles at all. Time and again, they are content to nod through whatever suggestions are put before them by other countries. When it comes to proposals from Europe, new Labour just goes with the flow.
That process has continued long enough. It is time for the Government to be straight with the British public. Before Ministers travel to Vienna, there are at least six key areas on which they need to explain where they stand.
First, Europe's agenda on the harmonisation of taxes is becoming increasingly plain. Finance Ministers of the countries holding this European Union presidency and the next have made it clear that tax harmonisation follows

1091
directly from the introduction of the single currency. The German Finance Minister has said that it is a primary objective of Bonn's EU presidency.
We are already aware of plans to harmonise corporate taxation. Now the Commission is preparing to publish suggestions for a common VAT regime. It has made it clear that, as an intermediate step, it wants to extend its scope and to review exemptions, which would clearly put the UK's zero rates at risk.
According to Commissioner de Silguy, that could "logically" lead to the introduction of VAT on food. The same commissioner has called for the extension of qualified majority voting on taxation issues. When asked recently whether harmonisation could include personal taxation, he replied, "Why not?"
At the very moment the Foreign Secretary was making reassuring noises to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on Tuesday morning, there was a call from Germany and France for the abolition of the veto on taxation.
Mr. Casale: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear which type of tax he is objecting to—indirect taxes such as VAT, which are part and parcel of completing the single market and on which his Government introduced harmonisation to complete the single market; or direct taxation, which is not on the negotiating table now, or for the foreseeable future? Which is he talking about—indirect or direct taxes?
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he should at least do me the courtesy of listening to the speech because, as I have said, those taxes are indeed on the agenda; Commissioner de Silguy has said so in recent days.
Mr. Robin Cook: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is objecting to VAT being, as he puts it, on the agenda, could he clear up what he said in the Cabinet in 1993, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to harmonise VAT rates throughout Europe?
Mr. Howard: The Foreign Secretary knows full well that it is country of origin-based VAT that is objectionable. That was effectively put off the agenda under the previous Government. It has come back on to the agenda under the present Government. That is what is objectionable and what the present Government's position is unclear about.
Mr. Cook: I am very sorry: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was at the Cabinet the day it discussed that matter in 1993. The previous Government agreed that there would be a minimum standard rate of 15 per cent. throughout the European Union, and that there should be no more than two lower rates, of which the bottom one would be at least 5 per cent. That is the only agreement that has ever been made on harmonisation of tax rates in the history of the European Union. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman object to it, and if he did not, would he please spare us this humbug?
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that that agreement did not in any sense put the zero
1092
VAT rates in this country at risk. It is the country of origin-based regime on VAT that puts zero tax rates at risk, and we are entitled to know what the Government's position is on that and those other issues.
The Government claim that tax harmonisation is "not the way forward" and that
"no-one is proposing any change in VAT',
but when we examine the small print in their documents, we find that their commitment to resist tax harmonisation is limited to personal tax rates. There is no commitment to resist harmonisation of the range of taxation that does not fall within that narrowly defined category.
When they are behind closed doors, the Government's actions belie their words. First, they sign a code of conduct on business taxation, under which they undertake not to engage in so-called "harmful tax competition". Then they endorse a socialist manifesto—indeed, they apparently drafted it—that calls for further efforts to avoid so-called harmful tax competition. Finally, this week, we have been told that Ministers will not be vetoing plans for a withholding tax, despite the damage that they would do to the City of London, and that they will be signing up to measures forbidding tax breaks for industries, including tax breaks that they themselves have introduced during the relatively short period that they have been in government. So Ministers say one thing in Britain and do another in Europe.
Mr. Giles Radice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned zero rating of VAT. Has he noted that there are six member states with zero rating and that, for it to be removed, there has to be unanimous voting? It does not seem likely that there will be unanimous voting when six countries have zero rating, so the point that he is making is not really serious.
Mr. Howard: It is an extremely serious point when the Foreign Secretary assures the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that matters are not on the agenda and, as he speaks, the Finance Ministers of France and Germany indicate that they are on the agenda. As we have seen in the past, when Germany and France agree on something within the European Union, they tend to get their way.
With such behaviour in mind, is it any wonder that the French Finance Minister confidently predicts that Britain will be
"won round to tax harmonisation by the end of the German presidency",
that the Commission President says that Britain has already accepted the principle of co-operation on tax rates, and that European Commissioner Monti says that the UK is "fully on board" on the issue?
Let the Government answer clearly: why have they already signed up to the principle of tax harmonisation? Precisely which "non-personal" taxes are they prepared to see harmonised? Is it true that they intend to refuse to veto measures on withholding taxes; and will they propose new measures to outlaw tax breaks for particular industries?
The second issue is no less crucial to Britain's future. It was raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). The Foreign Secretary indicated that he was going to deal with it in his speech. We are still waiting for a comprehensive reply.

1093
The House was not given the courtesy of a statement on the outcome of the informal summit at Pörtschach, but following the usual off-the-record briefings, the press reported that, to prove their Euro-credentials, the Government were planning to table new proposals on the future of Europe's defences.
The German Foreign Minister has made his view on that issue clear. He thinks that
"one day, foreign and defence policy will … have to become community tasks",
so he thinks that the European Commission should decide whether and when British forces should be committed to combat.
The Conservative party has an equally clear view. We believe that the British Government should continue to decide whether and when British forces are committed to combat. We believe that NATO should remain the bedrock of our security and that any European defence identity should operate within NATO.
What is the Government's view? When addressing a British audience through their mission statement, they promised to base Britain's security on NATO, but when abroad, they sing a different tune. The Prime Minister told the New York Times that the European Union needed to be able to act militarily "on its own" when the United States was not so engaged, and he told the North Atlantic Assembly that Europe needed "genuine military operational capability".
When the issue was raised with the Secretary of State for Defence last week, he refused to clarify it, so Ministers have a second chance today. Do they support the idea of a European Union military capability—yes or no? Would they support the abolition of the Western European Union, or its merging into the EU—yes or no? If the WEU is to be abolished and a European military capability is to be based on the European Union, where does that leave Norway, Turkey and Iceland, which are members of NATO but not of the European Union? Where does it leave the new members of NATO, who will become members in April, but who are not yet members of the European Union—Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic?
Ms Claire Ward: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the views that he has just mentioned can sit comfortably with the views he expressed some time ago in the 40th anniversary special supplement of Crossbow. In that magazine, when he was a practising barrister rather than a Member of the House, he said:
"Eventually, indeed, the aim might be a European air force and joint units could be a first step towards that objective."
Does he agree with that statement now?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady has gone back a long way. I am delighted that she is such an assiduous reader of Crossbow. The previous Government made it clear that we had no objection to a European defence identity within NATO, but that is what the Western European Union is there to provide. It is the future of the WEU which is at the heart of this debate.
1094
Ministers are playing an extraordinary game. After Pörtschach one senior civil servant remarked that it was
"refreshing but a bit unnerving"
to have a Prime Minister launching a major policy debate
"without knowing where it's going to end up."
When that debate concerns Britain's future security, such an approach might be considered rather more unnerving than refreshing. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been extremely effective in keeping the peace over the past 50 years. It is disgraceful that Ministers are now prepared to put that at risk, not because they think that there is anything wrong with it but simply because they want to curry favour with some of our European partners.
Thirdly, we now learn that the European Commission is working on proposals for a unified criminal system with a European public prosecutor to whom each state's prosecution chiefs would ultimately be answerable. Initially, the proposals have been concerned with the fight against fraud in the European Union. The Conservative party has been at the forefront of calls for Europe to deal with such misuse of taxpayers' money. However, we would not support any extension of that work in the direction of a unified criminal system across the EU.
Ministers claim that such proposals are merely part of a discussion paper. They used to make similar claims about tax harmonisation until we discovered that they had apparently already signed up to the idea. The Conservative party can today give a categoric assurance that we will not support further moves towards a unified criminal system in Europe. Can the Government give that assurance too?
Fourthly, both France and Germany have made it clear that they support much higher public spending in Europe. What is the view of the British Government? When addressing British audiences they claim to support fiscal control in Europe. Once again, there is a yawning gap between their rhetoric at home and the reality of what they endorse while abroad. At Pörtschach, the Prime Minister was reported to have signed up in principle to a multi-million pound spending package. The Euro-socialist manifesto that Labour endorsed, and indeed claims to have drafted, contained similar plans and called for a "new culture of regulation".
Is it any wonder that many observers are claiming that the differences between the German SPD—the Social Democratic party—and the Labour party are far smaller than is often assumed in public debate.
Fifthly, Europe is facing vital decisions on the extent of future integration. The German Foreign Minister believes that the creation of a single European state is the
"decisive task of our time."
He wants to turn the European Union into one entity under international law with a common constitution. The Conservative party believes that Britain should be in Europe, but not run by Europe. What is the Government's view? When giving interviews to the New Statesman the Foreign Secretary informs us that
"Maastricht was a high water mark of integrationism".
When seated round the discussion tables of Europe at Amsterdam, his party signed up to an extension of majority voting in 15 areas and a year later it endorsed a Euro-socialist manifesto calling for "increased international integration". Which of the Government's

1095
two contrasting faces—for domestic consumption or for presenting to our European partners—is the real face of the British Government?
Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's worries. As someone who negotiated the Labour party's involvement in the Euro-socialist manifesto over four different European parliamentary elections, I can assure him that such was the magnificent and careful use of language that all those documents contained no commitment to anything of any kind.
Mr. Howard: I am sure that the hon. Lady is absolutely right. In the days when she drafted the documents for European parliamentary elections, what they contained mattered very little because there were few left-wing Governments in the European Union. The trouble now is that the document matters greatly because 13 of the 15 Governments are left wing. That is why we have to take the document seriously and that is why its content is so alarming.
Ms Ward: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should take some lessons from the statistic that he has just quoted. The fact that 13 members of the European Union have what might be described as left or left-of-centre Governments might suggest that that is the right way forward.
Mr. Howard: The trouble is that in the past this country has seen the effect of the policies that those Governments are now pursuing so actively and vigorously. Those are the very policies with which the present British Government are prepared to go along, moving with the flow.
I want to talk about the extent to which the moves to a deeper Europe put a brake on enlargement. On 10 November substantive negotiations were opened at ministerial level through the accession conferences, involving the six first-wave applicants. We now learn that European Commission officials are stating "in private" that the target date for the first wave of EU enlargement is slipping to "after 2005". Hungary and Poland in particular have expressed concern at the continuing delays. The Polish President is reported to have strongly criticised the European Union for spreading myths and stereotypes about candidate countries as an excuse to delay their entry into the EU.
What is the Government's view? Publicly, the Government have given their support to the enlargement of the EU—we heard that from the Foreign Secretary a few minutes ago. In Europe, they continue to support further integration which will set back the process of enlargement still further.
The Government have not been open with the British public on any of those issues, but nowhere has Labour's unprincipled stance been as stark as on the single currency. Almost alone in Europe, the Labour Government have simply refused to explain exactly what the single currency will entail. The other countries of Europe do not share those inhibitions. The German Chancellor refers to the euro as
"an important step on the way to European integration."
The Austrian Foreign Minister says that it represents a
"major step in the political process of European integration."
1096
Commissioner de Silguy says that the single currency should be the
"driving force of closer political union."
In Britain, the Government make no such claims. With the vast majority of British people opposed to such integration it is not hard to see why.
As on tax harmonisation, on steps towards a European Union army and on the proposals for further integration, the Government are simply unwilling to tell the British people the truth. Instead, they seek to divorce the constitutional impact of the single currency from its effect on the economy. They refuse to admit that the two are inextricably linked and that a policy of abandoning our control of economic and monetary policy has significant and constitutional implications. They are scarcely prepared to admit that the EMU project is about economic and monetary union, not simply about a single currency, momentous a question though that is.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel the slightest bit uneasy at having sat for all those years in the same Cabinet as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)?
Mr. Howard: Not at all. My right hon. and learned Friend and I go back a very long way. We have been friends for a very long time and we agreed on far more things than we disagreed about.
Nations control their economic and monetary policy because it is in the interest of their citizens that those decisions be taken according to national needs. By saying that it is a question of when, not whether, we join economic and monetary union, the Government are intent on signing away in perpetuity our right to decide those vital matters for ourselves. Ministers claim that the constitutional implications are irrelevant. How will they explain that to British workers thrown out of work because European interest rates, set with the needs of all of Europe in mind, are too high for Britain; or to households facing an inflationary boom if interest rates are too low? How will they explain to British voters that their votes will be powerless to change those policies because the decisions will no longer be made in Britain?
It is, of course, easy to understand why the Government, given their record, are tempted entirely to remove matters of economic management from the domestic political arena. After 19 months in office, they have already generated the headlines produced by every previous Labour Government: interest rates up; taxes up; unemployment up. It is therefore easy to understand why they no longer want such questions to feature in our general elections. But what would be the point of having general elections if the parties were unable to stand on differing economic programmes?
Mr. John Cryer: If, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think, EMU is wrong in principle, why does not the Conservative party rule it out for ever?
Mr. Howard: I am saying that those are relevant questions to be taken into account. They are not matters completely to be put to one side, as the Government pretend, by uttering the mantra that there is "no constitutional bar", as though that were enough to make any further discussion totally irrelevant.

1097
The truth is that the management of our economy is not some side issue for Ministers to ponder in their spare time, but the primary function of a modern Government. How can removal of control of economic decision making from the House not be a weighty matter to consider in the context of economic and monetary union?
The fact is that—on the single currency, on tax harmonisation, on defence matters, on European economic policy, on judicial co-operation, on European integration and on enlargement—new Labour is trying to be all things to all men. It tells the British people what it thinks the British people want to hear, and then signs what the other countries of Europe want it to sign.
As Europe lurches to the left, Labour's only goal is not to be left out. Instead of standing up for Britain's interests, it goes with the flow. Labour is unwilling to express clear views on the matters because its views are not fixed. It is unwilling to explain its principles because it has no principles to explain. Instead, for the sake of a quiet life, it intends to avoid debate in Britain, while being carried on the left-wing tide in Europe.
There is an alternative agenda. We could have a Government who fought for the Europe in which we believe—who fought for free trade, low taxes, deregulation, job creation and a Europe that truly works in the interests of its citizens. Alas, all the signs are that the Government are not prepared to do any of those things. Instead they will go with the flow. Britain and Europe will be the poorer in consequence.
6.53 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When I listen to debates on Europe in the House, I sometimes feel that one should call down Chinese curses on both Front Benches. The reason is terribly simple: I believe that the United Kingdom electorate really do have the right to know exactly what is happening within the European institutions.
Unfortunately, our debates on Europe have now become almost set pieces, in which one side is prepared to say, "Your Government did everything wrong" in response to the other side, which is busily saying, "Our side intends to do everything right." I have been an hon. Member long enough to understand that such an approach to an important subject is not unusual. However, we have now reached such a stage in discussions on development, particularly of a monetary control system which will determine the United Kingdom's future for many generations to come, that we might be able to put before our constituents a rather clearer picture of what is involved.
I have just returned from Brussels where—following the dictates of my Ministers, who assured me that I would have a completely different attitude once I had gone—I returned to the haunts of my youth. I should say that, occasionally, I did actually live and work in Holland, in Belgium and in France. I am one of those strange people who do occasionally speak foreign languages. I also do not find that my physical presence in Brussels affects my political view one small iota. Perhaps it makes my view even worse, but it certainly does not change my attitude.
I think that we should now be saying that we have sufficient evidence to put before the British people about the implications of what is being proposed. We should
1098
say to them, "Talk about the report of the Court of Auditors", which, for the third time, has been unable to approve the accounts. The report describes in considerable detail straightforward fraud, although we have enough crooks in this country to understand the implications of that. People will be attracted where there are large sums, and it is not really surprising to discover that large institutions are unable adequately to control the amounts of money flowing through them.
We should, however, at least be saying openly now what we think of as subsidiarity and what we accept as central control. Ultimately, those are the only things that really matter. If we do not have a clear view of what policies are to be moved from the House and dealt with in European legislation, we shall never explain the political implications of doing so. The move towards a common currency must inevitably take with it a very clear commitment to a common taxation policy. I do not understand how anyone can pretend that that is not so. Some people would say that that consequence is not only sensible, but normal and, indeed, desirable. At least let us be reasonably outspoken about it. Let us say very clearly what the implications will be.
If we agree to measures, as we have done in the past, that bring with them a very considerable transfer of resources, let us say, "Fine; but that does not mean that we accept that there must be a common tax base or a common attitude towards taxation of particular industries. There will also be instances in which, for one reason or another, we wish to retain total freedom of action." The debate is not being framed in those terms. Too many people are already being given the idea that the debate can be thought of in highly superficial terms: "It would be nice if we had a common currency, because you won't have any difficulty changing your money when you want to go on holiday." I see some artificiality in that argument.
Do we really want a situation in which decisions are taken about major industries in a way that we cannot control? Let us take a small instance, involving an industry that I happen to know about, although it is certainly not one of the most important. If the British authorities decide to give specific taxation advantages to the film industry to encourage a local industry—to attract to Britain those who write and who act in British film productions that normally would have been made elsewhere, sometimes in Ireland but most usually in the United States—are they to be told in future that doing so is unfair discrimination because it is an industry that must have an absolutely flat taxation base right across the European Union? If so, fine; let us argue it out. However, let us not pretend that that is not the ultimate aim of many of the proposed changes.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Has not the hon. Lady received an equal number of representations from United Kingdom industries concerned that there should be a "level playing field" with other member states, but complaining about the ways in which other member states subsidise their industries? Does it not logically follow that, if one has a single market, one has to ensure that there are rules of fairness that apply throughout that market, which otherwise will become distorted, often to the disadvantage of UK companies?
Mrs. Dunwoody: That is exactly the theory on which many people have operated for many years. That was why

1099
we were told that there had to be the changes that we have already accepted. My experience of business, unlike the hon. Gentleman's, is that it will come and moan when it thinks that it can get some taxpayers' money, and will proceed in the manner that it thinks will benefit shareholders when it can operate without any constraints on its behaviour. I am, therefore, not entirely surprised when people complain to me about alternative industries and alternative countries.
I am saying something different—that the United Kingdom Parliament has a duty to tell the electors that when we talk about Euro money, we are also talking about Euro taxation and the ultimate aim of common bases. It does not matter whether it is taxation, industry aid or a long-term commitment to specific budgets; we are talking about common aims. I hope on some occasion to raise the inequities, absurdities and hypocrisies of the transport policies that we have been discussing this week in Brussels, because it is clear that there is a dichotomy in many institutions. The European Commission claims to be concerned about CO2, emissions, yet it pushes hard for ever larger lorries to be allowed free access throughout the European Community. We should not allow that to go unobserved.
Both Front-Bench teams are failing to serve the populace well. They should tell the people in simple terms that within the next year and a half, there will be a concentrated campaign, funded largely by European Community money—of which we pay a large part—to try to persuade us that our future inevitably lies in a Euro monetary system that will have its final decisions made in another country and another system, which is not answerable, does not respond to its own monetary controls and does not meet with the agreement of its auditors.
That will have considerable implications for the British people. The major car firm in my constituency is owned by a large German company that has not only failed to give my constituents undertakings that there will be jobs well into the new century, but has said that it intends to move those jobs elsewhere. One of my rail freight firms has considerable difficulties. It wants to use freight paths across Europe and before long, it will face large national monopolies that are anxious to keep out competition.
I know what the problems are. I want a counter—I do not think that it will happen in the next two years—to the sophisticated, expensive and one-sided debate that we shall have about monetary control. I am sad that the House of Commons does not appear to be leading that.
7.3 pm
Mr. David Davis: This is the first time that I have spoken in the House about Europe since I stood down as Front Bencher on the subject. I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I suppose that I was taking her advice early about trying to bring a cool, analytical approach to examining the Government's policies and strategies of the past year. I suspect that I ought to take that advice more than most, because I was probably a recipient of one of her Chinese curses when I was on the Front Bench.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Not just one.
Mr. Davis: Many Chinese curses.
1100
Having watched the Government at work for 18 months, I am reminded of the old adage that the easiest way to create a Euro-sceptic is to find a Europhile and send him to the Council of Ministers. That is what happens to Governments during their time in office. In 1979, the incoming Conservative Government were broadly more tolerant towards Europe than the outgoing Labour Government. Something similar happened in 1997. The situation did not last in 1979; I doubt that it will last in 1999.
The Foreign Secretary has told us that Labour's strategy in the past 18 months has been to distinguish itself from the openly tough-minded approach of the previous Conservative Government by adopting an overtly Europhile approach. The present Government's strategy appears to be to demonstrate a willingness to make concessions up front in the hope of gaining more in return. I do not think that that is a misrepresentation.
During my three years as a European Minister, I attended 100 or more negotiating meetings, from small meetings of junior Ministers up to European Councils. I watched the other European countries play against each other as well as against us. My comments relate not just to our relationship with Europe. I saw a fierce competition of national interests wrapped up in communautaire language. I also watched the institutions continually promote a rising tide of European federalism, supported by a shifting alliance of the various member states. I never saw a concession given with no attempt to get something in return.
I started by doubting the strategy of volunteering concessions in the hope of eventual reward, but I waited to see whether I was wrong. I am afraid that I was not. Since the election, we have seen the ineffectiveness of the strategy, with concession after concession on our part, but gains that were non-existent, long overdue or trivial.
At Amsterdam, there were concessions on the social chapter, the giving up of our veto in 15 areas, the Schengen agreement, and new powers to the European Parliament and to Strasbourg. There was nothing new in return.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend should be aware that at Amsterdam, a new protocol on subsidiarity was secured, but a careful reading of it shows that it means only that subsidiarity applies in those areas in which we have ceded no control to the European Union. When I pointed that out to the Minister, he did not demur, but merely replied that we should enjoy it while we still have it.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes my point more dramatically than perhaps I would.
I continued to wait after Amsterdam in the hope that perhaps there would be later concessions—in vain. We did not even get a seat on Euro X, despite the Chancellor's legendary commitment to the euro.
I obviously disagree with the Government's policy aims, but I am as disappointed as many others that their negotiating strategy, which was different from ours, has failed. I did not expect anything more, but I was disappointed, because that failure affects the national interest.
This week, we have heard more about monetary union and threats of tax harmonisation. We have already heard some robust exchanges between Front-Bench Members

1101
today. It is not so long since Labour was claiming that monetary union did not imply any tax harmonisation or even pressure for it. Now we see proposals not just for tax harmonisation, but to remove our veto on tax law at the next intergovernmental conference.
Arguments about economic and monetary union as a solely economic project in Britain were always somewhat Alice in Wonderland. At meetings that I attended, nobody on the continent talked about monetary union except as a political project. The strongest debate was not about whether it was a political project, but about which should come first—political union or monetary union. All the exponents accepted that one implied the other. None of the Foreign Ministers or Prime Ministers I spoke to was in any doubt that monetary union was an integral component of political union.
It is no surprise that monetary union has brought with it the other trappings of centralisation of economic management. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, the corollary is a requirement for a large central budget to deal with the consequences. I should be surprised if we did not see that from our European colleagues in the near future. Anatole Kaletsky writes about that in The Times today.
The Chancellor would respond that he has a veto. That is correct and it is an important strength in his argument. Under no circumstances should he give it up. However, to imagine that the problems created by the start of monetary union can be resolved simply by the muscular use of the veto is at best simplistic.
Without the veto, Britain will face a catastrophic loss of sovereignty. Even with the veto, it will face serious difficulties; it will face many assaults and many pressures. Let us imagine that the United Kingdom Government manage to resist what will undoubtedly be increasing demands for tax harmonisation and other centralising economic changes, which are designed to eliminate what others regard as unfair tax competition that is destroying their jobs—we should remember that one man's tax competition is another man's unfair tax advantage. If that happens, the perception of unfair competition will go wider than tax issues; the Government's strategy will give rise to a more immediate threat to Britain's national interest.
The Foreign Secretary talked about European Union employment strategy. I fear that the Government may have created, without realising it, an economic doomsday machine that will do serious damage to the British economy in the medium to long term. For three reasons, monetary union will undoubtedly cause localised unemployment hot spots throughout Europe, even if it is successful.
First, the one-size-fits-all interest rate policy will cause unemployment in countries whose economies are on the down cycle when the rest of Europe is on the up. Secondly, countries that suffer badly from external shocks, such as collapsing markets in Russia or commodity price rises, will not have at their beck and call the fastest and most responsive economic mechanisms—exchange rates and interest rates—to prevent localised unemployment. Thirdly, the principal benefit of monetary union—the transparency of pricing across the Union—will mean stronger competitive pressures, which will lead
1102
more transnational companies to move production from the least efficient to the most efficient areas of Europe, taking jobs with them. The result of that will be high unemployment in some countries, irrespective of whether monetary union succeeds.
Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend paints a picture of Britain being locked into permanent conflict with the rest of the European Union and reaping no benefit from its membership. If that is the reality as he and others see it, a time may come when we should debate whether our continuing membership is in our interests or even Europe's interests. It may be difficult for us to continue to be part of the European Union if we constantly attack our own membership.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend takes the wrong end of what I am saying, which may be my fault. I was arguing that Europe, at its best and at its worse, is a marketplace of argument. There is clash and sometimes co-operation between the interests of member states. We should not be in any way blinkered about that.
We should determine what the mechanism that we are creating produces as a result of that interaction of nation states' interests.Over the past 50 years, the mechanism has encouraged growth in trade and enabled us to have half our trade with Europe. It has helped us to avoid military conflict between the various countries and has, no doubt, given us a range of advantages in other policy areas, such as home affairs.
Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davis: Let me answer one intervention at a time, especially when I have been taken completely off the line of my speech. I am arguing that we should debate the structures that are to be built into the European Union with open eyes. We should see what we are creating and what the consequences will be.
Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He seems to have come to the crux of the matter. If one reads the treaty of Rome—which I did rather late in the day—it becomes obvious that it is in the business of setting up a common market not as an end in itself, but as one of a series of steps in the creation a new nation state. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) asks whether we shall ultimately have to ask ourselves whether we can go on like this. Whatever conclusion we draw, that is a fair question.
Mr. Davis: Of course it is a fair question. I am not sure whether it is an advantage, but I have read all the relevant treaties, including the Amsterdam treaty, more than once—three times in most cases. Almost all of them contain a multiplicity of objectives, which should be no surprise—they amount to the wills of 15 countries now, not to mention institutions such as the Commission, which operates virtually as a 16th nation state.
All member states must have asked themselves that question. I put the question to myself and discussed it during my three years in the Foreign Office, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) probably remembers. I always concluded that Britain's membership of the Union was not only to our advantage, but to the Union's advantage. We fill an important ecological niche—if there is such a thing—in the Union.

1103
There were occasions in the run-up to the Amsterdam negotiations—I am being tempted to talk for much longer than I had intended—when Ministers from other countries told me, as Minister of State with responsibility for Europe, to veto the flexibility clause, for example. I said to them, not unnaturally, "You've got a veto. Veto it yourself." The response would be, "No, you must understand that some of us can't stand up to Franco-German pressure. Britain is the only country that can."
Regardless of whether that is true, the other countries collapsed on that issue and that was not the only time when Britain brought to bear in European negotiations a point of view that was unique, but very important to the European Union and its continued traditions of democracy. I shall now attempt to get back to the argument that I was making.
Mr. Blunt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davis: This will have to be the last time.
Mr. Blunt: My right hon. Friend is on a most interesting tack, so it would be a pity to leave it immediately. Surely a point comes at which the British national interest must be considered in the light of the role that we are being invited to play in Europe. The Government are already in that position. After 18 months, they are now almost completely isolated on tax harmonisation and have to look to the Spanish Conservatives for assistance. It will not be long before they are absolutely on their own—a traditional British position. The question that must be answered is whether that will always be worth it for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Davis: The issue must always be in front of anyone who is representing our country or making these decisions for it. I am perhaps a little kinder to the Government than my hon. Friend is; I take the view that they are still learning.
The history of the European Union shows that, on almost every contentious issue, there is first an argument about a matter on which the veto applies. Then, if it is at all possible, the European majority tries to make that subject a qualified majority voting article, as happened with the working time directive, the pregnancy directive and a number of other directives. If that does not work, the matter ends up in the European Court. Most recently, we have lost zero ratings on industrial construction for commercial purposes, which I suppose is understandable, and, rather disgracefully, on spectacles and contact lenses—I cannot imagine on what basis the court found against us in that matter, but it did. If that process does not work, there is a Schengen outcome—the 13, 14 or 15 go another way, set up a caucus and organise things to their own advantage so that one finds oneself at a disadvantage.
In the next decade, we shall have to face such problems over tax harmonisation. There will be the perennial attempt to remove the veto at the IGC—I predict that that will be on every IGC agenda until the attempt is successful or until the nature of the Union changes. None the less, our membership is worth while, as we continue to benefit from it. However, we must always ask the question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said.
1104
Before that minor diversion, I was making the point that the system that monetary union creates will lead to localised hot-spots of unemployment throughout Europe. What will be the reaction of the countries that face those hot-spots? Will they decide suddenly to pursue Thatcherite policies? Will they deregulate their labour markets, cut on-costs and create employment, as the previous Conservative Government did? Is that the probable future of the new socialist Europe? I hardly think so.
We do not need to guess. We already have an example—we can read the book. About two years ago, Renault closed its factory in Vervoerde in Belgium—near the constituency of Jean-Luc Dehaene, the Belgian Prime Minister—and moved the production to France. What did Jean-Luc Dehaene do? Did he say that Belgian workers should cut their costs; that Belgian managers should become more efficient; that his Government would cut the burden of regulation and taxation on industry?
Certainly not—of course not. That is ridiculous. He called for an end to social dumping. He called for more regulation and harmonisation, and for more rules to stop the free operation of markets within and between the nations of Europe. That happened last time, and it will happen more and more often under the pressure of monetary union-created hot-spots of unemployment.
The difference this time is that there will be a mechanism for that call for more regulation to be turned into action. That mechanism, I am afraid, is the social chapter—not just the social chapter, but most specifically. The social chapter was created to allow harmonisation of labour law, and the Government have explicitly signed up to legislation under the chapter.
The harmonisation that we face that is most immediate is not tax harmonisation, but labour law harmonisation. We know from our history that that can cripple flexibility and growth, and can destroy jobs. It is not just the Opposition who know that—the Government commissioned the McKinsey report on the determinants of growth and the restraints on growth in this country. What was among the top three? Education and investment were not there, but competition and deregulation were. We know that the harmonisation of regulation will be very dangerous to our ability to create jobs. I want the Minister to say how the employment strategy of Europe will deal with this very real threat to British well-being and to British people's jobs.
7.23 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) that there is an advantage for Britain to remain as a member of the EU. When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, the Select Committee on European Legislation—of which I was a member—always appreciated his detailed knowledge of the issues on which we questioned him.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I want an open and informed debate on all the issues of concern to us in Europe. However, the speech by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and some of the interventions from Opposition Back Benchers have demonstrated how difficult it is in this so-called mother of Parliaments to have informed and balanced debate on such issues of importance.

1105
Many Conservative Members and the tabloid press consider it incompatible for someone to be both pro-British and pro-Europe. The reaction of some of the media to anything to do with Europe—not least this week—seems at times to verge on encouraging xenophobia. The reaction is one-sided—they see Europe as the enemy, bent on invading our glorious island. They ignore some of the advantages and benefits that our membership of the EU has given to us and to our constituents.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned some of those benefits, and my constituents certainly appreciate the ease of travel, the access to goods and markets of the EU, and European funding. Many constituencies, such as mine, have seen their traditional industries and areas of employment destroyed, and European funding has assisted in their efforts to create new jobs and economic regeneration.
If we are to deal effectively with many of the issues of concern, we must recognise that that can most effectively be done on a European and an international basis. One example of that—on which the majority of Britons would agree—is that tackling effectively the drugs industry and international crime must be done internationally.
I recognise that a number of hon. Members want to speak, and that the EU is a large subject to try to cover. I have decided to focus my remarks on two areas, both of which provide big challenges for the EU—first, the common foreign and security policy, and secondly, the challenge of making Europe seem more relevant and accountable to the lives of the people whom we represent.
Britain's relationship with Europe has been one of constant development and change, as those who are familiar with our history will know. It may help to remind ourselves that the very concept of the nation state is a fairly recent development in terms of European history. We must disentangle ourselves from the views of those hon. Members who still seem to cling and hark back to the days of the glorious British empire.
By virtue of our history and geography, Europe is where we are now, and it is where we must have a leadership presence in the 21st century. I am keen for us to have more debates on a common foreign and security policy for Europe, and what that would entail. Because of our geography, history and international reputation—and our high standing among nation states in many parts of the world—we in Britain are in a key place to take a lead. The process of European enlargement means that we must engage in a constructive dialogue on foreign and security policy.
If we are to succeed on the social and economic fronts, we need a stable and peaceful Europe—one where there is a good understanding of the different perspectives, of which there are many, due to the different locations of current member states and those states seeking to join. It is only by communication that we can try to break down some of the years of hostility, distrust and suspicion that have existed between some of those countries, develop a dialogue of trust and share a common agenda.
The "Partnership for Peace" process has demonstrated the success of that communication and joint working. It has brought together nations which, not so long ago, were clear enemies, and it has helped to break down quickly some old attitudes and prejudices.
1106
The European Union has a role to play in that, and it cannot be left entirely to NATO, although I fully agree that NATO is the bedrock of our defence in Europe. Only through a close and constructive relationship with our European partners on common foreign and security interests can we seek to make an even greater positive contribution on the world stage.
I want more debate on the common foreign and security policy. We have a real mix and match of categories of countries in Europe that are involved or interested in our foreign policy, security and defence. There are countries that are in both the EU and NATO; those that are in the EU only; those that are in NATO only, and want it to stay that way; those that want to be in both; those that have been promised membership of one or the other; those that want to join both but are feeling rebuffed; and those that want to stay outside but somehow have a special relationship with Europe.
We need to focus more on the subject. As they would say in Scotland, we have the auld alliance with France, which wants to remain semi-detached from NATO but to raise its profile in European security issues. As we have seen all too clearly, that mix and match has made it extremely difficult for us and our European partners to agree and stick with a common approach when facing an international crisis, whether in Kosovo or in Iraq. Many hon. Members are keen to have a more rapid and effective European response to such crises, which affect the peace and stability of Europe.
I welcome the way in which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence are trying to open up the debate on the EU' s defence role and the future role of the Western European Union.
We also need to consider the future of the industries that give a technological lead in the EU, many of which are strongly associated with the defence industry. Those industries have been telling me that they want the EU to be more active in helping them effectively to rationalise into a strong and effective competitor of our close and special ally, the United States.
Most of our constituents do not regard Europe as affecting their everyday lives or as being interesting or accountable to them. It is seen as remote and bureaucratic, and as providing a convenient gravy train for unaccountable officials. It is in our interests as a country to challenge that view and to promote greater openness and accountability, not only in our own system of government—as the Government have done with the creation of the Scottish Parliament and Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland—but in Europe.
Anyone who has been an election agent in a European election, as I have, will know how difficult it is to persuade members of the public that the matter is one of key concern to them.
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Lady is inviting us to have the proper debate for which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) called. There is a substantial political implication behind economic and monetary union. Does she agree that we should now consider the political and democratic accountability that will have to

1107
be built around the single currency and the single economy to make the European institutions accountable to her constituents and mine?
Ms Squire: I would certainly welcome a far more open and informed debate on all issues of concern in the European Union, be they economic, social or foreign policy-based. It is depressing how difficult it seems to be to have that debate without getting a tabloid reaction from some of the media: they do not give us information on or arguments for and against the various aspects of our approach to Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested that we should identify clearly those areas that should come under subsidiarity and those, such as the drugs trade, on which an international or common approach can be of mutual benefit.
I welcomed the fact that, at the end of our presidency, one of the conclusions reached at Cardiff was that a sustained effort is needed to bring Europe closer to the people. That is even more important now, when countries without our long tradition of parliamentary democracy and debate are joining the European Union. I welcome the ideas coming from independent groups such as the Centre for European Reform about how we can make the Commission more accountable. I do not know whether that should happen through elections, but I would like to hear people's views on the subject.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend really think that there will be any move towards electing the Commission? It is a hybrid organisation in which jobs are reserved according to nationality. Its very rigidity makes it impossible for it to become accountable, and that is what occasions the grave reservations that many people in the United Kingdom have about it.
Ms Squire: I am by no means advocating any particular approach. I entirely agree that the Commission is seen as remote and unaccountable, producing endless reams of paper that no one can understand. I would like the Commission to be introduced immediately to the Plain English Campaign so that it produces stuff that is readable. I would like the House to have more open debate on how we can make the Commission and other European institutions accountable and help our constituents to feel that there is a direct link between those institutions and the reality of their everyday lives.
There is no future or comfort in adopting a British isolationist approach. We know only too well from the history of this century what a high price Europe has paid for isolationist approaches in individual countries. They have fed territorial instincts, prejudice and ethnic conflict. The best tribute that we can pay to those who have sacrificed so much for our peace and freedom is to seek co-operation, partnership and communication with fellow member countries in the European Union.
7.40 pm
Mr. David Heath: In my brief experience of the House, I have noticed that the only thing that stops foreign affairs debates being timetabled for Friday mornings is if the House is not sitting. In that case, they are held on Thursday evenings, but it would be a pleasure at some time in the future to attend a foreign
1108
affairs debate in parliamentary prime time. Nevertheless, we have had a valuable debate with some interesting contributions.
In many ways, we have had an interesting political week and the crisis—one might say disaster—that has befallen the Conservative party in the past day or so has been fortunate in many ways, not least because it drew the press's attention away from their unremitting campaign of questioning the direction of British European policy. The crisis even brought The Sun back from expressing itself in inadequate German to its normal practice of expressing itself in inadequate English.
When the Foreign Secretary appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee earlier this week, I asked him whether he felt that there had been a change in attitude to the principle of subsidiarity in the European Union. He was more sanguine than I believe was justified in the circumstances. In the past few months, a renewed climate of indecision, even hostility, has developed around some basic tenets, which I am sure I share with the Minister, behind the development of the European Union.
Everything must have seemed very different only a few months ago when we watched the election of the new German Government, which joined other socialist Governments—at least nominally—across Europe. It must have been with some glee that the spin doctors from No. 10 and the Treasury visited continental Europe to talk to Mr. Jospin's médicins de rotation and Mr. Schröder's Drehungdoktoren. Together they would be able to form a miasma of European spin to create the new European way, as it was described, which may be a continental version of the third way. However, it seems that all that effort was in vain, because it has all gone wrong in the past week. We may draw a couple of morals from that. First, do not let the Treasury try to run foreign affairs, because it is not equipped to do so. Secondly, there is still a real debate about the direction of the European Union and the arguments have not yet been won. The difference between this Government and the previous Government is that we are all now at least engaged in the arguments and can contribute to them. I hope that is what will happen in Vienna.
Earlier in the debate, the Foreign Secretary quoted Chancellor Klima as saying that tax harmonisation would take up one minute of the time in Vienna. I sincerely hope that he is wrong, because that crucial question should be addressed by the heads of state and foreign secretaries. The controversy we have seen in the newspapers in the past week has been somewhat synthetic. Mr. Lafontaine has conveniently been portrayed as the new bogy man—the new thing of the night—to replace Jacques Delors, in his time, and Jacques Santer, although the latter never had a sufficiently exciting persona to cut the mustard as a bogy man. Mr. Lafontaine has some potential in that area. We have seen proposals from 1996 dredged up and displayed as a real and current danger of standardisation across the European Union.
It would be offensive if I were to appear patronising to a senior politician of a partner Government, but Mr. Lafontaine has not been helpful to the European debate in the past week, for a couple of reasons. One is that, after a long period in opposition, he is a member of a newly elected Government. As we have seen, that sometimes causes people to speak in haste and then repent at leisure that they were not quite as diplomatic as they should have been. Another reason is that Mr. Lafontaine

1109
is a Saarlander—that is an important factor. He looks out of the window in Saarbrücken and sees people coming across the bridge every morning from the villages around Sarreguemines on the other side of the border. In that part of Europe, harmonisation is a real factor, because people live in France and work in Germany and vice versa. The border is very porous and the effects of that are a factor in his political make-up.
In recent days, the British Government have gone some way to addressing the issue, although not as plainly as I would wish. I am disappointed that the rebuttal of the proposals for tax harmonisation has been couched in a chimeric expression of sovereignty, because there are strong arguments against harmonisation that have nothing to do with sovereignty, important though that is. First, it removes the only element of flexibility within the rigid framework of tax policy that the Maastricht treaty laid out. Secondly, tax harmonisation cannot be reconciled with subsidiarity. The two do not go together. If one is genuine about subsidiarity, national Governments must have the freedom to set tax levels. Thirdly, tax competition is a useful mechanism. Genuine tax competition—I do not mean tax evasion or the abuse of the tax system that we see in some of the tax havens dotted around Europe—helps to establish economic parity between nations. Although harmonisation of tax levels across international borders may sometimes be a good thing, compulsion is not. The argument is the same as for compulsory competitive tendering in the domestic sphere. There is nothing wrong with competitive tendering, but if it is made compulsory it is wrong because it forces distortions on local choice and on the end result. We must also point out to partner states in Europe that tax harmonisation could also prove painful to their national interests—the President of the Commission may recognise that from his national background.
My second point concerns the protocol on subsidiarity. I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say that some of the mechanisms of that protocol may be put in place before the eventual ratification of the Amsterdam treaty. The tragedy is that that has not happened already. If the nations of Europe were agreed that subsidiarity had to be made a reality, why was not the European Commission required from day one to justify any proposals it made in subsidiarity terms? There is no reason to wait for ratification. It is essential to see whether the protocol produces the right results. I would go further. We should seek codification across Europe, not just of treaties, but to establish the basic principle of subsidiarity—devolution of power to the lowest available level. We simply do not have that now.
I know that it is unhelpful to talk of a constitution for Europe, because others use that phrase in different ways, and it carries implications of a superstate, which I certainly would not support. However, we need something that says that some things are best done locally, regionally or nationally. Only matters better dealt with at the European level should be dealt with at that point. Such change should be retrospective, going into the acquis communautaire. We cannot leave aside all that has been done to date, saying that it was right just because it has been agreed. Times change, and matters ought to change with time.
1110
I hope that the Vienna council will address the management of the EU and how the Commission organises its affairs. The Court of Auditors report on the mismanagement of international aid was so damning, not just of the small element of fraud, but of the much bigger element of mismanagement and simple incompetence that it cannot be left to the scrutiny committees of the European Parliament to put matters right. The Governments of the member states must call the Commission to account, and must say that that state of affairs cannot continue. We must have better management.
The British Government have exactly the right attitude towards budgetary control, and they should work with those who take an equally well defined view of how that control can be implemented. I mention with approbation, because I have spoken to him a number of times and I like what he says, the Finnish Commissioner, Mr. Liikanen, who has done a good job in putting forward proper suggestions for control of the European budget.
The proposals on EU co-operation on justice and home affairs are an important area for further development. We have seen initiatives on combating the drug trade, or international crime. However, a degree of—dare I use the word harmonisation; probably I dare not—co-operation across Europe is important to make sure that internal security measures are compatible and effective.
The Government will have to reconsider their position on asylum and immigration to ensure that our policy is compatible. The same is true of the future of the Schengen agreement, because we shall eventually find that it is in our national interest to have a degree of association with it. We must, of course, recognise our particular position as an island state, with all that that implies, but we must, nevertheless, consider the Schengen agreement anew.
The common foreign and security policy will be crucial. I wish the Prime Minister well on his day trip today to St. Malo, as I wished him well in Pörtschach. I wish, however, that he would occasionally share with the House the thoughts that he is so willing to share everywhere else in the world about the future of the common defence and foreign policy. He is exploring new areas of crucial importance, and the House ought to be able to express an opinion. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, we received no statement after Pörtschach, despite the best endeavours of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen to encourage the Prime Minister to give us one. I hope that he will explain his thinking to the House in the very near future.
We must maintain a commitment to NATO, an organisation of desperate importance to us. No one argues with our maintaining the inalienable right of the British Government to be the only body that can send British troops into danger. Anyone who feels that that can be short-circuited is quite wrong. Even so, it must be good to increase co-operation, and to increase the capacity to integrate the armed forces of Europe, particularly those of Britain and France, the real players who have strong armed forces in the European theatre.
In foreign policy, it is time that a senior diplomatic representative was appointed. It has taken too long to reach that point. Many Members are simply unaware of the scale of the European Union's diplomatic corps across

1111
the world, which is enormous, but undirected. We must fix its direction, and we must, in whichever areas we can, agree a common policy. That is particularly true in continental Europe, on the fringes of central and eastern Europe and in the Mediterranean area. One of the great negatives of the past year has been our complete inability to do anything effective in Algeria, on our doorstep. That failure speaks volumes for the need for a better integrated foreign policy.
EU states have already done quite well at integrating efforts at the United Nations, but I hope that we can do more. There is a high degree of interplay between the permanent representatives of the EU states at the United Nations. However, we heard in the Gracious Speech about the Government's commitment to UN reform, an area on which Europe has something important to say. I hope that we shall not consider only Security Council reform, because that may prove to be a dead end up which it is impossible to secure the agreement of other member states. Other areas are in desperate need of reform, and of new investment that can come only if we reduce overheads in areas in which money is being mis-spent because of a lack of will to look seriously at the distribution of funds. In particular, some agencies no longer perform a useful function, and their time, frankly, is up.
As a European entity, we should put real pressure on the United States of America to pay its arrears to the UN—it is scandalous that it is $1.5 billion in arrears. The Administration's arguments about difficulties with Congress will not wash. Insufficient effort has been made to ensure payment of those arrears, and we must pressure the USA, not least because we are the main creditors. Britain, France and the other countries that contribute to peacekeeping operations are not being paid because America will not pay its bills.
On Agenda 2000, the Cardiff timetable is desperately important if we are to see proper reform of the institutions. The Germans say that they are committed to it, and I ask the Government to ensure that that commitment is made explicit at the Vienna council.
Progress has been made on enlargement, even among some countries not in the first phase, such as Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, with its change of Government, and I hope that they will catch up rapidly. The Government should continue to adopt the principle of inclusiveness. We must make sure that everyone who is potentially in the running is encouraged to stay in the running.
The same applies to those countries in the first wave that are not making the necessary reforms. Having visited Prague recently, I am frankly disappointed with how the Czech Republic is meeting the demands of accession. We must tell such countries that they must ensure that they do what is necessary.
I shall finish by referring to two areas of current attention that the Vienna Council will probably touch on. The first is the crisis in Russia. It is desperately important for the European Union to do something effective to ensure stability there during the present economic crisis. We must also think of the countries that are still dependent on Russia irrespective of the changes of recent years, such as Belarus, which is not an easy country to like, but which we nevertheless need to embrace and Ukraine, which we often forget. Ukraine is a country the
1112
size of France and it will be on the borders of the European Union if Hungary accedes, yet we forget about it. We cannot afford to do so.
Finally, I hope that Kosovo will still be on the agenda at the Vienna Council and that we will ensure that we make a concerted effort on humanitarian aid. A few months ago, I visited the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I went to the border, although not to Kosovo, and could see to some extent what was happening there. One problem is the almost complete lack of building materials. It is difficult to get them in peaceful Macedonia. How much more difficult it must be in Kosovo, given its devastation and the non-co-operation of the Serbian Government. We must tackle that problem and contribute positively to the extraction force, as we have been doing, to ensure that it is integrated into the Kumanovo area and does not cause any further difficulties for the Macedonians, who have gone through a difficult period.
I hope that we will also consider the interests of other neighbouring states. We cannot afford to forget Albania and Montenegro, which is the forgotten part of the former Yugoslavia, but has the capacity for destabilisation, which is a serious matter.
In conclusion, I must simply say that there was an attempt to form an Anglo-German axis a month or so ago. I suspect that it has not succeeded. Nevertheless, we must maintain our engagement, our interest and our persuasion, if the European Union is to develop as we want and, by we, I mean not only Opposition Members but those on the Treasury Bench, who share that view, I think. If we are to make sensible developments and to achieve reform, we need friends to do that. We need to work to form a creative coalition within the EU, which recognises the dangers of carrying on as it has done and the deficiencies in the present structure. It should work hard to reform the EU, bring it closer to the people and make it answerable, responsive and democratic—all those things that, in many ways, it fails to do at present. If the Government can achieve that at the Vienna Council, I wish them well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak I must remind the House that a number of hon. Members still want to catch my eye and, unless speeches are considerably shorter than they have been, some of them will be disappointed.
8.3 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): I am an unashamed admirer of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. When Labour came to power in May 1997, I thought that one of the greatest contributions that we could make as a Government would be the intellectual ability and clarity of mind that he would bring to the European dialogue. I continue to hold that belief, so I hope that he will not mind if tonight I expand the area of my admiration a little.
It is important to break away from some of the caricatures that have appeared in the press in the past week, which have verged on the xenophobic and which do not do justice to the contributions that two people, Oskar Lafontaine and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, are making,

1113
which we should recognise. Their contributions to the document, "The New European Way", move us into the arena that many of my colleagues have sought to occupy, which is a thoughtful discussion of the future of Europe and the practicalities of that future. I have many and various disagreements with the document that they helped to produce, but its importance—I would recommend it to the whole House—is that it forces us all to think about the practicalities of a common European future. It is not riddled with slogans and soundbites; it attempts to tackle the serious preconditions that will have to be in place if we are to provide a stable European future.
In the document, the authors recognise that fiscal stability is not the same as social stability. Europe has had fiscal stability in a single currency before—at the end of the 19th century, under the gold standard. The only problem was that it left deep scars in the social landscape of Europe. Because there were no mechanisms for social cohesion, that standard left people in deep troughs of famine and starvation. They were pushed into large-scale migration and social upheavals, which in turn caused deep disruptions in society.
In revisiting the agenda for a Europe that is united within a single currency, the architects of that paper recognised that other mechanisms must be in place to underpin a single currency and make it sustainable. I confess that I am not a believer in a single currency and do not think that it can work in the circumstances in which we are trying to construct a common European future. There are many better ways to construct that common future.
However, the authors of the paper force us to recognise what measures must be in place. The reality is that, both in the world as it is now and in the history of single currency zones, there is no record of any system that has been stable and secure without two things being in place. The first is a consensus about how to raise taxes, and the second is a credible mechanism for redistributing them to provide social cohesion.
Those who say that the single currency will not require us to harmonise income taxes, pensions and benefits and who look to the United States because of the flexibilities that exist there—different income tax rates in different states, for example—must take a step back and recognise that the underpinning of that system has a set of consequences to which we may or may not want to subscribe.
I was fortunate to obtain from the Library some of the figures to show how the US single currency zone is different from our own. At the moment, the contribution of US taxes as a proportion of gross domestic product is as follows: 12.3 per cent. go directly in federal taxes; 5.6 per cent. go in state taxation; and 3.6 per cent. in local taxes. We do not have an equivalent to US state taxes. The current position in the United Kingdom is that 27.5 per cent. of our taxation, as a proportion of gross domestic product, is national and 1.4 per cent. is local. If we wanted a system with the same income tax flexibilities as the US system, we would have to recognise that it underpins its system through that shift in the collection of tax revenues to the federal level. If we were to apply that system in Europe, it would mean the direct transfer of taxation—of some 20 per cent. of our GDP—to a European federal level.
1114
I remind the House that the United Kingdom's contribution to European structural funds will be 1.27 per cent. of GDP at the beginning of next year. I have not heard anyone argue the case for retaining within the nation state the flexibilities of variable and differing income tax levels, by underpinning those with a 20p in the pound shift in taxation to European federal structures. I should like to be with any Member of Parliament who tried to explain that on the doorstep. I suspect that the only thing it would prove is that, under conditions of extreme pressure, all Members of Parliament can run the 100 metres in an extremely short space of time, because we would get short shrift from the electorate were we to make that case. We must be careful about saying that tax-varying flexibility can currently be found in the United States of America. It is not the same and it is dishonest to suggest that it could exist here without there being a substantial shift of direct tax contributions from member state level to European federal level.
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting and thoughtful speech—indeed, the point he has just made is seminal. However, does he agree that a further point goes with it—that for all sorts of obvious cultural reasons, mobility of labour within the United States is vastly greater than can be expected within the European Union; and that, therefore, the need to adjust to those flexibilities through central funding is paradoxically less in the United States than it will be in the European Union?
Mr. Simpson: That is an important point. Most serious analyses of conditions in Europe, both positive and negative, recognise that language and culture make the people of Europe far less mobile than the population of the United States of America. In addition, the greater the levels of that forced internal mobility, the greater the social conflict that arises between local communities and those who are defined as outsiders, so I am cautious about where that would take us.
On the other hand, we could argue that it would be possible to have internal redistribution mechanisms of the sort in which Germany gave an inspirational lead. When Germany was reunified, one of the commitments that the west made to the east took the form of a solidarity tax, which recognised that huge transfers of resources were needed to end the poverty and build the basis of social inclusion in a united Germany. The equivalent of an extra 7p in the pound in taxation was voted by the German people in order to build that basis of social inclusion. I have nothing but admiration for the Germans for doing that.
Is that immediately translatable to a European Union level? Sadly, the answer is no. As was demonstrated by the Court of Auditors report—which was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in relation to democratic accountability—the problem affecting European institutions as they stand is that there are huge weaknesses in the way in which Europe is able to manage and account for money, with £3 billion unaccounted for and up to 5 per cent. of funds lost to fraud. It is not acceptable for any of us to apportion blame for that, because we are all caught up in it. This country is no holier than any other member state in terms of the misuse of funds and the abuse of European structures in our own interests.

