Sitting of 2 February 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Corbett: What recent estimate he has made of the amount of drug-related crime. [24612]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): My hon. Friend may be aware that the Home Office is conducting research into this phenomenon. We hope to publish the results in the next few months. The research shows, as we suspected, a strong link between drug use and crime.
  Mr. Corbett: Given that the criminal activities of drug offenders are estimated to cost £1.5 billion, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Home Office works closely with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health so that there is a combined attempt to tackle the causes of drug abuse, rather than merely its symptoms? Will he confirm that personal responsibility is a better antidote to drug abuse than are chemical substances?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. It is necessary for all Departments to work together on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established a high-powered committee, chaired by the President of the Council, with exactly that objective. The United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, was appointed for that purpose. He is examining those links, where money is spent and where it could be better spent in the future. Of course, personal responsibility is an important concept which, if taken seriously, leads people away from, rather than towards, drug abuse.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Bearing in mind the fact that supplying drugs to prisoners is a crime, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many people were charged with supplying drugs to prisoners in the past year? In an attempt to bring that number down, will he undertake to make available to each prison ring-fenced money so that each may have a trained drug detection dog available for prison visits?
  Mr. Howarth: I do not have to hand information on the number of visitors who have been caught taking drugs
  702
  into prisons, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important to stress that that is a prominent way in which drugs are getting into prisons. The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is an offence to take drugs into prisons. There is an increasing tendency to use sniffer dogs, passively or actively. The Prison Service and individual prisons are considering that.
  We are concerned about the prevalence of drug abuse in prisons. The Prison Service is conducting research into precisely what is going on. We hope to report the findings in due course. Many useful drug initiatives are taking place in the Prison Service, ranging from counselling to detoxification. We are committed to such programmes as well as to the extension of a voluntary drug testing unit in each prison, as resources permit and over time.
  Ms Abbott: Is my hon. Friend aware that in prisons such as Holloway many women go in drug-free and come out with a serious drug habit because of the easy availability of drugs? Is he aware that many people in the voluntary sector who work in prisons believe that some prison officers are bringing drugs into prisons? Is he prepared to see them tested, as well as visitors?
  Mr. Howarth: On my hon. Friend's last point, it is often asserted that that is the case, although unfortunately—perhaps I should say fortunately—there is no evidence that prison officers are responsible for bringing drugs into prisons. If there were, we would have to consider introducing voluntary testing. My hon. Friend points out that it is not unknown for people to go into prison—a women's prison or a male establishment—drug-free and to acquire a habit in prison. There is concern about that and it is why we have programmes to deal with it: counselling, detoxification, or voluntary testing regimes. Mandatory drug testing is already done randomly in each prison.

  Asylum and Immigration Detainees
  Dr. Harris: What monitoring exists in respect of health care provided for asylum and immigration detainees in privately run detention centres. [24613]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Medical services at detention centres are subcontracted. The local director of public health is consulted as necessary on the specifications of the contract. The contracts are closely monitored, both by the contractor and the immigration service. There are regular meetings of the detention medical co-ordination committee, involving medical officers, the Prison Service and the immigration service.
  Independent visiting committees monitor all aspects of the operations at detention centres and report to the Home Office. At Campsfield house in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there is a general practitioner on the visiting committee, Dr. Pander, who liaises on medical care with the centre doctor. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has carried out recent inspections at both Tinsley house and Campsfield house; both reports dealt with medical issues. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also recently visited to look into these issues.
  Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he share my concern that the increasing subcontracting—as between the immigration service, then a privately run security service, then a private medical company, and then private practitioners—may prompt questions about accountability? Is he not worried about the alleged under-provision of psychiatric services for people who are detained indefinitely without being given a reason? Is there not an opportunity to carry out good health screening on these people, who are least able to be their own advocates and who do not have access to patients charter rights?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of at least some parts of his question. There is a need for more co-ordination of medical standards in detention centres. Indeed, the detention medical co-ordination committee meets regularly to improve co-ordination. The local director of public health is often consulted—I understand that at Campsfield house there is regular contact with the local director.
  In some places, the quality of psychiatric care provided for detainees is better than the quality of care available to the hon. Gentleman's other constituents. Not only are doctors and nurses on call 24 hours a day, but consultants can be brought in when needed and services are provided quickly—perhaps more quickly than they are for the general population.
  I do not accept that any detainees are detained without a reason.
  Mr. Cox: What accountability do private contractors for health and other services have to boards of visitors?
  Mr. O'Brien: Contractors are accountable in the sense that they have a closely monitored contract with the Home Office and the immigration service, and the Home Office and immigration service pay great heed to the reports of the visitors' committees. We are moving towards regular special reports on the medical facilities at detention centres because, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend have said, we need to get standards right. As for contractors' operations, we must ensure greater co-ordination and allow visitors' committees the control that we should like them to have.
  Mr. Wilkinson: As Heathrow airport, the largest port of entry to the United Kingdom, is in the same borough as my constituency—with Harmondsworth detention centre alongside it—can the Minister tell me whether any of these medical monitoring costs fall on the local authority?
  Mr. O'Brien: Only in the sense that there is regular consultation, given that the people in the area are likely to be treated by local doctors. We must ensure proper control procedures and high standards of medical provision for detainees. The costs are limited; they are aimed at maintaining the highest quality of care for detainees.

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Cranston: What plans he has to regulate immigration advisers. [24614