1115
The problem is that, if there was a shift in funding into European structural coffers and the amount was multiplied by five, fraud would be multiplied by 50. That is the consequence of trying to put more resources into a framework that is clearly deeply and seriously flawed. Those who believe in a single currency and want it to work must acknowledge that the institutional and financial structures of Europe would have to undergo a massive sea change in order to make it possible.
The document I referred to earlier sets out the key challenges that must be addressed if social cohesion is to be built in a future European context. I shall quickly deal with the key points. The first is found where the authors, in a lovely little sentence, call for
"better coordination between monetary policy and employment and wage-policies",
and also
"a dialogue between the institutions responsible for economic policy, including the ECB and the European Social Partners".
That is wonderful for those accustomed to attempting to decode the contents of European documents. The authors want there to be democratic political control of the European central bank. For those of us who never really believed that Steady Eddie should have been allowed out on his own, it is welcome to hear that our social partners in Europe want democratic control of the ECB so as to deliver full employment policies and social inclusion policies, which are at the centre of their social, political and economic agenda. That would, of course, require a certain renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty, but between consenting adult member states, that strikes me as a perfectly legitimate objective because it is an essential underpinning of how to deliver social stability in Europe.
The second key point the authors make is:
"In the last decade evidence from the EU has shown a disproportionate increase in the fiscal burden on immobile factors, especially labour, coupled with a reduction in the burden on mobile factors, especially capital."
The partnership between socialists and social-democratic partners in the European Union has at last recognised that there has to be a shift in the burden of taxation on to feckless and footloose capital; that we cannot continue to ask the poor and those who are in work to carry the tax burden for an increasingly reckless and deregulated global economy that is driving us all to ruin. I welcome the fact that the authors of the document have put that point so clearly on the agenda.
The third point is to observe that
"EMU will intensify the potential for tax competition. Therefore, further efforts have to be undertaken to avoid harmful tax competition among the member states."
That is absolutely clear and absolutely right, if we are to avoid the flight to tax havens, eliminate hidden subsidies and avoid a game of beggar my neighbour in which we all try to undercut each other or to set up systems of corporate welfare, whereby we offer bigger bribes to lone-parent companies to come and live with us for a time based on an enduring love for which we are to pay good money. If we are to avoid all that, we have to find other ways of developing a sense of coherence and cohesion in the systems of taxation of corporate earnings. It is essential that we do that, whether within a single currency zone or not. The authors make the point that that effort is essential, if we are to
"make further progress in tax and benefit reform."
1116
There has to be a sense in which that inclusive Europe allows us to enjoy the security and benefits that are present in the best economic arrangements, instead of being pulled down to the levels of the worst.
In that revisiting of a common view of Europe's tax arrangements, the authors say that there has to be a greening of the tax system and a co-ordination of savings and corporate taxation, not only within Europe but at the level of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They want that to be the basis for the introduction of new Europe-wide regulations which use Europe as a lever to compel the institutions of the global economy to re-regulate global forces.
I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House at least will address that agenda seriously. I hope that we will applaud the initiative taken by our sister parties in Germany and France and by the coalition of parties that contributed to this document. I hope that the Government will agree to take forward several practical suggestions from this debate. I think that the document has serious shortcomings, but we could substantially improve the dialogue and the direction in which it is heading.
I shall conclude by making four suggestions. First, in the discussions about how best to harness footloose capital it would be helpful to consider the devastating destruction of tidal speculation movements against countries and currencies globally. A European-wide lobby must change the international financial architecture so that we can introduce a transactions tax on speculative capital. That is commonly referred to as the Tobin tax, as Professor James Tobin of Harvard university was the first to suggest it. It involves imposing a tax rate of 0.5 per cent. on speculative capital movements. That would be sufficient to raise the reserves that could underpin and support countries that are subject to speculative ventures against them and act as a disincentive to speculative, but not serious, investment.
My second suggestion concerns our treatment of other forms of footloose capital. We are currently bombarded by reports in our daily newspapers about factories closing in order to rationalise production elsewhere. The scale of job losses is sometimes breathtaking. As I entered the Chamber tonight, I picked up a letter about my constituency, where Marconi Communications has announced that
"a review of the Group's facilities has shown the potential for a reorganisation that would reduce costs and increase efficiency."
Unfortunately, the review requires the group to make 1,000 people redundant in order to continue its policy of production based on "high growth" and "high margins". That means that it will no longer operate in my constituency.
America takes an interesting approach to that problem. It is already exploring the idea of "A" code taxation based on the "site here to sell here" presumption. America believes that companies cannot reserve the right to sell into the US economy goods that they are unwilling to pay to produce in that economy, or because they are unwilling to sustain wage rates in production and contribute to tax revenues that would begin to relocate or retrain those whose labour they have abandoned. The Americans are toying with the idea not of ending the notion of public subsidies for industry and essential manufacturing, but of trying to build a stakeholder component into that process. We must tell the corporate sector that there are no free

1117
handouts: we are talking about obligations that accompany entitlements. Those obligations are based on public stakeholdings rather than unconditional public subsidies.
My third suggestion is that we should expand on the document's ideas about green taxation. We have yet to have a serious debate about the different types of green taxation and the difference between progressive and regressive green taxation. I remind hon. Members of our clear slogan and principle in relation to the environment that we must pursue policies that make the polluter pay. We should also ensure that the footloose polluter pays more.
Earlier today, I referred to the Raleigh bicycle company in my constituency, which has spent about £28 million on a new production line with extremely high levels of environmental responsibility. It has reduced by a factor of 10 both in-plant pollution—the health and safety contributions—and end-of-line pollution. It has introduced wonderful through-put technology. However, the company complains that it is forced to compete on a price-only basis with Chinese or Taiwanese manufacturers who never accept any responsibility for reducing pollution in the production process.
We cannot pursue a common European policy that rewards the environmentally profligate and penalises those who operate within our domestic and European economies producing the environmental standards that we wish to see and share in. If we adopt that approach, we shall be able to take a lead in defining the economics of the 21st century and give practical form to the pledges that we made in Kyoto. If we do not have sustainable economics in the next century, we are likely not to have any economics worth talking about. We have done so much damage to our global climate and biodiversity this century that we will have to spend a large part of the next century undoing that damage and restabilising.
Finally, the document poses a clear challenge to define what a system of redistributive taxation would look like at a European level. In many ways, the closest that we have come to responding to that challenge in this country is the recent Acheson report on health. Acheson sets down a benchmark for measuring the necessary redistribution of resources and explains where we need to begin in a health and environmental context. If we were to take up those ideas and throw our responses to them into a European dialogue, I am certain that we would take a lead in Europe that many of our European partners would gladly follow.
I believe that that is the basis upon which we can define a stable, secure and inclusive Europe. It will be the case whether or not we have a single currency. I believe that the divides around the single currency issue are seriously flawed and misguided. At times, it is like trying to get our towels on to the deckchairs before our German or French competitors when the boat is the Titanic and we would be better off advising people to look for the lifeboats. That is the danger inherent in limiting the single currency debate.
"The New European Way" sets out the pillars from which socialists and social democrats across the whole of Europe should be able to find a common agenda to provide a secure common future. I hope that Ministers, especially my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, will have the courage to take that lead.
8.29 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on that magnificent speech. I remember meeting him many years ago when I was a Minister and travelled to Nottingham. I think that he has worn rather better than I have—but that is the way of things. He made a masterly assessment and analysis of the lessons to be learned from the American experience in so far as it has implications for us. I should like to think that the speech will commend him to those on the Labour Front Bench, but I am not sure that it will.
This is my first opportunity since the general election to contribute to a debate about the European Union. In fact, the issue of Europe dominated my election campaign. I found that the only thing that people wanted to talk to me about when they saw me in the street was the European dimension. I attribute my somewhat thinner majority in the election to the fact that because we have not closed down the argument by answering the question that people asked—"Where do you stand on a single currency, one way or the other?"—the subjects that the vast majority of people wanted to discuss with a Conservative candidate were never raised.
The conclusion that I drew was that we should never find ourselves in that situation again. That I why I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has adopted a position on the single currency which strikes me as being right and intellectually honest, and which commands the widest support among the people who spoke to me in the election campaign.
The single currency is sometimes spoken about as an end in itself, as though it was a new phenomenon that has suddenly darkened our horizons. I came to the issue somewhat late in the day. As I recall, I voted against entry into the Common Market, but that was probably very much on the balance of probabilities. I cannot honestly say that, cheerful and young as I was at the time, I gave it a huge amount of thought. The first time I gave the matter serious thought was in 1988. I was a Minister in the Department of Employment, where I was responsible for trade union reform. One day the Minister of State who used to deal with matters European found that he had a tummy upset or some such indisposition and could not go to Europe. I was told, "Minister, you are going to Europe. The car is downstairs, the Red Box is on the seat, and you can read the papers on the way over."
On the way over I read the papers, which were straightforward. At the bottom of my Box was an extra document, a copy of the treaty of Rome. I read it for the first time, and was both appalled and shamed by it. I had always accepted that the treaty of Rome was about establishing a common market. I had believed what I had been told. In the White Paper that preceded our entry into the Common Market, we were assured that
"decisions are only made if all members agree".
We were also told:
"There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty."
There was no question at all—it was inevitable.
When I read the treaty of Rome, I realised that it was about establishing not a common market, but a new nation state, and that the establishment of a common market was merely a step down that road. Anyone who reads the

1119
treaty of Rome realises that the common market, the single currency and so on are deliberate stepping stones to a federal destiny. Members of my party should recognise with contrition that our European partners realised that throughout. We did not, because we accepted the assurances that we were given that federalism was not on the agenda.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) quoted Hans Tietmeyer, the president of the Bundesbank. One of his predecessors, Karl Blessing, said:
"The final goal of the Commission is a European Monetary Union… A common currency … is feasible only if, apart from a common trade policy, there is also a common finance and budgetary policy, a common social and wage policy—a common policy all round. In brief, this would only happen if there was a federal state."
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) got it right when she said that it was so plainly obvious that tax harmonisation is absolutely necessary if we are to enter a single European state that it was barely worth arguing about.
The blueprint for the single European state, which can be created only if our nation state is extinguished, was laid down long ago in the treaty of Rome. We are at the 11th hour in the setting up of that new, independent state. It already has many of the attributes of such a state: an anthem, a flag, a Parliament, its own civil service, a common citizenship, its own overseas embassies, a common passport and, within days, it will have its own common currency.
Tax harmonisation is not a big surprise and has not just come on to the scene. It is inevitable. I shall not go through the documentation, as time is short. Far from standing up fearlessly against tax harmonisation, the Government are actively promoting it. That is the reality behind the rhetoric.
In addition to all the other attributes of a single state, we have discovered in recent days that we are to have a common legal system. Anyone who doubts that and fancies some bedtime reading should try reading "Corpus Juris" and what its apologists say. Stephen Woodward, the director of the European Movement, described the notion that "Corpus Juris" could ever be adopted as "ridiculous." He said that it was a report drawn up by a "group of experts" with no official status. He said that it
"goes nowhere near the creation of a system of European criminal law."
What does "Corpus Juris" do? I shall tell the House. It is a plan that envisages a European public prosecutor, the EPP—not much room for signwriters there—to whom each state's prosecution chiefs would ultimately be responsible. The Brussels-based EPP would be independent of national authorities and have a delegate in each capital city. The prosecutor would have the power to instruct a national judge to issue a European arrest warrant that would be valid across the whole European Union.
"Corpus Juris" states:
"For the purposes of investigation, prosecution, trial and execution of sentences concerning the offences set out above … the territory of the Member States of the Union constitutes a single legal area."
It continues:
"If an investigation conducted by a national authority reveals that an offence has been committed the dossier must be immediately submitted to the EPP."
1120
There is to be a new judicial figure called the judge of freedoms. That should amuse anyone who has a ghost of a sense of humour. He is to give authority for suspects to be held for up to nine months under European jurisdiction and to be transferred to the country where the crime took place without extradition proceedings. "Corpus Juris" states that
"courts must consist of professional judges, specialising where possible in financial and economic matters, and not simple jurors or lay magistrates".
Goodbye habeas corpus.
The document does indeed have official status. It is an official European document, produced under the aegis of Francesco De Angelis of Directorate-General XX. In the report that introduced and commended the document, the rapporteur, Mr. Rinaldo Bontempi, points out in sections IV and V that there is no need to worry about the national veto. He suggests that rather than using the third pillar,
"the basis for such action is to be found in the EC Treaty, with particular regard to Article 209a, whose provisions were strengthened by the Amsterdam Treaty".
The report goes on to say that that article
"makes cooperation between the Member States and with the Commission an obligation… the Amsterdam Treaty extends it to all the competent authorities including the judicial authorities."
Mr. Woodward describes such a document as having no official status. Sooner rather than later, it will simply be introduced. There are always three stages in such cases in Europe. First we are told that it does not exist. Then we are told that it will not happen. Finally, we are told that it is inevitable.
I have one of the only copies of "Corpus Juris" around. The journalist Graham Danton, who got it for me, had to telephone Brussels and Luxembourg three times each. First, officials there denied that the document existed. Finally, they asked, "Why do you want it? You don't need it." Only when he said that he had heard that it was a really super book that would take forward the course of European integration did they say, "OK, that's fine—you can have it," and send him a copy.
I make no criticism of our European partners for behaving in that way. What they want is a single European state. That has been obvious from the inception of the treaty of Rome. It is not up to us to criticise them for what they want, but it is up to us to ask ourselves whether that would be right for us. Could we feel comfortable with such a relationship in Europe?
Back in March 1995 my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said in a debate in the House:
"The often unspoken fear of many people—we should address it honestly and clearly and examine it—is that Europe might develop into a super-state, an overarching Government with no national veto, no control over our own borders, prescriptive decisions, a single currency imposed and the nation state retreating to a wholly subordinate role. That fear exists out there … and we should recognise the fact that it exists."
He concluded, and it seems so long ago:
"I for one would find such a Europe wholly unacceptable for this country. I do not believe that it is remotely likely, but, if that were to be the future, it would not be a future that would be suitable for this country."—[Official Report, 1 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1062.]
We are there. We are in the presence of a new created state which requires our own nation state to be extinguished. We cannot go on being the bad man of Europe and standing in the way of our European partners

1121
because we do not believe that their destiny is right for us. It is not a question of coming out of Europe. Europe is there. It is our own continent. Our nationality may be British, but our culture is European. Europe will always be there, which is why it is legitimate and right to say that we must be in Europe but not ruled by Europe.
We have to ask ourselves, "Can we go on like this?" We have to say honestly that, if we cannot get our European partners to abandon a project on which they have been embarked these 30 or even 40 years, and in fairness to everyone, we must ultimately have a relationship with which we feel comfortable. There is a great deal more that I could say, and I hope that there will be occasions on which I can do so, but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. We must face up to what we are about, and the Foreign Secretary did not begin to do that.
8.40 pm
Ms Claire Ward: First, I apologise to the House for being unable to remain for the winding-up speeches.
Let me take up the point made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) about the referendum in the 1970s. Unlike many hon. Members, I do not remember the great debate and the referendum on entry into what was then called the European Community. For me and many of my generation, Europe, and our co-operation with our European counterparts, has been very much part of our lives. We have studied European languages and adopted many aspects of European culture. We frequently travel to Europe and we have friendships with people in other European states. I stress, however, that my pro-European stance in no way suggests any less support for my own nation state and for the right of its people to determine the best future for this country.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have found it difficult to be both a citizen of a nation state and a European. The two have not sat comfortably together, but the advantage of being a full, proactive member of the European Union is that we maximise the benefits of our membership through co-operation. We enhance the opportunities for trade, and we increase rather than restrict competition. We agree on changes where they are in our interests. In our dealings and relationship with Europe, that fundamental principle must always remain: we agree where that is in the interests of Britain and its people. What can be wrong with that?
We have heard a lot of scare stories lately. There has been a lot of scaremongering on the euro and on tax harmonisation. I accept that fear is often the result of change or of the unknown. I can accept that many people find it difficult to believe that those who have proposed the euro, and those who will enter it next year, can be acting in the interests of more than their own nation states. Such panic and scaremongering is certainly not in the interests of Britain. A sensible, well-informed debate weighing all the pros and cons of the euro certainly would be. The euro is in the interests of Britain and of business.
Although I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson)—and, as a colleague and fellow team player in the all-party parliamentary football group, I have no wish to offend
1122
him, because he may make sure that I end up with a few bruises in the next game—I do not completely agree with him.
Let us consider the example of the United States. My hon. Friend's arguments were clearly thought out and well constructed, but the history and culture of the United States are different from the history and culture of the European Union. What we create in the European Union, with Britain a part of it, will be unique. We will be able to look to America to consider some of the issues that my hon. Friend rightly raised, but we should do so for information and knowledge only.
Last Monday, more than 100 business leaders signed a statement in the Financial Times, saying that Britain
"should aim to join the single currency as soon as the conditions for successful entry are in place".
In their view, that is likely to be soon after economic and monetary union is established. Since the publication of the business statement, a further 150 business people, from companies large and small, have rushed to sign up.
That is perfectly understandable. Those business leaders signed in personal capacities, but they include the chairmen and chief executive officers of more than 20 FTSE 100 companies, as well as many small and medium businesses and entrepreneurs from every region of Britain.
Companies such as Marks and Spencer are making the necessary changes to their business and to their tills to adapt to the euro, because they believe that the euro will be part of Britain's dealings with the EU. A company in my constituency, which supplies electronic health equipment to health services in this country and in Europe, has decided—much to my regret—to close a significant part of its operation and move to Europe. It will be dealing in euros to a much greater degree and believes that it should be based in one of the member states.
Some 63 per cent. of businesses say that it is in their best interests that we join the single currency as soon as possible or after the next general election. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that, although we support the principle of the single currency, such fundamental change must come only with the support of the people of this country and at a time that is appropriate for Britain. That is a clear position, which I fully support.
Business in this country needs the euro. Almost one in four firms doing business with Europe have been asked to deal in the euro from January 1999. If we do not take a serious interest in the euro, we will be left behind. Some 65 per cent. of United Kingdom exporters want a single currency in the EU, and we will continue to let them down if we do not take a clear view on movement towards the euro.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) suggested that there is one all powerful person in the EU—the German Finance Minister. He also suggested that if the German Finance Minister makes a statement, the rest of us should be very concerned that it represents a development of the policy of the EU. Are we to believe that, when the German Finance Minister states a view, we should assume that it is a fait accompli? That must be absolute nonsense. We should bring some reality to our discussions.

1123
The German Finance Minister is but one member of the German Government, and the German Government are but one member of a 15-state body. They will not get their own way; of that, I am absolutely confident. There is no sense in greater harmonisation of tax. It would not benefit Britain. As the overriding principle must be that we adopt changes only if they are in Britain's interests, there should be no great move towards the harmonisation of taxation.
It is nonsense to suggest that joining the euro will inevitably lead to tax harmonisation. For a start, we would be absolutely mad to allow harmonisation, because we know that it would result in much higher costs for all. We do not have to accept such moves. That is the great advantage and the purpose of having a national veto. Any change to EU taxation policy must be agreed unanimously by member states. Britain has the right to veto any proposals that it opposes. Furthermore, the abolition of the national veto in any area of policy requires a treaty change, which must first be agreed unanimously. Britain's right to veto any proposed EU taxation policy cannot be removed without our consent. So long as we oppose the harmonisation of taxation, we will remain without it.
Our future is in Europe. We should be a part of it and lead it, and not be led by it. We must not stand on the sidelines shouting advice, but should be on the pitch scoring the goals and winning for our team. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he wants to lead our nation in our discussions with Europe. The policy that we are pursuing is the right one for Britain, and I hope that we shall continue to pursue it.
8.52 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward). Soon after she and I arrived in the House, we were on a radio show together. It was a great pleasure to take part in that show with her. She has helped to illustrate some of the points that I want to make.
At the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary said that the British people should be treated like adults. We have had some extremely adult and intelligent contributions to the debate, and there has been some terrific analysis. I commend the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) for their contributions and analysis, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I experienced the usual frustration when I listened to the Foreign Secretary, and I felt the same frustration when I heard the hon. Member for Watford loyally follow his line.
The problem is a lack of honesty in the debate about Europe. We are not treated as adults. The Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Watford sought to escape behind statements about the current legal position on what measures can be imposed on the United Kingdom. We heard a terrific analysis from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), with his experience as a former Minister for Europe, of how the United Kingdom, under a Conservative Government who were prepared to be isolated in Europe—to some extent they had to make a virtue of it after 18 years in government—was out-manoeuvred. Changes were made so that policies were decided by qualified majority voting, and we no longer had a veto. Judgments of the European Court of Justice went against the United Kingdom. The court
1124
referred to the introduction to the treaty of Rome, and said that it had made its judgment in the interests of integration.
It is frustrating to hear the Foreign Secretary hide behind the current legal position, when the tide of opinion about the future development of the European Union will overwhelm that legal position in the near or medium-term future. The logic of the Government's position on negotiation leaves them even weaker. We were dug out of our position after years of having to battle against changes to the rules. There was disappointment in the Conservative party because of the bad faith shown by the European Union when it changed the rules on which decisions were based.
The Government's problem is that they are committed to the language of constructive and positive engagement in Europe. However, 18 months after coming into office, they are already talking the language of isolation on tax harmonisation.
I object to the conduct of the European debate. This morning, I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about the social chapter. He said, "We were told the social chapter would lose us 500,000 jobs. Well, that hasn't happened, so it is all right." That is a trite way of dealing with the issue. The social chapter is a mechanism for the introduction of social regulation in the future. We have no idea what laws, regulations and directives will be introduced through the social chapter in the years to come, because we have given away the UK's capacity to prevent their introduction.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is slugging it out in Europe and trying to find a suitable compromise, so that he can avoid using the veto to prevent the introduction of measures that we do not like. That is precisely the position that the Conservative Government were in on other areas of policy. We have a hideous sense of deja vu. We watched the Government approach Europe with enthusiasm in 1997, but 18 months later we see that their attitudes have started to change as they come face to face with the problem of defending our national interests and the natural British position, which is the same whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government. Their language is beginning to change.
The British Government put at the top of their list of priorities the timetable for enlargement. The Foreign Secretary joined the Foreign Ministers of the applicant countries. He was the only senior Foreign Minister at that meeting. He did not find time to join his colleagues in the European Union at the first Foreign Ministers' meeting under the Austrian presidency—but never mind. That shows where the British Government's priority lies. The Government have supposedly created credibility, but under the British and the Austrian presidency the date for enlargement has changed—from 2003, which Commission officials were talking about, to 2005. In private, Austrian politicians say that it will be 2015 before enlargement takes place. The Polish President has accused the European Union of bad faith and of creating myths to prevent Polish entry to the EU. In Britain, enlargement—widening the European Union—is our main interest but we are seeing it disappear over the horizon. The timetable seems to have slipped by almost exactly five years.

1125
Earlier, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he agreed with Hans Tietmeyer about the inevitability of taxation as a method of control in Europe following the introduction of a single currency. The Foreign Secretary said that he disagreed with Hans Tietmeyer, but who are we to believe? Are we to believe a central banker who has been in the finance business throughout his career—a distinguished career—or are we to accept the judgment of a Foreign Secretary who, like his party, has flip-flopped over the issue of European Union membership throughout his own career? The Foreign Secretary, at this stage in his career, is trying to bring about a wave of Euro-enthusiasm, but I predict that the position may well change if the Government fail to engage in economic and monetary union, as its consequences become increasingly apparent.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich delivered an amusing aside about the way in which socialist European documents had been drafted. There is an example in "The European Way". We now see that the British Government are trying to interpret matters in a certain way. There is reference to further measures to be taken to "avoid harmful tax competition". The Prime Minister has told us that tax competition is terrific, because it drives taxes down, and encourages tax regimes in the European Union to compete with each other. However, I understand that Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Strauss-Kahn think that tax competition is harmful, and that tax harmonisation is required for that reason. Let us see who will win the argument.
The Government know perfectly well in what direction the European Union is heading. They cannot and should not pretend that the legal position as provided by the treaties will not change in the years to come. We have seen the result of their attitude. Already, after 18 months, they are isolated from their main socialist partners in Europe. They are having to rely on the conservative party in Spain to be an ally, and to try to protect the British interest.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that it was worth paying the price for Britain to have a key role in Europe, enabling it to pull the Europeans back from the brink and to act as a control, vetoing further changes in the European Union. My right hon. Friend has an appetite for a scrap. Perhaps he envisages becoming Minister for Europe again, and having to take part in the process. That would, of course, be in the interests of the United Kingdom.
According to my observations of Britain's role in the European Union, the problem is about the price that we will pay—isolation—for trying to defend the British interest. Another price that we will pay is the reputation that we have won among our partners. We have always been seen as the "drag anchor", but that will no longer be worth the candle. We must ask whether we want to continue with the current process, or to lift the drag anchor, go full tilt into Europe and become positive contributors to Europe in an honest way, accepting the implications for the politics of the nation state. If we do that, we shall have to accept that there will be a new polity at the European level, and that we should think about building democratic European institutions around the euro. That is the choice that we face, but the Government are still not facing it.
9.3 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the debate. I recognise that the European Union now permeates every aspect of domestic as well as foreign policy. I have a particular interest in transport, and I note that the Amsterdam treaty will extend co-decisions to transport matters. There will be exceptions in regard to competition rules and negotiations with third countries. Can the Minister explain the Government's position on state aid? Will the Government press for the ending of any further state aid, especially for airlines—Air France, Iberia, Olympic Airways and a catalogue of other carriers that continue to enjoy state aid?
Ports also enjoy state funding in certain member countries. Horticulture even makes possible the provision of cheap energy, particularly in one member state. Pork production is currently enjoying a subsidy in France and Germany. Government intervention would be very welcome.
The highlight of 1999 will be the revision of structural funds, and the balancing of those receiving such funds with applicant countries. It is generally agreed that the population level in respect of receipt of structural funds will be lowered. The impact on the United Kingdom and, particularly, on my constituency will be substantial. The Vale of York enjoys farm subsidies on a generous scale, Konver funding to train those with defence industry skills for civilian employment, 5b funding for poor farming areas in the hills and general training funds under objective 3.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) struck a chord. Not only will his area suffer job losses through the loss in the defence industry; other areas, such as Chelmsford, will suffer heavy loss as well.
The objectives are being reduced from 7 to 3 and the Community initiatives such as Konver are set to disappear, but it is not clear what will replace them. I am a little concerned that responsibility for the negotiations is being shared between two Departments: the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We need to ensure a co-ordinated approach in those negotiations.
The length of the transitional period for the various programmes is not yet clear. Whether other member states will agree to set key criteria as a percentage of gross domestic product, rather than just unemployment, which would penalise us, is not yet known. Some guidance on those negotiations would be helpful.
The Department of Trade and Industry is minded to identify "pockets of rural deprivation". Again, it would be helpful to have more details. I accept that we are in the middle of a farming crisis that is unprecedented in my lifetime, affecting every sector of farming. The loss of income from subsidies will be compensated for by direct payments to farmers under common agricultural policy reform, where appropriate, and by compensation for environmentally friendly schemes.
Rural development is a theme that will loom large, bearing in mind the impact that the farming community has on the whole rural economy, including contributing to market towns and local prosperity. I hope that, in their regulations, the Government will bear in mind the impact that the reform of CAP and structural funds will have on areas such as North Yorkshire. Traditionally, farming in

1127
that area attracts low incomes, increasing the difficulty of finding homes for farm workers; they also face travelling further to work.
Agenda 2000 is a top priority for 1999. With the agreement of our European partners, the Government have set a deadline of March. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the European Parliament has agreed First Reading and, as the Commission refused to support a number of key amendments, the reports have been referred back to the relevant committee. The European Parliament will find it hard to meet the March 1999 deadline.
Clearly, that timetable has implications for the timetable for enlargement. I welcome moves towards enlargement, particularly for the former communist countries and Baltic states. Earlier in the week, I raised the threat of higher duties on pork with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I wonder whether she has had time to examine that matter and to find out whether it is true that the Czechs, Poles and Hungarians are threatening to break the Europe agreement. That would be worrying. I hope that the Government will do everything in their power to prevent such a move.
A particular interest of mine and, I am sure, of many others is duty on wines, beers and spirits. Duty-paid goods and their import for other than private, individual use is becoming a huge embarrassment to the Government. Bootlegging not only denies the Treasury of income, but damages the trade and employment opportunities of our wine merchants, brewers and distillers. That is unacceptable.
Rather than increase the number of Customs and Excise agents to apprehend culprits, it would be far better to lower the duty that is paid in this country and to raise the level of tax earned in that way. Better still, does the Minister think that she can persuade her European partners such as France, Spain, Belgium and Greece to raise the duty charged on their home-produced wines, beers and spirits? So much for tax harmonisation.
Duty free sales are scheduled to stop on 30 June 1999. Mario Monti, the commissioner responsible, claims that duty free sales have no future in a single market. I entirely agree—if the single market were complete, there would be no place for duty free sales.
When there is no harmonised rate of tax and duty charged, nor any prospect of harmonisation, with rates varying from 3 per cent. in one country to 33 per cent. in another, there are strong grounds for a reprieve, allowing duty free sales to continue for the foreseeable future. The outlook in that regard is bleak. The Commission has announced that the present rules on duty free will apply to duty free sales after 1 July 1999, leading to the bizarre situation of a bottle of whisky attracting different prices on the same route from, say, London to Corfu, depending on which country's airspace the plane is flying in and on the duty charged in that airspace. That is nonsense and I hope that the Government will help to deal with it.
The European Union continues to hold many challenges for the Government and for our relationship with our EU partners. There is real scope for tax harmonisation, which the Foreign Secretary assured us would normally be within the national remit alone. I believe that the scope lies in social security taxation. The extremely high rate charged in some EU countries amounts to a tax on jobs.
1128
If our partners really wanted to create an employment strategy for Europe, they would amend their social security provisions. Businesses, not Governments, create jobs, but Governments do tempt businesses to create more jobs by lowering social costs. I urge them to do so.
The Vienna summit will address a number of those issues, including employment guidelines, the financial perspective and trans-European networks. I hope that the Government can rise to and meet the challenge.
9.11 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I want to make just two points in what is unremarkably—those of us who have attended many of these debates know the familiar pattern—a very thinly attended House. That is despite the fact that what we are debating is probably the most important issue to face this country, not just at present but for 300-odd years. Such is the nature of parliamentary democracy.
I want to comment on the character of the debate and the character of the Government in relation to the debate. The Government pride themselves on being modern. That is probably the single greatest thing on which they pride themselves. Yet, in an odd way, in this, the most important of all the debates facing the Government in the coming years, they are very ancient rather than very modern. They are out of date, not with the trend. That is because, unlike most hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—probably in private and unknown to the greater public—the Government have failed to recognise the fact that, as has been alluded to by many of my hon. Friends and many Labour Members who have now departed, we are on the verge of a United States of Europe.
That is not something that the Government will be able to stop. They can decide whether or not to be part of it, or rather, they can put that choice to the British people, but they cannot stop our partners moving in that direction. It would be a vain attempt and the Government will not make it. The Government are old fashioned in attempting to deny that that is the fact. It is also dishonest to attempt to deny that, but I shall dwell on it less because it is not an attack that would carry much weight. However, the fact of being old fashioned may, conceivably, strike a chord in the mind of some Ministers.
That is not my main point. I want to move the debate on a stage. I am bored with the period of prophecy. The period of prophecy is over. We know the facts and we know what is happening. We have a decision to make. The remarkable thing is that, because for so long—I regret that this has occurred within my party and firmly betwixt my party and others—we have debated the question of prophecy, we have forgotten to debate what decision we want to make. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, the rhythm of the dialectic has been that we start by hearing that something will never happen and that it will be resisted to the ultimate, and then we hear that it is inevitable. In that rhythm of dialectic, there is no discussion of whether it is a good or bad thing. As a nation, that is what we now have to face. We have to confront the question to which we were brought face to face by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), which is whether we think that the United States of Europe is something to which we want to belong.

1129
I do not suppose that, in seven minutes, I can give the final answer to that question, but I hope that I might prod those few hon. Members in the Chamber, and those perhaps two or three recondite journalists who occasionally read our debates in their spare evening hours, into thinking about their response to the question. It is a poor outlook for the country if we do not have a response. It is a very poor prospect for the United Kingdom if those engaged in the debate in Parliament have not yet even begun to consider the question—which way the decision should be made—and no arguments are heard from either side of the House.
For myself, having thought about the matter a good deal—although not well enough yet—there are really two strands of argument that persuade me one way rather than the other in deciding whether we should want to join the United States of Europe, which will come about. The first is a negative type of argument, and the second is a positive one. The negative type of argument is that I think that there is something characteristically weak about the case for a United States of Europe. I do not mean there is not a case; there manifestly is a case. We have to face that fact.
There is a vision, which can best be described as a geopolitical vision of a world consisting of large players who rule the roost and of tiny players who are caught in forces that they cannot control. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I describe that as the Chatham house or Foreign Office version. It has been the doctrine of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for, roughly speaking, 400 years, and of its predecessors.
Mr. David Heath: The Cecils.
Mr. Letwin: Indeed, of every Cecil—the vision goes back a very long way in our history. Palmerston was perhaps its greatest exponent, but it is a very long-running theme.
The theory and reality of the United States of Europe are based on the vision, and that theory and reality are meant to convey to Europe its ability to be a great power—with the United States, possibly Japan, probably China, and, militarily, Russia. The case for being part of the United States of Europe is characteristically weak for a reason—which obviously needs vastly more expansion than I can give it today, and perhaps than I am capable of giving it—that perhaps resides in the strange historical fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the citizens inhabiting great powers have led more pleasant, more fulfilled, culturally richer or economically more prosperous lives than citizens inhabiting very tiny powers.
Today and for most of my adult life, Switzerland has had the highest per capita gross domestic product, the strongest social cohesion and the greatest stability. It is a very tiny power, and almost gave up being a power at all. It is not a unique example; on the contrary. Throughout history and around the world, there have been large powers of which it has been unpleasant to be a citizen and small powers of which it has been pleasant to be one, and vice versa. I do not think that there is any evidence that being part of a great power or a small power is material to how its citizens live.
I do not personally—others may differ—buy the thesis that the fact that there will be a great power means that it will be to the advantage of the citizens of a small power to
1130
join it. Therefore, I think that the geopolitical argument—which is meant to be the positive argument for joining the United States of Europe—is weak.I do not think that, by itself, that would be enough to decide to answer in the negative, because there is also a positive strand.
I should characterise the positive case as one of risk. The question that we have to ask ourselves as we face the choice of whether to obliterate the United Kingdom and absorb it within a United States of Europe is: what will be the character of the United States of Europe? Like other hon. Members, I do not have a crystal ball and cannot say for sure whether the United States of Europe will be a flourishing great power, beneficial to its citizens. However, there is a risk—I put it no higher than that; it is extremely important not to overstate it—and it is difficult for other people to challenge the existence of that risk. I describe it as the risk of the United States of Europe becoming an Ottoman empire.
There are three parts to that; I do not have time to elaborate them. The first is an institutional risk. Those who have the vision must admit that the United States of Europe will be created against the background of institutions that are at best immature. They will have some difficulty establishing themselves with the democratic legitimacy and universal acceptance that is required of a stable Government.
Secondly there are cultural problems. I do not rate them too highly. I am not saying that people of different cultures cannot get on in a single state. Belgium proves that they can, as do Switzerland and the United States. However, it is difficult. It is more difficult when the political, legal and other cultures are particularly rich and strong. The great glory of Europe is that the individual cultures of the nation states are stronger and richer than those in any other part of the world. That creates a particular difficulty in forging a United States of Europe.
Thirdly, there are economic and social risks, many of which have been mentioned this evening, including the creation of what one of my hon. Friends called an economic hot spot problem. I doubt that anyone can honestly deny that there is a danger that in the course of forging a United States of Europe, it would be difficult to produce sufficient economic and social homogeneity—or, in the jargon, cohesion—to avoid severe tension.
Because my argument is very weak, it seems to me the stronger. On those three grounds of institutional immaturity, real and profound cultural difference and serious economic tension, there is a risk that a United States of Europe would turn into an Ottoman empire rather than a successful parallel of the United States of America. I accept that some might think that unlikely, but I wonder whether even the Minister, who, we hear, is a great proponent, can argue that there is no risk. If there is a risk, we, the citizens of the state that beyond all other states has delivered to its citizens across hundreds of years economic, social and cultural stability and freedom under the rule of law, must ask: if the positive case for the United States of Europe from the point of view of the effect of the geopolitical argument on its citizens is weak, why take the risk? We ought to have the courage to admit that we face a question of whether to become part of a United States of Europe by sublimating and obliterating the United Kingdom. I am persuaded that we should not.

1131
I do not mind which way people feel about the decision. I want us to stop debating as if there were a question of prophesy left to us and start the real debate, which is about that decision.
9.23 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: This country will have to face reality in the next 15 months. There is a practical issue of a common European withholding tax. Europe desperately needs that from its own perspective. People do not pay tax on some interest. There is a need for a new source of taxation for transfer payments, which will need to be increased with a single currency.
This country's interests are clear. Harold Wilson and Governor Richardson of the Bank of England spotted that the interest equalisation tax in New York was driving away international deposits, enabling them to be taken in London. That prompted the growth of the European markets and the recovery of London as an international financial centre over the past 30 years.
The issue is not just about bonds, but about deposit taking, foreign exchange dealing, derivatives and all that goes with being the world's leading international banking centre. If a withholding tax is stopped, all that business will go to New York and Hong Kong. That is not a small matter. At least 100,000 of 600,000 jobs are at risk, and 3 or 4 per cent. of gross national product and 6 per cent. of our total exports are involved.
The Prime Minister has pledged to veto the proposal, but Europe has made it clear—rightly, from its perspective—that Britain is being arrogant. Europe wants the proposal to be implemented. I believe that the issue will boil over next year. Europe will not allow us to use our veto to stop its first major tax harmonisation programme. It will, as Schröder has warned, move to end the power of veto for individual countries. The reality will hit the hypocritical nonsense of pretending that Europe will do whatever we want it to in our interests.
9.26 pm
Mr. Michael Trend: The Foreign Secretary patronisingly urged us all to behave like adults. That was as uncalled for as it was discourteous. We have heard many excellent speeches this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has just made a brief but cogently argued point about the withholding tax, and the various speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown a that a great deal of thought is being given to the European question.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) kept his eye on the rhythm of dialectic and the big questions that may one day be asked about the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), in a characteristically ebullient contribution, rightly said that if others want to create a supranational state, that is their business. At the moment, the evidence is strong that that is the direction in which many senior politicians in Europe want to go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) also spoke on that theme. He described the overwhelming tide that is sweeping through the European argument, leading member states to ever closer integration. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has
1132
a different experience of the European Union from that of the rest of Conservative Members. She made an important and detailed speech, raising a number of questions that I am sure the Minister will want to follow up.
Especially welcome was the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). He spoke from his experience in government of the difficult realities of negotiating in the European Union. The Government are now learning about those hard realities at first hand.
The contributions from Labour Members were 50:50. Of the four speeches, two were on message—one of them alarmingly so—whereas the other two expressed anxieties about the Government's position, although for different reasons: at least I think that they were different reasons. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was right to say that we should explain the implications of where the European Union is going. We shall soon have that opportunity; in the referendum on the single currency, we shall be able to put the case to the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset also said.
At the start of the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made a most telling contribution. He characterised the Government's position as one that faced in two directions at the same time—one for our European partners and the other for the domestic market. We have heard much this evening about the yawning gulf between the Government's rhetoric at home and what they endorse abroad.
We have heard how the Government are getting into difficulties on both fronts. They draw up carefully crafted positions but, especially on tax harmonisation, their proposals are being rejected both at home and abroad. Oskar Lafontaine will not put up with the British Government trying to have it both ways any more than will the Conservative party, the British press or the British public.
The Labour party hopes that the phrases in the Party of European Socialists' beloved document, "The New European Way", will also strike its different audiences—the left-of-centre Governments in Europe and the voters at home—differently. However, that did not seem to please the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for curious reasons entirely of his own. Many hon. Members have spoken about tax harmonisation, and it would be tedious and unnecessary to go over the issue again.
I have enjoyed one particular moment in the last few days, which makes the point, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, that there is a great sense of deja vu about the Government's position. I had a fantasy—I do not pretend that it is the truth—about the scene in the Foreign Office yesterday. Ministers and their civil servants were trying to decide what to do after the Chancellor had come back, having been mugged at ECOFIN. How best were they to give the impression that the Foreign Office was not trying to lie low—although, of course, that was what it was trying to do?
No. 10, meanwhile, had been rampaging around the Government system, getting the line straight for Prime Minister's questions. A false move at the Foreign Office would spell disaster for somebody's career. "Shall we send the Foreign Secretary?" "No, Minister." "Should it

1133
be a Minister of State, or another Front Bencher?" "No, Minister." "What shall we do?" "I know, Minister" said an experienced civil servant. "Let us send the Parliamentary Private Secretary." So it was that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—I told him I was going to mention him—found himself on the radio yesterday, defending the Government single-handedly. No Minister was available, according to the rather sinister announcement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trend: May I finish my fantasy? The hon. Member for Rotherham did his job very well. He read the headlines from the German newspapers—to, I suspect, a rather bemused audience—and seemed to suggest that the whole sorry business had been got up as a scare story by the British press. Various other Labour Members have suggested that. He seemed to say that they did these things better in Germany. He has a very promising career. However, the point of sending Parliamentary Private Secretaries is that they can sink or swim on their own without damaging the Government's reputation—although they may do tremendous damage to their own. However, the hon. Gentleman acquitted himself, and I hope his career is progressing nicely.
Ms Quin: I was interested to listen to the hon. Gentleman's fantasy—but it was just fantasy. If he had listened to other interviews yesterday, he would have heard me and other Ministers being interviewed. Sadly, a lot of my weekends seem to be disrupted by interviews on tax harmonisation and other European issues.
Mr. Trend: I have no reason to doubt the Minister, but I thought it curious that, a few hours before Prime Minister's questions, no Minister was available on the BBC lunchtime news on Radio 4. I may be wrong about those things.
The hon. Member for Rotherham, in a spirited interview, suggested that they do these things better on the continent. The evidence of the past six months does not suggest that. The informal summit was billed as an opportunity to debate subsidiarity—it had been prepared for months as a chance to investigate that subject closely. Only a few months ago, it was thought that the question of how to close the ever-growing gulf between the politicians and peoples of Europe was a matter of central importance.
The Foreign Secretary—like other senior European politicians—still airs the language of subsidiarity. He told us today that he was anxious that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizen, and we agree. However, what does that mean in practice? When the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Select Committee, it turned out to mean, mainly, a proposal for next year's vision statement for the European Union. If one has no plans for action, I suppose a vision statement will have to do.
Despite the continued use of such language, something fundamental has changed in the past few months. The Euro-land Governments—especially after the general
1134
elections—picked up a new confidence. They could see that the euro would definitely be launched in 1999—that business was over, at least for the moment. The voices saying that it was best now to address the other side of the precarious balance between Governments and the governed were swept aside. Jacques Santer' s carefully crafted—and good—paper was put back in the filing cabinet.
Governments surged ahead with their next business. There has been greatly increased pressure in the past few weeks for further and quicker integration in taxation, employment, social affairs, internal policies, foreign policy, immigration and asylum policies. In recent weeks, I have talked to lots of senior European politicians—some of whom I have known for a considerable time. Many are, for the first time, saying in public what they actually believe.
I was told that subsidiarity and accountability would have to wait, as they were yesterday's arguments. The vital principles that we believe should be the very foundation of the European Union are being passed over by the architects of a much more tightly integrated Union.
Does anyone now seriously believe that the architects of the new Europe are building their ever more ambitious edifice on the secure foundations of popular understanding and consent? No. Bigger, not better, government is the order of the day and of tomorrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate spoke very well on enlargement. Great progress was hoped for on enlargement, and of course the Minister will tell us of meetings attended and timetables agreed to, but nobody involved in the application process believes any of that. With attention now so focused on deeper integration, European Union enlargement is being seriously delayed. European Commission officials were reported in The Guardian to be stating in private that the target date for the first wave of enlargement was slipping to after 2005.
One senior politician said to me, "The European Union has been holding out a carrot to us: we begin to move towards it and get close, but then we find that it has moved it on ahead of us again. How can we ever catch up if these are the rules of the game?"
The Foreign Secretary told the House in June that the speed at which applicant countries enter the European Union now depends entirely on the urgency with which they make the necessary reforms. That is not the view that is taken in Poland, the Czech Republic or Hungary. The amount of legislation that they, and especially Poland, have passed—hundreds of laws—beggars belief, but no amount of new laws will catch up with a European Union determined to make new, far-reaching legislation of its own.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, the Government did not do the House the courtesy of telling us what had been discussed and agreed at the recent informal summit. A few days after it, however, I was again in continental Europe and met many people who were less retiring. They were happy enough to tell me what the Prime Minister had said. Their impression was that he meant that there had been a true reversal of the British position on defence. Some, I am afraid, cynically thought that that was because he was unable any longer to gain the limelight on economic matters, but others genuinely believed that there had been a fundamental shift in the British position.

1135
Was that impression correct? Back at Westminster, Conservative Members asked the simple questions that we can ask in the ways that the House allows, and it soon became apparent that the Government were in a glorious muddle. The Secretary of State for Defence recently tried hard to explain at the Dispatch Box—I am charitably assuming that he had something coherent to explain—the complex theology that his officials had kindly developed to try to bring the Government's two faces on the matter back into better focus.
It is no longer possible for the Government to say one thing on the continent and another here and pretend that they can keep the House out of the process. The Government are going to Vienna in a muddle of their own making. There is a muddle on taxation, on defence, on enlargement, on reform of the European Union institutions, on internal matters, on subsidiarity and on accountability.
If the Foreign Secretary hopes that other left-of-centre European politicians will provide him with a welcome break from his problems back home, let me remind him once more of what his Euro-allies have been saying recently.
The German Chancellor expressed support for an "ever-integrated Europe". The German Foreign Minister said that turning the EU into an entity under international law, with a common constitution, was
"the decisive task of our time".
Our friend Oskar Lafontaine said:
"It is necessary to harmonise tax policy"
and the Austrian Finance Minister agreed. He said:
"The single currency will speed up the need for tax harmonisation."
On the veto, good old Oskar was unequivocal. He said:
"I believe the unanimity rule cannot be maintained."
The French Finance Minister said:
"Either you want fiscal harmonisation or you don't. These are all matters that should be subject to majority voting."
The German Foreign Minister said:
"If it is going to turn into a full union, then one day foreign and defence policy will also have to become community tasks."
We are told that sometimes those statesmen speak for themselves and sometimes for their Governments, but that is spin doctor nonsense. They are speaking their minds and we should note carefully what is in their minds, because their views expressed today—on the record or off the record, officially or unofficially—will surely appear on tomorrow's agenda.
The coming summit will be difficult for Britain. The Government should say more clearly where they stand on all the issues raised in the debate, because it is becoming increasingly clear that an agenda is emerging to which no British Government could subscribe. No amount of warm words about being at the heart of Europe, or boasting about playing it tough in the Councils of Europe, will work much longer. The electorate are getting wise to the Government's two faces. In the end, it is results that count.
In one way, I sympathise with the Government. Some press commentators have said that this Government's position is as bad as that of the previous Government. There is something in that, but there is also one big difference. The Conservatives tortured themselves on
1136
European policy, but they did so on matters of principle. This Government have made their muddle not on the firm rock of principle, but on the shifting sands of propaganda and presentation. The big trouble with looking both ways at once is that, sooner or later, one fails to look in either direction with a steady eye and the inevitable accident occurs.
9.41 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): This is the first debate of this kind that I have taken part in since becoming a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, I count myself as a veteran—perhaps happily, perhaps unhappily—of these debates, having taken part in many while in opposition, from the Back Benches and the Front Bench. One common aspect of the debates—not surprisingly, given the many issues with a European dimension—is that they are always wide ranging.
I begin with an apology on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who is not able to be in his place for the winding-up speeches because he has left to attend the British-French summit at St. Malo, which I shall also attend later. At that summit, many of the issues that have exercised hon. Members on both sides of the House today will be raised.
Many of the speeches in the debate contained effective calls for an informed debate on European issues and I echo those calls. Many of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), made the point about accurate information very tellingly. I join with those who have deplored the hysteria that has disfigured the debate about Europe, especially in the past few weeks, with irresponsible scare stories that alarm people unnecessarily. That does not do the people or democracy a service.
We want a debate in which people have access to information and we have a duty, which we take seriously, through our parliamentary proceedings to try to have as much discussion as possible on the issues. The speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) fuelled many of the scare stories, instead of considering them realistically and damping them down. I was surprised, if not astonished, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was revealed as an arch-federalist of yesteryear in the extraordinary quotation from the magazine Crossbow in which he called for a united European defence policy. That was fascinating, and I have now been given the article so I will be able to read it from beginning to end.
One purpose of our debate is to review developments as we prepare for the European summit in Vienna. I hope that hon. Members will find it useful if I outline some of the topics that are likely to be raised on which we hope to make progress. A principal issue is Agenda 2000, on which the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) spoke in detail and about which she asked me many detailed questions. I am happy to respond to some of those questions, but if I answered them all, I could deal only with her speech, and not with those of other hon. Members. Even then, I probably would not have enough time. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady if she feels that I have not dealt with any of her questions.
Some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised can, as she will know, be more appropriately dealt with by ministerial colleagues who attend specialist councils. One of the

1137
down sides of being Minister for Europe is that I tend to be asked about every policy under the sun from wide-ranging issues about the future of Europe to the marketing of aubergines in the French Antilles. It is sometimes something of a challenge to answer all those points.
Agenda 2000 is an important package of issues that the EU must confront if it is to move the process of enlargement forward. The issues involved include the budget, agriculture and the structural funds. Much common ground has been established, particularly on structural funds and on the problems that should be addressed by objective 1, objective 2 and so on funding. None the less, a lot of work remains to be done, both on future EU financing and on common agricultural policy reform. Many comments have been made about the new German Government, but no one has said that that Government, much more than their predecessor, share our ideas on CAP reform. We hope to make important progress on that reform through the Agenda 2000 proposals.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, although the Commission's proposals on agriculture do not go as far as we would like, they would reduce support prices for a variety of products and would mean real gains for our consumers. My right hon. Friend quoted revealing figures on that. We believe that the Commission's proposals would allow us to work with like-minded Governments to increase pressure to make such reforms even better in future.
Many hon. Members have referred to the timetable of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. I agree that it is important to respect that timetable, particularly if we are to make a success of early enlargement. The hon. Member for Vale of York spoke of the European Parliament's deliberations on the timetable. There is some concern that the Parliament may not meet the deadline, as well as concern that the Council of Ministers might not. I urge the hon. Lady to try to pressure her colleagues in the European Parliament. If agreement is not reached in the present Parliament, we risk considerable delay because of the coming elections and the subsequent need for the Parliament to appoint new officers and set up new committees and procedures.
The hon. Lady expressed concern about the future of structural funds in her own part of the country, and she will know that delay to the timetable, with resulting delays in budgetary decisions, could affect structural fund allocations to areas in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have an interest. Self interest gives us a strong reason to respect the timetable.
Many hon. Members referred to the importance of enlargement and I certainly strongly endorse those comments. However, I must point out to those on the Opposition Front Bench that, far from any weakening of our commitment, we are as firm a supporter of enlargement as ever. We were proud to support and launch the enlargement process during our presidency.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) urged us to be inclusive in our approach, and we most certainly are. We believe that the countries involved need
1138
to be treated on their merits. Some of them have made dramatic progress, as has been pointed out, and that must be fully recognised.
Mr. Letwin: In that case, will the Minister confirm—as one of her colleagues, the Financial Secretary, did not do so in the European Standing Committee—that the Government will oppose the Commission's proposal that countries should have to enter both stage 1 and stage 2 of European monetary union before they can accede?
Ms Quin: Those are issues to be discussed with the applicant countries. I will certainly not lay down rules in advance of the accession negotiations. Indeed, I know from speaking to Ministers in the applicant countries that different countries view those issues differently.
We need to ensure that the European Union is in a good position to welcome those new countries. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) who strongly argued that, although we are understandably asking applicants to accept many of the rules and arrangements that exist within the EU, at the same time we have a responsibility to organise ourselves to become more enlargement friendly.
One aspect of Agenda 2000 and the Commission's proposals that greatly concerns me and on which we are arguing against the Commission line, is that farmers in the new member countries should receive much less favourable compensation than those within existing EU countries. We have argued for compensation to existing farmers to be reduced progressively, so that we do not create such a two-tier system, which would unfairly discriminate against applicant countries.
Despite some of the claims made tonight about our rolling over and agreeing with everything that is put forward in Europe, I can assure the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his hon. Friends that that is simply not the case. We are putting forward strong and distinctive views on many of the issues in the Agenda 2000 timetable. In no way are we simply sitting back and accepting what others propose.
If enlargement is to be inclusive, it also means that it should not create new boundaries further east. Referring to a point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the European Union has a clear responsibility to look outwards. There are debates within the EU, and there are protectionist and anti-protectionist forces. We want to ensure that the EU operates openly, so that it helps the economic reform and progress that is being made in countries further east, as well as helping developing countries in the world market, particularly in the agricultural sector.
Mr. Flight: Is there any support from our fellow members of the EU for the position that the right hon. Lady has described on Agenda 2000 and enlargement?
Ms Quin: Yes, indeed. The pattern is mixed on the issues that I described, but a variety of members support our position and we have received support from the Commission itself on many of the agricultural issues. I do not feel at all defeatist as regards the issues that we are discussing, nor do I recognise the description of Britain's position or of Ministers' meetings that has been offered by some Members, in particular those on the Opposition

1139
Benches. On most issues, we find ourselves working in partnership with our colleagues, not in isolation. There are issues on which decisions must be made by unanimity where it is theoretically possible to become isolated and end up voting against the rest. However, in practice, in the meetings that I have attended as a Foreign Office Minister acting as a Justice and Home Affairs Minister, in which almost all decisions are taken by unanimity, the pattern of agreement, support and alliances that we have been able to build up with our European Union partners is impressive.
Hon. Members referred to the importance of the European Union remaining firmly engaged with Russia, of doing what we can to support change there and of helping it in the immediate future. We have been trying to ascertain how much food aid and support is needed, although I must admit that we have been getting different versions of what those needs are. We also want to examine trading arrangements with Russia, and consider how EU programmes such as TACIS—technical aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States—can be refocused to make them more effective, especially in reshaping Russia's banking system and installing proper financial controls, the absence of which has caused many of its recent problems.
Mr. Letwin: I apologise for interrupting the Minister again—she has been exceptionally courteous. However, as one who has worked long and hard with TACIS, I have to tell her that, if she is suffering from the illusion that it will ever make the slightest difference to the Russian banking system, she really should talk to those who have worked on it, because there is not the slightest chance.
Ms Quin: I simply do not accept that, because I have been involved in discussions on how to take that work forward. However, I would not commend TACIS without reservations, because many British firms working within it have been frustrated by the slowness of procedures and the way in which payments are made. Those problems must be sorted out.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), a former Minister for Europe, took the Government to task over various issues, saying that we
1140
had failed to achieve agreements with our partners. That struck me as odd coining the week after our success in the lifting of the beef ban. Some of what he presented as a complete failure, I would regard as a success, for example, our decision to sign the social chapter. It was always a matter of great regret to me that the Conservative Government refused to sign that or the social charter which preceded it, and were never prepared to make even a basic commitment to decent treatment for the people who work in the single European market.
Many hon. Members referred to tax harmonisation. I believe that the press articles of the past couple of weeks are scare stories, because nobody is proposing the harmonisation of income tax, which is one of the claims; nor is there a specific proposal to harmonise corporation tax. In the European Union, it is important not only to see what is happening within it, but to see the position of the European market within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in the wider world. One of my European counterparts told me of her worry that, if there were moves to harmonise tax within the European Union, we would take our eye off the ball—the position of the EU within the world market. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) referred to the need for us to be competitive in both the world market and the EU market. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that the UK will not support any action that will damage competitiveness, or our employment creation policies in the UK. That is extremely important.
The speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) contained several references to "Corpus Juris". He said that he had read the treaty of Rome, but if he supplements his reading with the treaty of Amsterdam he will see that the articles—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put

ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [16th November] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.

London, Tilbury and Southend Railway
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
10 pm
Mr. John Cryer: I thank Madam Speaker for choosing this subject for tonight's debate. The London, Tilbury and Southend line was chosen for debate before, but, along with other business, fell prior to the Queen's Speech. I also thank the Minister for her presence in the Chamber this evening.
My involvement with the London, Tilbury and Southend railway as a passenger pre-dates my election as a Member of Parliament. Although my remarks refer to the railway that runs from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness, I am concerned mainly with what is called the Tilbury loop, which runs through Rainham station in my constituency and through two stations, Dagenham Dock and Purfleet, in neighbouring constituencies.
Since my election—or shortly thereafter—I began to receive complaints from my Rainham constituents about service on the LTS line. People came to my surgeries and wrote to and telephoned me. I express my appreciation of the time and effort that my constituents have expended contacting me and attending meetings of the Rainham rail users group, which I helped to establish when, following an avalanche of complaints, it became clear that collective action was necessary. I expected about 20 or 30 people to attend the group's first meeting in September, but in fact there were probably 80 or 90. The mood of the meeting was so angry that, if an LTS Rail representative had been present, he or she would have had a pretty tough time.
I will give the House some idea of the feeling about LTS in my part of the country. An Essex radio station conducted a survey some time ago to discover the most unpopular man in Essex and east London. The managing director of LTS Rail, Ken Bird, finished second in that survey, pipped at the post by Saddam Hussein. That gives hon. Members some idea of how my constituents and, I suspect, people from neighbouring areas regard the LTS service.
That is hardly surprising in view of the correspondence that my constituents and I have received. In a letter last July, the managing director, Ken Bird, offered some fairly patronising comments. As part of an explanation as to why the service from Rainham is so poor, he wrote:
"We offer a walk-on, walk-off non-reservable system".
He concluded:
"It is now pleasing to be able to manage a retail venture that recognises that profit comes from giving customers what they want at a price they are willing to pay. We are not there yet, but give me another 18 months and judge us then."
People have been using LTS for three years since privatisation. It is fair to say that they have every right to judge the service now rather than waiting another 18 months. LTS has had quite enough time already. In any case, the Tilbury loop service, which runs through my constituency, has worsened since privatisation.
Many managers, including Ken Bird, ran the pre-privatisation British Rail service. They laid off many station staff before the sell-off and, after privatisation, took on low-paid security guards, whom I see regularly at Fenchurch Street checking tickets and giving directions.
1142
Just before privatisation British Rail spent £150 million on resignalling the line—an investment from which LTS clearly benefits.
A choice paragraph from one of the railway's leaflets states:
"LTS Rail has now employed a number of key staff in order to improve customer service and the station environment."
To many of my constituents, such comments are pure propaganda, especially when considered against the fact that the work force fell from 686 in 1995–96 to 657 in 1996–97. I am convinced that that has led to the cuts in the Tilbury service. There have been cancelled trains, frequent delays and the early closure of the booking office at Rainham and other stations. The company is not prepared to employ sufficient staff to run the line successfully.
I shall give the Minister an example. Two years ago there were six trains running between 8 and 9 am from Rainham to Fenchurch Street. There are now just three trains: the 8.12, the 8.27 and the 8.48. Like many trains since privatisation, the 8.48 has been reduced from eight coaches to four, leading to such overcrowding that I wrote to the Health and Safety Executive to find out whether it could do anything about the problem.
The HSE wrote back saying that overcrowding was not a danger in itself, but if there was an accident, as was the case in Clapham, an overcrowded train would be likely to result in many more injuries to the passengers than a train that was not overcrowded. Because most of the trains on the Tilbury loop are the old slam-door trains, there are no suitable handles for passengers to hang on to when they have to stand to travel to work and home again.
Last year LTS Rail failed in its obligation to run 98.5 per cent. of timetabled trains. It cancelled 1,500 trains, and 2,000 trains ran late. Nevertheless, Prism Rail, the parent company of LTS, has received a considerable amount of money from the taxpayers' pocket—not only the £150 million that went into resignalling, but £30 million from the franchising director in 1995–96, which will fall towards the end of the franchise in 2011 but is still a substantial sum. Passenger income for 1995–96 was £52 million and for 1996–97 it was £55 million. Revenue grant for the same years was £31 million and £24 million respectively. Large sums are going into LTS, but people are not seeing the benefits, and there is growing anger among my constituents.
I shall give some examples of constituents' experiences with LTS Rail. My hon. Friend is familiar with one case, about which I have corresponded with her. It involves a woman who was stranded at Barking late at night after a train broke down. Only five taxis were provided to get everyone home from a full train. The woman had to ring her mother to send a taxi to take her home at about 1 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friend will recall that British Rail was obliged to get everybody to their destinations if a train broke down, using licensed taxis or buses. It seems from that case that LTS is not meeting its responsibilities.
Another constituent writes to me regularly about the problems on LTS. On 18 November she wrote detailing all the delays and problems that she had experienced during that month. On six days during the first half of November there were problems including late trains, cancelled trains and locked carriages, leading to ever greater overcrowding and so on.

1143
A constituent writes regularly with the outstanding excuses used by LTS. The corker was the announcement that
"the delayed 7.55 am will not stop at Rainham due to the train already being heavily overcrowded."
In fact, when the train came through the station it was almost empty and—this is the telling point—it got to Fenchurch Street on time. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that it did not stop at Rainham station. It meant that the railway could fulfil its obligations under the regulatory framework.
There has been investment in the railway, but it has gone on the main line—most was by Railtrack—in rail renewal. There has been minimal investment on the Tilbury loop. Stations are miserable and often deserted because there are not enough staff. The railway is extremely badly run and there is no sign of investment in the pipeline.
The result is fear among my constituents that part of the Tilbury loop could be run down to the point where it might face closure. The three stations—Rainham, Dagenham Dock and Purfleet—are always cited when people come to me to express that fear. I met Ken Bird last week and he assured me that Rainham station would remain open. He pointed out that LTS was legally unable to close any stations or any section of line that it runs, because that is a matter for the franchising director.
I have written to the franchising director to ask for an assurance that those three stations and the rest of the line will remain open until the end of the current franchise, which is 2010–11. I look forward to receiving that assurance.
My view, which is not always shared by the Government, is that certain things are best run as publicly owned monopolies. The railway system is one area that should be publicly run, owned and accountable. People across the country have problems, some of which are worse than those experienced on LTS. If the enormous problems in Britain's rail network continue, my hon. Friend and other Ministers will have to think about that.
In the meantime, we must consider strengthening the regulatory framework to make sure, for instance, that LTS does not get away with the diminution in the service from Rainham to Fenchurch Street. LTS should have to provide the sort of service—or better service—than was provided before privatisation. We should return to the days when there were six trains between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the morning from Rainham to Fenchurch Street, and those six trains should carry eight carriages.
The franchising director has allowed LTS to delay the introduction of new trains—despite all the money that is going from the taxpayer's pocket into LTS. The introduction of new trains to replace the old slam-door variety has been delayed by three years and they will not come into service until 2002. That is another example of the laxity of the regulatory framework, which is hardly surprising: it was introduced by the previous Government, who saw rail privatisation as a way of taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket and diverting it into the pockets of shareholders.
The great problem is that, in any privatisation—rail or any other—the people who run the railway ultimately have greater responsibility to shareholders than to anyone else. That is the crux of why there is such a system on LTS and on other railways.
10.14 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing the debate—twice. I also congratulate him on putting on the record so succinctly the concerns and the experiences—the bad experiences—of his constituents in respect of the service that they are receiving from the London, Tilbury and Southend railway.
The Government have made it clear that poor performance on our railways is unacceptable—it will not be tolerated. We expect train operators to run punctual and reliable services, and we expect Railtrack to meet its obligations to passengers, freight customers and taxpayers to maintain and develop the rail network in a manner that offers proper value for money.
Hon. Members—indeed the whole country—will be aware that all franchisees and Railtrack were summoned to a meeting last week with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and me. As a result of that meeting, an action plan has been agreed to tackle performance problems across our railway network. Measures agreed include 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint hit squad to examine, identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots on our network, and a national troubleshooter team to tackle punctuality problems. We shall also introduce a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers really think about their rail services, and to help measure performance across the network.
That action plan is only a first step to delivering short-term improvements for passengers. We expect to see progressive, year-on-year improvements from the industry starting over the next 12 months. Next February, there will be a wider-ranging national railway summit to examine how to tackle medium to longer-term performance problems.
My hon. Friend spoke specifically and succinctly of the difficulties on the London, Tilbury and Southend line. I hope that he will be interested in a stroll down memory lane. When I first entered the House, the LTS line was dubbed the misery line. Hon. Members from both sides related horror stories of their constituents' experiences on a service that was going not from bad to worse, but from worse to execrable. That was before rail privatisation, and shows the previous Administration's failure to invest adequately in our national railway system.
However, it would be quite wrong to pretend that performance on the LTS line has not improved since that time. Some would say that it was impossible for it to get worse, and as my hon. Friend has detailed, it is by no means perfect. Despite the fact that 96 per cent. of LTS trains have arrived within five minutes of their scheduled time—a statistic that I regret to say many other train operators cannot match—problems with the renewal of overhead line equipment has caused cancellations, and season ticket holders are receiving discounts as a result. As we all know, what passengers and season ticket holders want more than discounts is certainty that the train will be there when they arrive at the station, and that it will reach its destination at the designated time.
My hon. Friend referred to his constituent's particularly harrowing experience. He wrote to me on this issue, and I promised that I would raise it with the Association of Train Operating Companies, which I meet regularly. Last

1145
month, I reminded ATOC of the need for train operators to be mindful of their responsibility not to leave passengers stranded when services are disrupted. It is vital that train operators consider the personal security of their passengers during their whole journey, particularly at night, and, I would argue, even more particularly when the passenger is female.
Train operators are required to use all reasonable endeavours to deliver passengers to their destination station when services are disrupted. Although they are not formally obliged to do so, ATOC has assured me that train operators take passengers to their final destination when that is practicable or necessary for their personal security.
I raised this issue with the managing director of LTS, Mr. Bird, who said that he would speak directly to my hon. Friend. I trust that that is indeed what happened.
My hon. Friend expressed fears that there may be proposals to close the services that serve his constituency and what he referred to as the Tilbury loop. Services on the loop, as elsewhere on LTS, are protected by the passenger service requirement, which guarantees a minimum level of service.
I understand that, with the franchising director's agreement, LTS has rearranged the service pattern on the loop to increase frequency on the Ockendon branch, and to provide direct services to London. That has allowed LTS to run direct services to Chafford Hundred for the Lakeside shopping complex.
My hon. Friend referred to reductions in services on the line. I understand that the winter timetable has involved a cut of one train from both morning and afternoon peak times—a reduction from the summer timetable of, I believe, 12 to 11 trains in the morning and from 11 to 10 in the afternoon. I will, however, look into the specific issue that my hon. Friend raised.
Although I am pleased that more people are travelling by train, I accept that has resulted in serious overcrowding on certain London commuter services—certainly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, on LTS. All train operators have a general obligation to avoid excessive overcrowding, but more specific controls apply to London commuter services such as LTS at peak times.
Earlier this year, the franchising director required five London train operators to develop action plans to alleviate the serious overcrowding on their services. LTS has so far remained within the contractual limits set by the franchising director, but, like other operators, it has experienced an increase in passenger numbers over the last year. I expect the franchising director to ensure that, where network capacity allows, all operators of London commuter services take immediate action to reduce any severe overcrowding that may occur now or in the future.
We have made it clear that train operators' performance will be a key criterion when it comes to franchise renewal. Those who perform well will find that we are constructive partners. We are willing to renegotiate franchises, including franchise extensions, when that offers benefits to passengers and good value for money to the taxpayer; but our warning to train operators who perform poorly is simple and clear. Those who perform badly will not have a long-term future in the industry.
1146
Last month, the franchising director announced a new package of benefits for LTS passengers. I was particularly pleased that it resulted from a voluntary renegotiation by the franchising director and Prism Rail of LTS's franchise plan commitments, rather than being recompense to passengers for poor performance. The package clearly signalled a commitment to responding to passengers' needs, and I hope that it was welcomed by them.
I accept that, as a result, some existing slam-door trains will not be replaced as soon as was originally agreed, although the majority will be replaced within a year with new trains already ordered by LTS. I know—and my hon. Friend raised the point this evening—that there is concern about the safety of older rolling stock. Slam-door rolling stock is not necessarily unsafe, but it has been criticised for its performance in certain types of accident. The Health and Safety Commission has recommended that all mark one stock should be withdrawn by 1 January 2003 unless it has been re-bodied or modified.
The new deal commits LTS to replacing its remaining slam-door stock progressively with modern sliding-door vehicles by the end of March 2002. Its fleet currently numbers 69 four-car units, of which 17 have sliding doors. By November 1999, 44 new four-car units will be in service, and by March 2002 a fleet of 72 four-car units will all have sliding doors.
The new deal offers a considerable package of additional benefits to LTS passengers to offset the delay in replacing the slam-door trains. LTS's passenger charter punctuality standard and trigger for season ticket discounts has been increased by 1 per cent., with immediate effect. Compensation for delays of 60 minutes or more has increased from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. Contractual thresholds for cancellations and capacity have been tightened, so that enforcement action can be triggered at a lower level. Those thresholds will be further tightened in April 2000.
To help to meet the growing demand for commuter rail services into London, LTS has committed to extending its scheme for cheap early morning season tickets to more stations from May 1999, providing travel to Fenchurch Street at a discount of at least 20 per cent. A total of £2 million will be spent on service quality improvements, including real-time passenger information systems by the end of March 2000. A further £50,000 will be spent in each year until the end of the franchise on providing further staff coverage at stations. I hope that that fact affords some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch.
Other welcome benefits included improvements to facilities for disabled passengers, including disabled toilets and boarding ramps at all 11 of LTS' main stations. LTS will seek accreditation for all its stations under my Department's secure stations scheme, and similar accreditation for car parks at its stations. Improved cycle storage facilities have been promised at a. further six stations.
The new deal committed LTS to improving transport integration between its services and other public transport services and commercial development, moving towards our vision of a railway that is integrated with other modes of transport and allows people to travel by public transport to the places that they want to reach. In particular, LTS has committed £700,000 to improving pedestrian access to the Lakeside shopping centre from Chafford Hundred

1147
station. It has committed to building further links with bus services in the local area. It will work with Great Eastern railway to develop season tickets between London and Southend that can be used on either train operators' services.
On our plans for the future of passenger rail services, renationalisation—not a word that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch uttered, but it is clearly still his dream—of the railways would be very expensive and cannot be a priority given the other demands on public expenditure. Therefore, our task is to improve the railways as we find them, not as we wish them to be.
We will introduce a new strategic rail authority to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of the railways. The SRA will provide a better means of influencing the use of the significant amounts of public funds that we provide to the industry, to the benefit of passengers and taxpayers.
The Loyal Address on 24 November has now given us the go-ahead to publish a draft Bill to introduce the necessary legislation to establish the SRA. Given the extraordinary events that are taking place down the
1148
corridor and the even more extraordinary events that are taking place in the official Opposition, legislation could come sooner, rather than later.
However soon we legislate, it will take at least 18 months to get the SRA up and running. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister announced at Blackpool the setting up of a shadow SRA. That will use existing organisations—the British Railways Board and Office of Passenger Rail Franchising—both of which will be under new leadership by next spring, when the new shadow authority will be up and running.
I acknowledge that not all the challenges that face the rail industry can be solved overnight. It is clear that, in many instances, the passenger and taxpayer are still not getting the best deal in the privatised railway; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch gave us details of that fact. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we have set ourselves, but we are determined to work with the rail industry to achieve our goal.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Rural Areas (Access to Justice)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps the Welsh Office is taking to increase access to justice for people living in rural areas in Wales. [61473]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is proposing to create a Community Legal Service, which will improve access to good quality legal and advice services for those with the greatest need. This will be achieved by greater local planning of legal and advice services and co-ordination of funding through Community Legal Service Partnerships between local authorities, the Legal Aid Board and other significant funders. This will be particularly important to rural communities, as the inconsistent geographic coverage of legal and advice services impacts disproportionately in rural areas.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department also wishes to see the facilities at some magistrates' courts improved where these may be substandard, but—as section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 sets out—decisions about the location and number of courthouses and offices are the responsibility of the relevant magistrates' courts committees in consultation with their paying authorities. The Lord Chancellor's Department will become involved only when a paying authority appeals against an MCC's determination.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to halt the closure of(a) magistrates' and (b) county council courts in the rural areas of Wales. [61474]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates' courts are locally managed by magistrates' courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the location and number of magistrates' courts in their area are for the relevant magistrates' courts committee to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

  The Court Service is responsible for all civil and the higher criminal courts and is required constantly to monitor and review the viability of its court network. Factors taken into consideration include the role played by the court in providing a service to the public in that area, and the effect and implications of providing an alternative for its current users. The criteria for considering the case for and against closure as set out in the Departmental Accommodation Plan are: the condition of the existing accommodation; the availability of facilities; the frequency of judicial visits and waiting
  232
  times; the facilities provided by the alternative court; and the capacity of that court to cater for the additional work; and distances and public transport considerations. In general, the Court service must look to improve services to an area overall.

DEFENCE

  Newsletters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of(a) the Pay and Personnel Agency and (b) the Duke of York's Royal Military School; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. [62043]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the agencies concerned. I have asked the Chief Executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from G. H. Wilson to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 3 December 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about newsletters to staff as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School.
  The current security classification of newsletters produced for the staff is "unclassified".
  Newsletters were first produced for staff, parents and pupils in December 1992 and are produced once per school term. In addition Staff Bulletins have been in production at the school for many decades and these are produced once a week.

  Letter from Mike Rowe to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 3 December 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about newsletters as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Pay & Personnel Agency.
  The Agency produces an unclassified newsletter, the "NewsPayPer". It was first produced in July 1996 and there have been 9 quarterly issues since.

  Research Papers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many series of research papers his Department produces; and what are the names of each of these series of research papers. [62041]

  Mr. Spellar
  A very large number of research papers are produced by the staff of Ministry of Defence research establishments and most such papers are in the public domain and not classified. Publication of research papers is the individual responsibility of the research establishments and sectors within them. Details of series of research papers are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Protection of Wrecks Act 1973
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the procedures for enforcement of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, indicating the steps salvers should take to initiate enforcement action. [60864]
  233
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for policing or prosecuting offences under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 lies with the relevant police force and the Crown Prosecution Service. My Department is happy to assist the police in any matters relating to the 1973 Act, whenever necessary. Steps are being taken to remind relevant police forces of their responsibilities under the 1973 Act, and of the designated wreck sites within their area of responsibility.

  Any individual who suspects that illegal diving may be taking place on a designated wreck site should, in the first instance, contact their local police constabulary whose responsibility it is to take the necessary steps to investigate the allegations. My Department would also wish to be kept informed of such incidents and will provide advice as necessary.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the actions of and communications between his Department and the Devon and Cornwall police in the week commencing 5 October 1998, regarding the designated site at Salcombe and the complaint made to them under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. [60865]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My officials were in telephone contact with the Devon and Cornwall Police three times on Wednesday 7 October to discuss the situation on the Salcombe Cannon designated wreck site. As a result of the telephone conversation, a letter was faxed to the Police at 3.15pm on Wednesday 7 October, setting out the legal provisions of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. A copy of the licence for the site, detailing the individuals authorised to dive on it, was also faxed to the Police, at their request, on the afternoon of Wednesday 7 October. A further telephone call was made to the Police on Friday 9 October to obtain an update on the situation.

  Royal Parks Agency
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the running costs of the Royal Parks Agency(a) by area of responsibility and (b) by Royal Park in each year since 1993; [60973]

  (2) how many people were employed by the Royal Parks Agency to maintain (a) Hyde Park and (b) Regent's Park in each year since 1993; [60892]

  (3) how many people employed by the Royal Parks Agency in each year since 1993 were paid (a) £0 to £10,000, (b) £10,000 to £20,000, (c) £20,000 to £30,000, (d) £30,000 to £40,000, (e) £40,000 to £50,000 and (f) £50,000 and above. [60891]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Viviane Robertson to Mr. Richard Ottaway, dated 3 December 1998:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch, the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport has asked me to reply to your parliamentary questions concerning staffing levels and costs in the Royal Parks.
  234

  Breakdown of the running costs of the Royal parks Agency by area of responsibility and by Royal Park in each year since 1993

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Hyde Park

  325

  363

  379

  399

  313

  St. James's Park

  136

  155

  171

  255

  236

  Kensington Gardens

  122

  111

  114

  134

  110

  Regent's Park

  282

  294

  342

  313

  169

  Greenwich Park

  197

  201

  190

  157

  160

  Richmond Park

  290

  363

  322

  327

  335

  Bushy Park

  142

  122

  126

  128

  117

  Royal parks

  5,623

  5,443

  5,420

  5,182

  5,094

  Constabulary Headquarters

  1,308

  1,510

  1,428

  1,730

  1,500

  Note:

  These figures represent net running costs ie: less receipts. A further breakdown of Headquarters costs is not available

  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, how many people were employed by the Royal parks Agency to maintain Hyde park and Regent's Park in each year since 1993.

  From 1993–94 to 1996–97 the Agency employed 12 non-uniformed staff to maintain Hyde park and 8 staff to maintain Regent's park. Since 1997–98 these numbers have been reduced to 8 and 6 respectively. I regret we are unable to confirm the number of police officers in these two parks, as we do not keep historical records of numbers of police officers on a park by park basis.

  To ask the Secretary of State of State for Culture Media and Sport, how many people employed by the Royal Parks Agency in each year since 1993 were paid in (a) £0 to £10,000, (b) 10,000 to £20,000, (c) £20,00 to £30,000, (d) £30,000 to £40,000, (e) £40,00 to £50,000 and (f) £50,000 and above.

  Number of Employees in each band by Financial Year

  Salary band £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  30,000–39,999

  n/a

  7

  14

  9

  21

  40,000–49,000

  n/a

  3

  2

  2

  2

  50,000—above

  n/a

  0

  1

  1

  1

  We are unable to provide a breakdown of the numbers of staff paid in bands below £30,000.

  English National Stadium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will ensure that the new English National Stadium will be held in trust for the nation in perpetuity by the English National Stadium Trust; [61435]

  (2) if the FA and the English National Stadium Developments Company will continue to be bound by the contractual terms of the grant from the English Sports Council following repayments of that grant; [61433]

  (3) when the development proposal for the new National Stadium will be submitted to the appropriate planning authority; [61432]

  (4) what redress will be available to the English National Stadium Trust in the event that the FA and the English National Stadium Development Company break the terms of the grant from the English Sports Council; [61434]

  (5) if he will make a statement on his policy regarding attempts to sell a share of the freehold interests in the new English National Stadium; [61436]

  (6) when he expects the sale of the Wembley Stadium site to the English National Stadium Trust's Development Company to be concluded; [61431]
  235
  (7) what plans he has to grant a long lease of the new National Stadium to the English National Stadium Trust. [61437]

  Mr. Banks
  The planning application for the National Stadium is a matter for the English National Stadium Development Company (ENSDC) in consultation with the London Borough of Brent, as planning authority. The present anticipated timetable for submitting a planning application is Spring/Summer 1999, although ENSDC are known to be reviewing the position. The English Sports Council (ESC) included milestone dates on planning issues as conditions of the Lottery award to ensure the project moves ahead on a reasonable timetable.

  In the event of a breach of the conditions of the Lottery award, the ESC has the right to seek repayment. It is a condition of the Lottery award that the freehold interest cannot be sold. The site acquisition is still under discussion between the applicants and Wembley Plc. The site purchase arrangements are subject to strict Stock Exchange rules on disclosure. Following the acquisition, it is intended that the English National Stadium Trust will hold a 999 year lease for the stadium site. The principal lottery award conditions will apply for 50 years, even if the award is repaid, to ensure that the stadium meets its objectives throughout this period.

  As these are detailed matters relating to a Lottery award. I have also written to my hon. Friend proposing he receives a briefing from the ESC on the National Stadium project.

TREASURY

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures have been proposed by the European Commission to reduce harmful tax competition; and if he will make a statement. [61883]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: On 1 December 1997, based on a Commission proposal the ECOFIN Council acknowledged the positive effects of fair competition and the need for a Code of Conduct for business taxation designed to list harmful tax measures.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the effect of EU tax harmonisation proposals on British business. [61308]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Decisions in this area are subject to unanimity. We have made it clear that we will not agree to any course of action which is not in Britain's national economic interest.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to seek to end harmful tax competition within the European Union; what his policy is on determining what types of tax competition are harmful; and if he will make a statement. [61065]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The Government are in favour of effective international action to combat harmful tax practices. The Government support the work of the Code of Conduct Group which under my Chairmanship has been reviewing
  236
  measures which may be considered harmful under the criteria set out in the Code of Conduct on business taxation.

  Tax Policy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to switch the tax burden away from taxes on labour to taxes on capital; and if he will make a statement. [61069]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The Government's tax policy objectives are set out in paragraphs 1.66 to 1.69 of the July 1997 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Anglo-German Working Party
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for an Anglo-German working party on job creation and economic reform. [61062]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: When the Chancellor met the new German Finance Minister, Herr Lafontaine, on Thursday 19 November, they agreed that we should look together at what more we can do to promote job creation and economic reform in our economies. Both Governments will work closely, including through a joint working group, to examine the policies we are pursuing and how we can learn from each other.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approaches he has made to the European Commission since the spring Budget regarding VAT in the United Kingdom on energy conservation materials and supplies. [62038]

  Ms Hewitt
  Under the UK Presidency Environment Ministers of Member States reached agreement that the Council should invite the European Commission to consider proposals for differentiation in tax levels for energy saving products. The Financial Secretary has also written directly to Commissioner Monti putting forward the case for change.

  Sterling
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many weeks the pound has been(a) within, (b) above and (c) below the exchange rate mechanism target since 1 January 1997. [62300]

  Ms Hewitt
  Sterling is not a member of the ERM and the Government have no intention of joining. The Government do not have a target for sterling but aim for a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term, consistent with the objective of price stability.

  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what restrictions are placed upon the Government's ability to act independently of other creditors to reduce debt owed by developing countries by (i) the European Union,
  237
  (ii) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and (iii) other international organisations or agreements. [61491]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK is not restricted in acting unilaterally to reduce debt owed by developing countries by either the EU, the OECD or any other international agreements.

  However, lasting solutions to the problems of heavily indebted poor countries require a multilateral effort. Since the UK holds only a part of the total debt owed by these countries, it cannot by itself reduce their debts to sustainable levels. That is why the UK has been making such efforts in international forums to ensure that all creditors co-operate in giving poor countries a permanent solution to their debt burdens.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to cancel the debt owed to the United Kingdom Government by Nicaragua and Honduras; and if he will make a statement on discussions with other creditors on assistance to Nicaragua and Honduras. [61496]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK wrote off all of its loans to Honduras and Nicaragua long before Hurricane Mitch struck. Following the devastation caused to these countries last month, the Chancellor decided that Nicaragua and Honduras need make no debt service payments to ECGD over the next two years. The issue of a moratorium is to be discussed at the Paris Club of official bilateral creditors next week.

  The Chancellor wrote to the International Financial Institutions—the IMF, World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank—calling on them to look at possible mechanisms for lessening the debt service obligations of Honduras and Nicaragua, and has taken these proposals forward with his G7 and EU colleagues.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will urge the IMF to sell gold reserves in order to pay for the immediate suspension of debt service payments to the international institutions by Nicaragua and Honduras. [61494]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK Government support, and have been pressing for, the sale of a proportion of the IMF gold reserves to provide financing for the HIPC initiative. The UK will continue to press for gold sales in the IMF Executive Board. Gold sales require the approval of the Executive Board by a majority of 85 per cent., and we are therefore working closely with other members at the IMF to secure Board approval.

  Petroleum Products (Cross-border Smuggling)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on the rate of economic growth in Northern Ireland of the smuggling of petroleum products from Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement. [61924]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Customs and Excise has no estimates for the impact on the rate of economic growth in Northern Ireland of such activity.

  Petroleum Products (Duty)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many litres of(a) road gasoline and (b) road diesel fuel duty was paid in each quarter of (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998 to date. [61922]

  Ms Hewitt
  Deliveries of Petrol and Diesel of all types:

  litres

  Quarter to:

  Petrol

  Diesel

  March 1996

  6,539,545,262

  3,722,415,706

  June 1996

  7,597,407,232

  4,238,895,402

  September 1996

  7,607,522,225

  4,226,809,708

  December 1996

  7,813,186,668

  4,755,757,113

  March 1997

  6,454,953,806

  3,961,713,098

  June 1997

  7,710,831,141

  4,464,754,208

  September 1997

  7,018,707,158

  4,204,496,511

  December 1997

  7,390,567,838

  4,655,813,319

  March 1998

  7,430,834,826

  4,588,144,139

  June 1998

  6,087,221.415

  3,752,885,748

  September 1998

  7,322,234,298

  4,440,737,252

  To end October 1998

  2,396,833,797

  1,499,918,984

  These figures are for the whole of the UK. Customs does not keep separate figures for any regions.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect which the 11-week limit to casual employment has had on small employers in the construction industry. [61911]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the 13-week qualifying period for the entitlement to paid annual leave under the Working Time regulations. There was no specific assessment on applying this entitlement to casual workers, and specifically the ramifications for small employers in the construction industry. An assessment for the whole of British industry was made, a copy of which is held in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Hinduja Group
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what grant applications her Department has received from the Hinduja group of companies since 1 May 1997; and what grants have been paid. [62241]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has received no grant applications from the group and has paid no grants to it.

  Hurricane Mitch
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her plans are for further assistance to Central America in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. [62674]

  Clare Short
  An assessment mission from DFID visited Honduras and Nicaragua on 23–28 November. They had an extensive programme of field visits to disaster affected areas and discussions with Governments,
  239
  UN agencies, the Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank, Red Cross and NGOs, EC and other donors. Our findings and conclusions are as follows:
  Situation Assessment
  Consolidated estimates of damage confirm that Honduras is, by far, the worst affected country. Some 20,000 are dead and missing, 285,000 displaced and overall about 1.4 million (out of a total population of 6.1 million) affected. The physical devastation is widespread, affecting 14 out of 18 administrative departments: 60 per cent. of roads and bridges, 50 per cent. of agricultural production (including a fifth of the economically important coffee and nearly all the banana export crops), 80 per cent. of water distribution networks, 70 per cent. of hospitals, 12 per cent. of health centres, and 25 per cent. of schools are destroyed or severely damaged. The effects of the disaster, still starkly visible a month later, are reflected most obviously in disrupted access and basic utilities. Groups of destitute families are living under ramshackle and insanitary conditions wherever they can find shelter.
  In Nicaragua damage to infrastructure has been more moderate though still significant in five departments (Pacific coast and the north). Overall, some 3,000 are dead and missing, and 370,000 (out of a total population of 4.5 million) severely affected. But, in contrast to Honduras, the physical effects and human impact are less evident a month later.
  The mission did not visit El Salvador (population 5.8 million, 475 killed/missing, 84,000 affected) and Guatemala (population 10.9 million, 400 killed/missing, 105,000 affected) but reports suggest substantially less damage. In both countries, agricultural losses appear to be more significant than infrastructure damage (except in particular pockets).
  Assessment of disaster response
  In both Honduras and Nicaragua, a striking feature has been the self-help efforts of the communities themselves, reflecting the strong regional tradition of community solidarity. Most lives were saved and vulnerable people helped by indigenous efforts as the physical disruption of the hurricane and floods meant that it took time for outside help to arrive. The strength of local government was a key factor in enabling good local mobilisation.
  The most effective external life-saving interventions appear to have been carried out by the military (both national and foreign forces). However, there are lessons to be drawn in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of tasking and military/civil co-operation. The Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua also responded effectively.
  Co-ordination in both countries presents a mixed picture. However it is important to recognise the practical constraints (especially in Honduras) and the burden placed by outside organisations rushing in. The UN-coordinated needs assessment process was crucial and reached credible conclusions. The UN Diaster Assessment and Co-ordination (UNDAC) mechanism of OCHA was also useful and appropriately deployed in support of the in-country UN Resident Co-ordinator. Inter-agency co-operation within the UN system appears to have been satisfactory. But overall, the UN could have been more assertive in terms of providing guidance and "gate-keeping", and donors more conscientious—and less competitive—in deferring to UN co-ordination.
  The EC through ECHO, has disbursed funds for immediate relief through NGOs working in the region, and is planning an extensive reconstruction package. In the Development Council on 30 November, I emphasised the importance of co-ordinating this with the wider international assistance effort. We intend to work closely with the EC to ensure that its assistance is disbursed as effectively as possible.
  International NGOs have also made useful contributions. The best work is being done by agencies already established on the ground. They are able to mobilise existing systems and structures and draw on the local knowledge and trust they have built up. This contrasts with the many diaster relief organisations that have flocked to the region and have had difficulty in finding a
  240
  meaningful niche while possibly creating additional problems for their hosts (for example overburdening internal transport systems).
  Impact of DFID humanitarian assistance
  Britain was among the fastest in delivery relief on the ground. In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, a total of about £1 million was granted by DFID to NGOs (CAFOD, CARE, Christian Aid, Del Campo farmers co-operative, Food for the Hungry, IRC, Tear Fund), the International Federation of Red Cross, the Pan American Health Organisations, and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA). The geographical distribution of funding to date is about £370,000 for Honduras, £390,000 for Nicaragua, £15,000 for El Salvador, and £200,000 for regional use to benefit all four countries. Most of our grants have been disbursed very rapidly and transformed into urgently needed benefits for an estimated 0.5 million people. These include provision of emergency shelter, clothing, blankets and household goods, water supplies, health care, seeds and other agricultural inputs.
  Forward strategy
  Immediate disaster relief needs have been largely met except perhaps for the most isolated communities. Planning for the longer-term needs of reconstruction is progressing but it will be at least six months before we see real progress. Meanwhile, there is a transition period in which continued humanitarian assistance is necessary. Survivors—especially those who are displaced—remain vulnerable to disease in the absence of safe water and disruption of health services. Food security can be promoted if inputs are made in time for the current planting season. If primary schooling is not restored, vulnerable children may drop out permanently from education. The solution to meeting these urgent needs is, as has been demonstrated already, by supporting successful community efforts, in close conjunction with socially responsive local municipal authorities, in a way that kick starts local economies. But one very serious constraint—especially in Honduras—is the continued lack of access to poor communities because of disrupted roads. Without tackling this very little else is possible, and vulnerability will increase as people's reserves run out.
  The UN is about to launch a "Transitional Appeal" for the period December 1998 to May 1999. This should provide a good framework of priorities. Our own further transitional humanitarian assistance, over the next six months, will enable people—especially the poor who have been left completely destitute by the disaster—to survive and cope, while seeking to establish the basis for sustainable recovery.
  In the light of this, I have decided that, during this transitional period, we will provide further humanitarian assistance of £3 million allocated according to the relative needs of the affected countries. This will include:
  In Honduras, a programme of emergency repairs and rehabilitation to secondary (rural) roads, including essential small bridges; and also a public works programme ("cash for work") targeting particularly neglected municipalities. This would benefit poor families by creating short-term local employment while also generating much needed social benefits through the rehabilitation of essential community infrastructure, and injecting cash into local economies.
  In Nicaragua support for UNICEF's emergency programmes to repair water and sanitation infrastructure and to restore primary health and education services for diaster affected communities.
  On a regional basis, support for a WHO/PAHO programme within the national health authorities of the four Central American countries, especially in the area of epidemiological surveillance and epidemic control.
  Support for UNDP's function of inter-agency co-ordination through the Offices of the UN Resident/Humanitarian Co-ordinators in all affected countries.

  241
  Longer Term
  We are also working on plans to respond to longer term needs. We have already committed £6 million for Central America over the next two years. We are now re-focusing this to take account of reconstruction needs. We are also taking forward the proposals on debt relief which the Chancellor and I announced on 7 November.
  Learning the lessons
  Given the magnitude of the disaster and the complexity of the international and national response efforts, there are many lessons to be learned to improve disaster preparedness in developing countries. We shall be pursuing these in the context of a UN-led lessons learnt exercise planned for February 1999.

SCOTLAND

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland had been waiting for more than(a) three, (b) six, (c) 12 and (d) 18 months for a response from an Independent Tribunal Service appeal, in the year ended 31 August (a) 1998 and (b) 1997. [61918]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  All cases heard and decided by an appeal tribunal in 1997 and 1998

  January-December 1997

  3–6 months

  3,448

  6–12 months

  8,051

  1–2 years

  1,874

  2 years and over

  159

  January-August 1998

  3–6 months

  5,674

  6–12 months

  10,289

  12–18 months

  2,489

  18 months and over

  760

  Note:

  A figure for 18 months is not available for the 1997 data

  Source:

  Appeals—Data supplied by Analytical Services Division (ASD) from the computer extracts from the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS).

  The Government are committed to reducing the unacceptable delays in handling welfare appeals, new arrangements for decision making and appeals will be introduced next year and will provide a more responsive and efficient service for appellants.

  We will set stringent, effective targets for the clearance of appeals when the new arrangements are introduced.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teachers (Trade Unions)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the trade unions representing teaching staff with which his Department has dealings. [62025]
  242
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department has dealings with the following trade unions representing teaching staff:

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers

  Association of University Teachers

  National Association of Head Teachers

  National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers

  National Association for Teachers in Further and Higher Education

  National Union of Teachers

  Professional Association of Teachers

  Secondary Heads Association

  Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru/National Association of the Teachers of Wales.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many hours were spent in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools by teachers on permitted trade union activities in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [62028]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the ranking of the UK has been in standard international comparative tables for literacy and numeracy in each of the last five years. [62026]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are not aware of any standard annual comparative tables for literacy and numeracy. However, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), carried out in 1995, found that in mathematics England's 9 year olds came 10th out of 17 countries; and our 13 year olds came 16th out of 25 countries. In the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), carried out in 1996, British adults came 9th out of the 12 countries for which results are so far available.

  This Government are determined to raise standards in schools and also take the issue of basic skills very seriously. That is why we have established the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies which are designed to raise standards to the level of the best. In addition to the wide range of current adult learning opportunities, the Government have set a target in The Learning Age to help 500,000 people a year by 2002.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his e-mail address. [62562]

  Mr. Mudie
  The e-mail address for my right hon. Friend and other Ministers in his Department is: http://dfee.ministers@dfee.gov.uk

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, where a child is admitted in the final term, as an agreed exception under the Regulations of the School Standards and Framework to a reception infant class that already has 30 pupils, it will be mandatory to
  243
  reduce the class size maximum to 30 in the following year; and what advice local education authorities will be given on compliance with the legislation. [61824]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are two general sets of circumstances in which a child will be treated as an excepted pupil and not count towards the infant class size limit of 30 pupils for every qualified teacher, to apply from the start of the 2001–2002 school year—

  (1) where a child is admitted to the school in certain specified circumstances that could not have been anticipated in planning, for example where he moves into the area outside a normal admission round and cannot find a place at any other suitable school; and

  (2) where a child, who is normally educated in a special school or in a unit in a mainstream school for children with Special Educational Needs (SEN), attends a mainstream class.

  The first set of exceptions applies only for the remainder of the school year in which the child was first admitted—even where the child was admitted during the final term of that year. The second set of exceptions enables those pupils to gain the benefit of attending mainstream classes and will be permitted beyond the school admission year—at any time when those pupils attend the infant classes at the mainstream school or outside the special unit. Thus it will only be mandatory to reduce the class size maximum to 30 in the following year if the exception is one within the first group.

  On 9 September 1998, the Department for Education and Employment sent guidance (and copies of the relevant Regulations) on the class sizes legislation to all local education authorities in England.

  Communications Technology
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has commissioned into the effect of studying information communications technology on developing children's ability in other subjects; and if he will make a statement. [62114]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In recent years the Department has commissioned a range of relevant studies and evaluations. These include

  The Impact of IT on Children's Achievements (1992)

  Preparing for the Information Age (1997)

  The UK ILS Evaluations (1998).

  As part of the National Grid for Learning, the Department will be initiating further studies in the development and use of ICT within the curriculum.

  In addition, the Teacher Training Agency has commissioned a major research study into effective pedagogy for the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) in literacy and numeracy in primary schools.

  Art and Music
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has commissioned into the effect of art and music lessons in developing children's ability in other subjects; and if he will make a statement. [62113]
  244
  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department has not commissioned any research into the effect of art and music lessons on children's ability in other subjects. This Government believe that art and music are essential parts of every child's education. That is why music and art remain National Curriculum foundation subjects which must be taught by all schools as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.

  School Organisation Plans
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by whom the funding for any public inquiry held by an adjudicator to determine the outcome of proposals for a school organisation plan will be provided. [62306]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Where an Adjudicator wishes to hold a public inquiry, or is required to do so in respect of school organisation proposals published by the Secretary of State, the cost of that inquiry will be met by the Department for Education and Employment. The Local Education Authority or school concerned will be invited to offer accommodation for the inquiry.

  Teachers (Vacancies)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teacher vacancies there were in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools at the latest date for which information is available by each local education authority. [62304]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Teacher vacancies1 in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools by LEA: and Government Office region: January 1998

  England

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Gateshead

  3

  1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3

  2

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  2

  Sunderland

  7

  7

  Hartlepool

  3

  1

  Middlesbrough

  5

  6

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1

  9

  Stockton on Tees

  3

  6

  Durham

  11

  7

  Darlington

  3

  4

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  North East

  39

  45

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  Cheshire

  25

  14

  Bolton

  0

  2

  Bury

  0

  1

  Manchester

  0

  0

  Oldham

  10

  3

  Rochdale

  10

  2

  Salford

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  Tameside

  2

  4

  Trafford

  0

  2

  Wigan

  5

  0

  Lancashire

  27

  9

  North West

  80

  38

  Knowsley

  6

  7

  Liverpool

  0

  4

  St. Helens

  1

  4

  245

  Teacher vacancies1 in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools by LEA: and Government Office region: January 1998

  England

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Sefton

  0

  0

  Wirral

  4

  10

  Merseyside

  11

  25

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  0

  1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1

  0

  North East Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  2

  0

  North Yorkshire

  8

  8

  York

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  2

  5

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  14

  6

  Bradford

  14

  34

  Calderdale

  11

  3

  Kirklees

  0

  6

  Leeds

  16

  9

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  69

  73

  Derbyshire

  25

  13

  Derby

  6

  4

  Leicestershire

  2

  9

  Leicester City

  5

  7

  Rutland

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  37

  21

  Northamptonshire

  1

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  77

  57

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  6

  Shropshire

  1

  0

  Staffordshire

  13

  8

  Stoke

  10

  8

  Warwickshire

  11

  1

  Birmingham

  7

  30

  Coventry

  4

  3

  Dudley

  5

  9

  Sandwell

  8

  7

  Solihull

  3

  4

  Walsall

  15

  21

  Wolverhampton

  2

  6

  West Midlands

  80

  103

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  6

  Norfolk

  19

  11

  Suffolk

  8

  14

  Bedfordshire

  11

  12

  Luton

  7

  16

  Essex

  56

  46

  Herefordshire

  31

  36

  Eastern

  133

  141

  City

  0

  0

  Camden

  12

  2

  Greenwich

  31

  22

  Hackney

  51

  9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35

  12

  Islington

  27

  15

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17

  3

  Lambeth

  6

  6

  Lewisham

  31

  18

  Southwark

  54

  6

  Tower Hamlets

  52

  13

  Wandsworth

  29

  5

  Westminster

  13

  4

  Barking

  10

  7

  Barnet

  8

  14

  Bexley

  1

  5

  Brent

  20

  8

  246

  Teacher vacancies1 in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools by LEA: and Government Office region: January 1998

  England

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Bromley

  11

  4

  Croydon

  8

  5

  Ealing

  17

  30

  Enfield

  11

  6

  Haringey

  20

  10

  Harrow

  9

  2

  Havering

  0

  15

  Hillingdon

  15

  13

  Hounslow

  8

  14

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  5

  1

  Merton

  7

  0

  Newham

  61

  21

  Redbridge

  7

  10

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2

  1

  Sutton

  4

  5

  Waltham Forest

  43

  4

  London

  625

  290

  Berkshire

  0

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  10

  14

  Milton Keynes

  5

  0

  East Sussex

  18

  11

  Brighton and Hove

  8

  5

  Hampshire

  38

  19

  Portsmouth

  8

  15

  Southampton

  6

  13

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  55

  34

  Oxfordshire

  4

  3

  Surrey

  27

  14

  West Sussex

  31

  8

  South East

  210

  141

  Bath and North East Somerset

  5

  0

  City of Bristol

  9

  5

  North Somerset

  5

  5

  South Gloucestershire

  3

  4

  Cornwall

  6

  2

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Devon

  15

  7

  Dorset

  9

  7

  Poole

  1

  2

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  3

  5

  Somerset

  1

  3

  Wiltshire

  5

  13

  Swindon

  5

  2

  South West

  67

  55

  England

  1,391

  968

  1 Vacancies are recorded for posts which are full-time, permanent, are not currently filled by someone on a contract of one term or more and have been advertised. Vacancies for head teacher and deputies are included above.

  Source:

  Form 618G survey January 1998

  School Standards
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to appoint adjudicators under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; and if he will publish the job description for such adjudicators. [62305]
  247
  Ms Estelle Morris
  We will announce the appointment of adjudicators in the New Year. The posts were advertised in the Summer. Those who expressed an interest were sent a copy of the job description and person specification, which is as follows.School organisation and admissions adjudicators
  The job
  The School Standards and Framework Bill, currently before Parliament, provides for decisions on changes to school organisation (opening, closing, enlarging and changing the character of schools) to be taken at local level by a School Organisation Committee, established by, but independent of the local authority. The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to appoint adjudicators to consider cases where the School Organisation Committee is unable to reach a decision. The Bill also establishes new arrangements for agreeing school admissions arrangements at local level and provides for complaints about admissions arrangements to be referred to the adjudicator for resolution.
  The adjudicator will consider and decide cases, usually on paper, taking account of the views both of those proposing change and those objecting to it. There will be guidance from the Secretary of State on issues that adjudicators will wish to take into consideration. In the case of admissions there will be a statutory Code of Practice. Adjudicators will be empowered to hold a local public inquiry into any case and will be required to do so if any proposals are made by the Secretary of State. Further background information is contained in the attached documents.
  The Secretary of State proposes to appoint about 20 adjudicators initially, for two or three years. Adjudicators will be allocated cases on the basis of their availability—and where appropriate on the basis of geographical location. We expect that adjudicators will work from home. Adjudicators will be paid £270 per day plus expenses for any day on which they are required to consider cases. The Secretary of State will provide other facilities as necessary and administrative support, which will be located in Darlington. It is difficult to assess loading at this stage, but an adjudicator might be called upon on between 60 and 120 days each year. There are likely to be seasonal pressures, particularly in considering admissions issues, around Easter.
  The first appointment will be of a lead adjudicator whose role would be to secure effective and efficient adjudication by:

  (a) developing procedures and processes through some experience of adjudicating and through discussion with other adjudicators;

  (b) seeking efficient use of resources through guidance on practical issues such as conduct of considerations and writing of decisions;

  (c) seeking to support the consistent application of procedures through peer review—but not reviewing decisions once made. (The provision for appeal against adjudicators' decisions is judicial review);

  (d) convening and chairing training conferences;

  (e) undertaking appraisal of adjudicators, which would inform a decision on re-appointments or potentially on the allocation of cases;

  (f) advising on recruitment and appointment;

  (g) the publication of an annual report;

  (h) providing one voice for the adjudication service with whom Ministers could discuss concerns.

  But we do not envisage that the lead adjudicator will have a heavier adjudication load than any other adjudicator. The lead adjudicator will also be a part-time appointee, but will be paid £1300 a day, and would be guaranteed work for 125 days per year.
  Interviews for candidates for appointment as lead adjudicator will be held in September, with a view to the appointee taking up post as soon as possible thereafter. Other interviews for adjudicators will be held in the late Autumn.
  248
  Person Specification
  The role of an adjudicator will be a challenging one. It is essential that adjudicators have credibility with both the local and education communities, derived from their experience, independence and impartiality.
  Adjudicators must be able to keep an objective perspective, weigh competing arguments, and be accepted for their ability to do so.
  We envisage that successful applicants will have experience of education or education planning at a senior level, for example as a senior education officer; a headteacher or an HMI.
  For the lead adjudicator, in addition to the above, the successful applicant will have experience of senior management in large organisation, for example as a Chief Education Officer.

  EU Youth Affairs Council
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Youth Affairs Council meeting on 26 November. [62772]

  Mr. Mudie
  I attended the Council of Youth Ministers in Brussels on 26 November.

  The Council agreed unanimously a resolution proposed by the Presidency encouraging the Community and member states to involve young people in decision-making at all levels. The Council also discussed the Commission's proposal for a Community youth action programme from the year 2000 but was unable to reach an agreed common position.

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many graduates from(a) Oxford, (b) Cambridge, (c) London, (d) Warwick and (e) Sussex universities have been employed as secondary school teachers in grant maintained schools in (i) 1990, (ii) 1995 and (iii) the last year for which there are records. [62376]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not held centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Boards of Visitors
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a copy of the Annual report for 1997 by the National Advisory Council for the Boards of Visitors of England and Wales. [62676]

  Mr. Straw
  I was presented with a copy of the National Advisory Council for the Boards of Visitors of England and Wales' Annual Report for 1997, by its Chairman Mrs. Ruth Draycott OBE JP on 18 August 1998.

  I have asked my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to consider the report and to respond to the issues raised in it.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in the arrangements for(a) deporting persons subject to deportation orders and

  249
  (b) locating and removing illegal immigrants are planned to be made in the period from 1 December 1998 to 1 March 1999. [62228]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The period 1 December 1998 to 1 March 1999 will see the reorganisation of casework in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate from the present Directorates into a single Integrated Caseworking Directorate. Arrangements for the removal of illegal entrants and people against whom deportation orders have been made will continue unchanged during this period: and the Immigration Service will continue to respond in cases where suspected illegal entrants are detected. During the reorganisation of headquarters case records there will be some interruption to the paper processing of cases, but this will not affect the ability of local immigration officers to take enforcement action in the many cases where decisions have already been taken.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how he plans to ascertain whether or not the considerations to be taken into account in dealing with asylum applications made between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995 apply to the cases of individual asylum seekers; and if he plans that each such applicant will be interviewed; [62229]

  (2) how he plans to ascertain the considerations to be taken into account in dealing with asylum applications made between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995; and if he plans that each such applicant will be interviewed. [62209]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Undecided asylum cases, where the date of application falls between the dates relevant to the backlog procedure, have already been identified. Instructions to caseworkers processing these cases will be issued shortly and will be made available to the public through selected sites and the internet. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Although it may be necessary to interview some of these applicants in order to give cases full consideration, where possible a decision will be taken on the information already available on the file, or subsequently obtained by post from the applicant.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the incidence of offending among asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [62211]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No general assessment has been made of such incidents, but any conviction will be notified to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and will be taken into account when deciding whether an asylum seeker should be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. There is no evidence that the vast majority of asylum seekers are committing non-immigration criminal offences in the United Kingdom. Recent reports in the press have highlighted criminal offending by a minority, most of whom, with the sanction of the courts, will be removed from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to establish guidelines as to the considerations to be taken into account in dealing with asylum applications made between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995 as outlined in paragraph 8.30 of Fairer, Faster and Firmer. [62208]
  250
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Instructions on how to deal with cases which fall to be dealt with under the backlog procedures are to be issued to staff shortly. A copy of these instructions will be placed in the Library, sent to selected sites and placed on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's website on the internet.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account will be taken of delays in dealing with their asylum claim caused by the actions of the asylum seekers themselves as regards applicants(a) before 1 July 1993 and (b) from 1 July 1993 to 31 December 1995, in determining the eligibility of such an asylum applicant for indefinite leave to remain under paragraph 8.29 of Fairer, Faster and Firmer. [62233]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It would be difficult to envisage a set of criteria which would make it possible to distinguish those who through some action have delayed their case and the extent to which it was, in each individual case, justifiable or not.

  Applicants who sought asylum in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1996 and who were still awaiting an initial decision on 27 July 1998 will not be excluded from the backlog procedures announced in the White Paper, even if some of the delay was caused by their own actions. However, any applicant whose case is being dealt with as part of the backlog exercise who, without good reason, fails to respond promptly to inquiries made by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate since the publication of the White Paper, is liable to have their application refused on non-compliance grounds.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how he proposes to ascertain in the case of each individual applicant whether or not the presence of pre-July 1993 asylum applicants is conducive to the public good; [62207]

  (2) how he plans to ascertain in the case of individual pre-July 1993 asylum seekers whether or not their presence is conducive to the public good. [62213]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information on individual case files will be examined. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is routinely informed when those subject to immigration control are arrested and convicted of an offence.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences which amount to serious criminal offences for the purposes of determining the eligibility of pre–1 July 1993 asylum applicants for indefinite leave to remain under Para 8.29 of Fairer, Faster and Firmer-A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum. [62230]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It depends on the circumstances of the case. but generally an offender receiving a custodial sentence of 12 months or more would be excluded from benefiting from the backlog procedure. Other offenders may be excluded if their record is serious enough.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are currently taken to discover if asylum seekers have a criminal record prior to claiming asylum in the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to introduce new checks so as to ascertain if asylum seekers have criminal records. [62210]
  251
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is existing practice for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to be advised if any foreign national is convicted of a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. A refugee who has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and constitutes a danger to the community may be removed to the country from which they sought asylum. When considering asylum applications, factors such as criminal convictions will be taken into account if a person qualifies as a refugee and before permission is given to remain in the United Kingdom.

  It is not generally possible to ascertain whether an asylum seeker has committed an offence before they arrived in this country. However, if it is discovered that they have, consideration will be given to whether their actions exclude them from protection under the terms of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

  We have no plans to introduce any new checks to ascertain whether asylum seekers have criminal records.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the refurbishment of Lunar House on the Immigration Service over the next three months. [62227]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The conditions at Lunar House have been described as Dickensian. The much needed refurbishment has been timed to fit in with fundamental changes in the way the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) handles casework. These include the creation of a new Integrated Casework Directorate, which will be in temporary offices above the Whitgift Centre in Croydon until the building work on Lunar House has been

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms, other than air weapons, were reported to have been used England and Wales 1995–1996

  Offences

  July 1995-June 1996

  July 1996-June 1997

  July 1997-June 1998 (provisional)

  Homicide

  64

  51

  43

  Attempted murder and other acts (including wounding) endangering life

  746

  547

  652

  Other offences of violence against the person

  596

  743

  809

  Robbery

  4,249

  3,307

  2,720

  Burglary

  255

  240

  273

  Other offences excluding criminal damage

  248

  229

  221

  Criminal damage

  155

  144

  103

  All offences

  6.313

  5,261

  4.821

  Note:

  Figures for July 1997 to June 1998 exclude a few offences which became notifiable from 1 April 1998

  Shapurji Saklatvala
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to publish the files kept by the security services on Shapurji Saklatvala; and if he will make a statement. [61649]

  Mr. Straw
  It is long-standing Government policy neither to confirm nor deny whether the Security Service holds a record on any individual. I informed the House on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–52, that the Security Service has released almost all the surviving material in its archive covering the years 1909–1919, and is actively reviewing for release its more extensive stock of records for World War Two. Once this second phase of historical release has been completed, the Service will
  252
  completed in 2001. I wrote to all hon. Members on 18 November to explain that there will be considerable upheaval in the next three months. However, I am confident that, after February, IND' s service will be much improved. The refurbishment will create more reasonable conditions, which will be more conducive to the efficient delivery of services.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications from Slovakians have been certified since May 1997; how many Roma or Slovakian cases there have been in the period; and in how many of these cases the certification has been overturned at appeal. [61690]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of asylum applications made by nationals of Slovakia from May 1997 to October 1998 was 1,095, of which 565 were certified. I regret the information on ethnic origin could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost. I regret that the information on how many of the certified refusals overturned at appeal is not available.

  Gun-related Crime
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by offence, the number of gun-related crimes committed between(a) July 1995 and July 1996, (b) July 1996 and July 1997 and (c) July 1997 and July 1998. [62194]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table gives the readily available information which relates to the number of notifiable offences in which firearms, other than air weapons, were reported to have been used.

  review its inter-war records in preparation for further releases. It is that period which is relevant to my hon. Friend's Question.

  Prison Service (Staff Messes and Clubs)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Prison Service is directly liable for debts occurring in (i) staff messes and (ii) staff clubs in prison service establishments; and if he will make a statement. [61907]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service is currently liable for debts incurred by staff messes in Prison Service establishments.
  253
  Staff clubs are, according to current model rules, independent entities separate from Prison Service establishments. They are formed by staff and the managing committee should be responsible for any debts that arise. In their day-to-day operation with creditors, however, clubs have, on occasions, failed to make it clear that they are a separate legal entity from the core Prison Service. Consequently, when problems have occurred, the Prison Service has not always been able to distance itself from liability in the minds of creditors. The worst cases have resulted in settlement of debts from public funds. The Prisons Board has approved a corrective course of action which, following implementation, will ensure public funds are not misused to clear mess and club debts, fines and penalties.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) staff messes and (b) staff clubs in prison service establishments have closed in each of the last five years. [61905]

  Mr. George Howarth
  From the information currently available, the following number of staff messes and clubs in Prison Service establishments have closed during the last three years:

  1996: One club

  1997: Five clubs and one mess

  1998: One club and one mess.

  Prisoners (Complementary Medicine)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of HM prisons currently provide complementary medical services for prisoners; how many others have requested such provision; and if he will make a statement. [62198]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Thirty-one Prison Service establishments have reported that they provide some form of complementary medical services to prisoners; and a further eight have said that they have plans to do so. The Prison Service is planning to issue guidance on the place of complementary therapies alongside conventional health services, as well as the range of treatments that it would be appropriate to offer in the prison context.

  Augusto Pinochet
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the security arrangements for Augusto Pinochet following(a) his arrest and (b) his removal to another place of residence. [62119]

  General outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease reported to be associated with the consumption of turkey/turkey products, faults suspected to be contributory factors

  Organism

  Number of Outbreaks

  Infected food handler

  Inadequate heat treatment

  Cross contamination

  Inadequate storage

  1995

  Clostridium perfringens

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  3

  1

  2

  2

  3

  Salmonella enteritidis other phage types

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Salmonella typhimurium

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  SRSV

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  254
  Mr. Straw
  Security arrangements for individuals are an operational matter for the chief officer of police concerned.

  Electoral Procedures
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the review of the commercial sale of electoral registers by the Working Party on Electoral Procedures. [61802]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Working Party on Electoral Procedures has asked Home Office civil servants to consult further with commercial and other interests about business' concerns before the sale of the register is considered again in detail later in the Working Party's programme.

  Food Poisoning
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of food poisoning have been reported in each year since 1995 caused by(a) turkeys eviscerated in retail premises, (h) turkeys eviscerated in retail premises which were improperly cooked, (c) turkeys eviscerated at abattoirs and (d) turkeys eviscerated at abattoirs which were improperly cooked. [61670]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The majority of food poisoning notifications are sporadic cases which cannot normally be linked to a specific food vehicle. The most reliable data linking particular foods with infection is derived from the investigation of outbreaks. Information on outbreaks associated with food production processes such as those relating to the slaughter and evisceration of poultry is not available. The tables show the pathogens responsible for disease associated with the consumption of turkey products and the faults in food handling that investigators have identified as contributing to the transmission of infection in these outbreaks.

  General outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease reported to be associated with the consumption of turkey/turkey products, England & Wales 1995–97

  Organism

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Clostridium perfringens

  1

  —

  8

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  3

  4

  —

  Salmonella enteritidis other phage types

  1

  1

  2

  Salmonella typhimurium

  3

  1

  1

  Other salmonellas

  —

  1

  —

  Staphylococcus aureus

  —

  3

  —

  SRSV

  1

  —

  —

  Unknown

  —

  1

  —

  255

  General outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease reported to be associated with the consumption of turkey/turkey products, faults suspected to be contributory factors

  Organism

  Number of Outbreaks

  Infected food handler

  Inadequate heat treatment

  Cross contamination

  Inadequate storage

  1996

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  4

  1

  2

  4

  1

  Salmonella enteritidis other phage types

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Salmonella typhimurium

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Other salmonellas

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Staphylococcus aureus

  3

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Unknown

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1997

  Clostridium perfringens

  8

  —

  3

  1

  2

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salmonella enteritidis other phage types

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Salmonella typhimurium

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Notes:

  Up to three food vehicles may be reported for a single outbreak. The outbreaks listed above are those in which at least one of the vehicles reported were a turkey based product more than one fault may be reported for an outbreak.

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is his e-mail address. [62563]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  My e-mail address is jcunningham@cabinet-office.gov.uk.

HEALTH

  Adverse Drug Reactions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been(a) conducted and (b) commissioned by his Department into the children in respect of whom yellow cards have been issued. [61621]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency is funding, jointly with the National Health Service, Executive Trent, a pilot project for the reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions in children, entailing the establishment of a research unit at Derbyshire Children's Hospital run by Professor Imti Choonara of the University of Nottingham. The objectives of the project are to stimulate reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions occurring in children in the Trent region to the Medicines Control Agency and Committee on Safety of Medicines, to identify and investigate possible signals of new adverse drug reactions occurring in children and to determine the value of extending the scheme to other regions or nationally. The centre commenced work in September 1998 and will report on its progress in mid–1999.

  The current processes undertaken by the Medicines Control Agency for the evaluation of reports on yellow cards involve the identification and investigation of patterns suggesting new safety concerns, so that suitable steps can be taken to make sure that medicines are used as safely as possible.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to GPs on informing people of potential side-effects of the use of MR or MMR vaccinations. [61610]
  256
  Ms Jowell
  A doctor must decide what information to pass on to a patient about the possible adverse reactions to any drug, including vaccines, and we would expect them to pass on all the relevant information to each patient. Full details of the contraindications to vaccination and the adverse reactions associated with measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine are set out in the United Kingdom Health Departments' memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease" which is issued to doctors. The chapter on MMR states:"Parents should be told about possible symptoms after immunisation".

  In addition, the Health Education Authority (HEA) produces a range of leaflets on immunisation, which give information on possible side effects. Details of possible adverse reactions to MMR vaccine are included in the leaflet "A Guide to Childhood Immunisations", which is given to new parents, and in the leaflet "Immunisation for School Leavers". The HEA also produces a range of factsheets, including two on MMR, to assist healthcare professionals in responding to more detailed queries from parents.

  Measles/rubella (MR) vaccine was used during the 1994 immunisation campaign. During the campaign all parents received an information leaflet/consent form and parents who were worried were advised to talk to their family doctor or school nurse. A letter from the Chief Medical and Nursing Officers, information and question and answer sheets were issued to all doctors and nurses either involved in giving the vaccine or in giving information on the campaign.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to GPs on conducting follow-up inquiries after the reporting of adverse health reactions on a yellow card. [61611]

  Ms Jowell
  On receipt of a yellow card, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) sends out a letter to each reporter which reminds them to forward any further relevant information when available. Each yellow card report of a suspected adverse drug reaction is evaluated by the MCA. Where the information provided on a report is insufficient, the reporter is contacted for further details.
  257
  Reporters can at the time of reporting request an overview of the adverse reactions already reported in association with the suspect drug and this may stimulate the doctor to provide further information.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that doctors are obliged to detail in writing the potential adverse consequences and dangers arising from a cosmetic surgical procedure. [61816]

  Mr. Hutton
  In obtaining consent to any surgical procedure medical practitioners must ensure that patients receive sufficient information presented in a form that they can understand about the intended procedure, the alternatives and any substantial risks.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the report following the review by Professor Sheila McLean of the consent provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. [62588]

  Ms Jowell
  I am pleased to announce that the Report of the Review of the common law provisions relating to the removal of human gametes (sperm or eggs) and of the consent provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. The review, announced in February 1997, was conducted by Sheila McLean, Professor of Law and Ethics in Medicine at the University of Glasgow, and followed the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of R v. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte Diane Blood.

  In September 1997 Professor McLean conducted a public consultation on the issues raised in the course of her review. Over 600 copies of her discussion document were issued, with 116 responses being received. We welcome Professor McLean's Report which, following a thorough and comprehensive review of the complex issues involved, has delivered sensible and well argued recommendations. These include:
  in terms of the common law provisions relating to the removal of human gametes the report recommends that the current requirement for formal consent following adequate disclosure of information, should remain;
  the courts should be asked to determine whether the removal of gametes is lawful where there is any doubt about such removal in cases where consent cannot be given in the usual way;
  the requirement in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 for consent to certain treatment provided under the Act (such as in-vitro fertilisation and donor insemination) to be given in writing should remain, and be extended to all treatment provided under the Act; and
  that the 1990 Act should be amended to remove from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority any discretion to permit the export of human gametes that have been removed unlawfully.
  recommendations about the status of children born after the death of the gamete provider and the need for gamete providers to take account of succession rights of such children when storing gametes.

  Following Mrs. Blood's case, there was considerable public and parliamentary interest in such issues and in particular as to whether the existing provisions in the common law and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  258
  Act 1990 reflected clinical and lay opinion. We have decided, therefore, to seek public and professional views on the recommendations. These will be requested by the end of April, when we will consider the best way of taking the recommendations forward.

  We are very grateful to Professor Sheila McLean for having produced such a carefully considered Report.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will lay a revised version of the Code of Practice on the Mental Health Act 1983 before the House. [62773]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have today laid copies of a revised version of the Code of Practice on the Mental Health Act 1983 before the House, in accordance with Section 118(4) of the Act. Copies are available in the Library.

  Acquired Brain Injuries
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 1998,Official Report, column 26, concerning services for people with brain injuries, when the draft guidance will be ready for consultation. [62200]

  Mr. Hutton
  The draft guidance should be ready for consultation by the summer of 1999.

  Road Accidents (NHS Charges)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much, in each of the last three years, Wellhouse NHS trust(a) recovered from insurance companies for the cost of treatment and (b) spent on treating road accident victims. [62288]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the cost of treating road accident victims at the Wellhouse National Health Service Trust is not available. The trust received the following income under the provisions of sections 157 and 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

  Year

  Income (£000)

  1995–96

  52

  1996–97

  45

  1997–98

  30

  Source:

  1. Annual summarisation schedules 1997–98

  2. Annual financial returns 1995–96 and 1996–97

  The Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill, introduced to the House of Commons on 27 November 1998, will provide a centralised system of collection for Road Traffic Act charges. This will relieve hospitals of the administrative burden associated with this task and ensure that more cases are identified and that more income is returned directly to the hospital providing the care.

  Cardiac Disease (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage of patients who achieve return of spontaneous circulation at the point of admission following(a) cardiac arrests and (h) heart attack having been delivered to (i) Stafford General Hospital, (ii) Burton District General Hospital and

  259
  (iii) Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield by the Staffordshire Ambulance Service for each of the last two financial years. [61902]

  Ms Jowell
  The information for part(a) is listed in the table. Many patients suffering a heart attack (myocardial infarction) do not have a cardiac arrest and do not lose spontaneous circulation. These are therefore not included in the table.

  Percentage

  Hospital

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Stafford General

  20.5

  19.0

  Burton District General Hospital

  17.1

  19.0

  Good Hope

  22.9

  15.2

  Source:

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service Cardiac Arrest Audit April 1997—March 1998

  Pre-pregnancy Care
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision he plans to make for pre-pregnancy care of women of childbearing age, following the Acheson report concerning inequalities in health. [62286]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Acheson Report drew attention to improvements in health and life expectancy associated with income and living standards. The Government are firmly committed to improving the living standards of the poorest households and are already taking a number of measures that will help to achieve this. We shall be considering Sir Donald Acheson's recommendations as a whole in the development of a new health strategy, and we shall publish a White Paper early next year.

  Independent Pharmacists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of the time taken, by region, by his Department to pay independent pharmacists for the cost of medicines dispensed. [62068]

  Mr. Milburn
  A payment representing approximately 80 per cent. of the amount due for dispensing prescriptions is made to community pharmacists on the first day of the month following that in which correctly endorsed prescriptions are received for pricing at the prescription pricing authority. The balance is paid on the first day of the following month once prescriptions have been fully processed.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the North West Lancashire, Morecambe Bay and South Cumbria, East Lancashire, and South Lancashire health authorities have not agreed a policy to fund an expansion of the renal unit at the Royal Preston Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [61743]

  Mr. Milburn
  The four health authorities support the recommendations of the pan-Lancashire review of renal services, which reported last year. That review recommended the development of a "hub-and-spoke" model for long term renal care; a hub in Preston and satellite units in Accrington, Blackpool and Kendal. The authorities agreed additional revenue for 1998–99 to implement the model in the short term, essentially by 260
  maximizing the use of existing local facilities. They have also set up a working group to determine how resources should be allocated in future years.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount was spent per head of population on renal services in each health authority area in England in the year for which he has the most up-to-date data. [61744]

  Mr. Milburn
  In terms of global budget, 1.5 per cent. of National Health Service revenue was spent on renal services in 1996. Information about the amount spent per capita on renal services in each health authority in England is not available.

  NHS Work Force (Health)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings to the NHS budget which could be made by implementing the recommendations in the report, Improving the Health of the NHS Workforce; and if he will make a statement. [62116]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is difficult to estimate, at this stage, what savings might accrue from the successful implementation of the recommendations of the Nuffield report, but it is acknowledged that a reduction of 1 per cent. in staff sickness absence would release £140 million per annum for patient care.

  Special Hospitals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department has taken to ensure that staff working in special hospitals understand their role within the complaints system; [62118]

  (2) what action his Department is taking to improve the methods for selecting and training staff who work with newly admitted patients in special hospitals. [62117]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for each high security (special) hospital to determine the methods to be employed in selecting staff to work in the hospital, and to ensure that they receive any necessary advice, training and education to enable them to perform the full range of their duties.

  A seminar is being held in each region in England and in Wales, looking at training, work force planning and education issues relating to people working with mentally disordered offenders (MDOs). This programme covers the whole range of agencies and disciplines who have an involvement with MDOs, whether in secure settings or in the community. It aims to identify the core and specialist skills required to work successfully with MDOs and to develop efficient and effective training, work force planning and education strategies within each region.

  Reflex Sympathetic Disorder
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the numbers of United Kingdom citizens currently suffering from reflex sympathetic disorder; how many are registered disabled; and what research the NHS has conducted into (i) the causes of and (ii) potential cures for the disorder. [61901]
  261
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available in the form required. No research is currently taking place in relation to reflex sympathetic disorder. However, the National Health Service provides a wide range of services for people with neurological diseases.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many successful prosecutions for environmental pollution there have been by the Health and Safety Executive against operators of illegal gas and oil retailing points in Northern Ireland. [61921]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under its chief executive, Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson, dated 3 December 1998:

  As Chief Executive of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), I am responsible for the operational aspects of environmental protection. While question No 1259 refers to prosecutions for environmental pollution, it specifically refers to the Health and Safety Executive and retailing issues, and therefore I have been asked to co-ordinate the reply on behalf of Department of Economic Development's Health and Safety Inspectorate and Department of Environment's Local Government Branch.

  EHS is responsible for the control of pollution of waterways under the provisions of the Water Act 1972. There have been no reports of pollution from illegal gas or oil retailing points in Northern Ireland and therefore no prosecutions have been taken. Similarly, there are no reports of pollution from illegal petrol retailing points.

  The Industrial Pollution Control Order 1997 includes controls on Petrol Vapour Recovery at retailing points. Petrol retailers have until 31 December 1998 to submit applications for registration to District Councils. No prosecutions have been taken.

  The Health and Safety Executive is a Great Britain organisation which has no remit in Northern Ireland. The major responsibility for Health and Safety at Work legislation in Northern Ireland lies with the Department of Economic Development under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. Since this Order does not deal with environmental pollution, the Department of Economic Development is not empowered to prosecute in cases where environmental pollution occur.

  District Councils have an enforcement role under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Order in relation to retail premises which would include retailing of gas cylinders.

  District Councils are also the licencing authority for petroleum retailing. I understand that the information relating to licencing is not held centrally.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the imposition of financial sanctions on the regime in Burma. [62040]
  262
  Mr. Fatchett
  At the October meeting of the General Affairs Council of the EU, a decision was taken to toughen the EU common position against Burma. At present there is no EU consensus for economic and financial sanctions.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry visas made in Sri Lanka for entry into the United Kingdom have been(a) granted and (b) refused in the last 12 months. [62182]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During the period October 1997 to October 1998, the British High Commission in Columbo processed 15,516 visa applications. Of these, 14,846 resulted in the issue of a visa and 670 were refused.

  Hinduja
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what grant applications his Department has received from the Hinduja group of companies since 1 May 1997; and what grants have been paid. [62242]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received no grant application from the Hinduja family or their companies since 1 May 1997, nor have we made any grants to them.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had concerning the Middle East Peace Process; with whom; and if he will make a statement. [62197]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the House on 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 656, by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Accommodation (Homeless People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that social landlords offer accommodation to homeless people with drug problems. [61159]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", issued in April 1998, sets out the Government's anti-drugs strategy for the next 10 years. This includes a proposal that senior representatives of local housing authorities are included in the core, multi-agency membership of Drug Action Teams, to ensure that housing initiatives are included in local strategies designed to meet the needs of people with drug problems. In addition, the new body to tackle rough sleeping in London, where the problems are most intense, will put in place a programme of outreach support and
  263
  hostels which will target the needs of people with drug problems who sleep rough in the Capital and who are not ready to move directly into a permanent social tenancy.

  Under the homelessness legislation, local housing authorities must assist people who are unintentionally homeless and vulnerable because of ill health or other special reason; this includes those who are vulnerable because of drug problems. And in allocating permanent social tenancies, local housing authorities must give reasonable preference to persons with medical or welfare problems, among others. Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) already provide 700 units of supported accommodation specifically for people with drug problems, and also manage a number of hostels for homeless people which provide support for this client group. The Housing Corporation is currently developing good practice guidance for RSLs on strategies for providing residential services to drug users, in conjunction with the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator.

  Council Tax
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what would have been the additional council tax at Band D equivalent of each local authority if they had increased their spending by £100 per person, including all precepts, for 1998–99. [61667]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Column 4

  Column 5

  Column 6

  First round (pacemakers)

  Bethnal Green

  2,719

  6,948

  39

  79,114

  360

  139,000

  Bradford

  4,432

  4,347

  46

  136,897

  196

  128,714

  Dearne Valley

  1,437

  4,955

  997

  64,824

  92

  95,858

  Deptford

  10,445

  4,425

  72

  154,223

  273

  389,556

  Hulme

  2,215

  1,481

  65

  36,744

  96

  81,500

  Liverpool

  743

  4,165

  14

  146,639

  378

  112,103

  Middlesbrough

  1,765

  3,774

  132

  28,617

  214

  30,152

  Newcastle

  1,922

  4,384

  70

  61,245

  261

  61,674

  Nottingham

  8,069

  2,585

  37

  40,566

  141

  63,725

  Wirral

  3,107

  2,758

  62

  186,704

  213

  101,240

  Wolverhampton

  2,769

  3,173

  52

  108,750

  124

  85,861

  Round 2

  Barnsley

  2,496

  1,819

  158

  86,898

  226

  56,894

  Batley

  4,955

  8,437

  279

  180,978

  125

  122,074

  Blackburn

  3,202

  5,446

  58

  193,346

  192

  134,056

  Bolton

  3,172

  7,257

  73

  220,773

  291

  104,405

  Bootle

  1,845

  6,408

  149

  194,276

  208

  147,989

  Brixton

  7,060

  6,528

  9

  156,454

  644

  72,777

  Dalston

  2,933

  9,990

  35

  107,109

  574

  113,883

  Derby

  3,793

  6,432

  44

  88,383

  214

  81,942

  Harlesden

  416

  9,648

  45

  213,075

  635

  220,517

  Hartlepool

  1,980

  3,618

  65

  86,809

  194

  70,803

  Leicester

  3,590

  2,284

  31

  47,998

  218

  102,624

  Newton South Aston

  3,594

  8,323

  27

  94,875

  119

  100,114

  North Kensington

  6,575

  3,371

  54

  16,449

  911

  64,332

  Stockton on Tees

  4,190

  5,287

  187

  96,525

  225

  70,771

  Stratford

  2,803

  4,986

  80

  89,168

  406

  144,706

  Sunderland

  6,776

  9,762

  496

  40,130

  224

  68,104

  Tipton

  2,123

  1,834

  67

  27,303

  268

  75,700

  Walshall

  3,616

  4,391

  170

  62,796

  145

  128,658

  Wigon

  2,292

  10,725

  123

  293,296

  386

  151,300

  Notes:

  Column 1 Dwellings complete/improved

  Column 2 Jobs created/preserved

  Column 3 Land reclaimed/improved (hectares)

  Column 4 New/improved business and commercial floorspace (sq. m.)

  Column 5 Business start-ups

  Column 6 Private sector leverage (£000s)

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the value of the resources top-sliced from the 1998–99 RSG settlement to finance the area cost adjustment. [61668]

  Ms Armstrong
  The contribution of the area cost adjustment to standard spending assessments for 1998–99 was £1,576 million.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the Government's analysis of the response to their consultation paper on access to the open countryside in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [61642]

  Mr. Meacher
  I cannot go further than my earlier reply of 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 10, that we intend to do so shortly.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the final key outputs were for the 11 first-round and the 19 completed second-round city challenge schemes. [61716]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has been noticed as part of the final reporting process, of the key output data, covering the five years of funding for the first and the completed second round City Challenge schemes. The figures, which are subject to verification by the appropriate Government Offices and set out in the table.

  Aviation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received in respect of United Kingdom airlines' access to the United States civil aviation market, with particular reference to rights of(a) cabotage and (b) ownership of United States airlines; and if he will make a statement; [61795]

  (2) what representations he has received on the negotiations on the bilateral air transport relations between the United States and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [61790]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has received representations from numerous sources in the UK and US about the liberalisation of UK/US air services. The two issues of cabotage and ownership of airlines have featured prominently in the representations from UK-based organisations. The UK hopes to conclude a new liberal agreement with the US which provides genuinely equal opportunities for airlines of both countries.

  Sparsity Allowances
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if sparsity allowance is included in the social services standard spending assessment of county councils; and if he will make a statement; [61829]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future levels of sparsity allowance for shire counties. [61830]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on 2 December 1998,Official Report, columns 883–901, about our proposals for Standard Spending Assessments for 1999–2000, including the allowances to be made for sparsity of population. These proposals include, for the first time, a sparsity allowance in the element of the Standard Spending Assessment for social services for the elderly in their own homes.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons aviation emissions are not covered by international agreements on limiting greenhouse gases. [61897]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 December 1998]: Aviation emissions of greenhouse gases are indeed covered by the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions from domestic flights are covered by UK commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. Emissions from international flights are not "allocated" to individual countries at present but are the subject of separate requirements to take preventive action, particularly through the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Bus Fuel Rebate Scheme
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will rebate the tax paid on fuel by Ring and Ride (Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd.) on the same basis as that which applies to commercial bus operators. [62101]
  266
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 307.

  Community Transport
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive the report commissioned by his Department on community transport. [62110]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The national review of voluntary and community transport has now been completed and a summary of its main findings has been presented this week to delegates at the annual Community Transport conference for their views and comments. The final report will be available early in the New Year.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the environmental protection measures proposed for the second phase of the channel tunnel rail link between Ebbsfleet and St. Pancras are a specific requirement of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. [62107]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Additional tunnelling in the approach to St. Pancras and at Barking and revised alignment of the track at Thurrock and Rainham were provided partly for environmental reasons and are required by the 1996 Act. Other environmental protection measures may arise from the detailed planning approval granted under the provisions of the 1996 Act by the local planning authorities.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the value for money of the environmental protection measures included in design for the second phase of the Channel Tunnel Rail Line between Ebbsfleet and St. Pancras; and if he will make a statement. [62108]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have not sought to make such an estimate, partly because few CTRL works in section two are exclusively for environmental protection, but primarily because there is no reliable means of apportioning costs between environmentally protective and other works.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received since 8 May 1997 from residents near the railway line between the channel tunnel and London concerning noise from Eurostar trains. [62109]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received a number of representations from residents near the railway line between the channel tunnel and London concerning noise from the horns of Eurostar trains. I understand from Eurostar that the levels of these horns comply with the rules governing international railway operations and are required by railway safety regulations.

  Housing
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the Government have decided not to issue an approved code of practice, covering issues raised in Circular 12/92 entitled "Guidance to Local Housing Authorities on Standards of Fitness" under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985; and if he will make a statement. [62122]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have decided against introducing an Approved Code of Practice for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) as we consider that our existing powers do not enable us to produce an effective and workable code that would deliver the standards we want HMOs to achieve in the longer term.

  We will be consulting on proposed standards for the licensing scheme we are committed to introduce for HMOs. Once these standards have been agreed we will publish them and issue guidance to authorities on how they might begin to apply them prior to the introduction of licensing.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals the Government have to provide a statutory definition of multiple occupation houses following the Barnes v. Sheffield City Council case; and if he will make a statement. [62123]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We hope to issue a consultation document on our proposals for a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) early in the New Year. The consultation document will address the issue of HMO definition, with the objective of clarifying the uncertainty that surrounds it following cases such as Barnes v. Sheffield City Council.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the housing developments of over 10,000 homes which his Department has approved for planning purposes since 1985 indicating(a) the date of approval and (b) the local planning authority. [62070]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not readily available.

  Express Transit, Nottingham
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement on funding for the Nottingham Express Transit light rail scheme; and if he will make a statement. [62530]

  Dr. Reid
  I am delighted to announce today that the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) is to go ahead.

  The Government are to provide £167 million of revenue support to Nottingham City Council so it can fund its side of the deal. The NET is an early local authority Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project.

  The project is the culmination of years of hard work and is an excellent example of central and local Government working together to bring real benefits to the local community. This is illustrated by our support for this
  268
  project. Over the next few years the NET will take up a large part of my Department's allocation of resources for local authority PFI projects. We will not be in a position to support similar light rail schemes in this way for the foreseeable future.

  As we set out in "New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", the transport White Paper published in July, we aim to give local authorities greater input into providing tailored transport solutions. This is reflected in the recently issued draft guidance to help Local Authorities to formulate local transport plans which are a core part of our proposals to deliver integrated transport strategies at the local level.

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the need for a national strategy to deal with the disruption caused to local communities when companies seek to lay water, gas, electricity and telecommunication services along essential transport routes. [61313]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As the White Paper "New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" makes clear, we intend to consult on options for an incentive system, with penalties, to minimise disruption to all road users, and to encourage improved co-ordination of road works. I expect to begin this process in the New Year.

  Sussex Downs Conservation Board
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board after 31 March 2001. [62121]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are still giving detailed consideration to the Countryside Commission's formal advice on protecting our finest countryside including the future arrangements for the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is a great deal to consider but we hope to announce some conclusions soon. The future of the Board will depend upon the decisions taken.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effects of the uniform business rate on small businesses. [61305]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1995 my Department published a research report "The Impact of Rates on businesses" which indicated that rates were a significantly greater burden for small businesses—those with turnovers of under £100,000—than for larger businesses. As stated in our White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", we are discussing with business representatives the details of a possible scheme to reduce this burden on small businesses.

  Swimming Pools
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many
  269
  swimming pools are currently operated by each local authority; and what were the corresponding figures (a) five years ago and (b) 10 years ago. [62375]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not centrally available.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many external members of the 18 policy action teams referred to in the Social Exclusion Unit report, "Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal", represent the interests of disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [62232]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Policy Action Teams include a cross membership of those who have particular professional expertise in the issues to be addressed, and of those who live or work in poor neighbourhoods. Policy Action Team 4 (Neighbourhood Management) includes a representative from the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. Policy Action Team 16 (Learning Lessons) includes a representative from Business in the Community who is also Chair of the National Disability Council and a member of the Disabled Right Task Force. All the Teams will consult far more widely than their own membership, and will welcome contributions from individuals and groups representing the interests of disabled people.

  Domestic Water Customers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the practice by Thames Water and Welsh Water of disconnecting domestic customers. [62249]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government regard it as unacceptable that anyone should be deprived of water supplies to their home because of an inability to pay. The Water Industry Bill, introduced on 25 November, includes provisions which, if agreed by Parliament, would make it an offence to disconnect water supplies to dwellings, schools or hospitals for non-payment of charges.

  At present, water companies have powers to disconnect water supplies to homes for non-payment, under the Water Industry Act 1991. Water undertakers are also required to operate a code of practice on debt and disconnection and to have regard to guidance issued by the Director General of Water Services. The Government welcome the reductions in the numbers of customers disconnected in recent years. Nine water companies in England and Wales made no household disconnections for failure to pay water service bills in the first half of 1998–99.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Director General of OFWAT for not taking enforcement action against Welsh Water in respect of budget payment units and trickle-flow meters and delays in removing the remaining meters. [62248]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that the Director General of Water Services has told Welsh Water that he requires an undertaking from the company that it will remove any disconnection element from the budget payment units 270
  currently installed, including any trickle flow valves, by May 1999. Failing receipt of such an undertaking he will take enforcement action.

  Conveyancing
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the outcome of the Government's review of the home buying and selling process; and if he will make a statement. [62585]

  Ms Armstrong
  The report of the Government's research into the home buying and selling process will be published on Monday 7 December. At the same time, we will publish a consultation paper setting out a package of proposals for making the process quicker, easier and more efficient. The package will propose action by all the parties involved in the process, but before reaching final conclusions we want to stimulate wide debate about both the problems and the best ways of dealing with them. Copies of the consultation paper will be available from the Vote Office. Copies of the consultation paper and the research report will also be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Land Use Planning
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls he envisages to give effect to the land use planning requirements of the COMAH Directive; and if he will make a statement. [62586]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have today issued draft Regulations to implement the land use requirements of Directive 96/82/EC on the Control of Major Accident Hazards.

  Amendments are to be made to the Planning Hazardous Substances consents procedures to implement these provisions of the Directive while maintaining existing health and safety standards where these differ from the Directive. Changes to the Development Plan Regulations will ensure that local planning authorities take account of the requirements of the Directive when drawing up their development plans.

  Work Equipment
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government have done to meet the concerns of the plant and equipment hire industry over the introduction of the new Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. [62787]

  Mr. Meale
  As my hon. Friend knows, I met recently with the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and representatives of both hire and lease companies and the construction industry. I am grateful to the hon. Members for helping to facilitate what was a very useful meeting. I am grateful also to many Members of the House who have written to me about this issue and for the very helpful advice I received from the Health and Safety Commission. At the meeting we agreed a practical way forward within the law which is acceptable to the industry and which will allow companies to meet their duties. Representatives of the plant and equipment hire industry and other trade associations have
  271
  now agreed with HSE that hire companies should prepare an action plan in which they will identify the mobile work equipment that needs to be modified or adapted to comply with the new requirements of the Directive. They will also need to prioritise within the action plan the modifications which are needed, according to risk, and ensure that the new requirements are met.

  Guidance has been produced for duty holders which explains what they will need to do to comply with Regulations 26 and 27 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. I will arrange for a copy of this guidance to be placed in the Library of this House.

  I have asked the Health and Safety Commission to keep the situation under close review.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a single parent claiming income support will be able to have one interview to cover New Deal, income support, housing benefit, Child Support Agency and other benefit-related matters. [60873]

  Angela Eagle
  Personal advisers working in the New Deal for Lone Parents already offer lone parents on Income Support a comprehensive package of support and advice.

  The DSS and the London Borough of Camden are already working together to pilot new arrangements for lone parents.

  From June 1999 we will also pilot a more integrated service through the Single Work Focused Gateway. This will start in four areas from June, with a further eight pilots from November 1999.

  At initial contact if appropriate an interview will be arranged within three working days usually held at the office. The interview will be conducted by a personal adviser who will provide a balanced package of work focused help and financial support. The adviser will be able to access information on the options available and provide a personalised calculation of potential in-work income including tax credits. Information on Housing Benefit and Child Support issues will be available at this point of entry.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what valuation is made of(a) a company car and (b) a company grant for an employee to acquire a car for company business, in formulating CSA payments. [60858]

  Angela Eagle
  The value of a company car is not taken into consideration in determining the income of either parent under the maintenance formula.
  272
  The treatment of an allowance paid by an employer for the purchase of a car will depend on the intended use. Where it is for business purposes only, the whole allowance will be ignored in determining income. Where there is a degree of private use, the amount taken into account will be that portion of the allowance which it is considered covers the parent's private usage.

  The Green Paper "Children First—a new approach to child support" (Cm 3992) published on 6 July sets out our proposals for a new child support scheme, including a simpler definition of what counts as income.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to encourage the take up of(a) housing benefit, (b) income support, (c) family credit and (d) council tax benefits. [61472]

  Angela Eagle
  We want all those who are entitled to benefits to claim them, and we are taking action to encourage them to do so.

  All local authorities are under a Statutory duty to publicise and promote maximum take-up of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. This Department provides guidance and advice to authorities to help them maximise the effectiveness of take-up campaigns and we will continue to do so. Take-up rates for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are already consistently high.

  We have recently completed research into why some pensioners do not claim their Income Support entitlement, and a series of pilots to test ways of identifying them and encouraging them to claim. We are currently evaluating the results before deciding how best to proceed.

  From June to August 1998 we conducted a national advertising campaign to encourage take up of working benefits including Family Credit. This included advertising on television, radio and in women's magazines. Additionally, all lone parents whose children are over 5 years old are now invited for interviews and advised as to the availability of working benefits and provided with any help needed to claim their entitlement. These initiatives supplement the ongoing provision of information leaflets and advice through the Family Credit helpline.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time students have been in receipt of (i) disability living allowance, (ii) severe disablement allowance, (iii) disabled student allowance and (iv) other disability-related benefits in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [61468]

  Mr. Timms
  The information on the number of part time or full time students in receipt of disability living allowance, severe disablement allowance or other disability related benefits is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on Disabled Student Allowance is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  273

  The number of disabled students' allowances made by local education authorities in England and Wales as part of mandatory awards in the academic years 1992–93 to 1996–97

  Academic year

  Number of awards

  1992–93

  2,490

  1993–94

  4,050

  1994–95

  5,320

  1995–96

  6,550

  1996–97

  8,120

  Notes:

  1. The Disabled Students Allowance forms part of the mandatory award. There are three separate allowances—that for specialist equipment; for non-medical helpers; and the general Disabled Students Allowance. Mandatory awards are payable to personally eligible students attending full-time or sandwich courses leading to a first-degree or comparable qualification. DipHE or HND courses and postgraduate courses of initial teacher training.

  2. The table shows the number of awards, not the number of students. Students can receive more than one type of disabled students allowance.

  3. The table shows the number of awards made by local education authorities to students normally domiciled in their area (in England and Wales).

  4. The number of awards is rounded to the nearest 10.

  5. Information for 1996–97 is the latest available.

  Back-to-work Bonus
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have(a) received and (b) been refused the back-to-work bonus. [61913]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Back to Work Bonus statistics

  All claimants

  Claimants with an accrued bonus at the end of October 19981

  150,000

  Number of bonus payments made from October 1996 to October 1998

  81,000

  Total amount of bonus payments made from October 1996 to October 1998

  £20,574,000

  Number of cases where a claim for a Bonus payment was unsuccessful, up to October 19982

  31,000

  1 Live claims on ISCS and JSAPS with a bonus accrual plus claims which have ended with a bonus accrual but no bonus payment has been made (claimants who return to benefit within 12 weeks and have not claimed a bonus retain the amount accrued during the previous claim).

  2 Reasons for unsuccessful claims include: No Back to Work Bonus amount had accrued; the claim for a Bonus payment was received outside the limit of 12 weeks for making a claim.

  Note:

  Data based on information held on the Income Support Computer System (ISCS) and the Jobseeker's Allowance Payment System (JSAPS). No clerically processed claims included. Excludes JSAPS activity for November 1996. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Back to Work Bonus management information statistics.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Government expect to publish their response to the submissions made on the Green Paper on Welfare Reform. [61797]

  Mr. Denham
  The Green Paper on Welfare Reform set out a clear philosophy for the welfare state. "Work for those who can, security for those who cannot" is the 274
  foundation of our programme. It received overwhelming support. The public's response demonstrated first a widespread recognition of the need for welfare reform, and secondly, endorsement of our approach. We are now responding by putting those principles into practice.

  On 28 October, we published three documents, "A new contract for welfare: Principles into Practice", which set out the significant progress that has already been made on welfare reform; "A new contract for welfare: Support for Disabled People", which set out detailed proposals to reform benefits for people with a long-term illness or disability; and "A new contract for welfare: The Gateway to Work", which set out plans for a single gateway to the welfare system.

  We also published on 18 November "A new contract for welfare: Support in Bereavement" which set out proposals to reform bereavement benefits.

  As announced in the Queen's Speech, we will introduce a Welfare Reform Bill in the current session. We will make further announcements in due course.

  Contributions Agency Computer
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the backlog of cases caused by the failure of the Contributions Agency computer to be cleared; and if he will make a statement. [61936]

  Mr. Timms
  The NIRS2 computer system is a large and complex system and there have been some delays and problems in its introduction, which the House was made aware of on the 5 November.

  Backlogs of work have built up in both the Contributions Agency and the Benefits Agency as a consequence of the delays and problems with NIRS2. Both Agencies however, invoked contingency arrangements wherever possible to reduce the effect on customers.

  The Contributions Agency and the Benefits Agency are working together to develop plans to clear backlogs as the new systems facilities become available, staff are able to address the backlogs caused by the absence of those facilities. For example, the backlog of requests for data protection printouts has been eliminated since 18 November 1998. It is not yet possible, however, to predict with certainty the date when all the backlogs will be cleared.

  British Pensioners (Overseas)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which Commonwealth nations have negotiated reciprocal arrangements to enable British pensioners living abroad to receive annual increases; and if he will make a statement on reciprocal arrangements with Kenya. [62035]

  Mr. Denham
  Pensioners living in the following Commonwealth countries receive annual UK State Pension increases: The Bahamas, Barbados, Cyprus, Jamaica, Malta and Mauritius. There is no reciprocal Social Security agreement between the UK and Kenya.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the source for her estimate in
  275
  her answer of 16 November 1998, Official Report, column 592, that in 50 per cent. of couples receiving family credit the main earner is female. [62246]

  Angela Eagle
  The Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry for May 1998 shows that of the 767,000 families receiving Family Credit, 59 per cent. (452,000 families) have a female main earner.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 1998 (5 per cent. sample of awards).

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his e-mail address. [62567]

  Mr. Darling
  Ministers may be contacted at the following address: ministers@ade006.dss.gov.uk.

  Child Support
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the Chief Child Support Officer's Annual Report for 1997–98. [62587]

  Angela Eagle
  The Annual Report of the Chief Child Support Officer (CCSO) for the year 1997–98 is published today. The Report highlights the damaging effect of the excessive complexity of the current maintenance formula.

  We are determined to address the problems which the CCSO has identified by tackling the root causes of inaccuracy in child support assessments. The Child Support Agency has already begun to improve the way that it collects information by making greater use of the telephone, actively managing self-employed cases and by freeing local staff to allow more face-to-face contact with parents. The provisions in the 1998 Social Security Act which streamline and simplify the decision making process will be implemented in the Child Support Agency from June 1999. These changes will support further work in the Agency to improve the service that it offers to all its clients.

  The proposals for reform will result in a radically simpler system which focuses on a rapid, transparent, and accurate assessment of liability. Improving standards of service is central to our proposed reforms and we are committed to avoiding the complexity which results in the problems identified by the CCSO.

WALES

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many 18 to 24 year olds in Wales have lost their jobseekers allowance as a result of refusing all four options in the New Deal. [61469]

  Mr. Hain
  Up until the end of October 1998, out of a total of almost 12,000 young people who entered the New Deal Gateway in Wales, 95 young people have had their jobseekers allowance temporarily suspended because,276
  without good cause, they failed or refused to start a New Deal option or left an option early, or because they were dismissed from a New Deal option due to misconduct.

  Prescription Claims
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to refund to the claimants for prescription payment certificates the additional amounts due to them following the acceptance by the Treasury Solicitor in Case No. LIC01071 between R. M. Wordley and the Welsh Office (Treasury Solicitor Ref. L9618316H JBM/LS) of Mr. Wordley's interpretation of Regulation 9 of S.I., 1989, No. 419 as amended. [61831]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are no outstanding claims for payment. The case of Wordley v. Secretary of State for Wales was settled in February 1997, without admission of liability.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mr. Opik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources his Department provides to Dyfed Powys Health Authority for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; and if he will make a statement. [61914]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In 1998–99 Dyfed Powys received £237.8 million in discretionary resources, £8.4 million, or 3.6 per cent. more than in 1997–98. It is a matter for the health authority to determine how these funds should be used to provide an appropriate range of health services to its resident population, taking into account the pattern of local health need.

  Mr. Opik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what the average provision of rheumatologists per hundred thousand people is for Welsh health authorities; and if he will make a statement; [61916]

  (2) how many rheumatologists are employed by the Dyfed Powys Health Authority; and if he will make a statement. [61915]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on hospital medical staff directly employed by the NHS in Wales is collected in an annual census relating to staff in post at 30 September. Health authorities do not directly employ hospital medical staff. The number and rate of rheumatologists employed by NHS trusts, grouped by health authority ares, are shown in the following table. It should be noted, however, that health authorities are free to purchase services from any health provider.

  Consultants

  Other staff

  Total

  Number2

  Rate3

  Number3

  Rate2

  Number2

  Rate3

  Health authority area

  Bro Taf

  3.9

  5.3

  7.3

  9.9

  11.2

  15.2

  Dyfed Powys

  0.3

  0.6

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  0.8

  Gwent

  2.4

  4.3

  2.0

  3.6

  4.4

  7.9

  Morgannwg

  2.4

  4.8

  1.5

  3.0

  3.9

  7.8

  North Wales

  3.0

  4.6

  1.7

  2.6

  4.7

  7.2

  Wales

  12.0

  4.1

  12.6

  4.3

  24.6

  8.4

  1 Includes other grades of staff involved in clinical work

  2 Whole-time equivalents

  3 Due to small overall numbers figures are shown per 1,000,000 population

  277
  Mr. Opik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review the current provision of care for sufferers from arthritic conditions; and if he will make a statement. [61917]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The provision for the care of those suffering from arthritic conditions is the responsibility of health authorities whose responsibility it is to assess the needs of their local population and provide appropriate services to meet them while taking account of their resources, priorities and other pressures.

  Assembly Reporting
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the record of the National Assembly for Wales. [62797]

  Mr. Michael
  I will publish tomorrow a consultation paper which sets out our proposals on the timing of the production of the report, which will be called "The Daily Journal"; its translation into and from the Welsh language; the method of publication; standards and archiving. In line with our policy of inclusivity I want to ensure that the record reaches as wide an audience as possible and we want to learn of people's thoughts on how best to make the Record available to the people of Wales.

  Copies of the Paper will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the levels of disconnections by Welsh Water; and if he will encourage those water companies that do not have them to establish charitable or hardship funds. [62250]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Since the privatisation of the water industry in 1989, there has been a general decline in the number of water supply disconnections made by Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. In 1991–92 the number of household disconnections was 2,938 as compared to 160 in 1997–98.

  The issue of disconnection formed part of the Government's recent review of the water charging system in England and Wales which proposed the prohibition of the disconnection of household water supplies for non-payment of charges. The Government have decided to proceed with this proposal. Clause 1 of the Water Industry Bill, which will have its Second Reading in the House on Monday 7 December, provides for this prohibition through an amendment to section 61 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

  The development of charitable trusts by water companies is strongly supported by the Government as they provide invaluable support to customers in genuine need. The Government will continue to encourage action by companies to assist those customers who experience difficulties in paying their charges, not only through charitable trusts, but also through the design of tariffs and through helping customers reduce their bills and economise on water use.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which housing associations in Wales(a) do and (b) do not participate in mutual aid development on their estates. [62274]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Mutual aid development refers to the activities known as "housing plus" or sustaining communities. The Welsh Office sets "Regulatory Requirements", which are the standards that housing associations must work to. They state:"Associations should help to safeguard their tenants' quality of life by providing support to communities which help protect the interests of existing neighbours or tenants or contribute to the prevention or reversal of social decline".

  Our experience at audit of housing associations is all are engaged in a range of such projects, some more extensively than others. We have encouraged associations to increase this work in the future as part of the Government's agenda to tackle social exclusion.

  Tai Cymru issued in September 1998 a report on "Sustainable communities for the future" which gave many examples of good practice in this area and made recommendations for future action.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing association development workers are employed by each housing association in Wales. [62275]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  This information is not held centrally but we believe all associations employ development workers. Some Associations employ specific officers to carry out this work while others use generic staff who provide this function alongside their housing management role. We believe both approaches can be equally effective.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans Her Majesty's Government have(a) to ban the use of methyl bromide as a chemical agent for the purposes of sterilising soil and grain stores and (b) to ensure that a replacement product is available. [61180]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are bound by the timetable laid down in the Montreal Protocol to reduce or phase-out substances such as methyl bromide which deplete the ozone layer. The Protocol was last amended in September 1997 when it was agreed, for developed countries, to cut production and use of methyl bromide by 50 per cent. by 2001, 70 per cent. by 2003 and phase out by 2005. The Protocol exempts quarantine and preshipment treatments. All member states of the European Union are signatories to the Protocol, which is currently implemented through Council Regulation (EC) 3093/94.

  The European Commission has proposed a draft Regulation imposing a more stringent timetable to cut production and phase-out methyl bromide which is under discussion.
  279
  Impact Studies have been commissioned by MAFF and DETR on the effect of phase-out in the horticultural, food commodity and structures sectors. Methyl Bromide is an efficient fumigant and for some purposes such as soil sterilisation and the disinfestation of flour mills, there are no ready, single alternatives. A LINK research project to consider alternatives for the horticulture sector commences in April next year. Two further LINK projects covering commodities and structural fumigation are currently under consideration.

  Policy responsibility for negotiations and implementation of the Protocol within the UK rests with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Further information about the impact of phase out of methyl bromide on the horticulture industry can be found in the ADAS reports "A Review of Methyl Bromide Use in Horticulture (1996)" and "Withdrawal of Methyl Bromide—summary of principle cost implications for UK horticulture (1998)", both of which were commissioned by my Department. (Copies of both reports are available from ADAS or MAFF—Horticulture and Potatoes Division.)

  Pet Quarantine
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a parallel system for pet quarantine to cover North America. [60863]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pet Animals arriving from North America are already subject to the same regime as animals arriving from anywhere else outside the British Isles. The Advisory Group on Quarantine has recommended that quarantine should be replaced for cats and dogs leaving the UK and returning after visits to the European Union and European Economic area countries, and rabies-free islands in the rest of the world; quarantine would also be replaced for cats and dogs entering the UK from such countries. Quarantine would be retained for cats and dogs coming into the UK from other countries. The Government will propose a specific way forward on the Advisory Group's recommendations after the public consultation on the Group's report ends on 31 December 1998.

  The Advisory Group recommended that further consideration be given to the risks arising from allowing cats and dogs from North America into Great Britain without undergoing quarantine. This study is underway.

  BSE
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the attack rate experiment examining the dose of BSE-infected cattle brain necessary to transmit BSE orally between cattle; and what evidence the experiments have produced on the relationship between the incubation period and the size of the dose. [61558]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the so called attack-rate experiment, to determine the minimum amount of BSE-infected cattle brain required to infect cattle by the oral route and the effect dose size may have on the incubation time, groups of 10 cattle were deliberately infected at four months of age by feeding them with either 300, 100, 10 or 1 gram 280
  of BSE infected brain tissue. The cattle were then observed for the development of disease and killed when judged to be positive by clinical signs. Diagnosis of BSE was confirmed by examination of the brain post-mortem.

  The experiment has now been running for 7 years and transmission of BSE has been accomplished with all four different doses of brain. All 10 animals in each group dosed with 300 or 100 grams of brain have been positively diagnosed with incubation periods ranging from 32–42 months and 32–60 months respectively. Seven of the 10 animals in each group dosed with 10 or 1 gram have been positively diagnosed with incubation periods ranging from 44–71 months and 45–71 months respectively. One animal died early from other causes not related to BSE in the group that received 10 grams of brain. All the remaining animals from the groups that received 10 or 1 gram of brain are now showing early clinical signs consistent with BSE.

  The results indicate that cattle can be infected by the oral route down to a level of 1 gram of BSE infected cattle brain and that incubation period appears to be prolonged at lower doses.

  The experiment has since been extended and groups of cattle have now been challenged with either one, one tenth, one hundredth or one thousandth of a gram of the same infected cattle brain used previously. The experiment has been running for 11 months and all animals are still clinically normal. It is hoped that this phase of the experiment will define the minimum dose of brain required to infect cattle and provide further information relating to the effect on incubation period relative to the infecting dose.

  Deer Management
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the agenda items for discussion at the meeting between the Director General of the Forestry Commission and the Chair of the Commissioners of the Forestry Commission, and the Quantock Staghounds on 4 December; and if he will make a statement. [62033]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chairman and the Director General of the Forestry Commission are meeting representatives of the Quantock Staghounds to hear their views on issues relating to deer management. There is no formal agenda, but the meeting will take account of the Commission's decision not to renew the Staghounds' licence to hunt over Commission land, and also the recent Harris report on stag hunting.

  Scallops
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans have been made to introduce measures to secure scallop stock conservation. [62675]

  Mr. Morley
  Following issue of a consultative paper in June this year and careful consideration of the responses, it has been decided to proceed with the introduction of specific licensing arrangements for over 10 metre vessels fishing for scallops using mechanical dredging gear.

  Permission to fish for scallops with mechanical dredging gear will be granted where vessel owners can demonstrate that they currently hold licences with a history of having caught a minimum of 1 tonne of scallops

  281
  by this method in any calendar year during the period 1 January 1994 to 31 May 1998. The users of mechanical dredging gear will be required to complete a logbook for all fishing trips during which scallops are caught. Where licences are aggregated, the permission to fish for scallops with mechanical dredging gear will only be given if all the donor licences carried that permission.

  These arrangements are planned to take effect from 1 April 1999 and will be reviewed after 2 years in the light of experience. The review will take account also of progress towards the development of more precisely targeted conservation measures.

  A number of respondents to the consultation exercise proposed that scallop licensing should be introduced for vessels of 10 metres and under. This will be considered as part of broader management arrangements for these vessels. However, I should make it clear that if scallop licensing were to be introduced in this context, the reference period for determining eligibility would also be 1 January 1994 to 31 May 1998.

  Fisheries Departments will be writing to all owners of over 10 metre vessels setting out the criteria for qualification for a licence and inviting applications. The letter will also deal with the arrangements for considering applications from those who do not meet the qualifying criteria but who have made a financial commitment to invest in a scallop vessel, gear or licences for aggregation onto a scallop vessel prior to 31 May 1998.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Millennium Bug
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the progress being made by central Government departments and agencies and the wider public sector in tackling the millennium bug. [62174]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made yesterday in the House on 2 December 1998,Official Report, columns 902–16. I have also place copies of the latest quarterly returns from Departments, agencies and key organisations from the wider public sector in the Library and on the Internet (http://www.open.gov.uldyear2000).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Tanning Shop Franchises
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters he has received in respect of the treatment by the(a) National Westminster Bank and (b) Lombard Banking of the Tanning Shop franchise customers. [61306]

  Mrs. Roche
  No letters have been received by this Department in respect of the treatment by either the National Westminster Bank or Lombard Banking of the Tanning Shop franchise customers although the former Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) received a letter from my hon. Friend on 12 December about The Tanning Shop Ltd.

  Manufacturing Competitiveness
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on manufacturing competitiveness. [61309]

  Mr. Mandelson
  We recognise the difficulty that the downturn in the world economy is causing certain sections of our manufacturing industry and exporters. However, not all is doom and gloom. We believe that the tough and decisive action this Government have taken is creating the conditions for stability necessary to build Britain's long-term prosperity. And as the Government's Competitiveness White Paper will show, we are taking measures to stimulate greater enterprise, innovation and exploitation of knowledge, all of which will underpin Britain's competitiveness into the new Millennium.

  Science (Government Spending)
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the average annual increase in total Government spending on science over the last 20 years. [61310]

  Mr. Battle
  Information before 1986–87 is not available in the terms requested. The average real terms annual change in total Government spending on Science Engineering and Technology over the 12-year period 1986–87 to 1997–98 was a decrease of £128 million at 1997–98 prices. This excludes National Health Service SET expenditure for which information has been available only since 1995–96.

  Electronic Commerce
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in assisting small businesses to increase their use of electronic communications. [61311]

  Mrs. Roche
  Electronic Communication—in particular e-commerce over the Internet—allows every small business in the UK to compete on the world stage. The Government's aim is to make the UK the best environment in the world for e-commerce by 2002. And we need to help small businesses grasp the opportunities this opens up. International benchmarking studies commissioned by the department show that only 11 per cent. of UK small businesses regularly use external electronic networking technologies such as the Internet. The White Paper on competitiveness which we will be publishing shortly will set out our strategy to increase this number significantly.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on how he intends to promote successful electronic commerce. [61324]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government's strategy for electronic commerce will he set out in the White Paper on Competitiveness which we will be publishing shortly. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 25 November 1998,Official Report, column 217, the Prime Minister will be appointing a Digital Envoy to drive this strategy forward.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that British scientific research contributes to economic prosperity. [61312]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The development and commercial exploitation of scientific research is fundamental to a prosperous knowledge-driven economy.

  Important steps have already been taken such as:

  £.1.4 billion additional funding for science;

  the launch earlier this year of University challenge to help universities turn good research into good business;

  measures to promote collaborative partnerships such as LINK;

  the creation, of a £25 million Science Enterprise Challenge announced in my right hon. Friend's the Chancellors Pre-Budget Statement.

  My forthcoming Competitiveness White Paper will address this important issue and build on these measures.

  Supermarket Retailing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Office of Fair Trading report into supermarket retailing. [61314]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The decision to undertake a study of supermarket profitability was taken independently by the Director General of Fair Trading. It is a matter for him how and when he makes his findings public. I understand that he hopes to complete preliminary investigations early in the new year.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to support the United Kingdom's textile industry. [61315]

  Mr. Battle
  DTI provides a wide range of support to the UK's textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Currently the Department is supporting 22 projects aimed specifically at raising the profile of the sector and improving its competitiveness.

  Foreign-owned Industries
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to ensure that DTI grants helping foreign-owned industries to move into the north-west do not disadvantage existing indigenous industries. [61316]

  Mrs. Roche
  Displacements are a primary factor when considering grants for mobile investments. There is no national benefit in supporting a project which simply knocks out equivalent employment in competing businesses.

  Policy Decisions
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has for the solicitation of scientific advice in order to facilitate policy decision making. [61317]
  284
  Mr. Battle
  DTI has in place a number of procedures and mechanisms to ensure that the appropriate scientific advice is sought and used to inform policy making in line with the Guidelines on "The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making". These mechanisms include, for example, the use of in-house experts, independent advisory committees and expert research or technical advice. The Office of Science and Technology carried out a review of how Departments were implementing the Guidelines, and the Chief Scientific Adviser published a report last July which showed that good progress was being made. A further review will be undertaken next year.

  Manchester United
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the decision of the Monopolies Commission regarding the sale of Manchester United football club; and if he will make a statement. [61319]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is due to deliver its report on BSkyB's proposed acquisition of Manchester United to me by 12 March 1999.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to establish networks of research-oriented small and medium enterprises. [61320]

  Mrs. Roche
  From the day it was elected, this Government have striven to encourage better networking by research-oriented SMEs. Very often, such firms possess real talent and innovative ideas; it is our aim to encourage them to learn from each other, and from a wider canvas of expertise, how best to bring their research to market.

  I recognise and welcome the industrial forums that have been established in Wales and commend them to other parts of the country.

  One of the earliest actions of this Government, following the 1997 election, was to announce the establishment of the first four Faraday Partnerships in the UK.

  Each Faraday Partnership is a collaborative network between one or more universities, one or more independent research and technology organisations and a group of up to 30 firms, focusing especially on small and medium-sized firms.

  At regional and local level, numerous semi-formal groupings exist, usually facilitated by Government Office, Business Links or universities and research organisations. Many such groups have been established as a result of the work of the team of 13 regional industrial secondees working in the DTI's Innovation Unit, who in turn collaborate with local providers to identify suitable topics for networking.

  Particular emphasis has been given to encouraging smaller firms to understand the outcomes of the Foresight process. Many high-technology small firms are nowadays key to Britain's industrial capability—in topics such as software and aspects of biotechnology. Keeping these

  285
  firms aware of the directions that science and technology are taking in our universities is a fundamental role of networks.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's work in supporting small and medium enterprises. [61325]

  Mrs. Roche
  Small and medium-sized businesses are crucial to a successful enterprise economy and the Government are firmly committed to stimulating the creation, competitiveness and growth of new and smaller businesses.

  The key principles underlying the Government's approach include fostering an enterprise culture that encourages innovators and risk takers; providing and maintaining a supportive economic environment; identifying and removing barriers to growth; and providing high quality business support for firms at all stages of their development. The Government also work within the European Union to help to further these aims throughout Europe.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on support for small businesses in London. [61303]

  Mrs. Roche
  A full range of support is available to SMEs in London through TECs, Business Links, Chambers of Commerce, Enterprise Agencies and others. The structure of business support in London is, however, being reviewed to ensure that it is fully effective in meeting the needs of companies.

  Government Chemist
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the performance of the Government Chemist in meeting his statutory responsibility. [61321]

  Mr. Battle
  Good chemical analysis makes a considerable contribution to our quality of life and our industrial competitiveness. I am satisfied that the Government Chemist is discharging his role as statutory function in a satisfactorily manner. This view is endorsed by the Royal Society of Chemistry and other Government Departments for which the Government Chemist provides analysis and advice.

  I have just received the Government Chemist's second annual report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Energy Supply
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and-Industry what plans he has for maintaining diversity of long-term energy supply in the United Kingdom. [61322]

  Mr. Battle
  We set out the Government's plans in the White Paper, Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government Response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee (Cm 4071), published on 8 October 1998.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the youth rate of the national minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [61323]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received a number of representations about the national minimum wage youth rate.

  The setting of a different rate for young people reflects the importance we attach to their training, development and education and to helping them to secure jobs. International research shows that where minimum wages have an adverse impact, if falls disproportionately on young people. That is why most countries which have minimum wage legislation have exemptions and lower rates for young people.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the implications for the competitiveness of British industry of the minimum wage. [61022]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The competitiveness of British industry is regularly discussed during meetings Ministers have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  The national minimum wage will help improve relationships at the workplace and produce improvements in work force commitment, morale, and performance. It should contribute to raising industry's competitiveness by reductions in staff turnover and absenteeism. This should result in improved productivity, which will benefit individual companies and the economy as a whole.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small businesses he estimates will face increased overheads as a result of the Working Time directive. [61326]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There was no specific assessment of the increased overheads faced by small businesses, but we do not think small businesses will be disproportionately affected because of their size. An assessment for the whole of British industry was made, a copy of which is held in the Library.

  The Government have endeavoured to minimise costs and burdens on business in line with proper implementation of the Directive. These measures will provide workers with proper rest and help combat stress and illness amongst workers. With the CBI estimating £25 billion lost in 1996 due to absenteeism they also make good business sense.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he has put in place to ensure that Ministers dealing with sponsorship for the millennium dome do not deal with competition issues affecting those sponsors. [61331]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company is responsible for procuring and negotiating sponsorship for the Millennium Experience project.
  287
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of sponsorship for exhibits within the millennium dome. [61332]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The £120 million confirmed sponsorship raised by the New Millennium Experience Company so far covers 8 exhibit zones within the Dome, some associated National Programme strands, and Baby Dome. The exhibit zones are Communicate (BT); Body (Boots The Chemist); Work (Manpower); National Identity (Marks and Spencer); Learn (Tesco); Global (BAA and British Airways); Mind (British Aerospace and GEC); and Transaction (Corporation of London subject to matching funding by City Institutions). The National Programme strands are Future Talk (BT); Our Town Story (McDonald's); National Skills Festival 2000 (Manpower); Children's Promise/Voices of Promise (Marks and Spencer); and Tesco Schoolnet 2000. Baby Dome is being sponsored by Sky. Camelot, the official ticket distributor, is also an official partner sponsor.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the numbers expected to visit the millennium dome in its first year. [61333]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is charged by the Government and the Millennium Commission with developing the Millennium Experience project and operating it for one year. The NMEC estimate that 12 million people will visit the Millennium Experience during its one year of operation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about corporate sponsorship for the millennium dome. [61334]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, (Mr. Chapman) on 3 December 1998,Official Report, columns 1038–39.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of zones planned for the millennium dome. [61336]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There will be 14 zones within the Millennium Dome.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will publish the amounts budgeted to be spent on design and content within each of the zones in the Greenwich Millennium Exhibition; [61979]

  (2) if he will publish the budgets for each of the zones in the Greenwich Millennium Exhibition. [61981]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answers 1 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 July 1998, Official Report, columns 82–83.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the BBC over broadcasting rights to the Millennium Exhibition in Greenwich. [61982]
  288
  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is in discussion with a number of broadcasters, including the BBC, over broadcasting rights to the Millennium Experience at Greenwich.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has held with representatives of the Amalgamated Engineers and Electrical Union about transportation to the Millennium Dome. [61335]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Transport issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if there will be a celebration of Britain's contributions to political theory during the last 1000 years in the Millennium Dome. [61665]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 5 November 1998,Official Report, column 623.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what provision will be made for the sale of traditional British food at the Millennium Experience. [61625]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's policy is to provide as wide a range of catering services as possible to meet the varied needs of visitors to the Dome.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the average daily number of visitors to the Millennium Dome. [61330]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company aims to attract an average daily number of 33,000 visitors.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many expressions of interest he has received for the use of the Millennium Dome after 1 January 2001; and when he will make a decision on a short list of potential users. [61879]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Since 1 December 1997 when I invited expressions of interest in the Dome's future use, I have received 7 proposals. A working group set up by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is currently looking at the best mechanism for encouraging and assessing expressions of interest, including the timetable and the criteria against which bids would be judged. No firm decisions have been made yet but it is likely that a formal competition will begin in the New Year.

  Mergers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy on mergers. [61302]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I shall refer cases to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission primarily on competition grounds. However, I shall continue to consider each case on its merits, in order to safeguard competition and the interests of the consumer.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date and for what reasons his planned trip to Brazil in November was cancelled. [61519]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: A decision to postpone my planned visit to Brazil and Argentina was taken as soon as it became clear—following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House regarding Prorogation on Thursday 12 November—that Trade and Industry Oral Questions would take place on 3 December.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to carry out his planned visit to Brazil; [61526]

  (2) if he will list his planned overseas visits. [61522]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: I have not yet finalised my overseas visits programme for next year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his planned itinerary for his cancelled trip to Brazil. [61527]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The itinerary for this visit had not yet been finalised. It would have consisted of calls on representatives of the Brazilian Government, business and the media.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the expenses incurred during his trip to Brazil in 1998: [61528]

  (2) if he will list the expenses incurred by the then Minister without Portfolio on his visit to Brazil; [61524]

  (3) if he will publish the itinerary of the visit by the then Minister without Portfolio to Brazil in June; [61518]

  (4) what issues the then Minister without Portfolio discussed with the British Council in Rio de Janeiro during his visit; [61521]

  (5) if he will list the individuals met by the then Minister without Portfolio during his ministerial trip to Brazil. [61523]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 31 July 1998, Official Report, column 779.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the itineraries for his overseas visits in the current year. [61513]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: I have no current plans to undertake any further official overseas visits this year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) itineraries for and (b) expenses incurred in his visits to the United States. [61529]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: My visit to the United States from 10 September to 15 September involved meetings in New York, San
  290
  Francisco, Silicon Valley and San Diego with leading edge technology and knowledge driven businesses, venture capitalists and academics.

  On the expenses incurred, I refer to the reply I gave in writing to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my letter dated 25 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his expenses on overseas trips. [61520]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave in writing to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my letter dated 25 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the individuals he met during his visit to the United States. [61525]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: During my visit, I met representatives of leading edge technology businesses, venture capitalists and academics.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings he has had with(a) McDonald's and (b) Manpower since becoming Secretary of State; and if civil servants were present. [61986]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: I have had no meetings with McDonald's or Manpower since my appointment as Secretary of State.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who was present and what was discussed at his meeting with British Telecom on 30 October. [62003]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The meeting with British Telecom was attended by the Chief Executive, Sir Peter Bonfield, and two others from BT, as well as officials from my Department. Strategic issues concerning the company and its future business were discussed.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what aspects of the Millennium Dome he discussed with Mr. S. P. Hinduja and Mr. G. P. Hinduja at his meeting on 6 October. [62203]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I met with S. P. Hinduja and G. P. Hinduja at my offices to discuss Indo-British relations. The Millennium Dome was not on the agenda, but was referred to in passing at the end of the meeting. There was no substantive discussion.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many meetings he has had with the directors or employees of Sangam Ltd. since he became the Minister responsible for the Millennium Experience; where they were held; what was the subject matter; and if civil servants were present; [62000]

  (2) how many informal meetings at which Government business was discussed he has had with the directors or employees of Sangam Ltd. since 2 May 1997; and what was the subject matter; [62001]
  291
  (3) how many meetings he has had with the directors or employees of Sangam Limited since he became Secretary of State; where they were held; what was the subject matter; and if civil servants were present; [61999]

  (4) on what dates he has had meetings with (a) Srichand P. Hinduja, Chairman and (b) Gopichand P. Hinduja, President of the Hinduja Group of Companies since 2 May 1997; what was the location of the meetings and the subject matter discussed; and if officials were present. [61977]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer I December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him today in response to questions Numbers 61976 and 62203.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many informal meetings he has had since 2 May 1997 at which Government business was discussed with(a) Srichand P. Hinduja, Chairman and (b) Gopichand P. Hinduja, President of the Hinduja Group of Companies. [61976]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: As Minister without Portfolio, I met the Hindujas on a number of occasions, sometimes formally and otherwise at social events. Since becoming Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have had one meeting with the Hindujas on 6 October.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many informal meetings at which Government business was discussed he has had with British Airways. [61993]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: In my capacity as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have had no meetings with British Airways. In my capacity as shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company, I meet Bob Ayling, the Chief Executive of BA, from time to time in his capacity as Chairman of NMEC.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the meetings he has held with the British Council relating to the promotion of trade and industry abroad. [61514]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: Since my appointment as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have opened a new British Council English language training centre in Johannesburg on 15 September and attended the Pontignano conference, hosted by the British Council, in Italy on 19 September.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) who was present and what was discussed at his meeting with British Aerospace on 26 October; [61983]

  (2) who was present and what was discussed at his meeting with British Aerospace on 7 September; [61998]

  (3) how many informal meetings at which Government business was discussed he has had with British Aerospace. [61994]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Each of these meetings with British Aerospace was attended by at least one director of British Aerospace and at least one official from my Department. On each occasion strategic issues affecting the future business of British Aerospace were discussed. I apologise to the hon.
  292
  Member for the fact that my answer to him of 19 November 1998, Official Report, columns 882–83, was incomplete, in that I also met British Aerospace on 3 September for a similar purpose. Beyond this, I have held no informal meetings with British aerospace since I was appointed Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) who was present and what was discussed at his meeting with British Aerospace on 21 October; [62004]

  (2) who was present and what was discussed at his meeting with British Aerospace on 14 November. [62005]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 2 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today in response to his questions 61983, 61998 and 61994.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings he has had with the Chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company since 30 July; what was discussed; and if officials were present. [61984]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Since 30 July, I have met the Chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) 4 times at the Millennium Experience Co-ordinating Group at which progress of the Millennium Experience project was discussed. I also met the Chairman at a working lunch at my office with other members of the New Millennium Experience Company Board and officials.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from which civil servants he has sought advice in respect of potential conflicts of interest arising from his position as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and as the sponsoring Minister of the New Millennium Experience Company; and what advice he received. [61997]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I issued on 6 August, copies of which were placed in the Library.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet in a position to make his decision on the proposal to construct a combined heat and power generating station adjacent to the Shotton paper mill in Flintshire. [62874]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Shotton Combined Heat and Power Ltd.'s application for my consent to construct a 215 MW combined heat and power generating station adjacent to the Shotton paper mill in Flintshire.

  I have placed a copy of the decision letter in the Library.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his e-mail address. [62554]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My e-mail address is "tlo.mandelson@tlo.dti.gov.uk".

  Ford Motor Company
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total value of grants paid by his Department to the Ford Motor Company since 1 May 1997. [61989]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Ford Motor Company have not received any Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) payments from this Department since 1 May 1997. However Jaguar Cars Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford, has received two RSA payments totalling £7 million during the same period.

  Electricity Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what direct representations he has made to the French Government calling for the speeding up of reciprocal changes to the French electricity market. [62220]

  Mr. Battle
  My officials have made representations to their French counterparts about the imbalance in electricity trade between the UK and France on two occasions, and we will continue to raise this issue with the French Government at both Ministerial and official level.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to ensure two-way trade on the Anglo-French electricity interconnector. [62192]

  Mr. Battle
  The steps which the Government are considering taking in order to ensure fair trade in electricity with Europe were set out in the White Paper on the Conclusions of The Review of Energy Source for Power Generation (Cm 4071). These include reviewing interconnector trading in the context of the reform of wholesale trading arrangements and the use of the reciprocity provision in the electricity liberalisation directive. There should, however, be increasing opportunities for trade in electricity following implementation of the directive in February 1999.

  Late Payment of Interest
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the response by business to legislation on the late payment of interest. [61307]

  Mrs. Roche
  Late payment has a devastating impact on Britain's small businesses. This Government are determined to improve the UK's payment culture to ensure that small businesses can thrive and prosper.

  The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 commenced on 1 November 1998 and provides small suppliers with a statutory right to claim interest on late paid bills and transfers the cost of late payment from the supplier to the late payer.

  It is too early to draw conclusions about the impact legislation has had. However, evidence from other European Countries who have introduced legislation
  294
  shows that effective legislation can tackle late payment, particularly when supported by other measures.

  British Libya Interest Group
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his response to the latest representations of the British Libya Interest Group. [61462]

  Mr. Wilson
  The position of Her Majesty's Government is well known. Following recent representations from the British Libyan Business Group (BLBG), my officials will be meeting with their Chairman, Mr. Kevin Boyle, and others to listen to their concerns on 10 December 1998.

  Agriculture (Producer Rights)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to require the Office of Fair Trading to review producer-wholesaler trading and the rights of producers with regards to the agricultural industry. [61937]

  Dr. Howells
  It is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to monitor markets and investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour.

  He is currently carrying out an inquiry into the profitability of the major supermarkets in the grocery sector. The scope of this inquiry is a matter for him.

  End of Life Vehicles (European Directive)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he will meet his European counterparts to discuss the European Directive on End of Life Vehicles; [61061]

  (2) if he will ensure that special steel is given an exemption from the European Directive on the lead content of end of life vehicles. [61060]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will be attending the Environment Council on 21 December, and the Government understand that the Austrian Presidency is likely to put the draft End of Life Vehicles Directive on the agenda.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what format reports from representatives of Her Majesty's Government who are members of the United Kingdom delegation to the World Trade Organisation are lodged. [61166]

  Mr. Wilson
  They take the form of letters, telegrams or telephone conversations to Government Departments with an interest in the particular issue.
  295
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the CVs of the representatives of Her Majesty's Government who are members of the United Kingdom delegation to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva are made public. [61163]

  Mr. Wilson
  Biographies of diplomatic staff appear in "The Diplomatic Service List" published annually by The Stationery Office. There are no rules on the provision of CVs to the public, this would be a matter for the individuals concerned.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what formal liaison takes place between the representatives of Her Majesty's Government on the United Kingdom delegations to(a) the World Trade Organisation in Geneva and (b) the European Union. [61164]

  Mr. Wilson
  Representatives in the two delegations liaise closely with each other and with Government Departments. When appropriate, members of the United Kingdom Delegation to the World Trade Organisation may attend formal European Union meetings.

  Telephone Sales
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines exist regarding(a) telephone sales calls and (b) inducing residents to call high-cost telephone numbers in order to
  296
  claim prizes offered through unsolicited mail (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) from abroad; and if he will make a statement. [61503]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The information requested is:
  a (i) Under the Telecommunications Act 1984, UK companies using telephone marketing are subject to a class licence which contains measures aimed at limiting potential nuisance. In addition, the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) is a scheme to help residential customers reduce the number of telesales calls they receive. Residential customers can register for inclusion in a database against which companies selling via the telephone can voluntarily "clean" their mailing lists.
  However, the Government are considering introducing an "opt-out" scheme for individual subscribers under the EC Telecoms Data Protection Directive as soon as is practicable in 1999. This scheme will be mandatory for companies selling by telephone.
  a (ii) The EC Directive also applies to other Members States. Complaints about unsolicited telephone sales calls from abroad are extremely rare.
  b (i and ii) Whether provided from the UK or abroad, mailshots encouraging residents to call high-cost lines to claim prizes are part of the Premium Rate Services (PRS) industry and are regulated by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) through a Code of Practice which covers the promotional material for and the duration of competitions and games with prizes. ICSTIS can fine service providers who breach the code and can recommend that network operators bar access to companies' services which breach the Code.
  Members of the public can raise concerns about particular PRS services by telephoning ICSTIS' free complaints line on 0800 500212.

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.

Civil Servants: Working Time Directive
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the circumstances in which civil servants in press and private offices can be exempted from the rules governing the 48-hour working week.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, civil servants in the press and private offices, like any other worker, can choose to work more than an average of 48 hours a week where they have agreed to do so voluntarily. As with any other worker, they can change their mind subsequently at any time.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is the report in the press correct that civil servants in these appointments have individually to sign agreements that they are not affected by the 48-hour rule? If so, will share fishermen be able to do the same? They still face an EU working directive which threatens seriously to damage their livelihood.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord's first question is not quite right. It is not that they sign that they are not affected. They sign that they voluntarily agree to work more than 48 hours a week on average. As regards share fishermen, we and the European Commission understand the difficulty because they are not paid in the same way as anyone else. It has proved impossible, for example, to use the working time directive to give them four weeks' paid holiday. But the Commission is seeking to reduce the number of exclusions from the directive. It will have to do so with our agreement; and our agreement will come only after detailed consultation with the fishing industry.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am sympathetic to the situation of the civil servants? I was assigned by the Foreign Office to work for two years for the Prime Minister, then Mr. Churchill. The number of staff at Number 10 and the Cabinet Office was very small compared with today. Incidentally, I was succeeded in that position by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, whom I am glad to see in his place. I should add that I also worked very long hours for Mr. Ernest Bevin and other Labour Foreign Office Ministers but I was happy to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should be sad to think that the noble Lord worked harder for Labour Ministers than for Conservative Ministers. He may like to know that the detailed inquiries we have
594
been able to make indicate that workers in press offices do not normally work longer than 48 hours. It is not a problem for them. Duty press officers are on for a limited part of the time. There is a problem in the DTI where private office staff work on average 40 hours a week. That is being addressed, as indeed it is being addressed for the staff of your Lordships' House.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, were the press officers working longer hours yesterday?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought it was Conservative spin doctors and control freaks who were working overtime yesterday.

Malaysia
3.4 p.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current assessment of relations between the United Kingdom and Malaysia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Malaysia is an important economic partner for the United Kingdom, with strong historical links and shared membership of the Commonwealth. But this has not inhibited us from instituting a frank dialogue on human rights issues, including the treatment of Anwar Ibrahim.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, what specific action have the Government taken to satisfy themselves that in the case of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, international standards for fair trial, including the presumption of innocence of the accused, are being observed, that the Malaysian law is being applied all the time in accordance with the basic human rights principles, and that the law is not being misused to detain or imprison him solely for the non-violent expression of his political views?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been following the case closely. We have taken every opportunity to raise our concerns bilaterally. The Secretary of State raised the case with the Malaysian Prime Minister on 21st September, and with the Malaysian Foreign Minister on 24th September. We have also raised our concerns through our High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. Moreover, the presidency issued a declaration on 2nd October expressing deep concern about the reports of physical mistreatment of Anwar Ibrahim and calling on the Malaysian authorities to guarantee the rule of law and to respect human rights.
The latest EU statement was only last week on 27th November. That expressed concern that the Malaysian authorities still have not published the results

595
of the investigation. The EU urged them to do so. There has also been an observer from the Bar Council, Mr. Charles Flint, QC.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the Minister's action will certainly win the approval of this House. Does my noble friend think that it might be helpful to engage the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Secretary in making, if possible, similar representations, in particular now that, since the Harare Declaration, the Commonwealth is committed to democracy and human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the members of the Commonwealth are expected to adhere to the principles of the Harare Declaration, as my noble friend indicates. But it is for the Commonwealth Heads of Government to set that agenda. This was discussed by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group only last month. I regret to say that there was no consensus at that meeting. The next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is in November 1999. That will be an opportunity to discuss the issue if the situation in Malaysia has not improved in the intervening months.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Government also take an active interest in the case of Mr. Param Cumaraswamy, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of the judiciary, who is being sued for libel in the courts of Malaysia in circumstances which certainly look as though they are intended to silence him?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the EU has raised our concern about Mr. Cumaraswamy's case relating to his right of immunity as a UN rapporteur, as the noble Lord indicates. We have raised those concerns with the Government of Malaysia. The UK also made a statement on Mr. Cumaraswamy's case at the UN, expressing regret that the Government of Malaysia had taken such actions. Malaysians can be in no doubt that problems of this kind do not help their international reputation.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I think that we would all agree that it is right that the Government and the European Union should take actions in any way they can in support of democracy and human rights in Malaysia. Will the Minister confirm that it would be the view of the British Government that no third country could exert extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction over actions which are committed in Malaysia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, extra-territorial jurisdictions vary enormously from country to country and I am sure the noble Lord will understand why, at the moment, it would be improper for me to go any further on that issue
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take into account a rather different side of the coin? There are many thousands of Malaysian
596
students in this country who are already in considerable difficulties because of the great fall in the value of their local currency against sterling in recent months. Many of those students are here under the aegis of the British Council, of whose board I am a member. Many of them will become extremely important citizens in Malaysia in the future. Will the Minister take all possible action to ensure that the natural outcry against Malaysia for its human rights abuses does not impinge on the future of those students in this country? Will she ensure that everything possible is done to help them financially?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Britain and Malaysia co-operate extremely closely in the field of education. The largest overseas student contingent in the United Kingdom is Malaysian. We have seen as many as 20,000 students in the United Kingdom at any one time. It is enormously important that relationships for the future are properly fostered and nurtured in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does the Minister have any information about the frigates under construction in the Yarrow yard, which I understand should have been delivered to the Malaysian Navy in 1996?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. GEC Yarrows signed a contract in 1992 to deliver two frigates to the Royal Malaysian Navy, as the noble Lord suggests, in 1996. Sea acceptance tests are currently under way and we hope that the ships will be delivered in mid-1999.

Turkey: Political Detainees
3.11 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to the continued detention of Leyla Zana and other DEP members of the Turkish parliament in the light of decisions of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights that the proceedings leading up to their detention were in breach of the European convention.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, we regard the prosecution of democratically elected politicians for the non-violent expression of their views as wrong. In the case of Ms Zana and the other former Democracy Party (DEP) members of the Turkish parliament, we support the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in November 1997 that the original detention of the MPs was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We welcome the Turkish Government's acknowledgement of the court's judgment and the payment of compensation awarded to the defendants.

597
We understand that a number of other aspects of the case of the former DEP MPs are still before the court, and we continue to monitor all developments closely.
Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I remind her that Leyla Zana's sentence has been extended for no reason other than that she wrote a letter on her opinion of what was happening to her in jail. Can we not remind the Turkish government, if they really believe in human rights, that they must release elected members of parliament if Turkey ever hopes to become part of the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the issue of human rights and civil liberties in Turkey is one which Her Majesty's Government and our colleagues in the EU are pursuing with the Turkish government as part of their application. What has happened to Ms Zana is extremely regrettable. I have taken note of the points which the noble Lord has made. In my initial Answer, I hope that I made the Government's position very clear on the issue of detaining MPs for the non-violent expression of their beliefs.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have any information as to whether or not Mr. Murat Bozlak and more than 250 leading members of the HADEP party, who were recently arrested, have been released or charged?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been extremely concerned about the continuing reports of the raids on the HADEP offices and the detention of its officials. Our ambassador in Turkey has raised with the Prime Minister's office in Turkey as recently as 24th November the reports of 3,000 HADEP members and officials being detained. I hope it is clear that we strongly condemn the systematic attacks on a legal and democratic party. We are extremely concerned about the news of the detention of Murat Bozlak. We continue to reinforce to the Turks that they will be judged internationally by their treatment of legal and democratic parties.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the United States' view that the European Union's failure to put Turkey on the same basis as the other 11 aspirant countries for EC membership was a mistake?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord will be surprised to learn that, no, Her Majesty's Government do not agree with the United States view on that. The Government believe that the action which was taken in relation to Turkey was the right action. We were able to go forward at Cardiff in a very constructive way. The Government, both bilaterally and through the EU, have offered Turkey considerable help on progressing its application to join the EU.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that conditions for joining the European
598
Community which apply to Turkey are exactly the same as those which apply to all other applicants to the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can confirm that that is the position. The conditions are the same for all applicants.
Lord Rea: My Lords, would it not be better for the European Union to present its case to Turkey more in terms of carrots than sticks; in other words, to offer conditional advantages to Turkey if only it accelerates its improvement in relation to human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I urge my noble friend Lord Rea to read the statements coming from the Cardiff European Council, which gave us a good basis on which to take forward relations with Turkey. The Council endorsed the European strategy for Turkey; agreed annual reports on Turkey's progress towards a readiness for EU membership; and noted the Commission's intention to bring forward new proposals for funding.
There has been good progress on the European strategy. It aims to develop relations with Turkey across the board as well as building on the customs union. The Commission made a very useful first visit to Ankara in September to discuss the details of that strategy. Therefore, I believe that the policy is one of carrots. There may be a few sticks but there are many carrots too.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, now that the Minister has had time to think again, does she know whether the Government believe that any third countries have extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction over Turkey?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know whether any countries have extra-territorial jurisdiction over Turkey. If the noble Lord would like me to research that interesting question, I shall of course do so and write to him.

Turkey: Kurdish Conflict
3.17 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will join the Italian Government in using the request of the PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, for political asylum as an opportunity, under United Nations or pan-European auspices, to start negotiating an end to the conflict in south eastern Turkey.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government support the Italian Government's determination to fully implement its laws and treaty obligations in the case of the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), Abdullah Ocalan. The question of political asylum is a decision for the Italian Government. We have made clear that we regard the PKK as a terrorist organisation.

599
We are aware that, on 27th November, Chancellor Schröder and Prime Minister D'Alema discussed the possibility of an international conference on the Kurds. Mr. D'Alema also raised this issue with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister during their talks in London on 30th November. We do not judge that there is, at present, any scope for a multilateral negotiating process to address this issue.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. It perhaps gives some hope that we may take a positive line on this. Is the Minister aware that Ocalan, like many others who have been branded terrorists, is now genuinely interested in open-ended talks aimed at ending the conflict in south east Turkey? That is a conflict which has been many times more destructive than that in Kosovo, and that conflict is one which interests both Europe and the United States.
Is she further aware—the Minister acknowledged it in her Answer—that several other countries in Europe feel that Ocalan's presence should be used to set up a procedure not only to examine any charges against him but also to examine critically the whole question of the origins of and possible solutions to the conflict in south east Turkey through, perhaps, the OSCE, the Council of Europe or even the United Nations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I urge my noble friend Lord Rea to be cautious on this issue. Mr. Ocalan is the leader of a brutal terrorist group which was responsible for the death and injury of British citizens and for thousands of deaths within the Turkish and Kurdish communities in Turkey. My noble friend says that perhaps Mr. Ocalan has changed his mind about the use of violence. However, we are not convinced by the PKK's recent announcement of a cease-fire. There have been numerous such announcements in the past and none has been sustained.
We note that there was a suicide bombing incident in south east Turkey on 17th November in which a number of civilians were injured, and another suicide attack in Diyarbakir on 1st December. It is proper and right that I should draw your Lordships' attention to the claims of the PKK in the past few days that they shot down a Turkish military helicopter in south east Turkey. Neither the suicide bombings nor the shooting down of the helicopter seem consistent, in our view, with the claims that the PKK has renounced violence.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, three times over, the PKK has offered cease-fires which were rejected with scorn by the Turkish Government? Is it not true also that, instead of demanding a separate Kurdish state, it is now prepared to settle for autonomy? Is not that a great step forward and an indication that there are possibilities for a negotiated settlement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important that those who say they renounce violence demonstrate that what they are saying can be relied upon. The incidents which I detailed to your Lordships,
600
three of which have happened in the past two weeks, indicate that it is unlikely that the Turkish Government will want to have those sorts of discussions with the PKK.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the conflict with the PKK has led to an overshadowing of the plight of other minorities in south east Turkey, such as the Chaldeans and the Syriacs? They have seen their numbers reduced from 30,000 to around 3,000 and their monasteries and villages systemically destroyed. Will the Minister undertake to instruct our officials in Turkey to continue to watch the violations of religious and political liberties that take place in Turkey and to raise those matters on a bilateral basis with the Turkish Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we already raise those issues with the Turkish Government on a frequent basis. I raised those issues when I was in Ankara a few months ago. The conflict with the PKK has a camouflaging effect on other difficult situations regarding minorities in Turkey. But I am happy to assure the noble Lord that I shall ask officials to continue to be as vigilant in the future as I know they have been in the past about violations of human rights.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the presence of 3 million people of Turkish birth or descent within the European Union, a substantial minority of whom are Kurds, means that the European Union is necessarily involved in that internal conflict? Does she accept also that the presence of a Turkish minority in Britain, as well as a number of Kurds and the one Kurdish language television station currently broadcasting, means that the British Government must play some role in this delicate situation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, used the word "involved". We have a clear interest in what is happening in Turkey. It could not be said constitutionally that we are involved, but Her Majesty's Government have dealt with a number of these issues with our colleagues in Turkey and are also discussing the issue relating to MED TV, to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for the many answers she has given today. But perhaps she can help me with one final question. Following Italy's refusal to grant Turkey's request for the extradition of Abdullah Ocalan on the specific grounds that Italy's constitution does not allow extradition to countries with capital punishment, what is the Government's policy on such extradition?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord warmly for his questions and perhaps I may say how delightful it is to see him in his place. Each of these cases, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, must be dealt with on its merits. Her

601
Majesty's Government make their view on capital punishment clear to the countries with whom we are good friends as well as to countries where we perhaps have marginally less cordial relations. However, I urge the noble Lord to look at each case as it arises, as Her Majesty's Government will be doing.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the noble Baroness twice described the PKK as a terrorist organisation. It cannot be denied that it has been guilty of terrorist acts, but do not those acts pale into insignificance compared to the terrorist acts committed by the Turkish army in south east Turkey, which included the destruction of 2,700 Kurdish villages?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I made clear to your Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Government take a serious view about infringement of human rights in Turkey and that we raise those issues with the government of Turkey when we can. We are committed to trying to work with Turkey to overcome some of these problems. However, I ask the noble Lord not to allow himself to put on one side the dreadful crimes of which the PKK has undoubtedly been guilty, including kidnapping, murder, threats, intimidation, extortion and racketeering. The PKK has been guilty of raids on schools, and some of its activities have directly resulted in the deaths of British citizens. We should not allow ourselves to become blinded to that point.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one final question. With regard to the breaking of the cease-fire, when one declares such a cease-fire but is then attacked by a helicopter gunship, what does one do?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord's question begs the question of the exact circumstances in which that incident took place. But he must ask himself what an organisation is doing in declaring a cease-fire and then engaging in suicide bombings, two of which happened in the past week.

Viscount Cranborne: Tributes
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to rise briefly to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to his new position as Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. I am sure that I offer him this welcome on behalf of the whole House.
As Leader of the House, I am looking forward to working with the noble Lord. Since I became Leader a short time ago we have had extremely personal relations—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry I allowed that to slip out. The noble Lord and I have
602
had very good personal relations across the House on a number of professional and business matters and I am sure that they will continue. I also take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to his new position as the Opposition Chief Whip. I know that the Government Chief Whip will be looking forward to working with him. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is not in his place, but I am sure that we shall all benefit from his forensic and political skills in his new role as Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
On this side of the House, we have tried to keep up with the changes and movement which have taken place on the Opposition Front Bench in the past few hours, but among those resignations which I understand have occurred is that of the Deputy Leader, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. We were sorry to hear that. Again, I had good personal contact with him both inside and outside the House, and we wish the noble and learned Lord well.
We were all saddened by the circumstances in which these changes occurred and I should like to pay a warm tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I was genuinely deeply saddened by the noble Viscount's resignation yesterday. In my position as a relatively new Leader of your Lordships' House, he was always extraordinarily kind and helpful to me and offered me valuable advice. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I was brought up to believe, and indeed learnt in my professional life, that one can often disagree fairly firmly with other people about matters of policy and so forth and yet retain cordial and friendly relationships with them. For my part, I have to say that that was my experience of my dealings and my professional conversations with the noble Viscount. I am very sorry that those will no longer take place in the way that they did.
No one in your Lordships' House can underestimate or undervalue the role that the noble Viscount played both as Leader of the House and, subsequently, as Leader of the Opposition, especially in understanding and preserving the very important role that he understood this House to have within the constitution. It is important to recognise that his authority and the arguments that he put forward on a number of occasions in that context have been very powerful. Personally, I expect that we shall see those continued from his other position now on the Back Benches. I am sure that we shall value the noble Viscount's authoritative contributions to those discussions which we shall have on matters affecting your Lordships' House, as well as on other issues.
Although I was aware that the noble Viscount would not be in his place this afternoon, I did not want this occasion to pass without, in a sense, being able to convey my personal thanks for the role that he played in my understanding of the role of Leader of your Lordships'

603
House and, indeed, for the understanding that I think he brought to all our discussions about the constitutional importance and the political role of this House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, perhaps I may associate those of us on these Benches with all the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in her elegant remarks. I should like to refer only—and I hope that this will not be misunderstood—to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Whether he is a loss to his party is a matter for it to decide. However, all of us who have had experience of him in this House believe that he will be a loss to your Lordships' House in the role that he performed both as Leader of the House and thereafter in accomplishing the very difficult transition from government to opposition after 18 years. He managed that with very considerable skill and I do not believe that that should be forgotten by all those who were the beneficiaries of it.
Perhaps I may add the following without perhaps introducing any further note into our remarks. When the Labour Party was in opposition, I understand that it elected its leader in this House. Indeed, I and my predecessors were elected by my colleagues here. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wants to remove the possibility of sacking, I recommend that, while he retains the confidence of his own troops, he should get elected by them very quickly.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, from the Cross-Benches perhaps I may reinforce the tributes that have been paid today to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. In all our dealings with him, we have always found him to be wholly reliable, honourable and indeed very courteous. In particular, I wish to pay a special tribute to him for his assistance in facilitating the agreement with the Government which resulted in the announcement made yesterday by my noble friends Lord Carnarvon, Lord Marsh and myself about the interim arrangements for your Lordships' House between the government Bill for reform of this House and the second stage. Without the noble Viscount's wise guidance and advice and indeed his negotiating skills, I have to say that that agreement would not have been possible. We look forward to having the same good relations with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as we had with his predecessor.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, from the Bishops' Benches perhaps I may add our own appreciation of the work of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. A bishop of Lincoln knows quite a bit about local difficulties.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: I hope, my Lords, that that makes him more sensitive to the difficulties of the Opposition. However, we thank the noble Viscount for his courtesy and kindness to us. Those of us who flit in and
604
out of the House, rather more perhaps than Members on other Benches, do appreciate the kindness and courtesy which all Leaders and Officers of the House show to us. We assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, of our concern and our prayers for him. We wish him well in the onerous task that he faces.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her very kind and generous words of welcome which were given in her customarily charming way. I have to say that "customary charm" has become a little hit of a Sicilian cliché. but I very much adhere to the sentiments behind it. I shall have to think of a new way of describing my warm relationship with the noble Baroness, other than simply referring to "personal relations".
On behalf of my noble friend the Chief Whip and the new Deputy Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for her expressions of good will. Since the noble Baroness became Leader of the House, the House of Lords has rarely been off the front pages of newspapers. However, I know that that has not always been her fault.
I do not wish to do this on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, but, if he were present, I know that he would thank the noble Baroness very much for what she said and indeed that he would thank other noble Lords for what they have said about his role in this House both as Leader of the House when we were in government and through the transitional phase when we became the Opposition. As his Chief Whip during that period, I learnt a great deal, not just about the management of this House but also about various political skills. I hope that I shall be able to put those skills to some use in the months ahead. It is a source of very great personal regret to me that my noble friend has left the Opposition Front Bench, but I wholly understand the reasons why this has happened.
I know that this House can only manage its business with the co-operation and agreement of all sides of the House. As Leader of the Opposition, I wish to follow the very clear example that has been set not just by my predecessor but also by the noble Baroness's predecessors when the Labour Party was in opposition to try to effect the very best management of business in this House. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall not be a soft touch. We have taken some hard blows over the course of the past 24 hours. But, after we have retired briefly to lick our wounds, we shall return Hydra-like to be as effective and thorough in opposition as we always have been.

Business
3.38 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on teachers: rewarding and restructuring.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be of convenience to your Lordships if I say a few words about the Christmas

605
Recess. Subject to the progress of business, it is expected that the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday 17th December. We expect that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. It is also expected that the House will return on Thursday 7th January—again, subject to the progress of business. I can certainly confirm that the House will not return before that day. Indeed, rumours which have appeared in press reports stating that the House will sit on Boxing Day are completely untrue, not least because Southampton will be playing Chelsea on that day and this Chief Whip fully intends to be there.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why now is not "a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m." for us to deal with the Statement? Alternatively, if it is not, can the noble Lord say whether immediately after the Bills have been introduced would be a convenient moment for the Statement, rather than interrupting the subsequent debate?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Statement has yet been dealt with in the other place. In the normal course of events, the timing for the taking of the Statement is agreed between the usual channels for the convenience of all the Peers involved.

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the enforcement of contractual terms by third parties. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Trustee Delegation Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the delegation of trustees' functions by power of attorney and the exercise of such functions by the donee of a power of attorney; and to make provision about the authority of the donee of a power of attorney to act in relation to land. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the referral of offenders under 18 to youth offender panels; to make provision in connection with the giving of evidence or information for the
606
purposes of criminal proceedings; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Disability Rights Commission Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a Disability Rights Commission and make provision as to its functions; 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 Blackstone.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Parliamentary Privilege: Joint Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of Monday last be now considered and that a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons, as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to review parliamentary privilege and make recommendations there on;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Mayhew of Twysden,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

L. Nicholls of Birkenhead,

L. Waddington,

L. Wigoder;

That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time shall, if the

607
Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out; and
That the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. being Members of either House, may attend the Committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive Committee papers and may give such other assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any Motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the appointment of a joint committee of both Houses to consider parliamentary privilege. Will the noble Lord do everything that he can to increase the number of such joint committees so that Members of another place may benefit from the experience, expertise and wisdom of Members of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I might be misreading the Motion of the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, but in relation to the last paragraph I see that among those who will be entitled to attend the committee and take part in its deliberations are the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. Once the Scottish Parliament is up and running and those two officers of state will not be Members of either House but Members of the Scottish Parliament, what will happen to Scottish interests in relation to parliamentary privilege and that committee?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am sure that he will appreciate that my own powers in those matters are strictly limited. Any consideration of the points that he has raised will be for at least two other committees of your Lordships' House, namely the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee. I shall ensure that what the noble Lord has said will be taken into account by any relevant committees at the appropriate time.
As to the point raised by the noble Baroness, those matters will be for the Scottish Parliament once it is set up. There is nothing I can usefully add to that today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Delegated Powers and Deregulation>: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; to report on documents laid before Parliament under Section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft orders laid under Section 1(4) of that Act; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
608
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Alexander of Weedon (Chairman),

L. Ampthill,

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Dahrendorf,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Goodhart,

L. Mayhew of Twysden,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

L. Prys-Davies,

L. Waddington.

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees;
That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the Committee or a sub-committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any sub-committee shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Committee do meet on Wednesday 9th December at half- past ten o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise for giving very short notice of my question to the noble Lord. It has caught my eye that this committee is to have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, a facility which was never required when I was a member of it. I wonder whether this signifies a widening of its remit or whether there is some other reason why it should wish to vacate Westminster.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for giving me notice of that question. This is not an unusual power to give to Select Committees of your Lordships' House. I am sure that he will understand that I would not wish to pre-empt any decisions which the committee might make if your Lordships approve this Motion today. I am sure that that committee will bear in mind the request of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and will furnish information about the point he has raised once it has considered it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion

609
of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee considers that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Berkeley,

V. Bledisloe,

L. Borrie,

V. Brookeborough,

E. Cranbrook,

L. Geddes,

L. Gisborough,

L. Goodhart,

L. Grenfell,

L. Hope of Craighead,

L. Howell of Guildford,

L. Hussey of North Bradley,

B. O'Cathain,

L. Reay,

L. Tomlinson,

L. Tordoff (Chairman),

B. Uddin,

L. Wallace of Saltaire,

L. Walpole,

L. Willoughby de Broke.

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 8th December at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I would like to put a question that I have put before to the noble Lord about appointments to this committee. I take it that the usual channels have been involved in the appointment
610
of new members to this committee. I would remind the noble Lord that opposition to matters stemming from Brussels and from the Treaty of Rome do not run along party lines. Indeed, they have not done so for a number of years. Did the committee, in making these appointments, bear that fact in mind? At first sight the present composition of this committee does not reflect the opposition which runs against the Treaty of Rome in your Lordships' House.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, perhaps I can assist the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in replying to that question. Subjects which come before your Lordships' committees do not divide on party lines, nor do they divide on issues of scepticism or non-scepticism. It is the function of your Lordships' committees to take evidence on matters which are brought before them and to make decisions based on that evidence. It is true to say that there are a number of members of all the sub-committees and the Select Committee who have varying degrees of scepticism or support for the European Union. On a day-to-day basis, that does not come into their decision-making processes. They present information to your Lordships' House in a purely independent-minded kind of way on the basis of evidence which is put before them. I do wish that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would understand that. It is an answer that has been given to him many times in the past.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to that. I have had the privilege of sitting on your Lordships' Select Committee for a number of years—and indeed one of the sub-committees—and I do not accept the interpretation that the noble Lord has put on the question that I asked.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Tordoff, the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, for his intervention. It may be of interest to those of your Lordships who are comparatively new to your Lordships' House to know that he is the one person your Lordships allow me to call my noble friend. I have only one noble friend in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships may feel that that is no more than I deserve.
As to the substance of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I would only add to what my noble friend has said. I can confirm that the usual consultations have taken place and that the usual channels have of course conducted those consultations. I am very grateful to them—as I think your Lordships are on a variety of matters—for the work that they undertake in this respect. Different strands of opinion are from time to time taken into account in the proposals for the appointment of members to your Lordships' Select Committees. If I may say so—with the impartiality that your Lordships would expect from the holder of this office—on a day like this, on the afternoon following the night before, it is not always easy to predict the variety of ways in which your Lordships will exercise your Lordships' independence.

611
It is not always possible to take into account those differences of view. I hope that what my noble friend and I have said will go at least some small way towards satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Public Service: Select Committee Report
3.50 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Slynn of Hadley rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the Select Committee on the Public Service (HL Paper 55, Session 1997–98).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships will recall a debate in this House on 8th March 1996, which was a Friday. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, called for the abandonment by the Government of plans to privatise the Recruitment and Assessment Services. During the debate he stressed the fact that our Civil Service had three features. First, it was a career service whose members could give frank advice without fear that their contract would be ended or would not be renewed; secondly, it was a unified Civil Service, bound together by a common ethos by which the best talents in any department could he promoted and moved across departments. Thirdly, it was a service which was recruited through open competition by an independent body.
The noble Lord stressed that the first and second of those features had over the years been chipped away and that the third would disappear if RAS, as it became known, was privatised. He said:
"We are engaged … in an historic debate".—[Official Report, 8/3/96; col. 543.]
He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who criticised the breach of a long-standing tradition that changes in recruitment or structure and other reforms of the Civil Service should be made after consideration by Parliament as a whole or by an independent body, a tradition which ensured the neutrality, the independence and the integrity of the Civil Service. He called for a Select Committee to consider the proposals. That committee was set up by your Lordships' House in the following month to,
"consider the present condition and future development of the public service in Great Britain with particular regard to the effectiveness of recent and continuing changes and their impact on standards of conduct and service in the public interest".
The Liaison Committee of your Lordships' House recommended that the Select Committee should begin by reporting as a matter of urgency on the Government's plans for the future of RAS. We were urged to report before the Summer Recess, which we did on 16th July, after being told in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that the committee had been driven at a ferocious pace. We concluded in a unanimous report that the case for privatisation was not made out and that there were positive reasons against it. We urged the Government to reconsider the matter.
The debate on our report was remarkable for a number of reasons, outstanding among which was the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, which is to be found in Hansard for 25th July 1996 (at col. 1551). The noble Baroness recognised that the Civil Service, like other large organisations, probably needs some reform, but she urged the committee to proceed with its work so that there could be a full debate in the next Session. The thrust of her speech was in the direction that we should keep the Civil Service in such shape that the young would still be able to choose the public service and its ethos, which is a noble one.
If your Lordships read literally our terms of reference, they were very wide. They were cut down by the exclusion of local government, the National Health Service and educational institutions. That still left all government departments, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other agencies created by or working for the public service. To carry out such an investigation in depth would have taken a very long time and we were urged again and again to report as soon as was reasonably possible.
In those circumstances, we reached a compromise. We decided that we should begin by investigating a number of departments in depth, excluding the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and then see more briefly whether our tentative conclusions could be taken as representative of the Civil Service as a whole. It was essential to do that because there are so many differences between the departments. We were satisfied that our detailed conclusions were broadly representative.
It was necessary and useful to investigate and record briefly the changes which had occurred since the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1853 laid down the criteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, had referred in his speech. Some of these changes had occurred through reports such as the Fulton Report, the Priestley Royal Commission and the Pliatzky Report and others had developed in reaction to changes in thinking and practice in commerce and industry and against the background of extensive social and political changes.
The changes which we traced through in our report were extensive. We were satisfied that outside Parliament people were not aware of or discussed the changes taking place. We recommend for the future that proposals for structural change should be reported to Parliament and that such a report should be referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, which would then say whether it was appropriate for the matter to be the subject of a debate by your Lordships.
The first significant point which struck one throughout the inquiry was that many of the traditional functions of the departments of state on the surface appeared to have been taken away from those departments. Some functions were sold off—privatised. We did not receive evidence to suggest that where that had been done it should be reversed, although we said in regard to RAS—what in my opinion should apply to other forms of privatisation—that the operations which had been sold off should be reviewed before any agreement for renewal was made.
Other functions were attributed to non-departmental public bodies, of which there are many kinds, which are more independent than the departments and, on the whole, are not staffed by civil servants but by staff employed on short-term contracts. Others were attributed to what are called executive agencies. The phrase is misleading, perhaps if only to a lawyer, since it suggests that the agencies are separate bodies acting on behalf of departments, whereas it emerged quite clearly that the agencies are not separate bodies but are units with functions inside the departments themselves. It was suggested to us that the core department should be concerned with policy. The agency was concerned with detailed administration. That distinction is not clear-cut and is unworkable. The two aspects—operations and policy—clearly overlap. Each influences the other.
We came to the conclusion that there did not appear to have been at any time a clearly defined policy as to which of these three structural changes should be adopted in any particular case. If further changes are to be made, we recommend that it should be explained fully why they are being dealt with in the particular way adopted.
It is obvious from even what I have said so far that we have moved far away from a unified service. The question was whether, as some witnesses suggested, that change had caused a harmful fragmentation of the civil service. In the end, we did not think, despite the division of functions, that that had occurred. However, we recommend that the operation of those bodies should be observed before further changes are made. In particular, we consider it essential that policy decisions should remain with the core Civil Service.
The question was whether the executive agencies had assisted the Civil Service or produced results that were disadvantageous. It seemed to us on the evidence that overall the executive agencies had performed well. That was shown to be so particularly by the Contributions and Benefit Agencies of the Department of Social Security. It is clear that there had been both for the customer and the Civil Service advantages in that change. It is important that the chief executives of agencies should be answerable to Ministers and that Ministers should ultimately be answerable to Parliament for the activities of executive agencies as well as for the core department.
Almost all witnesses attached great importance to the Civil Service ethos, integrity, loyalty to the Crown, commitment to the task and frankness—a "No, Minister" approach that everyone thought ought to be encouraged. Although employees in the private sector no doubt have those qualities, they are of particular significance in the Civil Service, where the job involves genuinely a form of service to the public. We attach the greatest importance to maintaining that ethos. A high quality Civil Service is crucial for the well-being of the state. It is no less crucial a factor in producing high-quality candidates for appointments. That depends in large part on nurturing, not merely leaving on one side or controlling, the ethos of the Civil Service.
Maintaining that ethos depends to a substantial degree on the morale of the Civil Service, which we were told by some witnesses is low. Perhaps that is due to pay being lower than in the private sector, the substantial reduction in the number of civil servants or recognition that appointment to the Civil Service no longer necessarily means a career for life. I confess, to my surprise that the evidence indicated that morale was not affected adversely by the recruitment of outsiders to higher appointments in the Civil Service but in our view, that practice needs to be watched and changes made in light of further experience.
There seems little doubt that recently many in the Civil Service have felt unsettled, which has an effect on morale and, in the long term, on efficiency. We believe that feeling is likely to have been encouraged by the frequency of change in the past 30 or 40 years. In the interests of restoring or maintaining morale, the effect of recent changes should be reflected upon and fine tuned, rather than introducing major changes without proper consultation.
We were concerned to see whether the use over 20 years of a new type of political adviser, paid from public funds, had been harmful. We have no evidence that it had been harmful or that members of the Civil Service resented such appointments. However, we believe that it is essential to monitor that aspect to avoid Civil Service independence or areas of legitimate activity being blurred by such appointments.
We recommend on balance, for the reasons set out in the report, the introduction of a Civil Service Act to take care of some of the concerns that we have expressed. Overall, we conclude that the country can be proud and should be proud of a Civil Service based on the ethos to which we have referred.
We were greatly helped in our work by our special advisers, Professor Richard Chapman of the University of Durham and Ms Janet Lewis-Jones, who brought considerable expertise to our deliberations. I pay particular tribute to our Clerk, Mrs. Mary Bloor. Her considerable ability, dedication to the task and doggedly independent advice to the chairman were in keeping with the highest traditions of the Civil Service to which I have referred.
I am most grateful to my colleagues on the committee who read voluminous evidence and met on many occasions—often at inconvenient times—to finish as soon as we possibly could. We took evidence from two Ministers, eight departments of state, three agencies, a number of retired civil servants, academics, unions, expert charities and so on. That evidence was of the greatest possible help. I hope that they will not think it impertinent when I say that I cannot envisage any other parliamentary institution where such experience and commitment can be brought together without remuneration for such an important task.
It was probably unlikely from the beginning that our report would be a show stopper but there were serious matters to be considered. It is something of a relief that, after detailed examination, the report was not a show stopper. It did not appear that the whole structure of the administration was falling apart, even if there were some things to be remedied.
Despite that, there are serious caveats that we urge governments now and in future to bear in mind for the detailed reasons set out in the report of the committee. I beg to move.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it is with more than usual trepidation that I rise to speak in this debate. Having left the Civil Service in the lowly position of Principal, I find myself speaking in a debate with a bevy of former permanent secretaries and a number of senior judges, which is a particularly daunting task.
We are debating an important report, and some of its findings are relatively reassuring—the high standards of impartiality, integrity and intellectual rigour that cover and characterise the Civil Service remain. Other findings are quite worrying. The report refers to the lack of rationale for recent changes in the organisation of the Civil Service. It refers also to an absence of debate on the proper sphere of government and it mentions low morale.
There are clearly a number of components to low morale in the civil service. Two are particularly important. The first relates to the lack of esteem in which Civil Servants are held, which in my view depends crucially on the lead given by government. In my final years in the Civil Service the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, made it perfectly clear that she had a poor opinion of the ability of the Civil Service to deal with the tasks it was given. Although I do not believe that view was shared by the noble Baroness's successor, a significant amount of damage was done in the early 1980s in the sense that people who were working extremely hard at difficult tasks were not appreciated at the highest levels of government.
The present Government, particularly the Treasury, have made some of the same mistakes and sometimes behave as though civil servants are a pathetic lot who have not caught up with modern reality and that only Ministers and, in some cases, special advisers are capable of getting to grips with issues.
Again, I think this is a damaging attitude of mind. I know that it does not prevail across the whole of government and I hope that it diminishes rapidly as Ministers gain more experience of office.
The second issue which has led to a lack of morale in the Civil Service is inevitably the question of pay, on which this report is almost totally silent. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies revealed in its recent report on public sector pay, the differential between the public and private sectors has diminished over time. For women the public/private sector pay differential has halved from about 16 per cent. in the early 1980s to about 8 per cent. in the early 1990s. For men the differential, when corrected for occupational composition, has declined from about 8 per cent. to nothing in the same period. These are substantial declines. The figures relate to a period a couple of years ago. I think that when they are updated they will reveal that that decline has probably
616
continued. This relative decline is felt both at the top end of the Civil Service as regards policy makers, and lower down.
The Government's response to the proposal for incentive payments for teachers—about which we shall hear this afternoon—is only a partial answer. It is crucially important that all public servants, whether they are at the top of the tree or at the bottom doing rather more mundane jobs, feel that they are getting a fair rate for the job. This simply has not been the case in recent years to an increasing extent. These issues affect not just existing civil servants but also potential recruits. We hear much about problems of recruitment of teachers and nurses. However, when talking to those with politics degrees at some of our best universities, I was amazed to discover that virtually no one even considers a Civil Service career, whereas certainly when I attended university a considerable time ago it was among the most highly valued of careers and one of the most sought after. That is a major change and reflects the change of esteem in which the Civil Service is held and the low pay of civil servants. Those are two major issues and both of them need to be addressed in the longer term.
The other issue I wish to mention relates to the other points I made on the lack of rationale for recent changes and on the role of government. These are big issues and I do not intend to discuss them comprehensively this afternoon. However, I wish to mention a crucial development in this area; namely, the Government's commitment to introduce public service agreements. As the Comprehensive Spending Review explained, these agreements, which will be drawn up between the Treasury and other departments, will include the objectives of the departments and measurable efficiency and effectiveness targets. Such agreements, particularly if they are concluded after a full public debate on their content, could give a degree of clarity as to the objectives of government in individual policy areas, and clarity as to where responsibility really rests for achieving them. They would require Ministers to justify changes in policy on a much more systematic basis than at present. They would logically require payment of bonuses to civil servants and to Ministers for performance, and penalties for failure. Again this is rather in line with the Government's proposals for the teaching profession but which at the moment they do not intend to apply more widely.
While I accept that such agreements cannot easily cover some of the intangible tasks and features of the public service, which by their definition cannot be easily measured, they could nonetheless in my view benefit both civil servants and government alike. I understand that there will be a signing ceremony across a range of these public service agreements next week. Given that one of their purposes should be to increase transparency in decision-making, it seems extremely strange that there has been no consultation on them. There are understandable fears in some quarters at least among suspicious minds that they are largely an attempt by the Chancellor to impose even greater Treasury control on all aspects of government.

617
Given the potential significance of these agreements, I have a number of questions to put to the Minister on them. First, what consultations have taken place on the public service agreements between the Government and the Civil Service unions? Secondly, what other consultations, if any, have there been? Thirdly, will the agreements include incentives and penalties? Fourthly, what plans do the Government have as regards how the agreements will be audited? Finally, what plans do the Government have for the systematic scrutiny of such agreements, either in this House or in another place?
The British Civil Service rightly remains the envy of much of the rest of the world. However, to use the term that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, employed, it needs nurturing. The Government in their response to the report have responded to some of the concerns expressed. However, in my view great care will still be needed to ensure that we have a Civil Service in the next century which matches the qualities of the British Civil Service of the present century.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my first utterance must be to express appreciation and gratitude to my noble and learned friend for his introduction to this report, and to him and his committee for what is a masterly state paper. My noble and learned friend brings experience as a much admired jurist. But also as a former Treasury devil he will have had an intimate knowledge and experience of the working of government in every respect. I hope I may say how glad I am that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to reply to this debate. He is now in the Cabinet Office; crucially, and as a former Law Officer he, too, will have had a wide conspectus of Whitehall.
My second duty must be to apologise for my intervention, as it is 40 years since I had responsibility in this sphere when the Civil Service was administered by the Establishment Division of the Treasury. It is, however, apt that we are debating the public service at this time in the context of the general discussion that there has been—and which is going on—on the constitution generally. That discussion has often seemed to proceed as though the only political legitimacy was that conferred by election. Of course the Civil Service, like your Lordships' House, has whatever political legitimacy it has quite otherwise than that. One must remember that there are some 2 million in the electorate who do not register a vote and who have no allegiance to any political party. Quite obviously, they are not directly represented in the other place, although any Member of Parliament considers that he has a duty to all his electorate. However, the views and positions of those who have no party allegiance are reflected only on the Cross Benches of your Lordships' House and will, I think, appear in the Civil Service.
The report poses the question of whether the Civil Service should not be regarded in some respects as a separate organ of the constitution, distinct from the Ministers of the Government. That question seems to me to be very important, and not only academically. As a matter of practical politics, the Civil Service stands
618
apart from Ministers. Its duty is to give them frank, impartial, informed and unpartisan advice, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, indicated.
What then is the position of the Civil Service vis-à-vis the ministerial part of the Executive? Your Lordships will recollect Arthur Balfour's notable introduction to the World Classics edition of Bagehot. He was concerned about a two-party system, in which one party is bent on undoing the work of its opponent. "Why", he speculated, "does that not lead to some sort of political schizophrenia? Why is not democratic government torn apart?" He had two answers. The first was the Monarchy and the second was the Civil Service: the Civil Service, in its magnetism, preventing a tack to either starboard or port going too far. The Civil Service, as a whole, would say to the Minister, "You have gone far enough on your starboard or your port tack; you are now going into dangerous areas. There be dragons. There be leviathans. It is time that you pulled over the helm". That is the task of the Civil Service. Even with all the tacking, we can make reasonable progression.
I think that that insight throws some light on a number of the particular problems identified by the committee. One has been mentioned already. I refer to the special advisers. I find it difficult to identify their exact task. They seem to extend not only within 10 Downing Street, but right across Whitehall. How many are there in all? Do all departments have them? It seems that they have a dual function, partly presentational, which means so much to this Government, and partly relating to party policy. They originally came about in the 1960s because at that time the Labour Party doubted the real impartiality of the Civil Service. It thought that the Civil Service was middle class and middle policy, whereas it wanted to pursue a radical policy.
How does that fit in with Balfour's vision? In my respectful submission, not at all. The government response to the report states that the special advisers complement the Civil Service and the advice that it gives, which is agreed to be impartial, unpartisan and honest. How is that complementary? How do you complement impartial advice, except by partial advice, advanced from a party political angle? Does not that mean that the advice given to Ministers is not balanced. The government response claims that the Government receive advice from all sources and implies that the special advisers are merely another source. That is not so. If the TUC or the CBI makes a representation to the Government, that is quite different from a representation from a special adviser, who is sitting in the office next to the Minister and who has recourse—as I think the Minister will confirm—to all the government papers, except possibly those of high confidentiality.
That matter was raised at the end of the last Session of the previous government in a debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, also spoke. I am glad to see her in her place on the Front Bench. They protested against the special advisers having recourse to Civil Service material. I ventured to think that that was exaggerated and rather partisan under the circumstances. If special advisers do not have recourse

619
to government material, their advice can be only partially valuable. If they do have such recourse, the quality of their advice is quite different from that given by, for example, the CBI or the TUC.
In my respectful submission, the whole institution of special advisers is potentially dangerous—dangerous to the balance of the constitution—and should be closely watched. If the report has done nothing else—and it has done a great deal else—it has valuably drawn attention to that matter.
I should like to refer to one other matter within the general context of the Balfour view of the Civil Service. That is recruitment and seconding, which is referred to at a number of points in the report. The committee reports a view that recruitment from outside is liable to disappoint the civil servant who hopes for promotion. But is that so, provided that, as is recognised in the report, these days the Civil Service is rarely a whole life career? Is it so if the civil servant can himself secure advancement in the kind of area from where the recruitment has come?
I am thinking in particular of the Government Legal Service. In America there is free movement between private practice, the government legal service, academic life and the judiciary. The present chief justice of California was formerly a professor of law at the university there.
I therefore suggest that we need not be afraid of recruiting from outside provided it does not upset the whole structure and ethos of the Civil Service, and provided that we can ensure that the civil servant equally has an opportunity of service towards the end of his career outside the Civil Service itself. I know that there are difficulties in the way of a civil servant taking employment with someone who has been in a contractual relationship with his department. But that is a special case which could be dealt with on its merits.
Finally, perhaps I may take up a word that I have used, as have preceding speakers, and which occurs frequently in the report; namely, "ethos". It is most important. But as the report and the Government accept, high esprit de corps depends very much on the esteem in which the Civil Service is held. I suggest that esteem is likely to be eroded in the event of "over-government". The more sparing the government and the more restricted the decisions of the civil servant concerned, the higher they will be held in esteem.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move to the Statement, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Teachers: Rewarding and Restructuring
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat a Statement on teachers: restructuring and rewards that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement about the Government's consultation on reform of the teaching profession. This Statement relates to England; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will report separately in the New Year.
"Over the last 18 months, this Government have shown their determination to raise standards. Children are learning to read effectively in the new literacy hour. Infant class sizes are falling for the first time in a decade. We are rapidly expanding specialist schools and developing education action zones. We have tackled failure whenever and wherever it exists and we are providing £19 billion to invest in improving education across the UK over the next three years. This is money for reform and modernisation, to give our children opportunities denied for far too long.
"Teaching is at the heart of our drive to raise standards. Good teachers are our most precious asset in raising aspiration and achievement. That is why today I am proposing a fundamental step forward for the profession. Our first objective is to develop a new career structure which will recruit, retain and reward the teachers we need.
"Under the present system, after seven years, a good classroom teacher earns around £22,500. Further reward is paid only for responsibility, rarely for performance. The Government believe this must change. That is why we are proposing two new pay scales for teachers, separated by a performance threshold.
"There will be a tough new appraisal system. Up to the threshold, teachers would progress as now. To cross the threshold, teachers will need to demonstrate high and sustained levels of achievement and commitment. Heads will appraise and review their progress, under-pinned by external assessment. This will ensure credibility and consistency.
"Success in crossing the threshold would mean an initial salary increase of up to 10 per cent.—or around £2,000 a year—and access to further pay steps on this higher scale, based on appraisal of performance. Teachers could then either take on more leadership responsibilities or concentrate on high performance in classroom teaching. Over time we would expect a majority of teachers to be of a standard to cross the threshold.
"Our second objective is to strengthen school leadership. Good heads are the key to success. We need to develop strong leaders, reward them well and give them the freedom to manage. Successful heads who have turned around the most challenging schools

621
could earn up to £70,000 a year, with strengthened appraisal and the option of fixed-term contracts. We also propose to set up a national college for school leadership, drawing on the best that education and business have to offer.
"We also want to reward staff for teamwork in raising standards. Our new annual school performance bonus would provide a significant number of schools with a financial reward—payable as a bonus available to all staff—for improved performance achieved year on year and for sustained good results.
"Our third objective is to have a well trained profession. We are establishing the General Teaching Council, and have introduced a curriculum for initial teacher training—with Ofsted inspection—and the induction year for newly qualified teachers. Today I can announce that we intend to go further by introducing a new national test for all trainee teachers in numeracy, literacy and ICT. Additional help will be available to mature entrants in achieving this standard.
"It is vital we attract the best graduates into teaching and ensure that our outstanding teachers can move quickly up the profession. Industry and the civil service have fast tracks. We plan to introduce a fast track for teaching to enable good new teachers to make rapid progress.
"Every teacher should keep their expertise up to date. To help them to do so, we are investing in better training in literacy, numeracy and information technology and in improving the quality and availability of teachers' professional development. A pilot scheme of individual learning accounts will encourage all school staff to invest in their skills over and above government funding. We will enable more training to take place out of school hours to minimise disruption to pupils' education through over-reliance on supply cover.
"Our final objective is to provide better support for teachers in the classroom. From the investment in repair and renewal, through to the learning grid, we are committed to creating the classroom of the future. Today I propose a new targeted fund to improve the working environment for all staff, giving teachers access to the equipment they need.
"The teacher of the future will also make better use of the talent of support staff in schools. Many teachers already use teaching assistants to help with literacy and numeracy or to support children with special needs. Over the next three years we shall fund at least 20,000 additional qualified teaching assistants with improved training, qualifications and opportunity. We are also keen to see the use of undergraduate and postgraduate students earning while learning, together with those from the wider community.
"We also want to support small schools to share facilities, technicians or bursary support. I can announce today that a new small school support fund will pilot new ways of working together. This will benefit many rural schools.
622
"This Green Paper contains radical and modernising proposals which will help to transform the standards and status of teaching in this country. This is about something for something. For the first time in years, a commitment to invest and reward teachers in return for a new professionalism is on offer. This will mean greater individual accountability, more flexibility and higher standards.
"We intend to consult widely with teachers, parents, local authorities and governors, for whom we shall provide support and expert guidance to help them implement our proposals. The vision of a world-class service for our children in the next century is one I believe we all share. Good teachers and support staff are the key to achieving that vision. It is to prepare for that new century, to celebrate the value and worth of our teachers, and for the sake of our children, that I commend these proposals to the House today."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I have not had time to read it carefully. The letter that came with it said that I was being given advance notice of it, but in fact it was delivered to my office at three o'clock this afternoon. As I thought the Statement was to be given at 3.30, not 4.30, I was doubly disadvantaged. I shall read it very carefully. Teachers will wish to read the Statement carefully, too, because it leaves a great deal of detail still to be understood.
We support wholeheartedly the notion that good teachers should be rewarded and that they should be encouraged to continue to improve their professional skills throughout their working life. The setting up of the Pay Review Body was important because it gave teachers confidence that pay was being considered externally from government. It will be helpful at this stage, as we draw nearer to the settlement, if the Government can assure teachers that they are to receive the recommended pay award that will come from the Pay Review Body. This will be important in the context of this paper. Can the noble Baroness confirm that a supplementary letter has been sent to the Pay Review Body entreating it to hold the pay award at an affordable level?
It is true that fewer teachers are entering the profession and that that must be addressed. As a result of the introduction of tuition fees applications for the bachelor of education course have fallen considerably in the current year. Calling teachers "sneering cynics", as the Secretary of State for Education did recently. does not help when one is trying to encourage them and gain their confidence.
Once again we have yet another announcement of the £19 billion extra for education. This is one policy that is never knowingly undersold. I recently asked the noble Baroness for a breakdown of the expenditure of that £19 billion. The list of headings that it will be used for include a major boost to standards of literacy and

623
numeracy; cutting truancy, boosting pupil numbers at 16; increasing access to further and higher education; raising the levels of attainment at all levels post-16 and increasing the proportion of those from lower-income households; the Sure Start programme; doubling of the capital spending on schools, which I believe is about £5.5 billion; the pledge to reduce class sizes 18 months ahead of schedule; increasing access funds and piloting an education maintenance allowance for young people between 16 and 18; introducing a new pupil support grant to combat truancy and exclusion; investing in the national grid for learning to link schools electronically and prepare them for the 21st century; and increasing participation in further and higher education. There was no mention of teachers' pay. What will be the source of funding for teachers' pay and the considerable cost of this package? Is the funding to come from the £19 billion?
The noble Baroness made a number of statements with which I agree, but the purpose of this short time is to pose questions so that we understand the Statement more fully. Under the present system, as the noble Baroness pointed out, after seven years classroom teachers earn about £22,500. There is to be a new scale—in fact the noble Baroness described it as two scales. Is my understanding correct that there will be a linear scale and that part of the way up that line there will be a bar through which no teacher can go without producing evidence that they have reached a particular standard that makes them worthy of going beyond £22,500? If I understand the Statement correctly, teachers who do not achieve that standard will remain at £22,500 and teachers who reach it will receive the reward.
Will all teachers who reach that standard qualify? It is said in the Statement that the hope is that the majority of teachers will reach that threshold. On a quick calculation, the cost of that would be £900 million. It would be helpful, particularly for local authorities, to know whether the money will be in the system to meet that cost.
According to the Statement, the Government hope that this will be achieved in something under seven years. In other words, it is an accelerated way of helping very good teachers go through the scale. I have no argument with that in principle, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say something about time-scale. In the Times Educational Supplement of 20th November the Secretary of State said:
"There's no way we can progress a large proportion of the profession in a couple of years. We're talking about over a teaching life".
A teaching life is 30 to 40 years. Can the noble Baroness clarify what was meant by the Secretary of State's statement and what is the time-scale by which all teachers who reach this level of attainment will be allowed to progress to the higher salary levels?
What is said in the Statement about successful heads is welcome in that heads who are appointed specifically to turn around a failing school are asked to meet a great challenge. But is that all there is to be said about heads? Is the noble Baroness saying that the only heads who
624
can earn up to £70,000 will be those who meet the challenge of turning around schools that have failed? What about those outstanding heads in many other schools—some of them in very difficult parts of the country—which are not challenging in any abnormal sense but where the heads are nevertheless doing an outstanding job?
The national college is an interesting proposition. It would be interesting to know what budget is to be set aside for it and when we are likely to see it.
The whole-school reward is another interesting proposition. How is a school to he assessed? If the Government intend to reward individual teachers and whole schools, is it better to be a good teacher in a bad school or a bad teacher in a good school? That question sounds flippant, but it is not. It will be very important as regards rewarding the outstanding teacher who is working in a school that would not be singled out for a whole-school award.
The test for teachers is an interesting proposition. It is a sad indictment that teachers have to be given numeracy and literacy tests in order to enter the teaching profession, particularly primary teachers who will teach those two subjects. Is the consequence of failing those tests that they will not proceed with their teacher training and not enter the system?
I deal with fast track teachers. The Statement says:
"We plan to introduce a fast track for teaching to enable good new teachers to make rapid progress".
Because there has been so much press comment in the past day or two—I have heard the Secretary of State today—and a great deal is made of this, I wonder why the terminology is not that the Government will introduce a fast track for teaching to enable good teachers to make rapid progress. It would be helpful to be told who would do the assessing and at what point in a teacher's life he would be singled out to qualify. Who would assess and make the selection? If any graduate achieves the standards that are required to apply for fast track, will the process be automatically triggered or will it be capped? If there is to be a cap, how will it work? If there is a cap, it means that there will be teachers sitting alongside one another who are equally qualified, some of whom will receive the benefit and some of whom will not.
I deal next with individual learning accounts. Reference is made to a pilot scheme of individual learning accounts which will encourage all school staff to invest in their skills over and above government funding; in other words, I believe that it will be at the teacher's own expense. If it is over and above government funding whose funding is it? It goes on to say that that will enable more training to take place out of school hours. I read that as meaning that teachers shall be encouraged to do more training at their own cost and in their own time. If I have it wrong, perhaps I may be disabused of it.
The noble Baroness said that schools would be encouraged to use the talents of support staff. I have not come across many schools that do not have very good ways of using talented support staff. Their problem is not lack of encouragement to use it but money to meet

625
the cost of it. This year in particular many primary schools are shedding classroom assistants simply because they cannot afford to pay for them. What schools need is more money. We welcome the piloting of ideas to help small schools to share facilities and to support each other. The bursaries sound a very good idea.
It was said that the Green Paper is modernising and radical. Teachers will be vigilant about how it is delivered and whether it is properly costed and funded. I should like to ask about the automaticity of all of the schemes to which the noble Baroness referred. I shall continue to be vigilant and I shall read both the Green Paper and the brochure very carefully. I advise school teachers to be as vigilant as I am, as I am sure they will.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I have begun many debates in your Lordships' House by declaring an interest. I must do so now given the subject of this Statement. My wife is employed as a teacher. I have just acquired an additional interest in that my son, who will graduate next summer, has applied to train as a teacher. I believe that I shall have a considerable pecuniary interest in the future of these proposals.
I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government are to tackle this extremely important issue. It has always appeared to be a nonsense to all of us that good and successful teachers are rewarded by having to do less and less teaching and more and more administration. It is true that being a very good teacher does not necessarily make one a very good administrator. That has always seemed to me to be a nonsense. If these proposals enable good and successful teachers to use their skills more in the classroom and less on paper work, I am sure that that will be welcomed by everyone.
The Minister is right to say that successful schools depend on strong and good quality leadership. I am pleased that there are proposals to reward and recognise the strong leadership that is needed not only by heads, although that is particularly important, but also by other skilled senior staff. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I have had only a short time to skim through the Green Paper. While I make no complaint about that, I welcome its broad thrust, provided that I have understood it correctly. I believe that I have. However, perhaps the Minister can confirm that, first, we are talking about rewarding teachers judged on their own skills and competencies by appraisal, not rewarding them on the achievements or otherwise of the pupils. That is a very important difference; secondly, that there are opportunities for all teachers; and, thirdly, that it is expected that the majority of teachers will benefit from these proposals.
I also welcome the fact that the Green Paper deals with the issue of classroom assistants. They are a great strength in many schools. My wife works in a primary school and I know it is particularly true in that case. I am pleased that we are not leaving them out and are not looking simply at the top of the profession but also at the essential support that they receive.
626
I can understand how these proposals will help with the retention of teachers. It is of vital importance to address that issue. Quite apart from my son's decision this week, I have a little more concern about how it will help with recruitment. It will take some years for teachers to reach the threshold. Since this is a consultation document, will the Government consider reducing the period before the threshold? I welcome the proposals, as far as I have understood them, for undergraduates to do some teaching, but are the Government considering paying trainee teachers? The proposals of my party—this is not purely self-interest—are that student teachers should be paid 50 per cent. of the rate. We need measures of that kind to attract people into the profession. It is important that they see how they can progress throughout their career. When one is in one's early 20s, considering where one may be in one's 40s or 50s is perhaps not as important as it should be, certainly not as important as worrying where one will be in one's later 20s and 30s when one is thinking of setting up home.
I turn next to funding. The Minister will be aware that I have a particular interest in that I am the leader of an LEA. Yesterday we had the revenue support grant settlement and today all of my colleagues in local government are trying to understand exactly what that means for their local authorities. I am particularly concerned to have confirmation that money will be available to meet the extra cost of these proposals. I should also like to know how that extra money is to reach schools. Will it come through the SSA system and the LEAs? I suspect that at least initially it will come to schools via some other route. But if we are to build these quite proper expectations, it is important to have the cash available where it is needed to meet them.
If and when the money has reached the schools, how will it reach the teachers? Schools are funded on average not actual salaries. If one increases actual salaries for a number of successful teachers, it does not necessarily follow that they will get the additional money. Clearly, it is the Government's intention that they should do so. I should like to know what delivery mechanism is to be used to achieve that.
These are important measures for the medium and long-term and we support them. But an immediate crisis needs to be addressed. I too turn to the impending pay settlement which I believe is due next month. I understand that the Minister does not wish to pre-empt anything that may be recommended by the review board. However, it would be extremely encouraging to the profession if the noble Baroness could at least give a commitment at this stage that the pay award, whatever it turns out to be, will not be phased. The teaching profession has suffered in recent years from phased pay awards. It would be extremely disappointed, to put it no stronger, if there were yet another phased pay award. A commitment from the Minister on that matter would be very welcome.
As I said, we will certainly give a welcome to the broad thrust of this Green Paper. I hope that the teacher unions will also do so. I am sure that when they come to consider the detail they will have many questions and there may well be proposals with which they are not

627
happy. However, I hope that they will take the opportunity to engage in a positive and constructive discussion with the Government on how to tackle this issue, and not simply have a knee-jerk reaction to something which is simplistically, and perhaps wrongly, termed "performance-related pay".
Lastly, I hope that the Government will listen to what is being said to them. I learnt during the various proposals for a London government that the London Green Paper had within it various shades of green. One shade of green meant that it was not really for consultation, but other shades of green meant that the Government were open to proposals and were listening. This paper is a very bright shade of green, and I hope that means that the Government will listen to constructive proposals that are put as to how best to tackle this most important issue. If the Government do that, I am confident that we shall at least begin to redress the very serious imbalance that exists within the teaching profession at the moment.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I am sorry the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did not feel she had had quite enough time to look at the Green Paper. It was our intention to get the paper out a little earlier in order to give Opposition spokesmen some time. However, I hope that in taking the Statement at the time we did the noble Baroness had at least an opportunity to look at it.
The noble Baroness asked a great many questions. I am not sure that I am going to be able to pick up all of them in the time available, but if I have to miss any I will of course write to her about them. I was grateful for the welcome that she gave to at least one or two of the proposals put forward. I am also grateful for the more general welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to what I believe are radical proposals which are genuinely intended to try to reward our teachers better, to raise their status and to improve both recruitment and retention.
The noble Baroness began by asking questions—I think the noble Lord, Lord Tope, also mentioned this topic—about the pay review body. The noble Baroness said that she would not expect the Government to anticipate what is going to be said, and obviously at this point we cannot make a commitment to accept all the recommendations—no government would ever do so—until we have seen them. We do not know what they are going to be. I say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord that the Secretary of State has made clear that the pay settlement must be affordable. Again, I think the noble Baroness would expect any Secretary of State to do that. We do have a proper pay policy for the public sector; but he has also said—and this may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tope—that he would not want to stage it.
The noble Baroness asked about the costs of the programme in the proposals that are set out in the Green Paper. I would say to her that of course we want to resource these proposals properly. We will be putting
628
on one side something like £1 billion to support the proposals. In the first year it will be around £400 million, with another £600 million in the second year.
The noble Baroness was also concerned about the timescales. The intention is that we should introduce these proposals from the autumn of the year 2000, although one or two proposals, such as those relating to the highly skilled advanced teachers, are already en route. Indeed, we have already appointed the first of the advanced school teachers and we will be building up their numbers over the next two years.
The noble Baroness asked whether head teachers who were not necessarily working in the schools which they had managed to turn around would also be eligible for much higher salaries. The answer to that is yes, of course. If a head teacher is doing a superb job in a school, particularly if it is in a difficult area, whether it needs to be turned around or not, he or she will be eligible for a substantially higher salary.
The noble Baroness also asked who will benefit more—a good teacher in a bad school or a bad teacher in a good school? Those who are drawing up the criteria for the bonus scheme will need to consider that kind of issue and they also need to consider the extent to which different members of a school which is awarded bonuses will actually benefit from those bonuses. Additional pay will not automatically be allocated to every teacher in such a school, regardless of how good or bad he or she might be.
The noble Baroness asked whether all teachers reaching the threshold standard will qualify. The answer to that is yes, they will all qualify and they will all be assessed against the national standard. She also asked about the timing of progress beyond the threshold. We will try to assess and appraise every teacher who has got beyond the threshold as soon as they pass it; so we shall be progressing very large numbers of teachers through this scheme once it is implemented.
The noble Baroness also asked when the national leadership college will be set up and how much funding it will receive. I can say that it will be established in the year 2000. We will publish a prospectus for it early next year and we have set aside £10 million to support its establishment in the first instance.
Turning to the question of whether teachers in training who fail the tests for literacy, numeracy and IT will be allowed to teach, I am sure that the noble Baroness and indeed every Member of your Lordships' House would not expect us to allow a teacher into a classroom who cannot pass these tests. They will have to go back and take further training and improve their basic skills in order to join a school and, if I might put it in this way, be let loose on children.
The noble Baroness also asked for details of the fast track. We shall be publishing a separate consultation document about that in March of next year. We see the fast track as a very important way of encouraging more talented and able young people, and indeed older people, to come into the teaching profession.

629
The noble Baroness asked whether we would be expecting teachers to contribute to individual learning accounts over and above any government funding. The answer to that question is yes. The whole idea of an individual learning account, which is central to the Government's policies on life-long learning, is that the account should be a partnership between the individual himself or herself, the employer and/or the Government. I believe that that is right. We want people to invest in their own learning, whether they are school teachers or people working in any part of the private or public sectors. Also, on the question of whether we think teachers should spend some time upgrading their skills in their own time, the answer again is a categorical yes to that. Just as many other professions put aside some of their leisure time for self-improvement, we hope that teachers would be willing to use a little of their holidays when they are not actually working in the school for that purpose. I believe that many of them will recognise the value of doing so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification. Given that teachers can now train in their own time, and pay for it, does the reference in the Statement mean that it will be a requirement in the future?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no, it will be up to the individual teacher to decide whether he or she thinks that it is worth investing in his or her future. I would hope that the great majority of teachers will want to do so on a voluntary basis, but of course they will be encouraged to do so.
I think that the noble Baroness welcomed the idea of supporting small schools by developing a team approach to their teaching and building up contacts between them. There will be additional funding to help that. I believe that that will be particularly valuable to schools in rural areas.
I turn to some of the additional points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He commented that he valued the proposals in the sense that they are not just about rewarding people at the top, but about rewarding people lower down the system—young teachers, as well as experienced teachers who perform well in the classroom. It is right to point out that primary schools will benefit from these proposals in that respect.
The noble Lord said that he saw the value of the proposals from the point of view of retention, but was not so clear about recruitment. I believe that the proposals for fast tracking those who are able will help recruitment. The fact that teachers who perform well will be rewarded more highly—those who reach the top of the profession will be able to receive salaries as high as £70,000—should achieve that.
He asked about the pay for trainee teachers. Under the scheme we shall pay those undergraduates or postgraduates in the system who wish to work as the new teacher associates. Again, I believe that that will help recruitment. We recognise the case which has been made for trainee salaries, but we judge that the right incentives to boost recruitment are those announced at the end of October. They are in the annexe to the
630
document, including major new financial incentives for those who will teach science and mathematics, subjects in which there are shortages.
The noble Lord asked about rewards linked to appraisal outcomes, not just results. Pupil outcomes are only one of many components of appraisal. It is important that we do not get into a system where we simply pay by results. That is not the intention of the proposals.
He also asked how extra funds would reach the schools. Would that be through the SSAs; and how would they be directed to teachers? We shall be consulting on a more technical document to be introduced in the new year which will go into those kinds of questions. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if we delay an immediate response. However, we wish to ensure that there is ring-fenced funding to make it absolutely clear that those schools which have good teachers who have proven that they deserve this extra reward will have the funds to be able to provide it.
Finally, the noble Lord hoped that we would listen to teachers and others. It is a consultation document. We shall be consulting until the end of March and of course we shall listen. We very much look forward to hearing the views of anyone who has an interest in improving the quality of our teachers and the standards of their performance in the schools; and, I should add, we shall welcome any views from Members of your Lordships' House.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness as I was not in my place when she started her Statement. I share her view that we all want to help teachers improve because they are absolutely essential to education.
Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, it is very difficult to keep up with all the publications emanating from the Government even in the educational world. Last year there was an announcement that there would be a superteacher scheme. I believe that there were to be 5,000 superteachers. How do they fit into this scheme? Are they separate, or part of it? I do not understand how it would work if one were in a school.
Secondly, I may have misunderstood what the Minister said. If I have got it wrong, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me. In reply to a question, I think from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I thought she said that the scheme set out in the Green Paper was not a payment for results. If one sets out objectives for teachers which are met, what is that but a payment for results? I may have misunderstood. It seems to me that if one sets out objectives which are met, it must be a good result if one receives extra payment for it. Can we have clarification on that point?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness on keeping up with the large number of documents published. As a House of Lords Minister she has much experience of that. We are asked to cover for our whole department's work and not just the policy area for which we are responsible.

631
I can clarify the superteacher issue. It was a term of art for advanced school teachers. They are not different from what is set out in the Green Paper. The announcement about them was made earlier. As I said when responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that part of the Green Paper has already been started. We have given it further clarification and developed it in the Green Paper. I hope that that solves the noble Baroness's problems.
Baroness Young: My Lords, can the Minister state where in the Green Paper we find that important piece of information?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, a chapter in the Green Paper is concerned with the issue of rewarding those teachers whom we want to keep in the classroom.
On the point about payment by result, I am sorry if I did not make myself entirely clear. Of course we want to reward teachers where they are fulfilling the objectives that we all share. However, I was referring to the more limited issue of pupil performance as set out in the performance tables that were covered earlier this week. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I welcome this Statement by the Government of comprehensive intention as a breath of fresh air. I believe that after 18 years it will bring back respect and dignity to the profession, and parents look forward to the outcome. A recent Ofsted report on education in Tower Hamlets leaves no place to hide. It concludes that there is continuous shameful under-achievement. I am therefore delighted to welcome the proposal for performance-orientated pay. I believe that that will boost parents' confidence. They can look forward to an improved result in their children's education. Perhaps I may ask the Minister how it is intended that the general teaching council will be reflective of the student population across the country.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her welcome of the proposals in the Statement and, indeed, for what is set out in the Green Paper. We are consulting on the general teaching council, as we promised in the legislation which went through earlier this year. I am willing to admit that some pressure from the Opposition meant that we agreed that the majority of the members of the General Teaching Council should be teachers. However, we shall be making further announcements later about the introduction of the GTC.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, in view of the fact that ethnic minority teachers are so few and far between, how are we to ensure that there is ethnic minority representation on the general teaching council?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is extremely important that teachers from every kind of background right across the system—primary, secondary and special schools—are adequately represented on the GTC. I shall
632
certainly pass on my noble friend's comments about the importance of having good ethnic minority representation on the GTC to my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards who is responsible for it.

The Public Service: Select Committee Report
5.21 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it would be highly improper for me to address the subject of our debate—the report by the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley—in his absence. Therefore, until he arrives, I must find something else to talk about.
There has been a departure this afternoon by the usual channels from what we thought had been agreed; namely, that on days when there are two short debates, neither is interrupted by a Statement but the Statement is put between them. That is for the convenience both of those who are interested in the Statement and those who are interested in either debate. I hope that representatives of the two Front Benches in the House will pass on that message to the respective Chief Whips.
Since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, is now in his place, I can begin with what I was supposed to begin with; namely, congratulating him on a most interesting and informative report.
When I read it—and this may be true of some other noble Lords—I was naturally reminded of times and battles long ago. In 1961, I published a book about relations between the Foreign Service and the rest of the Whitehall establishment based upon research which I had been enabled to make by the intervention on my behalf of Lord Normanbrook, whose rule over the Civil Service probably ante-dates the memories of many people here.
On the other hand, I now find in this report that that very important topic is neglected. I think it was a mistake to omit consideration of that because if it was important in 1960 and 1961, when I was doing that research in Whitehall, it is even more important now that we are members of the European Union.
That is referred to as though that was a problem on its own rather than a problem which stretches across the whole of the public service. It must be important that public servants in any department are capable of talking language which is understood by those in another.
Perhaps I may give one very simple example. When Her Majesty travels abroad nowadays, she is often asked to do things which would bring benefit to British overseas trade. In regard to that, for advice as to what would be appropriate, she must rely on the DTI. On the other hand, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is always asked to estimate in advance the political dangers which may be incurred in a particular country, either physically or, more often, in the light of the sensitivities of some governments to certain remarks. If

633
those two departments are not capable of talking to each other, it is possible that Her Majesty might be embarrassed.
Some years later—that is, some 30 years ago—when I was Gladstone Professor of Government and Public Administration, I was assisted by William Armstrong, later Lord Armstrong of Sanderstead, to set up in Oxford a weekly seminar in which distinguished members of the public service, nominated by him, would come and talk to the students. They would explain about the public service both as part of their general education in government and no doubt also in the hope—and this has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—that some of them would seek careers in the public service.
I regret that that activity has been abandoned in the University of Oxford. The Gladstone chair is now referred to as a chair of politics, not of government and public administration. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, the public service does not seem to attract either the attention, the respect or the hopes of many young people.
My hope is that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who is to follow me in this debate, now himself a senior academic in the University of Oxford, will take up that idea of William Armstrong and start seminars of that kind again. It is extremely important that that should be done.
However, it is important in another sense; I believe that that relegation of interest in the public service, of exploration of its organisation and its ethos, is in danger well outside the walls of the university. I believe that anxieties on that score are inadequately reflected in some of the statements, recommendations or observations in the committee's report.
We did go over some of that ground in a debate to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, referred on the privatisation of the recruitment process for the public service. I thought that that was nonsense at the time and, as usual, my observation has proved to be correct. It is not a satisfactory method. I have very little sympathy, on the whole, with Her Majesty's Government, but they may be prepared to look again at that matter. But of course, it is not simply a matter of recruitment. As has been mentioned, it is a matter also of conditions of service and so on.
It may be—my contacts are not what they were in the days of William Armstrong—that the committee has underestimated the degree of anxiety felt by those recruited for what they thought was a lifetime career by the constant emphasis on bringing in people from outside and the notion that there should be a backwards and forwards movement. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, that may be appropriate inside the American legal system which recruits to Washington, but it is not appropriate if one believes in the foundations of the British constitution where the Civil Service is concerned; namely, that it should be a single body with a highly developed sense of public service which cannot be assimilated to the criteria of the private sector. We all know that bringing in Ministers from business has not been an unmitigated success under various governments; bringing them into the Civil Service has yet to be proved to be successful.
634
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I, too, echo the misgivings expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in relation to special advisers. I have not been able—studying the careers of major figures in governments of the past—to believe that they would have required anything beyond the advice given to them by the civil servants in their departments. It may be that with all this business of faxes, the Internet and all that nonsense, they require a degree more secretarial assistance than used to be the case—I do not suppose many Cabinet Ministers write many letters with their own hand. But, surely, one secretary per Minister would be enough. He could carry out all the normal secretarial chores of sending flowers to the Minister's mistress or boyfriend, as the case may be. However, for serious work and, above all, for advice, it is surely right that there should be an almost exclusive position to retain the persons who have come up through the service; who are cognizant of its many ramifications; and who are, as the committee's report suggests, in some respects the repository of the constitutional tradition which they are meant to serve.
It may be said that such people might not be very good at projecting the Government's policies. That may be so; but projection is rather less important than getting the policies right. It may well be that concentration upon projection may lead to neglect of the importance of getting the policies right. The time has come—in this I agree with the report—to introduce a Civil Service Act which will settle the boundaries for some time of what is political and what is administrative and, because of the changing circumstances in which governments operate, as the committee suggests, there should be an annual report back to Parliament on what is going on.
We say—and it has been echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others—that we have the best Civil Service in the world. That was true. I sometimes wonder whether, if these tendencies are not checked, it will continue to be true. If it is not true, we will lose one of the few advantages we have in competing for influence on the world scene.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I endorse the congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and the Select Committee on this report. By examining the philosophy of the division between the public and private sectors, as well as the way in which that division has been operated in practice, the committee performed a valuable service.
Before commenting on the substance of the report, I should like to pay my own tribute to the late Lord Bancroft, whose concern for the public service was, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said, a progenitor of the Select Committee. When I was at the beginning of my career in the Treasury, Lord Bancroft was my establishment officer and over many years I sat at his feet. His concern for the integrity of the public service was deep and lifelong.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said, the incident which gave rise to the Select Committee was the privatisation, under the previous government, of the

635
Recruitment and Assessment Service, which recruits staff to the Civil Service. Many in your Lordship's House felt that this was a privatisation too far in the belief that it put in the hands of a private sector company a function essential to the preservation of a high quality and impartial Civil Service. Hence the Select Committee's review of what properly belongs to the public sector and what to the private sector. I shall return to the issue of the Recruitment and Assessment Service.
In passing, I should perhaps say that in one respect the Select Committee does less than justice. In saying that there has been insufficient parliamentary scrutiny of the changes to the Civil Service, the Select Committee perhaps neglects the work of the Select Committee on the Civil Service in another place under Mr. Giles Radice which scrutinised these reforms throughout and produced a number of useful reports to which the Select Committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, referred.
The Select Committee recognises the difficulty of defining what functions must belong to the public service beyond the most basic functions of passing laws and ensuring an independent judiciary, but it suggests that an attempt should be made. In their response to the report the Government say that the decision on which option is best for a specific function should be taken case by case on a pragmatic basis. I agree with that. But now that I am licensed to be a little more controversial, it is possible to suggest some guidelines, drawing on the experience of recent years.
In terms of incentives to efficient performance, it must be acknowledged that the public sector has some disadvantages compared with the private sector. It does not work with its own money. It cannot, in practice, go bust and it labours under the proper burdens of political accountability which Parliament imposes on it. There are some who would say that those obstacles to efficiency are so fundamental that the state should do the minimum and as much as possible should be privatised.
That view is too simple. There are some situations in which the private sector also has limitations and I offer three examples. The first is when the service is a monopoly. There is not much reason to think that a private monopoly is better than a public monopoly, notwithstanding what may be done by regulation; indeed, it may be worse. The second is where the recipients of the service do not pay for it, as is true of many public services so the market cannot work. The third, and in my view the most important, is when the service involves acts of judgment between citizens and where fairness of process is of the essence. I do not think, for example, that many people today would advocate a return to the tax farming of the Roman Empire. The market is an entirely inadequate discipline of such activities. I cannot see any alternative to that of democratic accountability, which works through the public sector and ultimately to Parliament.
My anxiety, as I said in evidence to the Select Committee, is that recently governments may have gone too far in putting in the hands of non-elected quangos functions for which elected governments should be
636
accountable. It is almost as if electors have lost so much confidence in those whom they elect that they would prefer to see decisions taken by people who they do not elect. I was therefore glad to see that the committee says:
"It is not justified to delegate to a quango or the private sector solely or principally so that Ministers can avoid being accountable".
If we leave aside the areas where there are clear borderlines between the proper functions of the public and private sectors, there are extensive grey areas where the function could, in practice, be in either. Here I agree with the Government in that I think it is best to be pragmatic. What works best is best. In many cases, there may be advantages in allowing there to be competition between the private and public sectors, as in the market testing programme under the last government. In areas where functions remain within government, I believe that there has been shown to be advantage in replicating the pressures which produce efficiency in the private sector, such as profit and loss accounts, empowerment and personal incentives. I welcomed the Select Committee's acknowledgement that the introduction of agencies has, in practice, raised standards.
At all events, I reject, as did the committee, the implication that you can have efficiency or integrity but not both. That is a false dichotomy which is insulting to many people of integrity in both the public and private sectors. It seems to me not only possible but obligatory to aim for both efficiency and integrity in public services.
If I then apply those arguments to the privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Service, I would have thought that privatisation entirely wrong if it had removed the assessment or selection of candidates to the Civil Service to a firm in the private sector. But I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, that if the way in which the private sector firm handles the mechanics either impinges on that assessment or has failed to improve the efficiency with which the recruitment process is undertaken, the licence given to the private company should not be renewed and that the function should be brought back within the public sector.
The Select Committee's report contains an important passage about the ethos of the Civil Service and says, correctly, that the attitude of Ministers to the Civil Service is crucially important. Here I must say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, though what a pity it is for the Civil Service that his career in it was not more prolonged. It seems to me that it has been a source of reassurance to the Civil Service and a vote of confidence in it that, after 18 years in opposition, the new Government have shown so strikingly their support for a permanent, non-political Civil Service.
Of course, it is to be expected that there will be some transitional frictions and there are further reforms to be made; indeed, history never stops. After a period in which the emphasis has been on strengthening the vertical management of the Civil Service, the new Government are giving attention to the horizontal links and central co-ordination. That is quite right. But overall, and with very few qualifications, the Government have shown by their actions that they

637
believe in a professional and non-political public service. That is something which the Civil Service should take comfort from and something which, in my view, we should applaud. The Government's actions have spoken louder in this respect than any words could do.
I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that, on the basis of a very short experience, some of the most outstanding young students in my college are this year and at this very moment taking the examination and applying to the Civil Service, not at all, I think, as a result of my influence. Perhaps I may also respond to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and say that debate on governments is alive and well in Oxford. There are seminars which were run, first of all, under David Butler, and now under Professor Vernon Bogdanor, which contribute greatly in that respect. There is also a club which sounds very much like the club to which the noble Lord referred called the Redcliffe-Maud Club, named after my predecessor as Master of University College, which meets frequently to debate these issues. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble Lord need think that interest in such matters is dead in Oxford.
Finally, I should like to comment on the case for a Civil Service Act. On balance, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn said, the Select Committee was in favour of this, although it set out the pros and cons very fairly. As perhaps is clear from my evidence quoted by the Select Committee, I feel luke warm about such legislation. If I read the Government's response correctly, they are also luke warm as they only "note" this recommendation, which is very often an indication that they are not terribly enthusiastic about it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, put it pithily when asked by the Select Committee about such an Act. He said:
"We have quite enough Acts already".
I realise that the motive of those who favour such legislation is to entrench the essential elements of a non-political Civil Service and protect it against a future government. Of course, I welcome that. However, I am concerned that such legislation should not prevent the Civil Service from responding to changing circumstances and public expectations. The way in which the legislation is drafted in that respect, if it were proceeded with, would be a matter of the greatest importance.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of participating in a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Public Service. I joined the committee part-way through its investigations. However, I was a member during the time that the committee looked at the effects of the development of the system of executive agencies. We were, I think, very much aware that there had been significant changes in the way in which the Civil Service operates, but we had not appreciated—certainly I had not—just how much had changed. Our report sets out in some detail the way in which it has changed since 1967. Indeed, it is a very valuable record.
638
I joined the committee aware that agencies—of a more or less autonomous kind—had developed, in order to undertake part of the work formerly done by a unified Civil Service. As has already been indicated, those changes had taken place against a background of privatisation when the view of the then government had been that, essentially, competition was good for everyone, and that, if there was no "market", one had to be created.
Recruitment policy seemed to us to have changed. An attempt was being made to bring the Civil Service and its personnel policies more into line with what was happening in private industry, where "jobs for life" and the security that that concept brings to staff were rapidly disappearing. We wondered what effect this would have on the well-known and much admired Civil Service ethos. We were also concerned about the line of accountability from agencies to Parliament, and about ministerial accountability generally. With those considerations in mind, we set about seeing a large number of witnesses whose interviews are recorded in our full report. Under the wise leadership of our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, we also decided that we had to look at the workings of an agency on the ground. For that reason, we went to Leeds—not only to look at the workings of the benefits agency there but to look at the operation of a benefits office in an under-privileged area.
We had previously seen representatives of the Civil Service unions as well as organisations looking after the interests of benefits recipients, senior civil servants, academics and many others. The visit to Leeds was, for me, one of the most interesting and useful things that we did.
We were all impressed by the level of service and the efficiency with which the work was undertaken. The visit to the benefits office, however, was very revealing. It was in an under-privileged area of the city. The staff, under a very competent manager, seemed to be doing their best to offer a good and compassionate service in very difficult circumstances. Attempts had been made to make the place "user-friendly", with armchairs and a carpet on the floor, but it was repeatedly vandalised. The staff dealing with claimants had to do so from behind a double layer of plate glass. Threats to staff from angry claimants were apparently quite common. We were seeing the result of what the Prime Minister has described as "social exclusion" and, as a result, the staff were having to deal with angry and alienated people. They were doing their best but were having to handle a very difficult situation.
As our report makes clear, we had a number of concerns about the changes that have taken place. I believe that a situation in which people compete for their own jobs with outsiders is not conducive to maintaining a high level of staff morale. I was interested to hear this afternoon that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, seemed to be of a similar view. We learnt that the famous Whitley system for dealing with Civil Service terms and conditions of employment had been change beyond recognition. Each semi-autonomous agency now has responsibility for its own negotiations and for the terms and conditions of its staff.

639
I questioned the union representatives about this. It was clear that they are not happy about it, but they have endeavoured to adjust. There are now at least 120 different bargaining groups within the Civil Service—instead of just one national one dealing with Civil Service terms and conditions cross the board. Of course, that means that there can be widely differing rates for the same grades of employment, depending on the location of the agency set-up. The unions made the point that the administration of such a system was bound to be more costly, since each side has to field a team for each site instead of there being one dealing with issues nationally across the board, as there used to be.
Another aspect of concern to us was whether staff were sufficiently protected should an individual feel the need to whistle-blow on some dubious or unsafe practice undertaken by a superior. As has already been said, we looked at the possibility of the introduction of a new Civil Service Act, which would contain a code of good practice. However, the Government—while welcoming much of our report—have been rather vague in their response to that recommendation. They clearly believe that the legislation they have recently introduced adequately covers whistle-blowing and gives protection to such employees.
Overall, as our report shows, we were impressed by the dedication and commitment of staff. Of course, I am talking about one particular area—the DSS and the Benefits Agency—in which I have a particular interest. We were concerned, since this agency has to deal with some of the most deprived and under-privileged people in our society, that the level of service should be as high as possible. What we saw convinced us that, generally speaking, a very good job is being done, often in very difficult circumstances. The staff have to administer rules which have been decided upon by politicians, but they are the first in line if members of the public—the claimants—are dissatisfied.
The agency system, in the instances we examined, did seem to have improved efficiency. That was the view of a number of organisations concerned with looking after claimants. The unions regarded the agencies, as they put it, as "morale neutral". They did have concern, however, about what they saw as a lowering of morale, which they attributed to quite different reasons. They believed it was mainly due to the lack of security that now exists within the Civil Service. Once the Civil Service had offered stable employment, but no longer.
This of course is mirrored elsewhere. I personally do not applaud it as I believe that most people need stability in order to plan for themselves and their families. This applies as much to the Civil Service as to other employees. Our concerns about the possible eventual undermining of the all-important Civil Service ethos remain, although it is fair to say that there is, as yet, little evidence that the changes which have taken place have undermined that ethos. However, I think that this situation needs to be carefully watched.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Burns: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble, and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and other members of the committee on a thorough piece of work. They have shown great stamina over quite a long period of time in putting together their report. I, too, welcome the work that they have done.
It is right that the work should have been undertaken. The issues, which are very important, do not always receive the attention they deserve—other than from a small number of people who are particularly interested in such things.
My own experience of the Civil Service has not been typical. I joined the Treasury in 1980 on a four-year contract and stayed for 18½years. During my transition from academic life, I was warned by many commentators that I should beware of the combination of the charm and the scheming of Treasury mandarins. In the end, I found that transition extremely easy. Treasury officials are indeed charming, but they are also enormously able, supportive and collegiate. They are deeply committed to their work. There is no doubt that the public service ethos is very much alive and well. Officials are willing to take on a lot of responsibility.
I agree with other noble Lords that we are very fortunate to have so many able people who are sufficiently attracted by the quality and responsibility of the work that they are willing to sacrifice the financial rewards which they could, without doubt, easily command elsewhere. Whatever changes are made to the Civil Service, it is vital that we continue to be able to attract such talented people.
My response to the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Beloff, would be much the same as the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Butler; that we still manage to attract an enormous number of very able and talented people. Obviously, one's experience goes back only a limited period and it is difficult to compare the different generations when one does not know them equally well. However, throughout my time in the Treasury I remained completely in awe of the large number of very able people who we attracted to do the job and of the load that they were able to bear.
I want to address three issues. First, the whole question of whether there has been too much change within the Civil Service and some of the causes for that. Secondly, the suggestion that the relationship between Ministers and officials is no longer all it might be. Thirdly, how we might strike a balance between the confidentiality of official advice and some of the benefits of greater openness.
My period as Permanent Secretary coincided with a period of great change within the Civil Service. The report that we are discussing today describes this change very well. I would like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell who led the Civil Service through that period. It is important that we recognise that it was his desire to combine innovation with the traditional values and standards of the Civil Service, which brought a great deal of comfort to many of his colleagues during that period of very rapid change.

641
As the House is only too well aware, not all change is necessarily always seen as being for the better. Sometimes change takes place which, in retrospect, we judge was not wise and was not an improvement on what had gone before. In general, there are many pressures to change which are proceeding all the time and one has to be aware of them. Organisations have to adjust. In the Civil Service, as in the wider world, we have been adjusting to a large number of pressures. I should like to mention a few of them in a general tone of sometimes being in favour of change.
It has been pointed out clearly in the report and by noble Lords today that, whether in their role as consumers, patients or whatever, the public have become much more demanding about the kind of services they want. They demand prompt, reliable, high quality and convenient services at a time of their choosing. That explains why so much effort is being devoted in the Civil Service to trying to find managerial solutions which will improve the chance of delivering those high quality services to citizens. That includes the Next Steps Agencies and the Citizen's Charter, which have been trying to follow other organisations in delivering a higher standard of service than used to be the case.
Secondly, the pressure of technological innovation, much of it through advances in information technology, has opened up immense opportunities to deliver these improvements without putting impossible pressures on budgets. The public sector is aware that it has to do all it can to harness those technologies, but this has implications for the numbers of people employed and the structure of the jobs that they do. This often leads to quite difficult change as one goes through that process. But, again, much of it is directed towards being able in the end to produce and deliver the kind of services that people need.
Thirdly, we have seen improvements in how to manage and organise processes in order to deliver greater efficiency in organisations all over the world. Many of these lessons have been taken on board in terms of looking at the Civil Service. Conventional management thinking has moved away from traditional systems of centralised and hierarchical control. There is now a much greater emphasis on decentralised systems. When one works with and talks to some of the young people coming up through the Civil Service, it is interesting to note the extent to which they want to have clear objectives. They want to know how they will be assessed; they want to have responsibility; they want to have a say in the jobs that they do; and they want to have more influence themselves on their career profile. All of this has important implications for the kinds of personnel systems that one operates. Some of the traditional centralised systems do not enable one to offer that kind of opportunity.
We have seen in many other organisations some of the pressures for more open, longer term relationships with the world outside. The traditional public service culture of secrecy and "Whitehall knows best" has had to change. This has meant greater openness. It has meant being prepared to explain much more and to have more two-way movement between Whitehall and the rest of
642
the economy. That does not necessarily imply, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested, a huge amount of change or that it need be necessarily immensely disruptive. We have seen some of the great benefits that have come about from having some of our civil servants go out to work in the private sector for a period of time and then come back, bringing extra wisdom and breadth of view to the job they are doing. That is very much to be encouraged. Similarly, we see some of the benefits of traffic in the other direction.
Finally, in all organisations throughout the world we are seeing a trend towards the buying in of more services and to establishing contracts with other organisations to supply parts of what might have been done centrally in the past. It would be very surprising if this move did not have relevance and the Civil Service did not also attempt to see what advantages might come from that. Things do not always have to be produced within one centralised system.
I am in no doubt that the public sector, along with other organisations, will have to adjust to many of the forces. It may not necessarily be to the same extent as other organisations. Nevertheless, the Civil Service cannot be left untouched by them. While I agree with many of the warnings contained in the report, it is important that we do not attempt to put a ring-fence around the public sector and say that change should never happen or make it difficult for necessary management change to happen.
It is right that the Civil Service should operate within a broad framework that Parliament approves and that from time to time Parliament should maintain a scrutiny over what happens and offer its views. But I am nervous about the tone that occasionally emerges that whatever we do we must always maintain everything within the public sector in the way that it has been done in the past, regardless of how the rest of the world has moved on or the lessons that have been learnt from other activities. That would be a mistake.
My second point is about the relationship between Ministers and officials, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Like a number of things in life, this is often said to be not as good as it once was. People always seem to have the idea that once upon a time there was a golden age when things were rather better. Obviously, my experience does not go back that far. What I can say is that I have experienced many excellent working relationships during my time in the Civil Service which seemed to me to strike just the right balance that one would like to see between Ministers and officials. Essentially, the deal is that in return for the privilege of being involved in the policy debate and having a chance to put views—sometimes forcefully—officials will then do their best to make policies work and subsequently keep their personal views about the decision to themselves. The deal is that Ministers are willing to listen to advice even when it is uncomfortable and accept responsibility for the decisions they have taken. Across a wide range of government business, my experience is that that is very much the way the world works.

643
Sometimes, for various reasons, it does not quite work that way, but usually it does once the parties have got to know each other and their working styles. Sometimes there are periods of settling in with new Ministers. After a period in Opposition, Ministers come with very clear ideas, often worked out in detail, about how they want to do things and they are very intent on putting them into place. Sometimes mischief makers will have warned them that officials are likely to be obstructive. Not surprisingly, special advisers and other outsiders tend to be given an even more important role to play in the early stage because they have often worked quite closely with the Minister when he was in Opposition.
I saw it to a degree when I first went to the Treasury in 1980, which was shortly after the change of government. One saw it a little in the early stages of this Government. Officials can feel frustrated if they feel they are being asked simply to implement policy rather than to be part of the whole advice and implementation process. Sometimes, in the early stages, Minsters do not fully appreciate that officials can argue quite strongly against the case and yet when a decision has been taken still be quite assiduous in putting it into practice afterwards. However, those frustrations do not last very long. In my experience, things settle down. It is a mistake to imagine that some of the tensions that one might get at an early stage with new Ministers will necessarily be sustained.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, that the transition to the new Government has gone remarkably smoothly. It owes a great deal to the efforts of everyone involved and particularly to the amount of preparation that was done beforehand both by shadow Ministers and senior officials.
The third point I want to make is about openness. There is a general trend towards getting some more daylight into the process of ministerial decision making, although not all of it is intended. I fully understand the argument for maintaining the tradition that the advice of officials to Ministers should not be made public for a very long time. There are real worries that to do so would undermine the effectiveness of the organisation in defending and implementing decisions. I accept that confidentiality makes it easier for officials to provide advice which is "fearless and frank" if they know that it will not be publicly available soon. At the same time, there are pressures for more accountability and openness. There is a growing pressure for more clarity about the roles and responsibilities of civil servants in practice as well as in principle.
The tradition of the faceless official is changing. Officials are no longer invisible or voiceless. They speak in front of parliamentary committees. They sometimes appear on television in "fly on the wall" documentaries. They are profiled in the press. If they are lucky, or unlucky, they might appear in the memoirs of Ministers. Sometimes we read accounts of contemporary history where the assistance of some of the key players is quite clearly in evidence. Of course, the paradox is that if something goes seriously wrong and there is an inquiry, all the advice will become
644
publicly available anyway. It is only if things go well that no one reads the papers which lie behind the work that has been done.
My view is that we must find a way of meeting both needs in a more systematic way and to go further in meeting the legitimate demands for accountability as to how decisions are taken. At a minimum, we need to be much more ruthless and systematic about disclosing the analytical background to decisions and, over time, to make further strides in making material more publicly available, which does not harm the relationship. That would be good for officials and Ministers and would do more than codes or Acts in throwing light on which of the parties is doing the job that it should be doing well.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, it was a great privilege to serve as a member on the Select Committee on the Public Service under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. I am glad that, several months after the report was published, it is possible for your Lordships to hold a debate of substance. Meanwhile, the Government have published their response. While that was broadly positive, not all the Select Committee's recommendations were accepted.
It is not surprising that in the past 20 years or so there has been an enormous change in the Civil Service. It would be surprising if change had not been on such a scale, yet despite the heroic efforts of many senior civil servants—notably the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell—those changes were not widely known and, where they were known, they were not widely understood. It is a matter of great satisfaction that the report shows that the Civil Service has weathered that storm of change, which included a substantial reduction in the number of personnel, with great resilience.
The old virtues of integrity, loyalty to the Crown and to public interest, dispassion, political impartiality, administrative thoroughness, freedom from corruption and a keen regard for fairness and equity have survived wholly intact. In some instances, as the noble Lord pointed out, the standards of service delivery to the public have actually improved.
Although all that is reassuring, it is important none the less to note that there runs through the report a thread of warning signals about the future of the Civil Service. They are warnings about the dangers and risks ahead and areas that require close vigilance. Those points of vulnerability include, in no particular order of importance, the risk of fragmentation and structural division; the danger to morale of piecemeal, ill-considered changes; the fudging of clear lines of ministerial responsibility and accountability; and the erosion of the essential confidentiality between Ministers and civil servants, without which the readiness to proffer unwelcome advice—speaking truth unto power—will be jeopardised.
I will dwell for a moment on the relations between Ministers and civil servants to which the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Newby, referred. It relates to the Haldane principle of ministerial-Civil Service

645
partnership, where Ministers conduct business in the presence of officials. It follows that any distancing between Ministers and officials is dangerous and to be deplored. That is not to say that officials have a monopoly of advice. Clearly they do not, and officials accept that is so. However, in times when views are—perhaps more often than in the past—sought from outside, it is vital that Civil Service advice should be taken. That is not an option. It is and must remain a ministerial duty of loyalty.
It is most welcome that the ministerial code published in July 1997 states without equivocation:
"Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from Civil Servants".
However, loyalty between Ministers and civil servants has an equally important facet. Loyalty, as any 20 year-old platoon commander in the British Army will tell you, is a two-way business. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, welcomed the way in which the Government had praised the way in which the Civil Service had handled the transition in May 1997. But I do not believe that the report is entirely fanciful when it describes a tendency among politicians to denigrate the public service or to damn it with distinctly less than faint praise.
Many references have been made this evening to the late Lord Bancroft. One is reminded of his memorable phrase that
"the routine words of praise delivered through gritted teeth deceive nobody".
Good government requires the loyalty not just of civil servants to Ministers but of Ministers to civil servants. That is not a matter of sentimentality or of slavishly following tradition. It is essential to the proper functioning of the system and to the maintenance of ethos and morale in public service. It too is a duty, not an option. As the report makes clear, that duty is shared by all Ministers—not just the Minister for the Civil Service, who is the Prime Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary for the Office of Public Service.
The report recommended that the responsibility to sustain and uphold the ethos of an impartial, dedicated and non-political Civil Service should be spelled out in the ministerial code. It is a matter for regret that the Government, in their response, do not appear to have accepted that recommendation. I hope that Ministers will be prepared to think again.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Croham: My Lords, my interest in and concern about the Civil Service started 60 years ago, so I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, for the way in which he conducted the Select Committee and presented its report this afternoon. It seems a long time ago since our debate started, so perhaps I may be excused for returning to some of the points that the noble and learned Lord made.
When we began the inquiry, there was great concern in many quarters about the effect of some of the changes in government in recent years—changes in departments, which can happen all the time, and the consequences of the next steps agencies. Fear was expressed that the derogation of power over recruitment, grading and pay
646
to agencies meant that the service would become fragmented. The fact that Ministers were sometimes passing questions to chief executives meant, it was suggested, that they were trying to get out of their responsibility for everything that went on in departments. There was also a fear in many quarters that the next steps agencies were merely steps on the way to privatisation, which is why at some point in our inquiries the question arose whether there was a natural boundary that should not be passed when moving from the public to the private sector.
On many of those points, the committee felt, having heard witnesses, that the fears expressed were exaggerated. There was clear evidence that agencies had improved efficiency and economies in their operations—and that was the primary motive. It is also fairly clear from the evidence we obtained that Ministers are not ducking out of responsibility for operations. If any serious question arises, they accept responsibility and are prepared to haul things back from the agencies if the political situation should require that.
Some of our witnesses were concerned about another question; namely, whether these developments and other changes might have impaired the capability of the Civil Service to give effective policy advice, or damaged the qualities and attitudes which have been looked for in the Civil Service. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, paid tribute to my late friend and colleague Lord Bancroft who would have served on the committee had his health permitted. Lord Bancroft would perhaps have been rather more concerned about the state of the Civil Service than some of the speakers today. He was always concerned about staff and I think he felt that many of the developments that were taking place were perhaps more serious than some speakers have indicated.
As regards the policy point, it was clear to the committee that the work of the agencies is well integrated with the rest of their departments' work. Therefore the creation of the agencies does not appear to have fragmented the policy advising capability of the service. The cohesion of the service as a whole is now bolstered by the creation of the senior Civil Service to which special rules apply. That is a good step but it became necessary in my view because a lot of unpicking has occurred in the 20 years since I left the Civil Service. It was well integrated 20 years ago.
However, there are other reasons for a degree of concern about the Civil Service ethos of which others have spoken. Ministers of all parties have consistently stated that they look for and support certain qualities in the Civil Service; namely, impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity, with selection for promotion on merit, together with the more general ethos of public service. That sentence is taken from the Government's response. However, I am afraid that from time to time actions belie this attitude, in part because Ministers of all parties seem to fear that, if the Civil Service has to serve a party in power for more than one term, it becomes indoctrinated by it. Therefore in compensation there is a temptation to inject more and more political elements into the system.

647
The fear that civil servants become politicised is unjustified. That is evidenced by the present Government's response to the Select Committee report. The Government pay tribute to the way in which the Civil Service coped to their satisfaction with the changeover after the 1997 election. This is of no surprise to any civil servant or ex-civil servant. It was demonstrated to the committee by the way Permanent Secretary witnesses, both before and after the election, clearly acted as spokesmen for the Ministers of the time. That made it impossible for the committee to explore with them any issues of Civil Service morale, which Ministers tend to take for granted, but about which witnesses independent of government—some of whom were ex-civil servants—expressed some concern.
But despite the knowledge that civil servants have always dealt properly with a change of government, a few steps were taken last year which in my view mark the first serious inroad into Civil Service political neutrality. I refer to the appointment of a number of politically committed individuals to executive posts in which their defined role is to give a political slant or spin but in which they will have executive control of ordinary civil servants. Those civil servants will be working in units which will have a consistently political stance. Their performance and possibly their pay will be judged on how well they meet the wishes of the specialist adviser who is their boss, and their impartiality will certainly be compromised in other people's eyes. This could have adverse consequences both for morale and esteem.
A regular civil servant in charge of a team knows when something will break the rules of impartiality and how to deal with the situation. However, an executive appointed to a political role is unlikely to have much concern for the ethos of political impartiality. So far it has been only a small step but its importance should not be underestimated. It is the first time that special advisers have been given executive authority over civil servants. It is a step which was deliberately not taken in 1974 when the concept of special advisers was first introduced on a significant scale. They were not given command over ordinary civil servants. If this became a precedent and its scope increased with successive changes of government—just as last year there was a substantial increase in the number of special advisers—it would not be long before we had a political Civil Service. We may want to go in that direction but we should not do so inadvertently.
Political impartiality has been one of the essential elements of the Civil Service ethos and it is an essential condition for the continuity of the service when governments change. It also represents the most important distinction between the Civil Service ethos and the public service ethos. The public service ethos reflects the tradition in this country that public servants do not use public authority or public funds for their own benefit, or that of their families or friends, or of bodies in which they have an interest, or indeed for their political parties, unless there is explicit parliamentary approval for their actions. This is not an ethos which applies only to paid public servants. It applies to all in
648
public life who claim to operate in the public interest, whatever their political attitudes. It applies to all of us in this House. However, a permanent Civil Service needs political impartiality as well. The Select Committee believes that the Civil Service ethos has not been compromised by the creation of executive agencies. I agree with that but I fear that there are other dangers.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, before I discuss the Select Committee's report I must declare an interest. I am a pensioner of one of the Civil Service unions and paradoxically I also do some work with Andersen Consulting's public sector group. I, too, congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and his colleagues on the report and on providing us with the opportunity to debate it today. The debate is overdue. I sympathise with the committee as its work was interrupted by a general election and, due to the pressure of business, this debate takes place some time after the report was published.
Since then many developments have taken place with the new Government coming to power. Understandably, those developments are not addressed in the report. Therefore the Select Committee's remarks concern mainly the previous administration's record. If I may say so—again, for perfectly understandable reasons—one feels that the report looks to the past rather than tackling current and future developments within the Civil Service. I do not intend that remark as a criticism, as for the reasons I have mentioned it was not possible to tackle the report in any other way. However, I hope we shall soon be able to address the significant changes which are at present taking place within the Civil Service. I refer to the consequences for the Civil Service of the establishment of the Scottish parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, the future role of the Government's offices in the regions and their relationship with the regional development agencies and the role of the new task forces which have been established since the Government came to power. I refer also to the need to examine "cut across policies" and to shift away from the vertical structures of the 1980s and the early 1990s. Revised rules on PFI have now been issued which have significant possibilities for the Civil Service in the future.
Nonetheless the report contains many issues of principle. Once again I congratulate the Select Committee on the way in which it has addressed those issues. I share the view expressed by many other speakers; namely, that I find the report acceptable. The report contains a number of issues which I am sure the Government are happy to embrace, although some questions remain as regards a number of them which have been mentioned by previous speakers. Those matters will need to be re-examined.
I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to his new post and wish him well. I know that he will be anxious to give genuine support to his civil servants and to the Civil Service in general. He will want to do everything that he can to raise morale and to motivate. I hope that the new Government will be able to give civil servants a sense of vision of what

649
constitutes good public service in a way that we have not seen or heard of much in recent years. That ideal has taken some battering.
The noble and learned Lord will also want to maintain the ethos and unity of the Civil Service. Both are rather difficult to define precisely. Having spent much of my life around Whitehall, I understand them, as do most noble Lords present this evening. The Select Committee is keen to preserve both—and we share that ambition.
I have also spent much of my time around the Civil Service network in the rest of the country. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that sometimes there is a tendency to be a little elitist in the way in which we address issues of this nature. We must remember that the vast bulk of civil servants are not employed in Whitehall but in many different locations throughout the UK. I tend to share the view about their attitude to ethos, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. At paragraph 271 of the report he is reported as saying that "ethos" is not sensed in quite the same way,
"out in the Benefits Office in Truro or in Wick".
In my opinion, the unity of the Civil Service is not quite as strong as sometimes we tend to make out when we put on the rose-tinted spectacles and look to the past. Yes, there is unity, but it is an interesting kind of unity. I was recruited, not into the senior Civil Service, but down at the bottom end. I started as a clerical officer. I was recruited by the Inland Revenue over 30-odd years ago. I was a civil servant, but quite frankly my first loyalty then was to the Inland Revenue rather than to the Civil Service as a whole. That was the case with many civil servants who were recruited when I was and it is also the case now for many civil servants. Their first loyalty is to the department, or now the agency, within which they serve.
Looking to the past, we had hundreds of grades, with people remunerated in different ways. Different grades are not something new; we had them in the past. We had different pay arrangements in different parts of the Civil Service. We must ensure that we keep a balance when we talk about ethos and unity.
As a trade union official, I spent quite some time opposing some of the changes that were put into place, as the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Burns, know only too well. As time has passed, the union movement has learned to live with those changes. Some of those changes were introduced by the previous administration. I want to pay my respects to the previous administration in that regard because some of the changes which they introduced have been good for the public service overall, although they also made some mistakes.
Generally speaking, agencies have been a success. There is a limit to how far one can continue to create agencies, but in the main agencies have been a success. We have seen the devolution of management functions and responsibilities within agencies which, I believe, has overall led to an improvement in management performance at a range of levels within the Civil Service, way beyond anything that we had in the past.
650
Without the introduction of agencies and the devolution of certain functions, I do not believe that we would have been able to move in that direction.
I share the Select Committee's view that we must ensure that there is proper accountability to Parliament. There is no question about that. However, we must also look for ways of ensuring that there is proper and full accountability to citizens. I am not sure that people are quite so unaware of the changes which have taken place within the Civil Service as has been suggested. There was plenty of debate in the other House, plenty of campaigning by the unions and a good deal of coverage in a whole range of areas about what was happening in the Civil Service. I believe that the population at large now know that we have new agencies. People know that they have new rights, charters and better opportunities to take the Civil Service to task if it fails to perform adequately. Those are all moves in the right direction.
We must ensure also that we constantly seek to increase the rights of citizens—or "customers", as they are now called by some civil servants—to ensure that proper democratic accountability is operating, not just in Parliament, but also more widely. Ten years ago I used to suggest to members of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that when questioning civil servants they ought not to construct their questions on the basis of what was said at their surgeries and in letters sent to them as MPs, but that instead they ought to survey and poll their customers. I know that that is not particularly popular at this end of the Palace, but I believe that it would be worth while. As Members have never done that, they have never been properly equipped to take to task some of the civil servants who appear before them. Interestingly, many government departments and agencies now carry out polls and conduct research work among taxpayers and "customers" to see how their services are received. Regrettably, we do not always have access to that kind of detail, although it would help us all. An effective freedom of information Act would be another interesting tool available to us in the context of extending democracy and widening people's knowledge of what we do.
I hope that the new Minister will not only maintain the Civil Service drive for greater efficiency, put in train by the previous administration, but do even better. I sensed in the Select Committee report some unease about value for money and efficiency. I hope that I have misread and misunderstood that. It is important to recognise that that must stay at the forefront of what constitutes public service; otherwise the public service will diminish even further, and none of the speakers this evening would wish to see that happen.
I pay tribute to the previous Conservative government for their work on agencies and getting better value for money. In my opinion, the Civil Service is more highly regarded by the general public now than 20 years ago. Credit is due to the other side for having put much of that in train.

651
Now we have to see where we go with the present Government. I hope that they will be bold. I hope that they will persuade civil servants to move forward with them and that they will offer them opportunities in a variety of ways.
One of the down-sides of the previous administration's contribution was that they focused so much on segmentation and on creating agencies—small, individual units—that they failed to see what was happening with technology. They failed to recognise the opportunities that could have been taken on board to improve performance and get better value for money by creating new relationships between agencies and departments and implementing cross-cutting policies. In their last couple of years in office the previous government turned their attention to that issue. I hope that the new Government will do even more on that front. There are great prospects for achieving better policy and for effecting fuller savings and more efficient operations than in the past.
I look forward to the White Paper on better government. Along with the development of IT, I hope that these proposals will play a significant part in the White Paper. I hope, too, that the Government will spend a great deal of time talking about achieving even better management than we have had previously. It is vitally important to the Civil Service, as well as policy-making.
Another issue that was not taken up in the report and on which we need to continue to work is investment. The Government are committed to high-scale investment in health and education. However, I hope that we shall find new ways and means of bringing better investment to departments, agencies and NPPBs. Without that investment, the comparisons that many people draw between the public service and the private sector will continue to be unfavourable as regards the public service. We have people with remarkable aptitudes, but in many areas we are working with old tools in comparison with what is available in the private sector. We need to find ways and means of achieving better investment.
I am not advocating privatisation, although I do not believe that it should necessarily be taken off the agenda. The Government should be prepared to explore all the opportunities and avenues open to them in order to provide the best government, and in particular to find better investment in the public service. That means exploring partnerships even further, not merely with the private sector but with the voluntary sector, and seeking investment from other quarters.
Finally, we have people who can meet all the needs of government in terms of policy development. However, we cannot deny the perception that has arisen in recent years that Civil Service policy-making has fallen somewhat short of the requirements of the country. In the past, policies were developed by political parties, the Civil Service and academics in the universities. In recent years that has tended to change. We have seen what might be described as a vacuum filled to some degree by business and business leaders,
652
initially from the Conservative Party. We have seen the growth and influence of the think-tanks; and we continue to see the growth of political advisers.
I draw comfort from the evidence given to the committee by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that at the end of the day the Prime Minister has the right to call for support and advice from the best quarters when he needs it. That is not solely the Civil Service. I hope that it is predominantly the Civil Service; however, like the noble Lord, Lord Burns, I believe that we must be flexible in our approach. We must be prepared to look wherever we can in order to receive the best support, advice and assistance that are available in order to achieve the best available government.
Civil servants have an opportunity, given some of the changes announced during the summer, to move back into those areas of policy-making where there has latterly been a shift. I was pleased to hear the announcements in July that two new major committees are to be established within Whitehall. They will provide an opportunity for examining prospects and policies and an opportunity for innovation and new policy development in the longer term by civil servants. I believe that those creations will be well received and supported by civil servants. They are necessary for them. I also share the view that they need the opportunity of more cross-fertilisation with life beyond the Civil Service. We need to give greater encouragement to that kind of interchange. I am not without hope and confidence as regards the future of the Civil Service. The service needs to continue to adapt and move with the times. However, we need to make sure that we do not lose sight of the basic principles enunciated in the report.
Within the Civil Service there is significant talent that is not yet being fully utilised. The younger civil servants I meet are more like those described by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I believe that they would wish to have the opportunity to grow and flourish, rather than see themselves pushed into corners.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, It is with some diffidence that I rise to make a modest contribution to this debate, given that it is many years since I was officially involved in these matters and that such knowledge as I had is well out of date. Indeed, I go back to the regime of the late Lord Normanbrook, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred. However, it is a subject which remains of deep concern to me.
As the previous speaker pointed out, the time taken to arrange this debate means that there has been a whole range of changes since the report was published, including the role of the Minister, to whose speech we are all looking forward. I confess that I get a bit lost among the proliferation of new enterprises, but one of the changes that caught my eye was the announcement just before the summer break of a new centre for management studies involving the future of the Civil Service College. I get the impression that, somehow, the college has never quite matched the high hopes that we had for it in furthering the well-being of the service

653
when I surrendered for its use the premises at Sunningdale which we had been running as a civil defence college. I doubt whether the Minister will have time to dwell on that point in his reply, but perhaps he will write to me at his convenience.
I have been well aware for some time that we have long since strayed from the simple concept of a unified service which stemmed from the Northcote-Trevelyan Report. Indeed, as a member of the Fulton Committee, I must take a share of the responsibility for that committee's report, which, unsatisfactory though it was in many respects, did I suppose mark the beginning of major changes. I have to admit that the present admirable report brought home to me that the developments in recent years were even more sweeping and far-reaching than I had previously realised. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Burns need be too apprehensive in regard to the public service being ring-fenced against change.
The Government's reply to the report manages to complicate matters for the simple-minded reader by re-arranging the committee's conclusions in a different way. I noted that there was no comment on the reference by the committee to its earlier report on the recruitment and assessment services to which my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn and other speakers referred.
The previous government lost quite a lot of marks with some of us for simply ignoring the conclusion reached in a vote by this House and going ahead regardless. Although I suppose it will take quite a long time before a proper judgment can be made, I should like to take the opportunity of asking how long the contract will run with the present operators and whether this Government intend to implement the undertaking given by the previous government to carry out regular reviews. I believe they used the word "audits".
I should like to pick out two points arising from the report. The first concerns performance-related pay. When I joined the Civil Service, assistant secretaries, for example, worked their annual way up a scale of £1,150 to £1,450 a year and permanent secretaries were paid £3,000 a year, and that was that. I appreciate that performance-related pay is now part of the culture, but I notice that the committee found that the devolution of responsibility to departments was contributing to a sense of disunity within the service. The Government's reply rather brushes this aside, but I gain the impression from elsewhere that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the fairness of the present system, including suggestions that sometimes there has been shown to be bias against women and members of the ethnic groups. Indeed, I believe that one major department has given up the system for the time being. I realise that there can be no ready cure for the basic complaint that anyway there is not enough money to go round, but I should be interested to know whether the Minister regards the present arrangements as satisfactory and whether it is thought that they do indeed provide motivation.
Secondly, I found the committee's report not totally reassuring on the matter of career planning and how that is linked with delegation of powers to departments. Are there opportunities for those who think they would
654
benefit from operational experience to get a move to a next steps agency without taking the risk that their parent department might lose sight of them? Do such moves take place on any scale? And what are the arrangements for picking out from among the lower orders of the 3,000 senior civil servants the leaders of the future and planning their careers across departmental boundaries? The Government's reply in this context is soothing but not very specific.
There is then the question of appointments to top posts from outside, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. The committee, as we were reminded, found no evidence so far of any adverse effect on morale but warned that such appointments should not be overdone. I should like to echo that point. With the contraction of the service, the number of top posts is, if anything, likely to diminish. If too many of this smaller number were filled from outside, the long-term effects, as this fact gradually became known to potential recruits to the service, could be quite serious.
I shall end on a brighter note. I had feared that career civil servants might increasingly come to be regarded by Ministers primarily as managers rather than as advisers on policy. I can only say that, watching the activities of my old department in recent legislation and elsewhere, and listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has said about the support he has had from officials, I am in no doubt that Home Office civil servants—and I am sure they are not alone in this—continue to play a very active part in the working out of new policies, of which there is no shortage, as an announcement about forthcoming legislation earlier today reminded us.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I cannot rival the history of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, but I joined the Ministry of Supply something over 55 years ago at the most junior technical appointment level that existed at that time, receiving the princely salary of £156 a year, which is rather different from the rates of pay prevalent now. I first met Ian Bancroft when I was posted as a Minister of State to the Civil Service Department, having left the Civil Service and moved into the world of politics, which I think has served me rather better than the Civil Service would have done. Ian Bancroft was then head of the Home Civil Service and Permanent Secretary at the Civil Service Department. From my earliest acquaintance with him, continuing through the years as one saw him sitting on the Cross-Benches in this House, my admiration and affection for him grew all the time and I am glad to echo the comments that have been made about him. I only wish that he were present to be taking part in this debate.
Perhaps I may, as a member of the Select Committee—though I joined it rather later than the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—echo the well-deserved tributes paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. He was a superb chairman. At one stage we were in great disarray and I was not clear that we would ever be able to come together and produce a report. By a masterly précis, which he put together, as far as I could

655
see, over the luncheon interval, he got us all back in line and we moved forward to achieve what I think is a well-angled report about a very important subject.
Twelve months have elapsed since we were about ready to publish the report in December last year. At that time we wondered whether we should delay publication because it was confidently predicted that the Government were to produce a White Paper at any moment. I am glad that we did not delay because the White Paper is still awaited. Perhaps, in replying, the Minister can confirm that it has now been subsumed into a White Paper on better government which is predicted to be published some time next year.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I wish to say a few words about performance pay. I have come across this on a number of occasions and my doubts about its usefulness have increased. In our report we refer to the evidence given by Professor Hennessy, who described the performance pay system introduced into the higher ranks of the Civil Service as "ludicrous" and went on to say:
"If I thought that Deputy Secretary X was going to work that much more effectively and zealously because of a merit payment of £1,000 at the end of the year, I would be deeply worried about Deputy Secretary X because that is not what should get them out of bed in the morning to do a good job for the state".
I entirely agree. Although senior civil servants, when asked about performance pay, loyally said that they thought it might have some marginal usefulness, I very much doubt that that is the case so far as the higher ranks of the civil service are concerned. In my experience, the people who occupy those positions will not be moved much either way by the thought of a small merit bonus at the end of the year. Indeed, like Professor Hennessy, I should be very saddened if that affected their motivation.
The main point I wish to make is on a subject which has been referred to throughout the debate. A theme of our report, much mentioned by earlier speakers, centres on the question as to whether the immensely important public service ethos which has permeated and animated the senior ranks of our Civil Service following the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the last century has been undermined and seriously damaged in recent years. It is generally agreed that a radical and fundamental revolution in public administration has occurred, in a somewhat haphazard fashion, over the past 20 or 30 years. As we say in paragraph 168 of the report,
"there has been little or no coherent rationale underlying the changes made in the Civil Service in recent years".
Perhaps a university thesis will be written to show that there was such a rationale, but none of us knew about it at the time.
Fears have been expressed that privatisation, market testing and the next steps agencies, with their associated emphasis on management skills and value-for-money, have undermined in some way the old Civil Service virtues. I was delighted that these fears, which were abroad at an early stage in the work of the committee, were not supported by the main thrust of the evidence that we gathered.
656
I wholly agree with the noble Lord from the Benches opposite that so often when we talk about the Civil Service we think of a small group of a few thousand, in the main senior people with access to Ministers who have an impact upon the formulation of policy; whereas there is a real civil service out there composed very largely of young people, particularly women, who are not very well paid but who do an enormous number of routine tasks all over the country. I was glad to hear the reference to staff who work in social security offices who often face terrifying behaviour by claimants who bang desks and the like. We must never forget the very loyal service that they give when distributing the benefits that Parliament has laid down.
Another threat to Civil Service morale and values at a senior level came with and from the new Labour Government following last year's general election. New Ministers with their spin doctors and policy advisers—close and trusted friends and colleagues—caused quite a flutter in ministerial corridors in Whitehall. I take one incident. There was that insensitive, if not positively disgraceful, treatment of Jill Rutter, whom I knew when a Minister in the Treasury in the middle of the 1980s. She was head of information. Other information officers suffered a somewhat similar fate. It appeared that senior civil servants were ignored or excluded from policy discussions at that time.
I am glad that there is now a code of conduct for political and special advisers and that the non-party political status of the Government Information Service has been made absolutely clear. Fears about politicisation have happily proved to be somewhat exaggerated, although I do not believe that one can ignore the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who highlighted some of the potential dangers in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, explained, it is perhaps inevitable that when governments change some, but not all, incoming Ministers are slow to appreciate the quality and independence of their senior civil servants. But as time goes on quality should show through and a better balance between what may be described as the "regulars" (the Civil Service) and the "irregulars" (special advisers, et al) will be achieved. The warning of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, on this issue is one of which I hope the Government will take very careful account.
I come to what is perhaps a more controversial point. Paragraph 254 of our report refers to the evidence of Sir Christopher Foster and Mr. Frances Plowden who spoke of
"the erosion of the Haldane principle of Ministerial-Civil Service partnership which used to be the keystone of their relations".
This matter was referred to explicitly by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, and implicitly by my noble friend Lord Beloff. Between 1979 and 1990 Conservative governments led to a diminished role for the Cabinet and Cabinet committees. An increasingly presidential-type regime was imposed that undermined to an extent the independence of departments and the value of collective decision-taking. To have collective

657
responsibility imposed when collective decision-taking is denied is not a happy situation. Perhaps that has reference to events in our very recent memories.
From 1990 to 1997 my right honourable friend the then Prime Minister Mr. John Major sought to restore Cabinet government, at least as far as concerned reports in the press. A fractious and small disloyal minority in his party made life very difficult for him. Rumour has it that the present Prime Minister prefers the Thatcher model of neo-presidential power. If that is true, a further erosion of the Haldane principle is likely and the role of the Civil Service will be diminished at a time when I believe it should be enhanced.
I end by observing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, in opening the debate, said that the report was no show-stopper, or words to that effect. I agree with him. But the report and the supporting documents constitute a rich and varied quarry of quotations and information to be hewed out by students of government and public administration in the future. To the small number of our fellow citizens who follow these matters with care and attention I can only commend the report as a very valuable contribution to debates on these matters.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone expects the last speaker before the gap to score many runs. I shall keep my remarks appropriately brief. I am very glad to join in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and his colleagues on the Select Committee on a most useful report and on introducing this very interesting debate. As a former civil servant I was naturally glad, even if not totally surprised, to note that the Select Committee reached the view that the service had managed to maintain its ethos of fairness, integrity, political impartiality and rigour despite the many changes that had fallen about its head. I also agree with the Select Committee that that ethos is vulnerable, and I shall concentrate my remarks on that.
We could have quite a different Civil Service; for example one based on the American model. However, if we want to maintain our traditional model it must be nurtured and respected. That respect must be earned, but if earned it should be given. The Select Committee emphasises the risks of fragmentation that arise from the creation of executive agencies and the devolution to them of the settlement of pay and conditions of service, the filling of senior jobs from outside, fixed-term contracts and problems over accountability. It is important not to lose the esprit de corps that comes from belonging to a unified service where a sense of proper behaviour or seemliness is acquired by a process of osmosis rather than a formal Civil Service code.
It is good that the Select Committee, having looked at the executive agencies, sees no sign of losing that ethos yet. And I emphasise the word "yet" because in some cases executive agencies will, and perhaps should, develop their own style and their own ethos. I believe that it will become increasingly necessary not just to nurture but to monitor how the ethos is living in this new and very different world.
658
The changes to which I have referred and on which the Select Committee concentrated were the result of deliberate internal government decisions, usually with cross-party support. But I believe that during the 30-year period which the Select Committee examined there were also two external developments—not the responsibility of government—which have a bearing on the prevailing ethos.
The first is the cultural revolution of rising expectations, a product in part of the pressure for personal autonomy and self-realisation which gathered increasing force in the 1960s. That led not just to a challenge to the public service but to a much wider challenge to professionalism in general. Like other institutions which exemplify values over self-realisation, the public service has had to adapt to this new dispensation, which tended to see professional values as impediments to personal development. The very idea that some people—be they doctors, lawyers or civil servants—know best became profoundly inimical to fashionable social norms.
The second extraordinary development is of course greater transparency in government—we do not have full transparency in government—coupled with the growing influence and interest of the media. That has made it much harder for civil servants to shelter behind the traditional notions of ministerial responsibility. But identification can be carried too far.
I do not seek to argue that any of these changes, whether the internal changes in the Civil Service and its organisation or the external changes in the climate, are in themselves undesirable. Indeed, I think that most of them are probably highly desirable, but cumulatively they must make it harder to sustain the public service ethos. I think it is a great achievement of the Civil Service to have done that so far.
Accordingly, I support the recommendations of the Select Committee, including those relating to areas which I have not spoken about. Like the Select Committee, I am on balance, but only just on balance, in favour of a Civil Service Act to buttress the Civil Service code, provided it is always understood that there are ethical attitudes of seemliness, fairness and proper behaviour, which may be very difficult to put into legal language but which will remain just as important, provided that the Civil Service Act is not drafted—and other speakers have made this point—in a way which would impede flexible responses to developing situations.
It seems to me that although we want to maintain our traditional Northcote-Trevelyan Civil Service we are in a way on a process of evolution towards a new kind of Civil Service; more professional, more performance oriented, more open to outside advice and less arrogant. But the trick is to combine that with the old ethos of integrity and impartiality. I believe that that is happening, but the crucial thing will be for governments—for the present Government or any other government—to continue to show that this is what they want and what they value.
7.14 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, there is an American saying that there has not been so much talent round one table since Thomas Jefferson dined alone. I have the feeling today that there has certainly not been so much Whitehall experience brought to bear on a particular subject for a very long time as there has been today. I of course approach these matters from a different vantage point from many of the distinguished Cross-Benchers who have contributed to this debate.
In a 32-year career since leaving university, I have been a think-tank employee, a special adviser, a Member of Parliament, a party apparatchik and a PR executive. I can already suspect that your Lordships are thinking, "This is a man who can't hold down a steady job". But in all those 32 years and in all those jobs I have had direct contact with civil servants, and my interest in the Civil Service even pre-dates that.
At university, when I was not involved in student politics I studied social history, and I have to say that Northcote and Trevelyan were collectively among my political heroes. The Northcote-Trevelyan report, along with the great Reform Bill, are two of the great taproots of our democracy. It was an extraordinary achievement of that time to persuade government to give up patronage in favour of an independent civil service. I consulted a few old textbooks and found that at the time many pundits predicted that governments would not do that because the power of patronage was too powerful a weapon for them to give up. Perhaps it is an encouragement to us all to learn that vested interests can sometimes seek power for the greater public good.
I join my colleagues in tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and his colleagues, for producing this report. Of course the spirit of Lord Bancroft has dominated this debate. Towards the end of his life he said:
"At this point in my life there arc very few matters, apart from my family, about which I can feel passionately. One of them is the future integrity of the public service and in particular the Civil Service".—[Official Report, 8/3/96; col. 573.]
I think that some of that passion has come through to some of his colleagues this evening. Lord Bancroft asked us to make our report a second Northcote-Trevelyan. I do not think that that was ever a realistic ambition for this report, but I think we have done some useful ground clearing so that the necessary look-to-the-future is on the basis of fact and not on prejudice.
Much of the debate tonight has, of necessity and by priority, been about the senior Civil Service and I should like to make a few remarks about that. Before doing so, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. and the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Hayhoe. I am not exaggerating when I say that, certainly for me, the visit we made to Leeds was a traumatic experience. Anybody who has any idea of comfortable, cosseted, tea-drinking civil servants just waiting for their index-linked pensions should go to a benefits office. It literally is the front line and often quite young people are given immense responsibilities on our behalf in dealing with some of
660
the most difficult problems in our society. So sometimes when the term "civil servant" trips off the tongue it is worth remembering those who carry out that work on our behalf.
Over the past 20 years the Civil Service has been severely tested by rapid change. Some of that insecurity, stress and pressure has not been on the civil servants alone; it has been common in many industries and professions, such as banking. We cannot expect to protect our Civil Service from change; it is how we manage that change.
One successful period of change has already taken place. As a number of Members have commented, our report was held over during the period of transition from one government to another. There were question marks over the capacity of the Civil Service to embrace change after 18 years of often strong-minded government, perhaps dominated by the concept of, "Is he one of us?". Had the Civil Service changed? Was it capable of managing the transition? I am pleased to see that the Government's response states:
"The impartiality of the Civil Service—its ability to serve the elected Government of the day, and to provide continuity through changes of Government—has recently been tested … the Government believes that the Civil Service has fully passed that test"
I think that all members of our committee share that judgment. But that does not mean that there were not some worrying signs in the former administration. I believe that one or two civil servants stayed in the same post for far too long. It is a temptation that may arise again if a government stay in office for any length of time. In some ways it is for the civil servants to protect themselves by moving on from a specific job rather than becoming adopted by one Minister, in some cases moving departments with the Minister, thus staying so long with one Minister that they cannot return to the parent department. That is a danger. When we talk about influences on the Civil Service, civil servants should beware of that danger.
I turn to the question of political advisers. I spent five years as a political adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, first in the Foreign Office and then in Downing Street. I was pleased that the Government welcome the fact in paragraph 23 of their response that the committee,
"received no evidence that the system of political advisers had been abused or had caused resentment from the established Civil Service".
That was certainly true. However, the relationship between political advisers and the Civil Service has to be kept under review. There is the danger of what Professor Peter Hennessy has called "politicised over mightiness" of political advisers, or the fear that,
"notions of public service can seem marginal or even positively harmful to the hard pressed".
In our system, it is strange how one action has a result elsewhere. The introduction of Short money—the supplying of money to Opposition parties—created a shadow civil service. In a way which was not true 20 or 30 years ago, young men and women in Whitehall and Westminster working for opposition parties will gain experience of policy making, speech writing,

661
parliamentary questions and all the procedures with which full-time civil servants are familiar. Some of them will move into Government spheres if and when there is a change of government. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, indicated, in the years to come we shall have to work with a hybrid system in relation to advice to senior Ministers. No major political party will give up its resources as regards supplying professional advice. We have to get the balance right.
I again quote Professor Hennessy:
"We live in an era when the Armani-clad minds in the penumbra of fad and fashion-prone private think tanks"—
those who know Peter Hennessy will recognise the language—
"can be preferred (especially if the advice comes gift wrapped and suitably politically tinted) to that more sober, sometimes inconvenient fare served up by the tweed clad minds in the career bureaucracy".
I am not sure that I recognise either the Armani suits or the tweed clad minds. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, is right: getting the balance right between advice from the Civil Service and political advisers is a responsibility of Ministers. Ministers must want a career-based, politically neutral, Civil Service to continue.
Perhaps the safest thing is not so much to ring-fence the Civil Service as to ring-fence the political advisers either by a statutory number of political advisers or a statutory amount of public funds that could be spent on political advisers. There would not then be the danger of a gradual encroachment on the role of the permanent Civil Service by political appointments.
To underpin the independence of the Civil Service, I believe that a Civil Service Act would be welcome. I also believe that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in his Radcliffe lecture described as, "Government in the sunshine" would be best strengthened by a freedom of information Act. I was pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Brooke, seemed to be in support of greater openness in government.
The report defends the special characteristics of our Civil Service: the lack of political bias; integrity; impartiality; objectivity; loyalty and freedom from corruption. It is right we should seek within our Civil Service to have the right social mix. A number of speakers have expressed the suspicion that existed in the 1960s and 1970s, certainly in the Labour Party, that our Civil Service was too narrowly socially based. There was a feeling of hostility and suspicion about its workings. From what I can observe of this transition, that seems to be less felt. Changes have taken place. A recent New Statesman article stated:
"The lazy lunches in the Pall Mall clubs have almost completely gone, as have the shooting weekends in Scotland. Sherry sales are well down. The new Whitehall is an arena where John Major's spiritual children indeed prosper, a place where the academically bright from beyond the public school have their best shot at real power, a venue for advancement for a bureaucratic Mittelstand comprising folks who find their way around a website at least as adeptly as they navigate a wine list".
That can only be progress. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred briefly to the social mix. I believe that there is a social duty on Civil Service recruitment to make special
662
efforts to ensure that there is also an ethnic mix. I understand that over the past six years changes have been made in selection procedures for the fast stream appointments. Racial bias in the tests used has been analysed, and focus groups and other research have been used to try to make the selection systems fairer. However, representation from our ethnic minorities in our senior Civil Service is still very poor. I understand that the Commission for Racial Equality has been working to secure a timetable and action plan covering key issues in relation to fast stream appointments.
We are in a period of social and constitutional change. No one ducks the need for the Civil Service to adapt to new circumstances. The principles of my student heroes, Northcote-Trevelyan, are still valid. However, to remain valid they need civil servants, Ministers and a Parliament who are determined to preserve and strengthen them where necessary. Our Civil Service is both a buttress to our freedom and an asset to us all.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and his committee on this comprehensive report and the painstaking assimilating of a daunting amount of evidence.
In my opinion, it was appropriate also that the committee should have been chaired by a Cross-Bencher, a distinguished judge which, to my mind, symbolised the almost unique reputation for impartiality of our non-political Civil Service. It is right that we should give all credit not only to the noble and learned Lord but also to the members of his committee, even those who did not serve throughout the whole of its time, for what must be regarded as an entirely dispassionate and objective report.
I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He commented on the very high quality and experience of all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this evening. It is late now and I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time with a detailed review of all the report's contents and conclusions. In fact, many of the points made in the report have been covered already by many more experienced noble Lords this evening who have an intimate knowledge of the Civil Service.
I should like to mention one or two key points which have been made in the report. The foundation of the non-political nature of the Civil Service was laid down 195 years ago by the Northcote-Trevelyan report. That report ended the system of appointments to the Civil Service by patronage. The committee welcomes, as I do, the statement in the July 1997 edition of the Ministerial Code that has already been quoted this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, that:
"Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants".
However, giving fair consideration and weight to the advice of civil servants, whether the Minister accepts that advice or not, does not detract from the overriding duty of a Minister to accept responsibility for what his department does or does not do. A Minister cannot be

663
heard to say that he was misled by his civil servants or that somehow it was their fault. I do so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, that loyalty goes both ways between Ministers and those in the Civil Service.
I believe also that if a person is in receipt of a ministerial salary and enjoys a ministerial chauffeur-driven limousine and all the other perquisites of high office, if something goes wrong, even if he considers that it is not his fault, it certainly must be his responsibility. That applies equally when a Cabinet Minister hives off part of his historic duties to an agency or non-governmental body such as the Bank of England. On every Minister's desk there should be a plaque of President Truman's favourite aphorism, "The buck stops here".
Another new trend is the shedding of the professional departmental press officers and their replacements by outsiders. I believe that there is a difference between a press officer who is seen by everybody as merely being the mouthpiece of his political master—the messenger, if you will—and someone who combines fact with political propaganda so that it is very difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. Someone who, in many cases, actually helps to formulate the policies is supposed merely to "sell" to the public.
That brings me to the proliferation of the many special advisers that we now find in Whitehall. That matter has been noted by many noble Lords this evening. I believe that it is right and proper that senior Ministers should have access to political advisers paid for at the public expense: first, because a Minister needs someone to look over his shoulder, advising him of the political consequences of his policies and to help formulate policies without being involved in the day-to-day burden of running a department; and secondly—to my mind, much more important—because it enables the professional civil servants to distance themselves from politics, as I found for myself when I had the honour of speaking from the Dispatch Box on the other side of the Chamber.
But what concerns me is the increase in the number and cost of those special advisers. That matter has also been mentioned by many noble Lords this evening, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, when he opened the debate. It is a matter which needs to be carefully watched. The number of special advisers funded by the public under the present Government has increased from 38 to 64. A year ago, the cost was put at £2.6 million compared with an average in the last Parliament of £1.4 million. Four of them enjoy salaries of over £70,000 per annum, including one at over £100,000 per annum, all of which are more than is earned by the Secretaries of State in the other place.
And then there is the so-called Strategic Communications Unit. I am still not sure whether that unit deals with strategy about communications or communications about strategy, but its function seems to ensure that Ministers remain on-song. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell me which of my
664
two interpretations is the correct one. In any event, the cost of that department for 1998–99 will be in the region of £500,000.
In the report, the committee refers to both the advent of political advisers and the creation of autonomous executive agencies under the jurisdiction of various departments. In the face of that, the committee emphasises that,
"to safeguard the Northcote-Trevelyan principles in terms of both recruitment and conduct clear guidelines need to be set out which protect the neutrality and independence of the Civil Service whilst opening up access of Ministers for political advice".
The noble Lord, Lord Croham, made the point that there is a great danger in blurring those lines of responsibility. My noble friend Lord Hayhoe and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made the same point. I very much hope that we shall hear from the Minister, in his reply, that the Government intend to take up that important recommendation and will give us an idea as to when those new definitive guidelines will be published.
As the committee reminded us pointedly in its report, the overall responsibility for protecting the ethos and morale of the Civil Service lies in the first place with the Minister for the Civil Service; and that, of course, is the Prime Minister. That is with whom that particular buck stops.
The committee received evidence from many knowledgeable witnesses, including many Members of your Lordships' House. All spoke in the highest terms of the way that the Civil Service has coped with the changes that have taken place in the way that the country is governed and the way in which its affairs are administered. Others, involved in or with the executive agencies, including the Council of Civil Service Unions, told the committee of the improvement that has been achieved in the delivery of services following the creation of those agencies. I am pleased to note that endorsement of the policies of the previous government in the creation of the method of managing the Government's public responsibilities. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, will not be surprised that I am most grateful to him for acknowledging that.
I was interested to see the committee's view that the creation of those executive agencies has given rise to questions of accountability. As the committee pointed out, accountability sometimes—I stress sometimes—rests on the novel assumption that the chief executive is responsible rather than the Minister; further, that the Minister's responsibility to Parliament is satisfied by acting as a sort of mouthpiece for the chief executive, often by simply appending a letter from him to a Written Answer.
The committee strongly recommends that, as there are now a variety of interpretations of the nature of the devolution of accountability, there is,
"a need for the relationship to be precisely defined"—
to which I would add, "and consistently in all cases".
The committee considers that it is,
"unrealistic to imagine that a minister will not become involved when an operational matter suddenly raises a policy issue … so that it is impossible to devolve absolute accountability to Chief Executives".

665
I do not believe that anybody would disagree with that. The committee asks the Government to affirm that the position of the agency chief executive is no different from any other civil servant, so that it would prevent it being thought that Ministers can pass responsibility for operational matters to chief executives.
Having had the opportunity to consider the report, will the Minister tell us whether the Government are both prepared to make that affirmation and to ensure that the Civil Service code should be amended to define the responsibility of Ministers for their executive agencies, as recommended by the committee?
Finally, the committee reported—I can do no better than quote its words—that,
"The evidence … has shown that the current Civil Service has coped in the highest traditions … with the change of Government which occurred in May 1997".
Its report also said that it had received much evidence testifying to the continuing high standards of efficiency, integrity, impartiality and intellectual rigour which characterise the Civil Service. The committee paid tribute to the Civil Service for maintaining those qualities so well. So do we on these Benches and, I believe, the whole House.
7.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, like other speakers in the debate, perhaps I may start by making two points. First, on behalf of the Government I pay a real tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, for the work that he and his committee have done in producing the report. It is a serious piece of work which will be read for a long time to come as a major contribution to the study of the Civil Service and also what its ethos and qualities should be. On behalf of the Government I am genuinely grateful for the work that has been done.
Secondly, I pay tribute to the quality of the debate that has just taken place and express my extreme diffidence in replying to it. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, the wealth of experience behind the views that have been expressed on the report would make anybody diffident in responding to them.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, ended her speech by reference to paragraph XXXI of the committee's report. It is its last recommendation and basically ends on an extremely optimistic note in relation to the Civil Service. When listening to the debate today one could have been forgiven from time to time for thinking that the Civil Service and the public service are under some sort of threat. That is profoundly not the view that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and his committee expressed. Though it is perhaps repetitive, it is worth reading again:
"The evidence we have received has shown that the current Civil Service has coped in the highest traditions of the Civil Service with the change of Government which occurred in May 1997. We have also received much evidence testifying to the continuing high standards of efficiency, integrity, impartiality and intellectual rigour which characterise the Civil Service. We pay tribute to the Civil Service for maintaining these qualities so well".
666
Those views were echoed by the Prime Minister when he paid tribute to the Civil Service shortly after this Government came to power.
We should therefore approach the debate not on the basis that there is danger and trouble, but on the basis that the Civil Service has proved itself to be very effective in the past few years and since this Government came to power in withstanding any sort of attack on its ethos and in fulfilling the highest traditions of public service. It is important and valuable that the Government express—and I do so today—that they are fully committed to maintaining the key principles of impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity which underpin a permanent Civil Service. I make clear also that this Government hold the Civil Service in the highest esteem and that I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said; that is, that one of the things that undermines the ethos of the Civil Service is if it believes that it is not held in the highest esteem. That is not the position. This Government hold it in the highest esteem.
Perhaps I may deal also with the point in relation to special advisers. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that it is appropriate and sensible for Ministers to have special advisers. Nobody has seriously suggested that that is not the case, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. With the greatest respect to their arguments, I believe them to be wrong. It is entirely appropriate that a Minister, in fulfilling his office, should be assisted by a special adviser to give help both in relation to the political direction of the advice that he is given and also in relation to the presentation of policies with which he is concerned.
From my experience—it is not in any way contradicted by the report of the committee—there is no danger to the impartiality of the Civil Service. Moreover, as has been made clear, the Civil Service code requires Ministers to give due weight and fair consideration to the advice that civil servants give to them. It is an arrangement between special advisers on the one hand and the Civil Service on the other that can provide a better overall service to Ministers than the position without them.
The matter must also be put in context. How many special advisers are there? There are 70, not 64 as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, modestly suggested in her speech. There are in the region of 3,500 senior civil servants and in the region of 450,000 non-senior civil servants. That sort of ratio is a wise and sensible one; it is the sort of ratio where the two can work together effectively.
The committee said that it received no evidence that the system of political advisers had been abused or had caused resentment from the established Civil Service. Indeed, that is my experience. Of course, there may be difficulties, as has been referred to in the course of the debate, when new governments come to power. But there can be no organisation where a whole new layer comes in when there is not some difficulty in relation to the early stages. It would be wrong and unwise therefore to draw any conclusions from whatever initial difficulties there may have been. The arrangements complement each other and serve the country well.

667
It is important to emphasise that the ethos of the Civil Service and the specific qualities it brings are so precious that it is extremely important that its preservation is monitored. How that is done is obviously the responsibility of Ministers. In relation to the response given by the Government, we made it clear that we accept an obligation to monitor the preservation of the ethos and values of the Civil Service, and I repeat that undertaking.
I appreciate that it is for a political government to do more than pay lip service to those principles. I hope that by our actions we prove that we accept the principles, that we value the ethos and that we will do all we can to ensure that the virtues of the Civil Service continue. That is our basic position and it is one that practically every speaker shares.
I believe I have dealt with the major thread that ran through the debate and through the report. Perhaps I can deal with a number of more specific points raised by certain speakers. First, in relation to the Recruitment and Assessment Service, it is not appropriate or necessary for me to go over the debates that took place in 1996. For better or worse the decision was made by the previous government to privatise the Recruitment and Assessment Service. The result of that privatisation was that the mechanics of recruitment are now in the hands of a private company. That private company has a series of contracts that expire in the year 2001. Obviously the Government will keep those arrangements under appropriate review. I do not think that there is much more that I can say about that tonight.
Secondly, questions were asked as to what was the appropriate sort of activity for the Civil Service to perform, and what the appropriate activity would be for intermediate agencies and private enterprises. In the course of their response to the noble and learned Lord's report, the Government have not attempted to try to produce their own definition of where the lines must be drawn. I noted with interest the persuasive proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, as to where the line should be drawn. I had not heard such arguments before and it would be wrong for me to comment on them and say whether they are right or wrong. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a huge grey area here. Indeed, the way to approach it is not with a bias for or against privatisation or for or against executive agencies, but to do so on the basis of what it is that effectively delivers the particular service, having regard to a number of factors, one of which is the need in a particular case to provide the appropriate degree of accountability.
As far as concerns the executive agencies, the conclusion of the report was that they had broadly been beneficial. The noble Lord, Lord Croham, acknowledged that they had not led to an inappropriate fragmentation of the Civil Service. We accept the point made by a number of speakers in the course of today's debate; namely, that there should be proper accountability in relation to these matters. As regards the constitutional position, the chief executives of those executive agencies are all accountable to a Minister, who, in his or her turn, is accountable to Parliament.
668
Therefore, although it is sensible to raise such a point, I do not believe that there is any real doubt about the fact that there is the appropriate amount of parliamentary responsibility.
I move on to the question of the Civil Service Act and whether or not the Civil Service code should be put into such an Act. The Government's response to the noble and learned Lord's report was that, in principle, we accept the idea of a Civil Service Act. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, was being somewhat unkind to us when he said that our response to it was lukewarm. We have said unequivocally that we should have it. I think the noble Lord may have taken the fact that we have put no time limit on when it is coming as indicating lukewarmness. He, of all people, will know that we have a very busy legislative programme ahead of us. As to how busy it will be, that will depend upon the difficulties created in this place in that respect. As noble Lords will understand, I can give no commitment as to when such a Civil Service Act might appear. However, in principle, we think that it is a good idea. I also agree with the noble Lord, that, when such an Act is produced in Bill form, the drafting will be incredibly important and great attention will need to be paid to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, also said that the Government should not delegate functions to non-elected quangos merely to avoid democratic accountability. I entirely agree with that view. Government are committed to using quangos only where strictly necessary; for example, where some sort of independent arm's length body is the appropriate one to deal with the particular function which is to be delegated.
Throughout the debate two other matters were raised which I believe require particular attention. First, the question was raised as to whether the Civil Service was continuing to attract the right quality people. Some views were expressed tonight that the people who are now going into the Civil Service were not as good as in, "my day". There is a feeling in that respect, which I am sure is felt by practically every generation. Indeed, when I was a young man at university, all the best people became barristers and civil servants. I believe that that remains the position, but perhaps that is not necessarily so in the case of barristers. The entirely commendable changes to access to justice may well reduce the number of barristers.
As far as concerns civil servants, from my experience as a Minister—which is short and unrepresentative—it would appear that the quality of new entrants to the Civil Service is extremely high. In fact, I can do slightly better than simply rely upon my own experience. When looking at the figures in relation to the fast stream of the Civil Service, one can see that something in the region of 7,000 applicants were received in 1997 for 170 places. Therefore, although that does not necessarily indicate the quality of the people applying, it indicates that there is still very high demand for what are very good quality jobs. I very much believe that the standard of new entrants now is just as good as it was in my day, in my father's day and indeed in my grandfather's day. So such fears may be exaggerated, but I do not put that

669
forward scientifically. We are also encouraged to some extent by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, brings news from Oxford that there are at least one or two people from his college applying to the Civil Service. Moreover, despite the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, we understand that there is still active talk going on—for example, by way of seminar and dining—in which government is discussed.
The second important point raised is whether there has been too much change. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, dealt with that aspect. I do not think that the change which has taken place over the past 30 years has in any real sense been voluntary. The Civil Service has obviously decided what it has to do, but the idea that the service could or should have done nothing for that time about the changes in the world which went on around it just has to be stated in order for us to realise how ridiculous it is. Broadly, although one would not necessarily agree with all the changes, one can say that the Civil Service as a large organisation has responded well in the way that it has sought to cope with the many changes which have occurred. In particular, I have in mind the ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred; namely, the greater expectation of the people as to what they expect from their elected government and from a permanent Civil Service.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn suggested that perhaps we should put a stop to change and consolidate. I do not believe that the question of change is entirely in our hands. Indeed, we must move by reference to how society moves around us. Therefore, in a sense, you cannot say that we will have a bit of change for 30 years and then stop for a period of time. One has to be realistic about what is possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked me specifically about the Civil Service College in the light of the central management arrangement that was set up in July. I was given a note in that respect by the Civil Service which I have now lost. I apologise to the noble Lord, but perhaps I may write to him in relation to that point.
I have not answered all the points that have been raised tonight. However, I should like to make one final point. The one thing that seemed to arise throughout the whole debate was the fact that every speaker recognised the importance and the vulnerability of the ethos and virtues of the Civil Service. I end by saying that the Government recognise that and that we will do all we can to protect those qualities.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have listened to and participated in this debate. It has been one of the most informed and constructive debates that I have heard since I came to the House. In fact, it was so good that I wish we could have had the debate on the report before we wrote it; so many important points have been raised. It is just the kind of discussion that Lord Bancroft, whose absence from our committee and in today's debate we greatly
670
regret, would have wanted. Indeed, so many points have been raised that it would be undesirable and perhaps even unnecessary for me to try to deal with all of them.
However, the extent to which we all recognise that the key to the strength of the Civil Service relates to and depends upon the health of the Civil Service ethos has come out very strongly in the debate. I wholly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lords, Lord Hayhoe and Lord McNally, about the significance and importance of our visit to Leeds. I wish that all your Lordships could have been there that day to see what has to be dealt with on the ground.
As has become obvious, our task was to report on things which we saw had gone wrong and to give warning signs of things which might go wrong and which needed to be monitored; accountability and the importance of ensuring that the role of the special advisers, which is very important, should be kept in legitimate areas. I was so persuaded by what the Minister said about the usefulness and importance of having specialist advisers that I shall apply for one or some when I sit on the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. They would be an extremely valuable adjunct to the work we had to do. With the risk of fragmentation, obviously that was important. As to that, I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, said about the importance of monitoring.
I want to comment briefly on three points which were raised but with which I am not entirely happy. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, it is not right to say that we underestimated the anxiety of those who had come into the Civil Service with the expectation of an on-going career for life. We were very conscious of that. We examined the matter without it having been raised by others, and all who came to us recognised that nowadays a career for life no longer exists in the private sector and cannot be justified in the public sector.
Secondly, I do not believe that it is right to say that we asserted or assumed an antithesis, a clear distinction between efficiency and money on the one hand and integrity and loyalty on the other. I have said today, and as is said in the report, the qualities of the ethos are as essential to the private sector as they are to the public sector. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, efficiency is essential to both.
I must insist that we did not say—and I did not say today—that the changes which have taken place have not been discussed in Parliament. I said that they had not been discussed except in Parliament. It is quite obvious that during the years when changes have been taking place there have been important discussions in your Lordships' House and the other place.
I accept the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that it might be possible to look at the link between departments when there are forays abroad and that there should be an increased facility with foreign languages. We went into that, to some extent, in relation to the European Union, even though I agree that it could have been taken on a broader basis if we had been looking at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

671
I wholeheartedly agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that a lot had happened without people being aware. When one goes into the whole history of what happened, it is absolutely plain that there have been extraordinary developments of which people were not really aware.
I am very grateful for the comments on the contents of the report. I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will be able to distribute in Oxford a copy of our report as a working document for seminars in government, politics and whatever else. That gave me a heartening confidence in what has happened.
I am very grateful that the Minister read out the last paragraph of the report. It really sums up the beliefs that we reached at the end. We can be reasonably content with most things, but we should certainly not be complacent. Finally, I join in with all the tributes paid to the Civil Service by Members on all sides of the House. Again, I thank your Lordships for participating in the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cannabis: Select Committee Report
8.4 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton Lord Perry of Walton rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Cannabis: the Scientific and Medical Evidence (9th Report, HL Paper 151, Session 1997–98).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I used to be a pharmacologist I knew very little about cannabis when I was invited to be Chairman of this inquiry. Since then, I have learnt a very great deal from those who gave written and oral evidence. It was a fascinating experience.
I am enormously indebted to my colleagues on the sub-committee who gave unstintingly of their time and their skills. I am especially indebted—as we all were—to our specialist adviser, Professor Leslie Iverson, for his experience and expertise and for the work that he did with outside organisations. It almost goes without saying that our clerk, Andrew Makower, and his staff gave us their usual invaluable assistance.
I want to start by pointing out that the members of the sub-committee were completely unanimous in their recommendations. Also, the members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology were equally unanimous in endorsing the recommendations of the sub-committee. I do not think that this opinion—the opinion of two groups, which include quite a number of distinguished scientists and doctors—can be ignored. Nor do I think that it deserved to be dismissed out of hand by the Government on the very day that the report was published. I shall return to this point later.
Let me first describe the structure of the report. It starts with an introductory chapter describing the reasons why we undertook the inquiry. In the second chapter, we give a history of the use of cannabis over the years. It was first referred to in Assyrian tablets
672
2,600 years ago and it has been in continuous use since then in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. It was included in the Herbal, the pharmacopoeia of the time, of Dioscorides in Greece in about 60AD and was still included in the British pharmacopoeia of 1914. It is, indeed, said to have been used by Queen Victoria for period pains. Like all herbal medicines, it was recommended for a wide variety of illnesses for which it was virtually useless, but for some few it may well have had an effect.
In 1968, after the tragedy of Thalidomide, the Medicines Act was passed. This led to a system of licensing new drugs for use, imposing strict safety and efficacy requirements in addition to the quality controls imposed by the pharmacopoeia. These tests, including clinical trials, work well with new synthetic chemicals. They would not have worked with the herbal remedies such as the extracts of digitalis and raw opium which preceded them.
After a series of legislative changes, promoted by the rapid growth of the misuse of psychoactive drugs in the 1960s and 1970s, the current Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 became law. It classified controlled drugs either in Schedule 1, which banned their prescription altogether, or in Schedule 2, which permitted prescription by doctors for named patients. Heroin, which had well-known medical uses, was put in Schedule 2. Cannabis, however, because it was held at the time to have no known therapeutic value, was put in Schedule 1, although it was much less toxic than heroin. Had the pharmacological activities of cannabis been discovered at that time, this decision might well have been different and we would not have the problem we have today.
In Chapter 3, we describe these recent pharmacological discoveries. First, we describe how cannabis consists of a family of 66 chemically related cannabinoids plus some 400 other substances. Its main psychoactive ingredient is Δ9- Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC for short. Cannabinoids are insoluble in water but soluble in fat. This limits the number of possible formulations for their administration. Smoking cannabis gives very rapid absorption, virtually in seconds. Administration by mouth leads to slow and irregular absorption and much cannabis is degraded as it passes through the liver.
The recent work that I referred to shows that there are receptors—specialised molecules—that are activated by cannabis. One set of receptors is in the brain, another in the immune system. There are also naturally occurring compounds in the brain that activate these receptors. They are called endogenous cannabinoids. Activation of these receptors leads in animals to potentiation of the action of morphine so that a smaller dose becomes effective. In the light of this new evidence, it is difficult to believe that cannabis has no therapeutic value since large doses of morphine not only relieve pain but also depress respiration—and cannabis, by allowing the use of a smaller dose of morphine, would help to prevent this.
In Chapter 4, we examine the evidence about the toxic effects of cannabis. There are two physical effects. It causes a mild increase in heart rate and a fall in blood

673
pressure. This would affect adversely only people with heart disease. The second physical effect is on the lungs if the cannabis is smoked. There is in regular smokers of cannabis an increased incidence of cough, bronchitis and asthma and, possibly, of pre-cancerous changes. There has as yet been no case of cancer of the lung, but it seems a fair bet that this will happen once people have smoked cannabis for long enough. Cannabis smoke contains all the carcinogens and as much tar as does tobacco smoke.
The other toxic effects are all psychological. In the short term, there is impairment of psychomotor function. This may affect driving, flying or operating machinery. But unlike alcohol, cannabis seems to make drivers careful rather than over-confident. Cannabis occasionally causes a psychotic episode lasting a day or two, but in the longer term heavy users can certainly develop severe cognitive changes and can become permanently stoned and incapacitated. This may happen in up to 5 per cent. of regular heavy users. It is not seen in those who use cannabis for medical purposes. Similarly, heavy users can exhibit tolerance of and physical dependence on the drug. It can also exacerbate schizophrenia in patients already affected by that disease.
All in all, the evidence shows that, on the one hand, cannabis does have serious toxic effects after heavy and prolonged use for recreation. But, on the other hand, it is easy to exaggerate its dangers when used medically. It has never caused death. It is easy in most cases to give up its use. It has fewer and less serious side effects than most of the active drugs used in modern medicine.
In Chapter 5, we review the medical uses of cannabis. Since all use is illegal, it is very difficult to obtain firm evidence. Nevertheless, we were impressed by the sheer volume of the anecdotal evidence for its successful use in treating the distressing symptoms of multiple sclerosis, and by the experimental evidence for its use in treating intractable pain. We found the evidence for its usefulness in treating epilepsy, asthma and glaucoma less convincing.
The British Medical Association of 1998 estimated that there were many thousands of users of cannabis for medical purposes. The Multiple Sclerosis Society estimated that at least 1 per cent. and possibly many more of the 85,000 sufferers from multiple sclerosis used cannabis illegally; that is, at least 1,000 patients. The Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics has records of more than 200 patients who benefit from cannabis. In a postal survey of more than 100 patients, 90 per cent. reported alleviation of symptoms, especially of incontinence, muscular spasms and pain.
We warmly welcome the planned clinical trials of cannabis and the cannabinoids for both multiple sclerosis and for intractable pain which were announced during our inquiry. Indeed, our first recommendation is that such trials should be promoted as a matter of urgency. Both trials will, however, use cannabis and cannabinoids by mouth, not by smoking.
In Chapter 6, we discuss the use of cannabis for recreation. It is estimated that one in three of all those aged between 16 and 29 have tried smoking cannabis at
674
least once and that 7.5 million people in the UK have smoked it at one time in their lives. We felt, however, that the potential toxic effects of heavy and prolonged use were such as to justify maintaining the policy of keeping cannabis as a controlled drug.
In Chapter 7, we discuss the effect of changing the law about the medical use of cannabis. On the one hand, we agree with the Government that, to get a licence from the Medicines Control Agency there must be a standardised preparation of cannabis or a cannabinoid that is of approved quality and that has been tested by clinical trials for its safety and efficacy. Furthermore, we agree that any such licensed product should not be administered by smoking. On the other hand, we know that clinical trials will take at least five years to be completed. Was there any way that patients could be given cannabis legally without waiting for a licensed product?
It is indeed already possible for a doctor to prescribe THC because THC is in Schedule 2. This itself is anomalous since it is thereby held to have therapeutic value while cannabis, which contains it, is held to have none. Yet many users find cannabis more effective than cannabinoids in relieving their symptoms. Thus there is a logical argument why cannabis should be in Schedule 2. There was, as I showed earlier, an historical argument for it. We also felt that there was sufficient evidence of its safety in medical use, and of its efficacy, albeit anecdotal, in multiple sclerosis and for intractable pain for it to be so transferred. This was our main recommendation.
Finally, let me turn to the consequences of such a move. Doctors and pharmacists could manufacture and prescribe cannabis legally. The doctor could prescribe it in any form he chose—for oral administration, for smoking or for administration by any other route. We do not approve of smoking cannabis over a long period because of the potential risk of cancer. This is clearly, however, of no importance in patients dying from terminal cancer or AIDS. It is at least arguable that if one suffers from the distressing symptoms of a chronic disease for which there is no known cure, one would put the advantages of a better quality of life ahead of the misgivings about the potential risk of cancer. That is not to argue against the desirability of finding an alternative way of achieving rapid absorption without smoking. Indeed, we recommend that research to that end be promoted. It was recently reported that an aerosolised extract of cannabis will be used in one trial. That is, however, to put compassion ahead of anti-smoking principle.
I return to the fact that the Home Office Minister in the other place saw fit to reject our main recommendation on the day that the report was published, in the following words:
"The Government would not be prepared to countenance any move to allow prescription before clinical trials and safety tests have been completed. The safety of patients is our first priority and the Government would not allow prescription of any drug which had not been tested for safety, efficacy and quality through that clinical process.".
Even if we accept that patient safety is the first priority, our report shows that if cannabis is used to treat patients on the prescription of a doctor, the risk to the patient

675
is vanishingly small. Furthermore, many patients would regard their safety as only their second priority after the quality of their lives. Should not the Government share that view? Is their attitude coloured by social, economic and criminological considerations to which our inquiry was not addressed? Those considerations are only pertinent to the recreational use of cannabis and should not be allowed to influence decisions about its use for medical purposes. The well being of patients ought to be paramount.
I call on the Government to give more mature consideration to our recommendations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Cannabis; the scientific and medical evidence (9th Report, HL Paper 151, Session 1997–98)—(Lord Perry of Walton.)
8.22 p.m.
Lord Winston: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and congratulate him on chairing the committee in such an excellent manner. The committee sat for eight months and it was a pleasure to be part of those serious deliberations under the noble Lord's chairmanship and with the advice of Professor Iversen of Oxford. I thank also, as did the noble Lord, Andrew Makower, the Clerk to the Committee, who made its members swear a vow of chastity and silence over whether they had ever partaken of cannabis themselves.
This excellent report is modest in its remit and recommendations, and extremely contained and confined. It states simply that it is seriously important to consider the therapeutic applications of a potentially useful drug and that the drug may give some insight into neurological transmission because of its curious actions within the brain and the rest of the nervous system.
Control of pain is not an easy matter. There never has been and, I suspect, never will be a single drug that will control pain—particularly where it is neurogenic in origin.
Because the report is limited and the committee's aims objectives and considerations were constrained, this debate may be repetitious.
The British Medical Association, in the briefing that some of your Lordships may have seen, perhaps erroneously gave the impression that the committee did not distinguish between cannabis and the cannabinoids. That is untrue. We did make that distinction. We understood the difference between a pure form of the drug and a dirty drug—a drug having just the active compound or one that is contaminated. There is nothing wrong about using a dirty drug if it going to do the job. We use such drugs all the time. For the past 20 years, my own practice has been using FSH—follicle-stimulating hormones—which is not pure but derived from human sources. It has all sorts of proteins in it that are not wanted and which have unwanted effects. But until the recombinant drug was available this year, that was the only way we could stimulate ovulation. We did so successfully and many thousands
676
of babies have been born throughout the world without serious problems. So clean versus dirty drugs is not the issue. The principle of the use is key to the argument.
Are cannabis and cannabinoids so dangerous and potentially so devastating as to be more carefully and rigidly restricted than virtually any other drug—including methadone, morphine, cocaine and heroin? The answer must surely be no. Cannabis may have some rare dangers, possibly including cancer, neurological damage or psychological damage in certain susceptible individuals—but those risks are clearly much less than with many other drugs. Despite anecdotal claims, there is little evidence that cannabis will cause schizophrenia—although people who are predisposed to that condition, either genetically or for other reasons, may develop it during extensive use.
It is clear that toxicity of the compound is extremely low, causing perhaps four or five deaths in the past few years. Aspirin kills perhaps 50 people annually and so does paracetamol, which is widely available and can be bought over the counter at any pharmacist. Alcohol is responsible for far more deaths than any of those painkillers.
None of those limitations or worries about risks applies to carefully supervised risks. Many witnesses gave evidence of potential benefit. It seems that the few cannabinoids that are available in Britain on prescription have a limited effect on patients with the sort of pain that we are talking about. The patients in question are often desperately ill and dying of disease, and for them we must have great sympathy. Our report simply calls for proper evidence about the use of such drugs. We are not asking for recreational use. There is not the slightest evidence that, given proper controls, the implementation of our recommendations would increase recreational use in the slightest. Even if it did, there is no serious evidence to suggest that the consequence would be as dangerous as the misuse of existing drugs such as aspirin. The committee recommends that cannabis and allied compounds may be given by doctors orally, by pessary, by suppository or by another appropriate method on a named-patient basis. That would be the most modest change possible in the law.
It is disappointing that my honourable friend the Minister, who is a good and excellent Minister and a thoughtful man, was reported as saying that, essentially, the Governments position is inflexible. One report quoted him as saying:
"It would be irresponsible to say that it's OK to use it but there is no scientific evidence that it will work".
That is always the dilemma faced in the use of any drug. One actually has to test it. It is equally irresponsible, if not downright hard-hearted, not to offer such drugs if there is the slightest evidence that they might work.
We need clinical trials. However, the Government's response issued within hours of this report being published was,
"We have not got rigorous scientific evidence that gives us absolute confidence that it is actually beneficial".
That is our position. That is exactly what we are trying to establish; namely, evidence that these are beneficial drugs. As we have reported, that cannot be done with

677
the rigid controls that are currently in place. We need blinded, controlled, possibly crossover studies—standard pharmacological methods of examining drugs. That simply cannot be done with the current regulatory position. It is interesting to note that the proper use of these drugs could improve our understanding of the nervous system.
Currently we have a ludicrous catch-22 situation. I fear that the Government's response on this occasion was too hasty. It was an understandable knee-jerk reaction, but I fear that it is wrong. This is a serious committee whose membership comprises Fellows of the Royal Society, a Nobel prize winner and other distinguished members. If the Government are not prepared to take serious notice of this committee and are not carefully to consider its findings, it has to be said that perhaps there is no point in such a committee sitting at all. To ignore the careful and well-considered findings of such a committee would diminish an important function of your Lordships' House. It could also damage the esteem and respect in which the Government are held.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I must admit that there were times yesterday afternoon when I thought perhaps I might be high on a cannabis trip! Fortunately I knew that that was not the case.
I undertook this study with a considerable lack of enthusiasm. I could not become interested in the subject. However, by the end of our deliberations I became fascinated by the subject and I learnt a great deal about it, as one so often does on these committees. It is one of the great privileges of taking part in such committees that one gains insights into subjects of which one formerly knew absolutely nothing. I am most grateful to the chairman of the committee and to the other members for tolerating me. I echo the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, at the Government's apparent immediate rejection of the report. I hope that they will give the matter more mature consideration and will consider seriously the rather limited but specific and deliberate recommendations of the committee.
This is an unusual report as a large part of what we have recommended depends on what is essentially anecdotal evidence. We had to spend some time arguing about the nature of evidence and whether anecdotal evidence could be considered to be scientific evidence, and, if it was not, whether it could be considered to be evidence, and if it was not evidence, what was the point of hearing it anyway. Some 2,500 years of use of this substance must suggest something.
There is another aspect of the report I wish to mention; namely, that we do not recommend that something be made available for use which is not already available for use. It may be all too regrettable, but cannabis is virtually freely available, provided one can afford it. The price is not particularly high but undoubtedly the desire to possess the substance leads to a certain amount of criminal activity. However, for those who need it, cannabis is available. The report seeks to make legal what is at present illegal for those in
678
desperate need of it. We need to bear that distinction in mind. For some individuals, such as those who suffer from multiple sclerosis, cannabis is the best pain reliever they can have. It is good for pain relief and it is good for spasticity.
There is the recommendation to reschedule cannabis out of schedule 1 into schedule 2. That matter apparently will have to be considered by the World Health Organisation. I find it fascinating that a small change can have such wide implications. If it is accepted that cannabis can be prescribed by doctors on a named patient basis for a defined condition, then surely we are not doing anything to endanger the social fabric of society at large through a possible leakage into the general community that may occur as a result of that action. The idea is preposterous when one can buy a small amount of cannabis on any street corner if one wishes to do so. In any event the evidence we heard suggested that where legal action was taken for this offence, the courts treated those cases compassionately and they were generally discharged. I am immensely relieved that that is the case. I believe it would be grossly wrong if that were not the case. However, we have to deal with what is in effect an inconsistency in the administration of the law.
The chairman has already mentioned my next point; namely that the cannabis plant contains 66 separate cannabinoids. The evidence suggests that they work in combination and not individually. Rather like the vine, the make-up of the cannabis plant seems to vary with climate, geography and the system of cultivation. Cannabis is an immensely complex plant. Although it is wrong to use this comparison, I compare the cannabis plant with the vine. Two vineyards in separate locations will produce two dramatically different wines from exactly the same vine. One has to take into account that variation with regard to cannabis.
It seems to me that there are two ways to research this matter. One is to produce a standardised, consistent product which, of course, can be done by cloning plants. One then examines what effect that product has. The other way is what I call the lottery approach to research; namely, one recognises that there are 66 substances working in combination and one identifies each one and examines them. One then tries to sort out the ideal combination. Every week in this country the National Lottery is held with permutations of 50 numbers. Every week one or perhaps two people have the correct numbers. It seems to me that to apply that kind of approach to a critical examination of 66 separate cannabinoids is an immensely hazardous operation which is not likely to lead to quick success.
People with certain conditions need immediate relief. We believe five years of research may be needed to begin to discover in scientific terms the medical effects of cannabis. However, if we take the long route, we are not talking about five years but about a lottery. I do not think that is satisfactory. An MS sufferer needs something which gives immediate relief. MS sufferers have a condition which goes downhill from one plateau to another over the years. If their quality of life can be improved, that is worth doing.

679
In this regard, the method of application is critical. Cannabinoids dissolve very quickly in fat. Taking them orally is not very effective. It appears that pessaries are more effective, but all the evidence that we received was that smoking is the most effective way to dose with cannabis. One takes the smoke into the respiratory tract; it goes straight into the blood and then straight to the brain, where it acts, as the noble Lord the chairman of the Select Committee said, on the appropriate receptors and the pain is relieved. Relief is quick, but, on the evidence that we heard, not instantaneous, although one does not need to smoke even half a cigarette, in many instances, before pain is killed. The sufferer then stops smoking until the pain unbearably reasserts itself.
Each individual is different. Some will need a bigger dose than others. There is no way in which a standard dose will work. In all humanity, I conclude that if the choice is between insufferable pain, which is what these people are enduring, and smoking (with perhaps the risk of cancer 25 years down the line), I think that smoking is the tolerable alternative.
Considering all that, the committee still came to quite a clear view; that there could be no reason for relaxing the general restriction on recreational use. That was clearly stated in the report. It seems to me that in all humanity we should accept the recommendations of the report. I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton.
8.41 p.m.
The Earl of Carrick: My Lords, I would like to start by saying how deeply impressed I have been witnessing your Lordships' House at work. Surely if all politics could be conducted with the same unfailing courtesy, care for detail and sheer commitment, society would be all the richer. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Officers of the House for their kind helpfulness from the moment I arrived last year.
It was with some trepidation that I put my name down for this debate and I sincerely ask for the indulgence of the House because I have chosen a subject for my maiden speech in which it is hard to say anything meaningful without being in some way controversial.
I was fascinated by the Select Committee's report on the scientific and medical evidence on cannabis. I shall not pretend to understand it all as I am neither a scientist nor have any medical knowledge, but certainly I have learnt plenty.
First, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few brief words about the whole question of drugs in general. I know that this is wide of the specific debate, but I believe that the subject is of vastly greater importance, economically and socially, nationally and internationally, than is reflected by the time and attention given to it by legislators.
I was staggered to read that in June last year the United Nations drug control programme estimated that the world trade in illicit drugs now stands at one quarter of a trillion pounds, which is to say, it accounts for 8
680
per cent. of all international trade, making it of greater economic importance than international trade in iron, steel or motor vehicles.
Of course, it is a fiendishly difficult problem where there are no right answers, which goes a long way to explaining a natural reluctance to confront the issue in the detail it demands. But it will only be through the most detailed discussions, with open minds, that progress will ever be made.
What we can say is that that quarter of a trillion pounds of world trade manifests in all manner of undesirable social consequences and costs. Unfortunately, the same old actions and attitudes that have failed—indeed, are likely, ironically, to be contributory to that failure—still hold sway, yet no matter how many resources are mustered, the problem gets worse.
We desperately need fresh thinking. So my first point is simply a heart-felt plea that greater time is given and action taken to make the situation better.
An editorial in the Lancet recently noted, echoing what we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Perry of Walton and Lord Dixon-Smith, that,
"The desire to take mood altering substances is an enduring feature of human societies world-wide and even the most draconian legislation has failed to extinguish this desire … and this should be borne in mind by social legislators".
Amen to the latter.
Speaking of our law-makers, to my mind one of the most important points, which is a legal and social one, rather than scientific or medical, raised in the document we are debating came in Chapter 8, where it states:
"If statute law is not enforced, Parliament is brought into disrepute; either enforcement must be tightened up, or the law must be changed".
Austin Mitchell is quoted in similar vein, when in response to the fact that people who use cannabis for medical purposes face prosecution if caught cultivating or possessing cannabis, he was prompted to say:
"It is bringing the law into a certain amount of difficulty and disrepute because either the police are cautioning or the courts are giving very lenient sentences".
This is indeed a dilemma for any government. If there are, as the report estimates, 7.5 million adults who have tried cannabis—approximately one-sixth of the entire adult population—and between 1.5 million and 2 million regular users, it stands to reason that legal foundations are being severely undermined. Either society is making a mockery of the law by disobedience on such a massive scale, or the law is making a mockery of society by criminalising over half a million people over the past 25 years, with all the attendant problems that implies for the individuals concerned.
Surely common sense tells us something is deeply awry here. Again, I return to my main point: all these issues must, for the good of us all, be given proper time for research and discussion with unprejudiced thinking.
Finally, turning to the purely medical aspects of the report, my abiding impression is that there are compelling reasons for further detailed medical study of what appears to be a source of enormous potential to ease suffering. A substance that, even in its crude form,

681
can be used with unquestionable effect—although to differing degrees—to help sufferers of MS, cerebral palsy and glaucoma, surely demands attention and study. Add to that anti-emetic effects, analgesic properties and the ability to assist prevention of weight loss in anorexia, cancer and AIDS and we have a substance already of value.
No matter that in some cases there are better drugs currently available: the fact that cannabis has such a wide range of beneficial effects is extraordinary. Even if my understanding is far from that of a scientist, it is strikingly obvious to me that Professor Wall is right when he says (in Chapter 4):
"It is a paradox that a subject of such intense scientific interest should receive so little clinical attention … this is regrettable since there is a wide range of possibilities and massive opportunities for research".
Add to that, Dr. Robson's (in Chapter 7) remarks that:
"The present licensing system and policy has severely limited research and should be reviewed",
prompting the observation that the United Kingdom's academic community and pharmaceutical industry may miss the opportunities if the research licensing regime is not relaxed.
Given the high standing of our academic community and our world-leading pharmaceutical firms, this is surely unwise. It is noted in the report that the United Kingdom's attitude towards cannabis is one of the most restrictive in the world, so too many other countries are being allowed a head start. Surely in this, as in most matters, the government of the day must strive to provide an environment for intellectual clarity and business advantage.
To me, the authors of the report are motivated purely by a compassionate wish to allay human suffering and a proper desire for unfettered scientific exploration of cannabis in all its component forms. On that basis, I wholeheartedly support the Select Committee's specific recommendations.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, on his excellent maiden speech and wise words. We hope to hear a great deal more from him in the remainder of his shelf-life, as he is, like me, an hereditary Peer.
First, I should declare that I too was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee which, under the able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Perry of Walton, inquired into cannabis and produced this report.
The report's recommendations are few in number. They are brief and succinct. Some refer to the need for proper clinical trials of cannabis and alternative modes of administration of the drug. We have recently learnt that such work has already started with the grant of a Home Office licence for the cultivation of cannabis plants of known provenance, grown under carefully controlled conditions to produce a drug of reliable consistency. All that is to be welcomed.
The most radical and controversial proposal, however, has been greeted by the Government with distinct coolness and, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry,
682
said, almost instant dismissal by the Home Office Minister. I refer to the rescheduling of cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2, from a position in which it cannot be prescribed by a doctor for a patient as a medicine for the relief of distressing symptoms such as pain, nausea, muscle spasms and so on, to one in which it is permissible on a named-patient basis.
It has to be said that in making such a radical change one must be careful not to send out the wrong signals. There is evidence that the abuse of cannabis can lead to health problems, particularly if it is smoked, and in some cases psychological disorders. For those reasons the committee could not support the general legalisation of the drug—and the rescheduling recommendation has nothing to do with that. On the contrary, by clearly distinguishing between the therapeutic use and the recreational use of cannabis, the committee believes that the problem for the law enforcement authorities of tackling abuse should be made easier.
The Government maintain that they need hard scientific evidence as to the efficacy of natural cannabis as a drug before they can act. But there is ample evidence, and ancient evidence, that relief is obtained by people who are suffering pain even using small dosages of the drug, and in many cases relief comes rapidly. Admittedly, the evidence is anecdotal, not hard scientific fact. But at present people are willing to break the law and run the risk of being prosecuted, with all that that entails, because they can find relief for their condition in no other way. In many cases their GPs are sympathetic to their practice.
There is no question that the whole situation is highly unsatisfactory. People who are normally law-abiding citizens are being made into criminals, and the illegal drug trade profits from selling cannabis of unknown and possibly harmful quality. Certainly there is a need for properly controlled research into the benefits and hazards of cannabis use, and thankfully that has now started.
However, it is estimated that it will take at least five years before sufficient trials have been carried out and for the Medicines Control Agency to recommend to the Government, if the results are positive, the rescheduling of the drug. In the meantime, 85,000 people in this country will be left to suffer, some in great pain, and perhaps needlessly.
It all comes down to the need for hard evidence. As Professor Joad might have said, "It all depends on what you mean by hard evidence". I work as an experimental scientist, and I am fully aware that evidence for many scientific conjectures is often slight. One-hundred per cent. certainty in science does not exist, although many scientists would suffer martyrdom for their belief in the laws of thermodynamics. Certainty in the medical sciences is even more tenuous, because they deal with notions such as pain and its relief where rigorous objective testing and measurement are difficult. Often we have to act where we have less than certainty, even while we endeavour to improve our knowledge.
I urge the Government, in this situation, while they strive to encourage further research, also to feel compassion for those sufferers—often from terminal

683
illnesses—and also to show courage in facing the inevitable reaction of those who talk about a small step opening the floodgates to wholesale drug abuse, to allow doctors to provide this relief to those suffering the distressing symptoms of multiple sclerosis, AIDS and terminal cancer, by allowing the prescription of the drug in a controlled manner and on a named-patient basis.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, it has been a privilege to serve on your Lordships' sub-committee on cannabis, under the wise and expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton. The problems that we discussed were largely medical, and the committee had no shortage of expertise in this area since half of its members, six out of 12 including its chairman, as well as its specialist adviser, are medically qualified, all of them very distinguished in their field.
We had experienced advice in some of the other areas which bore upon our problems, such as the law and the special problems of prescribing by general practitioners. We also owe much to the committee's Clerk, Andrew Makower, for his drafting skills in preparing an account of our views which we could all accept—not an easy task.
I am not medically qualified, and speak only as a chemist. In that capacity I noted with interest and pleasure that the chairman of your Lordships' first committee on science and technology, in 1979, was my noble friend Lord Todd. Even more to the point, when he was a professor of chemistry in Manchester and at the Lister Institute, he carried out some of the earliest research on the chemical composition of the active components of cannabis. If noble Lords will allow me to introduce just a little levity into what is of course a very serious matter, they may be interested in Lord Todd's encounter with the Home Office and his own possession of cannabis.
In 1936, Professor Todd went to the Lister Institute, where, among other biochemical problems, he began work on the active principle of cannabis sativa. The starting material for his studies was a distilled resin extract of hashish which had been seized by the police in India. It was obtained from them by a chemist, Fritz Bergel, who transmitted it to Germany in the diplomatic bag and thence in a suitcase to Edinburgh through the port of Leith. The Customs showed no interest.
In the Lister Institute, Professor Todd isolated cannabinol (not tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the active component) from the resin and showed that it was pharmacologically inert. That work was published in Chemistry and Industry ("Blue Bits" as we used to call it) and within a few days some interest was shown—by the Home Office! They invited Todd to meet their inspector at his earliest convenience.
When asked where he got the hashish, he had to reply, "from the Indian police". "How much of the stuff have you got?". At this point his answers became even more startling: "Two-and-a-half kilograms". "Good God!", exclaimed the inspector. But he recovered his poise and agreed to make Todd a licensed holder of cannabis on
684
condition that the professor would send 25 reprints of his publications. "Certainly. Where shall I send them?" asked Todd. "Send them to me", said the inspector, "at the bureau of drugs and indecent publications".
Today the Home Office seems to be less liberal in these matters. Indeed, as we have heard, within hours of receiving the report of your Lordships' committee on cannabis, with its recommendation that, for the time being, cannabis should be transferred from schedule l to schedule 2, the Minister had made up his mind to do nothing of the kind. This was known to be the most controversial of our recommendations, but it was made after taking evidence lasting some seven months, and it was unanimous. The government reply to our earlier report on antibiotic resistance took eight months to arrive, which is much too long, but at least the Minister had time to read it.
I confess that personally I have found it difficult to decide on this matter. As a chemist, I have no difficulty with the prescription and trial use of well-specified pure chemical substances such as cannabinoids, whether synthesised or extracted from cannabis resin. But the medico-chemical study of a natural cannabis of variable composition containing more than 60 cannabinoids and several hundred other chemical compounds is, to put it mildly, a daunting research project and one which is likely to take a very long time.
There was no doubt in the committee that any relaxing of the regulations on cannabis should apply to medical uses only on prescription. We are all aware that scientific proof of safety is not available and probably will not become so until after five or more years of clinical trials.
In spite of the difficulties, we regard the clinical trials which are being launched by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as the first priority. If these are to be licensed, further research will be necessary into new, safer methods for delivery, such as inhalation, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others. Until these are successfully completed, however, we believe that, on compassionate grounds, as well as removing restrictions which bring the law into disrepute—which is almost equally important—justice would best be done by the rescheduling of cannabis so that, like its active ingredient Δ9-tetra-hydrocannabinol, and like cocaine and morphine, it could be prescribed on a named-patient basis, to relieve the pain of sufferers from, for example, multiple sclerosis. Genuine users for medical reasons could then be distinguished from recreational users simply by producing their prescription.
In conclusion, we heard encouraging evidence from our witnesses of new research on the pharmacology of cannabis and how the body contains naturally occurring "endogenous" compounds—to which the chairman of our committee referred—that can activate cannabinoid receptors. There are two known receptors called CB1 and CB2. Only CB1 exists in the brain and CB2 is therefore not expected to have the unwanted pyschoactive effects associated with cannabis, while agonists to CB2 may well have beneficial effects in modulating immune responses.

685
As understanding of the brain advances apace, these discoveries have transformed the character of scientific research on cannabis. But, although there is increasing scientific interest in cannabis pharmacology, there is little clinical research or commercial development work at present. Some attribute this to the added difficulties of working with a schedule 1 drug—the Royal Pharmaceutical Society refers to the "burden of licensing". A further advantage of moving cannabis to schedule 2 of the regulations would be that licences for research in this new and exciting area of medical biochemistry would no longer be required. I hope that the Minister will give a little more time to considering some of these matters before he persists with his blanket restrictions.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I welcome the report of the Select Committee dealing with the scientific and medical evidence on the use of cannabis. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, on his maiden speech, which I particularly welcomed because, apart from myself, he is the only speaker so far who was not a member of the committee. I suspect that, had I been a member of the committee, there might have been one dissenting participant. I do not share the disappointment of previous speakers at the Government's response to the report.
I should perhaps declare an interest, although I have some trepidation about doing so in view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Porter. I am the former head of a police drugs squad. I am not a scientist or a medical expert, and I bow to the learned witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. The fact that a law is broken regularly is not an argument for legalising the activity. If it were, we should not have laws against speeding.
I speak from my experience as a police officer dealing with the effects of drug abuse, both on the abuser and on the wider community. Cannabis is an intoxicant—or, more accurately, THC, the active ingredient, is an intoxicant. It alters perception and, as the report says, after smoking, which is the most common way of using the drug, the psychoactive effects are perceptible within minutes. The report reminds us that the drug persists in the brain longer than in the blood, so the psychological effects persist for some time after the level of THC in the blood has begun to decline.
It is my experience from reading—certainly not from personal knowledge—that the THC in cannabis has increased dramatically in the past few years, and there was evidence before the committee to this effect. I have seen reports that in the 1960s it was 1 per cent., whereas now in some products it is almost 30 per cent.
There is evidence that use causes mood changes, loss of memory, psychosis, impairment of co-ordination and so on. The report tells us that no one has ever died as a direct result and immediate consequence of recreational or medical use, and I accept that, although there are doubts in relation to some road accidents. The report points out the dangers of driving a vehicle or flying an aircraft while intoxicated following usage of the drug. I
686
believe that liberalisation of the law will increase the number of people who use the drug. In Holland it is estimated that the use of cannabis has trebled since the 1980s when it was decriminalised.
The report points out that cannabis intoxication is difficult to monitor, and that is true. There can be no equivalent of a breathalyser for alcohol since small amounts of the drug continue to be released into the blood long after any short-term impairment wears off. Therefore, for the reasons that I have outlined, I am delighted that the committee endorses the Government's statement in Tackling Drugs that,
"The more evidence becomes available about the risks of cannabis … the more discredited the notion that it is harmless".
Recreational use is therefore ruled out quite correctly.
What causes me greater difficulty is the recommendation that cannabis should be transferred from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, thereby allowing doctors to prescribe and pharmacists to supply the drug for medical purposes. The committee has in a sense jumped the gun. There is a contradiction. Throughout the report, it is stated that the most common method of taking cannabis is to smoke it. For example, that is why in paragraph 8.4 it is recommended that research be promoted into alternative modes of administration because of the well-known dangers of smoking. Professor Heather Ashton of the University of Newcastle is reported as saying that,
"smoking cannabis leads to three times greater tar inhalation than tobacco. Chronic use increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer".
The report itself states in paragraph 5.54
"… there are anecdotal reports that those who use cannabis for medical purposes favour smoked cannabis over orally administered cannabinoids".
If the authorities change the scheduling of, say, cannabis resin how does the committee envisage users will administer the prescribed drug? I would have no objection at all to pills being prescribed to be taken orally but the report is unclear as to how it is envisaged cannabis is to be administered before clinical trials have taken place. I do not believe that any responsible person would suggest the use of a disease-causing and life-threatening method of treatment in order to alleviate pain and suffering caused by any medical condition. If prescription for smoking were allowed history tells us that it would be abused.
I have often said that the ardent campaigners for the decriminalisation of this drug for medical use see such tactics as a Trojan Horse for the eventual legalisation for recreational use of not just cannabis but all drugs. Having spoken to law enforcement officers in the US, it is apparent that in those states where it has been legalised for medical use it has become increasingly difficult to enforce the law generally. Contrary to the argument of my noble friend Lord Kirkwood that law enforcement would be made easier, the experience in the US is the other way. I believe that we go down that road at our peril.
The Government are surely right to wait until the results of proper clinical trials are forthcoming before cannabis is made available for medical use. Cannabis is

687
defined by the United Nations as a dangerous narcotic. It should remain such here until we are properly satisfied by evidence to the contrary. I believe that the response of the Government is absolutely right.
Lord Winston: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may put one question. First, is he aware that it is possible to administer drugs nasally or by rectal suppository? Secondly, does he agree that if he reads the evidence that is set out carefully in the report one of the matters constantly referred to by many of the people who currently use cannabis illegally is that they try to avoid becoming intoxicated by the drug if at all possible? They want pain relief but do not want the "high" about which my noble friend complains. Perhaps my noble friend would like to address that issue briefly.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend raises that point. I am aware that there are other means of administering the drug. My point is that the prescription system will be abused. Unfortunately, doctors, policemen and many other people in society break the rules. In response to my noble friend, perhaps I may quote the words of the British Medical Association:
" … the report's recommendations are contradictory. The report rejects smoking as a suitable method of taking the drug and wants doctors to prescribe an 'appropriate preparation of cannabis', probably an oral capsule. However, in the accompanying press release the House of Lords Committee envisages that producing a prescription would be sufficient evidence in defence against a charge of possession of cannabis. That clearly implies that patients will continue to use crude cannabis, a route the BMA rejects because of the harmful effects of smoking and the unpredictable nature of its effects".
I believe that that answers the point. The prescription system would unfortunately be abused. I believe that clinical trials are essential before we go down that road.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I rise in the lull after that devastating bowling attack on our wicket, but I believe we shall shortly be able, with the passage of time, to recover ground and come back into the game. Perhaps the next speech will achieve that.
I wanted to say first of all, like the others, how much I enjoyed sitting on the Committee with my old friend Lord Perry of Walton. He used to play cricket for me: perhaps that is why I am speaking of great bowling efforts from the last speaker. We used to play cricket together for the Medical Research Council and do our best to defend our reputations and our castles in that way. May I just say also that we were immensely lucky in our Clerk? He had a very clear mind and I do not think anyone could fault the logic of the way he presented the material and the boxes he constructed in the report. In Professor Leslie Iverson, an expert witness, we were very fortunate to have someone who is at the absolute forefront of modern cannabis pharmacological research.
What I was hoping your Lordships would let me do—and I do not want to take up too much of your time—is to say that I have been reminded since going into all
688
this about cannabis and pain that a very long time ago—50 years—when I was in the Royal Army Medical Corps I did some work on pain from radiant heat. I will not bore your Lordships with my descriptions of how a hard-working young doctor found himself in such a circumstance, but the sound advice of the SA/Army Council led me to be transferred to his care, that is, for his use in the corps. The problem that he put to me was that he wanted to know what radiant heat from air-burst nuclear weapons could do. And we got busy. It did not take us very long to show that it could ignite inflammable clothing. That set us off on the great drive to help the Army find uninflammable materials from which to make the uniforms of the British Army. I like to believe that we made a contribution in that field.
However, as a young group of physiological Army research workers, we were really much more interested intellectually, looking back I now realise, in the effects of the other end of the intensity of the radiant heat story. We became very interested in the pain you can get from radiant heat. You may well, for example, lie for some time in the sunshine in your garden and suddenly be woken up by the sharp focus of light on your leg by one of your naughtier children.
When we were looking at this one of the very first things we realised we had to find out was how big an area of the skin of our volunteers—not policemen but soldiers—should we irradiate to see what were the threshold doses of radiant heat which could produce the effects we might be interested in. This, I now realise, led us to a most interesting situation because we found that if you irradiated an aperture of say 3cm in diameter you got a threshold for pain—you felt it and it hurt—but if you reduced the size of the aperture you could give more heat before you got the painful sensation; and if you reduced it even more you could give even greater amounts.
The only report we could write for the scientific advice of the Army Council—we did not use it very much—was one that we called Studies and Observations in the Royal Army Medical Corps on the Central Summation of Pain. As you can imagine, the authorities wanted to know what on earth that had got to do with the atomic bomb. I now realise in retrospect that this central summation of pain could be a very quick way of looking for an effect from the cannabinoids; I am not going to say smoking marijuana or THC and other products which we could take as a tincture, I suppose, or whatever. In this way we might perhaps be able to come up with a quick piece of evidence that this compound, which is reputedly graced with all kinds of important qualities, indeed has some.
I am pleased to realise that there are people such as Professor Wall at the United Medical and Dental Schools of St. Thomas' and Guy's Hospitals, who is a big worker in the field of pain. While I am not up to date with the names, I wish to have these in the record because people in the research world do not receive their just deserts. There is a lady at Hammersmith called Dr. Holdcroft. Dr. Stewart of Dundee has worked on phantom pain in limbs. There is a Dr. Lambert at Leicester; and Professor Notcutt is very interested in these problems. I wish to have their names in the record

689
not least because I believe that the time comes—and this is such a time—to give encouragement to those who work in the field.
By doing some physiological experiments on pain we may be able to find out whether the cannabis cannabinoids could have an effect on pain. If so, it will give a great thrust to bringing a reasonable proposition to the Government for ongoing research.
I noted the words in the report about there being a certain stigma about research into cannabis. It is most unfortunate. Before too long, I hope that we shall without too much stigma be able to take Professor Mackenzie along with us in the search for suitable preparations. Perhaps patches, pills, or inhalations such as I take for my asthma may bring necessary relief on to the sites—the nerves—for those people who have these painful and worrying conditions.
I feel guilty if I obstruct relief for pain for people towards the end of their years. We have to be careful about cannabis when dealing with young people. However, I think that older folk can take bigger risks with the effects of the compounds. I thank noble Lords for listening to me.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it was a particular pleasure to have served on the sub-committee which produced the report for your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology which we are now debating. Like other noble Lords, I wish to pay a warm tribute to the outstanding leadership and chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, whose judicious handling of the evidence and whose guidance was outstanding throughout, as indeed was the advice given to the sub-committee based upon his encyclopaedic scientific knowledge and experience by its adviser, Professor Leslie Iversen. As others have said, we must not overlook the exceptional drafting skills of our clerk, Mr. Andrew Makower, with whom I have had the privilege of working several times in the past. His command of the English language, his ability to interpret evidence and comprehend and analyse complex scientific arguments have been impeccable.
Let me say, first, as others have done, that we were in no doubt that cannabis should continue to be a controlled drug, since, although it is not highly addictive, it can lead to psychological dependence; and in some dependent individuals regular heavy use can produce a state of near-continuous intoxication making normal life impossible. In addition, it is sufficiently intoxicating so as to impair the ability to carry out critical tasks such as flying, driving or operating machinery. That effect lasts for several hours, and possibly for much longer after taking it.
My especial concern relates to the evidence that the drug impairs cognitive function during its use and may indeed, in heavy dosage, produce long-term cognitive decline. From my long experience as a neurologist, I can also confirm that it can clearly exacerbate pre-existing mental illness. Indeed, in heavy dosage, it can produce a delusional psychosis with hallucinations which can lead to a mistaken diagnosis of schizophrenia.
690
Many years ago I met a bright medical student from overseas in whom such a psychosis developed due to heavy cannabis consumption of which his doctor and family were totally unaware. Schizophrenia was diagnosed. He was treated with powerful neuroleptic drugs and developed severe and irreversible side effects which made it impossible for him to continue what had seemed likely to become a promising career in medicine.
Those who argue that cannabis may be no more dangerous in the long term than tobacco, for example, must recognise that if tobacco were now to be introduced into UK society for the first time, it is my view that because of its appallingly harmful effects, it too would now be a controlled drug.
Those facts indicate clearly that recreational use of cannabis must continue to be illegal. Its effect of lowering blood pressure, a particular risk in individuals with cardiovascular conditions, is another important factor.
If, then, the drug has such important and troublesome side effects, why did our sub-committee recommend that it be moved from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 under the Misuse of Drugs Act, allowing its prescription by doctors for named patients only? Why did we suggest that, since the synthetic cannabinoid analogue nabilone is licensed for use under Schedule 2 while dronabinol, pure THC, although not yet licensed in the UK, is also in Schedule 2 and could be prescribed for named patients?
I must reluctantly admit, having been a fervent supporter throughout my professional life of the controlled clinical trial, and having organised and conducted several such trials in the treatment of neurological disorders, that there is logic in the suggestion that it might be better to await the outcome of the trials now being planned by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society with the collaboration of GW Pharmaceuticals.
Many scientists and doctors, whose opinion and professional expertise I respect, such as Sir William Asscher, who will be supervising those trials, have argued that the sub-committee should have awaited the completion of those studies and that the Government should delay moving cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 until the results have been analysed.
Why then did the sub-committee appear to fly in the face of informed pharmaceutical and clinical opinion by making the recommendations that we did? Our reasons were fourfold. First, there is increasing evidence that cannabis and particularly its constituent cannabinoids have some predictable effects upon the central nervous system where, through their action upon cannabinoid receptors, they may potentiate, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, said, the effects of analgesics. In consequence, in patients with terminal cancer, the doses of drugs such as morphia or heroin required for pain relief may be less if cannabis can also be given. There would then be a consequent reduction in side effects.
Secondly, it now appears that cannabinoids, combining with such receptors, can have a beneficial effect upon spasticity—the cause of the painful spasms

691
in the lower limbs which may afflict patients with advanced multiple sclerosis. Recent scientific studies reported in Nature and reviewed in the September/October 1998 issue of BrainWork, a newsletter of the international Dana Alliance for Brain Research, of which I am a UK member, has raised the possibility that another cannabinoid called anandamide, not yet available for medical use, may relieve nerve pain when injected peripherally, as CB receptors are also present in the limbs. That would mean that pain relief could be achieved while avoiding any psychoactive effects. The international tide of medical and scientific opinion is moving rapidly in favour of our recommendations.
Thirdly, while I must accept that virtually all the clinical evidence presented to us in the course of our inquiry was anecdotal, nevertheless, we found it convincing. Therefore, we think it likely, although by no means certain, that cannabis may be an effective remedy for the painful spasms of MS and that it may also have a significant potentiating analgesic effect as well as offering effective control of the nausea and vomiting which may complicate AIDS and chemotherapy for advanced cancer.
The fourth reason underlying our recommendations was not based solely upon compassion for those suffering from the disorders to which I referred who have found the illegal consumption of cannabis beneficial. But we heard much evidence—yet again anecdotal—strongly suggesting that natural cannabis, however administered (usually at present through smoking), had proved effective when the synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol analogue, nabilone, had not. And for this reason we did not regard it as being fair or reasonable to wait five years for major trials to be completed before making cannabis available.
I understand fully the strictures included in recent statements by officers of the BMA and by Sir William Asscher; they stressed that herbal cannabis, containing a mixture of more than 60 cannabinoids, is not yet available as a pure preparation. In their view natural cannabis, however administered, could have unacceptable toxic effects. In response I can but say that the evidence which we received—for example, on behalf of patients with multiple sclerosis—was, first, that the level of dosage of herbal cannabis required to relieve their symptoms produced relatively few psychoactive effects; and, secondly, that the amount required was not such as to carry a risk of producing the major toxic effects which high doses of cannabis are known to cause.
We were much encouraged in our view by the knowledge that Dr. Geoffrey Guy of GW Pharmaceuticals has obtained a Home Office licence to cultivate natural cannabis with the intention of producing a purified herbal preparation which, it is hoped, will produce consistent or at least reasonably consistent blood levels of THC when specific doses are administered. Proof that this will be feasible will take some little time to achieve; but in the meantime, in the interests of the patients with the conditions I have mentioned, I am now persuaded—against my original
692
scientific judgment—that limited trials in known patients should be allowed on medical prescription using such a natural preparation when available. Clearly the drug should not be used in individuals with cardiovascular disease in whom the effects upon the heart and circulation might prove damaging.
Another powerful reason for suggesting that such a herbal preparation should be made available under Schedule 2 was based on evidence we received that, because of the presumed beneficial effect of natural cannabis, as others have said, some doctors have apparently connived at its illegal use. Whenever evidence of such behaviour on the part of doctors and patients has been brought formally to the attention of the law, the individuals have usually been treated leniently. In other words, much of society seems now to be condoning illegal use specifically for medical purposes; it was our conclusion that that position should now be regularised without waiting for the results of lengthy clinical trials.
The question then arises as to how such a natural preparation should be administered. Here it is clear, as our report confirms, that much research is needed as smoking of cannabis could be tolerated only in the very short term since smoked cannabis carries just as much risk of causing cancer of the respiratory tract as does tobacco smoking; indeed, as Professor Ashton said, it may be even more harmful. Hence any natural preparation made available for prescription must be tested in alternative formulations. Inhalation of an aerosolised extract is the method most favoured but sublingual administration or administration by a pessary or a suppository must not be overlooked. Each of those techniques should produce more effective blood levels of cannabinoids than would ingestion, in view of the inevitable delay resulting from absorption through the gastro-intestinal tract with metabolism in the liver.
Of course, the question will inevitably be raised, as it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, as to whether legalisation for medical purposes might be regarded as a stalking-horse for legalising recreational use. I am satisfied, as our report makes clear, that we must reject that suggestion. Similarly, we are well aware that even in the most carefully regulated societies there will always be a possibility that a prescribed drug will be diverted to illegal use as has sometimes happened with morphia, heroin and their analogues. That is a matter of which, as a former president of the General Medical Council, I am only too well aware. But I believe that the professional regulatory authorities are fully aware of that potential problem and would be expected to deal just as harshly with those involved in diverting prescribed cannabis to improper use as they already are in relation to the diversion of heroin, for example.
Like many other members of the sub-committee, I was dismayed by the immediate knee-jerk reactions of the Government and the BMA to our report at a time when surely neither could have read it fully so as to comprehend the cogent reasons underlying our proposals. So compelling, I believe, is the anecdotal evidence which we heard, and to which we have referred in depth, that I firmly adhere to our recommendations.

693
I urge the Government now to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and to delay their formal response to our report until after they have received and considered the advice of that council. We trust that that body will agree with our conclusion that an appropriate preparation of herbal cannabis should be transferred to Schedule 2 under the regulations and that the Government should raise the matter of rescheduling the remaining cannabinoids as they become available, with WHO in due course in order to facilitate research into their use.
All who served on the sub-committee were well aware that, in making the recommendations that we did, we were in a sense flouting conventional medical and scientific practice. At the risk of undue repetition, I can only say that we would not have done so were it not for the volume of written and oral evidence presented to us, relating to the experiences of individual patients, but also to current scientific knowledge. We are convinced that it is important for the well-being of many individuals that limited amounts of natural cannabis should soon be made available for prescription by doctors to named patients only. I trust that the Government and those professional bodies in medicine which have commented adversely upon our report, in striking contrast to the almost universal support that it has received in the public media, will now think again.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to say, first, what a privilege it was to be yet again co-opted on to the sub-committee and to serve under our excellent and learned chairman and specialist adviser. I say "learned" in this case in the scientific sense. Of course, I shall not neglect to mention the work of our excellent Clerk and his team.
Apart from our report and recommendations, with which I fully agree, I should like to point out that the volume containing the evidence presented to the committee is, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, a fascinating and valuable read in itself. It is extremely cogent and quite difficult to put down, as some of its pages are so fascinating. It will prove to be a most valuable source document in the future for anyone interested in the case for or the case against making cannabis legal and more accessible, whether this be for medical or so-called "recreational" purposes. It is also an accessible and well-referenced account of the whole subject.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I should like to mention that we looked at the adverse effects of the drug in great detail, as well as looking at its possible medical benefits. Those adverse effects are summarised in paragraph 8.19 of the report. Our final recommendation, which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, iterated—and I shall repeat—is that,
"cannabis and its derivatives should continue to be controlled drugs".
That does not mean that the sub-committee felt that cannabis was more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. In fact, we felt that both of those substances were more harmful to health than cannabis. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, stole the phrase which I was going to
694
attribute to Virginia Bottomley, but which she actually got from ASH; namely, that if tobacco were to be introduced today, with our current knowledge of its dangers to health, it would not receive a licence.
The committee was surprised, at least I was, that there were no deaths—I repeat, no deaths—directly attributable to cannabis toxicity either from acute overdose or prolonged use in the years 1993 to 1995. That is certainly not the case with many medicines which are obtainable over the counter. My noble friend Lord Winston mentioned paracetamol and aspirin, suicides from which we heard about during Question Time about two weeks ago on (I think) 18th November. So cannabis really does seem to be safer from the point of view of its lethal consequences than aspirin. Indeed, this very safety was a major factor in our recommendation that it should be moved from schedule 1 to Schedule 2. But because of its psychotropic power and possible long-term neurological effects, which have been described so well by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, it was felt that it should remain a controlled drug.
I would like to add a personal view here. If the possession of cannabis were ever to be decriminalised or legalised—which some may say is a sensible policy, but that is well outside our committee's remit—its supply should still be controlled and monitored carefully. This would be much easier if it was classified as a controlled substance, only available from licensed sources.
As I have said, the committee's remit did not include consideration of the "recreational" use of cannabis, yet our deliberations and recommendations always had to bear in mind the sort of criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, has brought forward—that our recommendations might be misinterpreted as being the "thin end of the wedge", a "stalking horse" or, as he said, a "Trojan horse", leading to the medical prescription of cannabis for its psychotropic effects.
There is little or no problem when discussing the prescription of purified cannabinoids since they are not, as far as I know, ever sought by recreational users. But cannabis itself may seem, on the face of it, to be more problematic. This is not necessarily so. As other noble Lords have pointed out, heroin is a prescribable drug, being a schedule 2 preparation, but there is no evidence that it is now being prescribed by doctors in any more than a small number of cases for other than genuine medical reasons. Until the early 1970s it could be prescribed by general practitioners, in the National Health Service or privately, for the treatment of heroin addiction. For the past 15 years that has not been allowed and it has been available only in specialised drug clinics. Whether that is the right policy is arguable, but there is no reason why the same prescribing restrictions should not apply to cannabis, which is not as highly addictive as heroin in any case.
The MRC states at page 144 of the evidence that:
"It is particularly important that the potential for new medicinal drug development raised by the likely existence of cannabis receptors is not stifled by considering all cannabis-like compounds as medically unacceptable because of the abuse potential of the natural product".

695
Our report states in this regard at paragraph 8.17:
"As with any medicine which is open to abuse, safeguards must be put in place by the professional regulatory bodies to prevent diversion to improper purposes … These might include a system of declarations to be signed by the doctor and the patient".
The committee is aware that, despite the considerable anecdotal evidence that was presented to it—and also described in the BMA's report of 1998—the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of cannabis to alleviate the symptoms of a number of conditions is still inadequate and further research is urgently needed. All noble Lords who have spoken have said that. The Government's opinion, however, is that this further research needs to be completed before they can consider altering the present status of cannabis. As many noble Lords have pointed out, that was the knee-jerk reaction of the Home Office.
May I make an aside at this point and ask why it is that the Home Office has the last word on this. When we are considering the therapeutic benefits of a possibly extremely valuable drug, the Home Office should at least consult with the Department of Health before making off-the-cuff statements like this.
However, the Home Office is to be congratulated on its relatively speedy granting of licences for the two important studies by Dr. Guy and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. But, as many noble Lords have said, it will take at least five years before these trials are completed and fully assessed. Meanwhile, a number of patients—particularly those with multiple sclerosis—have found that cannabis leaf or resin is the only substance or medicine that gives them relief. They will continue to have to break the law while obtaining supplies of variable strength from irregular and illegal sources.
It is interesting to see how the committee, which included such distinguished scientists, reacted to the anecdotal evidence which was presented to it, both personally by actual sufferers and by doctors who described the experience of their patients. I can best illustrate the compelling nature of this evidence by quoting a little from a few cases. Perhaps I may start with a more lighthearted one. Dr. Robson, director of the drug dependence unit at the Warneford Hospital, Oxford, related the following anecdote. He said:
"two weekends ago I was playing golf with an 80 year old retired physician. We were held up on the twelfth tee and I was astonished when he took out of his pocket a battered tin and rolled himself up a cannabis cigarette. I said, 'What on earth is happening?' He said, 'I find it helps with my balance and coordination'. I really cannot comment except to say that he did beat me, so it certainly did not do him any harm".
Someone who had a much more severe problem was Clare Hodges, Director of the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics. The gist of some of her testimony has already been quoted. She has had multiple sclerosis for 15 years, with spasticity, nausea, poor appetite and great discomfort in her bladder. For some nine years she
696
received no relief from a range of medication. When she smoked cannabis it was effective within about five minutes. She said:
"The tension in my bladder and spine melted away, and I felt less sick and stiff. I could move and generally function with greater ease and I slept soundly that night without medication".
She had been getting up as many as 12 times to empty her bladder. What is more, she found smoking the cannabis leaf with herbal tobacco the best way to regulate the dose. Oral nabilone made her confused and clumsy and did not help her symptoms.
Many more examples were given to us. An interesting case was described by Dr. Fred Schon, a consultant neurologist and neuropharmacologist. His patient had a rare eye complication of multiple sclerosis called pendular nystagmus which was resistant to all standard treatments including nabilone. The patient reported a dramatic benefit from smoking cannabis which he said completely abolished his symptoms. In trying to replicate this with cannabis oil capsules, which was the only preparation Dr. Schon was allowed to prescribe by the Home Office, he obtained no benefit. He was unable to get a licence to study the beneficial effects of the smoked product.
When full chemical and pharmaceutical attention is focused on cannabis it may be possible to isolate the most effective cannabinoids in the most effective combination and to administer them by a less crude method than smoking and inhaling this semi-combusted product of cannabis leaf or resin. However, it appears that a significant number of patients with various degrees of neurological damage get remarkable relief from their unpleasant symptoms by inhaling that particular concoction of cannabinoids.
I share the belief of Dr. Robson, as I think do the other members of the committee, that compassionate reefers, despite the adverse effects of smoking itself, are fully justified if a patient has severe symptoms and is suffering from an illness, such as cancer or AIDS, which may shorten life in any case. But I would go further and suggest that these reefers or other preparations of smoked cannabis should be available on prescription on a named basis to patients with less immediately life threatening conditions. Of those, sufferers from multiple sclerosis will be much the most numerous.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and his committee on their landmark report and conclusions, which are both humane and pragmatic. Because of its illegal status, few chemical trials have been done on the medical use of cannabis, but there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence. Anyone who doubts that should read Marijuana—the Forbidden Medicine by Grinspoon and Bakalar, which makes compelling reading and charts the medical use of cannabis from its earliest mention, not on an Assyrian tablet but in a Chinese herbal 5,000 years ago, to its present-day use. Of special significance is the store placed on cannabis by the Victorians when it was introduced into modern western medicine in the mid-19th century. Between 1840 and 1900, more than 100 papers were written recording its therapeutic uses.

697
The heart of that book is an anthology of case histories of people suffering from severe or terminal illness who found that cannabis was the only substance that really helped. They were suffering from a variety of chronic conditions and there was a pattern of trying recommended drugs that did not work or, even if they did, produced unpleasant side effects. They turned to cannabis only as a last resort—sometimes with great reluctance and seldom with any expectations of improvement. Clearly their lives were transformed. Their physical and mental state improved and the quality of their lives was enhanced. Sometimes, it saved their lives.
The cumulative weight of evidence from those personal testimonies is compelling but all anecdotal—and here is the rub. Anecdotal evidence is considered substandard and is disallowed because it is not scientific. The phrase "anecdotal evidence" means personal experience and in this context it cannot be brushed aside. It is too extensive and authentic. Each case says, "Cannabis works for me". It can be argued that a good case history provides the smallest research study of all.
A classic example and an especially illuminating account of how one multiple sclerosis sufferer's life was transformed by cannabis is given by Clare Hodges to the Select Committee, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. As the Director of the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, her organisation has received 200 letters from MS sufferers, giving detailed accounts of the benefits that they gain from its use. She also received 50 letters from people with spinal injuries and 20 with epilepsy, depression, arthritis, AIDS or cancer. Only five people responded who had either gained no benefit or suffered unwanted side effects.
Last year's BMA report, The Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis, was significant and reflected the frustration felt by a growing number of doctors because they could not prescribe cannabis to patients who might benefit, who were forced to break the law to obtain it. What has to be questioned is the BMA statement that,
"the information is meagre, but nevertheless it can be concluded that cannabis is unsuitable for medical use".
Those who use it often in preference to the few cannabinoids available would disagree, and that point was commented on by Dr. Notcutt, with his work on nabilone, and by Clare Hodges. Using crude cannabis may not be ideal, but it works.
Eventually, the exact cannabinoids or combination of them that do benefit people will be unravelled, but that is at least five years away. Meanwhile, people who use cannabis remain criminals and often face a stark choice. A good example is the man crippled by rheumatoid arthritis who was registered as 97 on the arthritis severity scale. That rating dropped to seven after using cannabis. He said:
"My problem is that I don't want to flout the law deliberately. What can I do? Get better and break the law or feel worse?".
The committee's recommendation that cannabis should be transferred from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 and that doctors should be able to prescribe it to named patients, as they can morphine or amphetamine, would
698
give immediate help to people who need it and would make further research less complicated. That is also in line with public opinion. Polls have shown a clear majority in favour of medical legislation. That was highlighted a fortnight ago when AOL, the Internet service provider, organised an on-line survey asking, "Should cannabis be legalised to ease serious and terminal illness?". The result was a resounding 81 per cent. in favour and 19 per cent. against.
This issue is summed up for me by a letter written to the Independent on Sunday, which stated,
"I have multiple sclerosis and use cannabis to relieve unpleasant muscle spasms. It makes me very angry that I have to become a criminal to obtain and take this safe, cheap and very effective drug. Where is the sense?".
I believe that the Government should take notice of these views and have the courage to implement the committee's recommendations.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. I particularly wish to thank my noble friend Lord Perry of Walton and his colleagues on the committee for a report that we on these Benches consider shows enormous humanity and good sense. As we have heard tonight from many members of the committee, the report examines with enormous care the evidence and the arguments for the medical use of cannabis.
As regards the medical benefits, the committee makes no bones about the fact that cannabis has quite a number of adverse effects. The committee has admitted that it has relied on anecdotal evidence. It seems clear that there is potentially a major role for cannabis to play in the care and treatment of MS sufferers, and that there may be other important uses—for example, the relief of pain of terminally ill patients, and for those undergoing chemotherapy.
As my noble friend Lord Perry of Walton made clear, the report concludes unanimously that, having balanced the risks with the benefits, the case is made out for clinical trials to be carried out with cannabis and its derivatives and analogues such as THC and nabinol, as the BMA suggested in its 1996 report. As we have heard, the report also—this is more controversial—concludes that cannabis should be moved from schedule 1 to schedule 2 of the dangerous drugs regulations. That would allow GPs to prescribe cannabis at their own risk for those such as MS sufferers who find it beneficial. In itself this recommendation goes further than the BMA was prepared to go in its evidence and in its original report, or indeed, subsequently in its response to the committee's report.
I say at once that I and my health spokesmen colleagues in the Commons back the committee's recommendations. I am particularly fortified in that view by the fact that one of our number, Dr. Peter Brand, MP, is a GP of many years' experience. He certainly believes that it is practicable to implement the recommendations of the committee. I am heartened also by the support of practitioners in this House—for example, the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Rea—who also take that view.

699
The argument used by those who wish simply to wait for the results of clinical trials is, in my view, inhumane. They argue in summary that there are more than 60 cannabinoids in cannabis and it would be dangerous to allow cannabis to be prescribed until we know precisely which elements of cannabis cause the beneficial effects. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made an analogy with the lottery which I thought was particularly apposite. The fact is that such trials could take five years and more to identify those elements if one had to try all the different combinations.
There have been few trials to date, as we have heard. We have also heard about trials that are now in prospect. But shall we really see an upsurge of interest by the pharmaceutical companies when cannabis will still have the stigma of Schedule 1 status attached to it? Should we leave multiple sclerosis sufferers and others deprived for this period at a vital time of their lives, or do we in effect force them to become criminals? It is a cliché to say it, but it is nevertheless true that we all have only one life. Do we not have a duty to ensure that patients have as little suffering as possible? Are we really saying, after all this time, that we know so little about cannabis that we cannot risk terminal patients taking it rather than morphine, which we know is far more potent and addictive?
Pain management was a new science when my late wife was in terminal care 10 years ago. Now it is much more sophisticated. Do we think that palliative and terminal care doctors and nurses would behave irresponsibly? Would MS sufferers abuse the system? Is it not better that they should just simply have to produce a prescription if prosecuted rather than having to be taken to court and have the indignity of making a plea of mitigation? I do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, said. Why does he simply assume that because doctors may be prescribing cannabis for smoking, there will be abuse of the system?
I found the last paragraph of the evidence of the Multiple Sclerosis Society particularly poignant:
"The … Society does not encourage people with MS to break the law. We do however understand why some people who face intolerable symptoms have chosen to make their own decision about cannabis use, recognising the implications of their choice. Where the medical evidence warrants it, we hope that the police and the courts would deal with such people in an appropriately compassionate fashion".
I do not believe that such a situation would be at all humane for MS sufferers. After all, what we are asking them to do is to throw themselves on the mercy of the courts.
We have heard that cannabis is not new on the medicinal scene. We believe that Queen Victoria used it, as my noble friend Lord Perry of Walton mentioned.
My Commons colleagues and I are particularly disappointed by the immediate negative response of the Minister Mr. Howarth, who with indecent haste indicated disagreement with the committee's report. Ministers should be quite clear about the precise recommendations of the committee. It is not saying that doctors should immediately be able to prescribe, but it
700
is saying that consultations—as is proper—should first take place with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
The committee also very clearly states that the medical profession should provide clear guidance on the prescription of cannabis. This would deal with aspects such as those suffering from schizophrenia. That is the sensible way forward, but it is not that being taken by the Government.
I believe that the Government's decision is less of a medical than a political decision. Medical considerations have become tangled up in the Government's mind with the recreational aspects which the committee was scrupulous in not getting confused. The Government appear to be terrified of appearing to be soft on drugs. They appear to be terrified of an adverse headline in the Daily Mail. As a result of the Government seeing the issue purely as one of law and order, a great many patients who could have benefited from cannabis to relieve their condition will suffer.
As regards the wider agenda and the recreational use of drugs, I note the committee's final conclusions. However, my party has strongly advocated for some years now the setting up of a Royal Commission which would provide a thoroughgoing investigation into the effects of drug use and misuse generally in this country. Such a Royal Commission could also examine the best ways in which to tackle the problem at its roots.
My party believes that that is the sensible way of dealing with the recreational aspects. which are entirely separate from the medical aspects. On the medical front, I very much hope that the Government will change their collective mind. Even if I had not been persuaded before this debate, I would be doubly persuaded now.
10.3 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, for presenting the report and for all the valuable work involved.
As a member of the medical profession for the past 40 years, I have always taken a particular interest in the care of those who are dying. In the past 13 years, I have been intimately involved in the Mildmay Mission Hospital, which was the first hospice in Europe devoted to the care of men, women and children dying of AIDS.
I have never had any problem in seeing my task as relieving distress, whether that distress was pain, nausea, respiratory distress, anxiety, depression or whatever. Nowadays that is a much more precise practice as we have a host of different drugs to deal specifically with each symptom, rather than showering them with crude compounds containing scores of different chemicals of unknown quantity and unknown effects.
With chronic incurable diseases of all kinds, the search continues for more precise drugs which can deal with a variety of symptoms. But the medical use of cannabis in Europe and North America has declined this century, first, because there is no standardised preparation of cannabis and, secondly. because of its unreliable absorption when taken by mouth.

701
Cannabis has a very complex structure and even for a given strength produces irregular, widely varying, and thus unreliable, results. That is why it was ejected from the British Pharmacopoeia in 1932; its dismissal was in no way related to its legal status on the street, its so-called recreational use.
We support the committee's view that evidence-based findings fully justified the rejection of the recreational use of cannabis and that its present controlled status should be maintained. We also fully support the committee's recommendation that there is a great need for scientifically rigorous trials, and that the notion of smokable medicines should continue to be rejected.
In referring to the smoking of cannabis, the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, might have emphasised that smoking cannabis is even more dangerous than smoking ordinary cigarettes because it contains a greater concentration of cancer producing substances. It results in a five-fold greater increase in carboxyhaemoglobin concentration, which makes that haemoglobin molecule less available to carry ordinary oxygen, and that places an additional burden on the heart; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, mentioned, a three-fold greater increase in the amount of tar inhaled. Also, it leads to retention in the respiratory tract of one-third more tar than the smoking of ordinary cigarettes.
Controlled clinical trials are difficult when one is comparing the smoking of cannabis with something else. It is difficult to find a suitable placebo.
One of the cannabinoids, nabilone, was licensed as a drug to help control the nausea and vomiting produced by chemotherapy in cancer patients. Apparently it is not much used for that purpose because it is not nearly so good as the new and more powerful anti-nausea drugs such as ondansetron and others with names that are difficult to pronounce. The other advantage of these compounds is that they can be given intravenously, which is useful for patients who are vomiting.
The committee has argued that it "received enough anecdotal evidence" to convince it of the medical value of cannabis, although it concedes that "there is not enough rigorous scientific evidence". The committee says its "principal reason is compassionate". I am not sure that it is really compassionate to expose sick people to unproven drugs with psychoactive side effects; there are approved protocols for the introduction of drugs, and even then mistakes are made and problems arise. The only people likely to benefit would be the legal profession, advancing claims for damage by this improperly approved compound.
When we examine the anecdotal evidence, it consists largely of people who have smoked cannabis saying that they prefer smoking it to having it in other forms. First, I think we should remind ourselves that the word "anecdote" means in Greek "not published", which is arguably what most anecdotes should remain. Secondly, I remember well patients telling me in the 1950s that they much preferred digitalis leaf to the new-fangled preparation digoxin. They said that the leaf, which we prescribed in grains, as I think my former tutor, my noble friend Lord Butterfield, will confirm, was much
702
more effective than the pure digoxin. The truth of the matter is that the amount of pure digoxin in each digitalis leaf varied a great deal. In fact, it is thoroughly bad medicine to use that preparation.
I work on the principle that the customer is always right, but sometimes he is not right, and in this case he is quite wrong. After all, only 1 per cent. of people suffering from multiple sclerosis are believed to use cannabis, so it cannot be described as a "widespread experience". Further anecdotal evidence is that cannabinoids are not as good as crude cannabis because they do not make the patient "high".
It is the job of the Opposition to oppose the Government over policies that it thinks are wrong but to support them over policies it thinks are right. We on these Benches agree with the Government that cannabis should not be rescheduled to allow doctors to prescribe it until the safety, quality and efficacy of a medicinal form have been established by rigorous scientific means and until the Medicines Control Agency issues a marketing authorisation.
We fully support the stand taken by the British Medical Association. I think it is worth saying that the BMA today is more helpful and constructive than I have ever known it. The BMA summarises this situation well when it says:
"Cannabis contains over 400 chemical compounds including more than 60 cannabinoids, with considerable variation in the concentration present in different preparations".
Even if cannabis were shown to have therapeutic benefits, it would not be possible to know which particular agents were beneficial and medical knowledge would not be advanced or treatment improved. For those reasons, as well as because of the known toxic constituents in cannabis smoke, the BMA consider that cannabis is unsuitable for medical use. They say that such use should be confined to known doses of pure or synthetic cannabinoids. We agree with that.
I should like to emphasise a point made by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office in January 1997 when he said that many of those calling for the medical use of cannabis are using it as a stalking horse to promote the campaign for its legalisation. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, mentioned that point.
Paul Boateng, the Health Minister, said that we should not accept a lesser standard of evidence in the case of cannabis because of pressures on behalf of people who are convinced of its therapeutic value.
It is worth stating that in the United States organised campaigns to legalise cannabis have usually started by launching a debate on its medical uses. There are, of course, many sincere people who advocate the use of cannabis for medical purposes and whose only concern is to alleviate suffering. But many believe that the efforts of these sincere people are being cynically deployed by other groups seeking legislation. These groups are well aware of the propaganda value in gaining ground in the medical cannabis debate.

703
Another disadvantage of legalising the use of cannabis for medical reasons is that the United Kingdom would then find itself out of step with many other countries. In this field I do not think we should be pioneering in that way.
In conclusion, I again thank the committee for this valuable report which has highlighted the difficulties of the subject. I very much hope that the Government will support the plea of the committee for more rigorous and scientific research in this field.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that at the moment only I per cent. of multiple sclerosis sufferers used cannabis. However, according to the Multiple Sclerosis Society—I look at page 84 of the report—there are 85,000, sufferers which means that 850 of them now use cannabis. That is probably a minimum figure because there are many who can benefit from it. A lot of people might well use it if it were legal.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I entirely agree. I read the report and the figure is 1 per cent.
Lord Rea: My Lords, that still amounts to 850 people, which is quite a large number.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and the Select Committee on Science and Technology on producing a very interesting report on cannabis. No one who has listened to the debate this evening can fail to be impressed by the findings of the committee.
I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, on his excellent maiden speech which was listened to with interest and attention. I hope that it will not be too long before we hear from him again.
The Government must examine the scientific and medical evidence to see whether there is a case for relaxing some of the current restrictions on the medical uses of cannabis and to consider whether the prohibition on the recreational use of this drug is justified on the scientific evidence of adverse effects.
There is a huge volume of literature on cannabis. I believe that the committee has done exceptionally well in refining all of this material and producing a readable report. However, the purpose of this debate is not to provide the Government's full response to the committee's report because these proceedings take place before the Government have replied to the report. But all of the contributions that have been made today by noble Lords will be taken into account by the Government in their reply. In that respect. I believe that the purpose is a very useful one.
We are all aware that, according to convention, the Government reply to the reports of Select Committees within two months. However, as has been mentioned in the debate the committee made a recommendation that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs which advises the Government under the Misuse of Drugs
704
Act 1971 should be consulted before they responded to the report. It was recognised by the committee that this might take a little time. As the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, said in opening the debate, the committee is prepared to wait longer for a reply.
The council meets twice a year but it had a meeting on 19th November. Therefore, it was possible for the council at that meeting to consider the report briefly. One of the general comments that has been made is that the Government should not have responded so quickly. While it may not be the general custom to respond immediately to the Select Committee's report—I do not believe that anyone questions that—it is acceptable for the Government to do so. They do so in this case because the Government have a clearly established and logical position on the medical uses of cannabis. That is a position from which they would be willing to move only—I stress this—if scientific evidence to support the change were available. That evidence is not available, and indeed the report admits as much in paragraph 8.1. In those circumstances the Government thought that it was better to remind everyone of their position and the reason for it rather than to leave a gap, because that gap might have created the impression that we thought a case for change had been made.
It was against this background that the advisory council, in view of the Government's position, took the view that cannabis should not be rescheduled. If the time comes when a cannabis-based medicine has been developed the advisory council will, under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, have to be consulted before any change is made to the legislation.
As I have said, this debate is not the occasion when the Government are giving their full reply to the report, but at this stage I would like to reiterate what the Government said about some of the recommendations after the report was published. The last words in the main report are that the committee recommends that:
"cannabis and its derivatives should continue to be controlled drugs".
In making the recommendation, the committee referred to a statement by the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator in the Government's White Paper, Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain. Mr. Hellawell said that:
"the more evidence that becomes available about the risks of, for example, cannabis and ecstasy the more discredited the notion that any of the substances currently controlled under the 1971 Act are harmless".
This is something that the Government have always believed, and we believe that the committee's recommendation supports our position. We believe that the general legalisation of cannabis would be a serious mistake, and indeed we heard tonight a very powerful speech from my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate pointing out the dangers that could arise from legalisation. We are not prepared to be a party to making any mistake in that regard.
The Government also welcomed the committee's recommendation that more work is needed on the possible medical benefits of cannabis. However, the

705
Government found themselves unable to agree—I say this to the members of the committee—with the recommendation that:
"steps should be taken to transfer cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations to Schedule 2 so as to allow doctors to prescribe an appropriate preparation of cannabis, albeit as an unlicensed medicine and on a named patient basis and to allow doctors and pharmacists to supply the drug prescribed".
Put another way, we believe the recommendation is that doctors should be allowed to prescribe cannabis: that is what we believe is being said by the committee. Where it is not explicit about what is meant by "an appropriate preparation of cannabis" the Government have assumed that this could, in the committee's view—and we have discussed this tonight—include smoked cannabis, despite the acknowledged dangers of that form of administration. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Perry, is agreeing with me in that.
In principle, the Government have no difficulty with the proposal of a cannabis-based medicine or medicines containing individual cannabinoids. However, we do not agree that any prospective medicines which contain these substances should set aside the standards required of prospective medicines. The case for that was made very clear by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. These standards are that the quality, safety and efficacy of the medicine have to be scientifically proven. There are good reasons for having those standards. I do not need to say this because all noble Lords who spoke tonight—many of them expert in their fields—are aware that it is necessary to ensure that inferior quality, unsafe or ineffective medicines are not prescribed to patients. I think that we can all agree on that.
The committee also acknowledged that there was not enough scientific evidence to prove conclusively that cannabis has or has no medical value of any kind. Nonetheless, we get back to the anecdotal evidence that cannabis almost certainly has a genuine medical application, in particular for the treatment of muscular spasms and symptoms of multiple sclerosis and the control of other forms of pain. Much has been said on compassionate grounds. The Government are not unsympathetic. No one could ignore the plight of these people. If they cannot be helped by existing medication, should we look to cannabis to help them? Sufferers of certain ailments might be able to obtain relief lawfully by using cannabis. However the development and licensing of medicinal forms might take five years. Although the Government have enormous sympathy for those patients whose conditions do not respond to existing treatment, and we understand why the committee has reached its view, we do not believe—and I think that many people would agree with us—that an exception should be made for cannabis.
We believe that one of the consequences of accepting the recommendation would be to undermine research into medicinal forms. We believe that a good deal of the incentive would be swept away if crude cannabis was prescribable. That view was also shared from the Opposition Bench.
706
However, we are making progress on research into cannabinoids. The Medical Research Council (MRC) the main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research, has awarded a grant to Dr. Kendall of the University of Nottingham to undertake two studies. While those studies do not directly address the value of the therapeutic use of cannabis, they could prove important in informing any further, more applied research.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I apologise for the lateness of the hour. Those studies do not address the therapeutic issues. Does the Minister agree that the current regulatory framework is a Catch-22 situation? It prevents any controlled study of the type that we feel would be appropriate. One cannot gain the evidence without undertaking the studies; and the current regulations prevent scientists and funding authorities from supporting such studies, so there is a real problem intellectually.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend spoke about a Catch-22 situation. He says that the studies would not directly address the therapeutic use. We believe that they could be informative. However, as has been said throughout, we are in favour of more clinical studies taking place. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that we have to overcome that Catch-22 situation.
The final reports will be submitted to the council in due course, and Dr. Kendall will be expected to publish his findings in the scientific press in the usual manner. In addition, the Medical Research Council is committed to an evaluation of the therapeutic use of cannabis by clinical trial and is working closely with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to enable research in that area to be put on a better scientific footing.
However, the Government are not alone in believing that crude cannabis should not be made available. As has been said this evening, that position is supported by the BMA. In addition, the Royal Society has said that there is not enough evidence to justify either a ban on or the legalisation of cannabis for medical use and that proper clinical trials are necessary before reaching conclusions.
I believe that this debate has been invaluable because not only have we had the benefit of the opinions of all the committee members but it has also provided an opportunity to look at the committee's report. The Government will provide a full reply in due course and we shall also study what has been said during this debate.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part this evening. In particular, I thank all the committee members and especially the chairman of the committee. It is quite apparent from what I have said that we feel unable to agree with one of the report's central recommendations. However, there is no doubt about the value of the report, which has been acknowledged on all sides of the House. The report will be valuable in the future in relation to the study of cannabis and it will

707
help to inform debates which surround the use of cannabis. We are extremely grateful to the committee and this has been a very useful debate indeed.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I too thank all those who have taken part in the debate this evening. In particular, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, who made a splendid maiden speech.
I have only three points that I want to make, because it is late. First, as the Minister said, moving cannabis into Schedule 2 would undoubtedly allow doctors to prescribe it for smoking. Indeed, they could prescribe it in any way they liked because moving it to Schedule 2 allows them to do that. As I said in opening the debate, we do not believe that that is quite as bad as it sounds because—and this is my second point—I am quite hopeful that the clinical trials which are about to take place will be successful. I believe that they will be successful both for the cannabinoid that is being used
708
and for the crude cannabis that is also being used in a standardised preparation. It will probably be made by cloning the plants so that at least the content will be the same. If it is successful, that will lead to a licensed product which has the approval of the Medicines Control Agency.
My third point relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said. If that happens, it will create precisely the same difficulties as those the noble Lord outlined. They will still arise. It is illogical to assume that putting cannabis into Schedule 2 will be more dangerous than licensing the product in terms of spreading the level of abuse of the drug. I do not believe that in either case, there would be that spread of abuse which has been referred to. I believe that most doctors are responsible and the medical professional bodies would take good care of those who transgressed. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Central America
  Central America
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: New Appointment
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: New Appointment
  Police Grant
  Police Grant
  Boards of Visitors: National Advisory Council Annual Report
  Boards of Visitors: National Advisory Council Annual Report
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Motorists: Blood/Urine Samples
  Motorists: Blood/Urine Samples
  Wales: General Schools Budgets
  Wales: General Schools Budgets
  Charities Taxation Review
  Charities Taxation Review
  Eurostar Services to South West England
  Eurostar Services to South West England
  Genetically Modified Plant Varieties: Seed Listing Applications
  Genetically Modified Plant Varieties: Seed Listing Applications
  Hedgerow Regulations 1997
  Hedgerow Regulations 1997
  Motorway Service Stations
  Motorway Service Stations
  Fatal Injuries
  Fatal Injuries
  Driving Licence Penalty Points
  Driving Licence Penalty Points
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990: Review of Consent Provisions
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990: Review of Consent Provisions
  Mental Health Act 1983: Revised Code of Practice
  Mental Health Act 1983: Revised Code of Practice
  Human Reproductive Cloning
  Human Reproductive Cloning
  Road Traffic Accidents: Insurance Payments for Treatment Costs
  Road Traffic Accidents: Insurance Payments for Treatment Costs
  Personal Social Services: Capital Allocations
  Personal Social Services: Capital Allocations
  Old Palace Yard: Granite Setts
  Old Palace Yard: Granite Setts
  Iraq: Enforcement of Sanctions
  Iraq: Enforcement of Sanctions
  Assassinations
  Assassinations
  Burma
  Burma
  Iraq: Saddam Hussein and UNSCOM
  Iraq: Saddam Hussein and UNSCOM
  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy Working Groups
  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy Working Groups
  Iraq: Kuwaiti Prisoners of War
  Iraq: Kuwaiti Prisoners of War
  Human Rights Obligations: Compliance by Ministers and Civil Servants
  Human Rights Obligations: Compliance by Ministers and Civil Servants
  Israeli Prime Minister's Visit: Talks
  Israeli Prime Minister's Visit: Talks
  Food Standards Agency
  Food Standards Agency
  England: General Schools Budgets
  England: General Schools Budgets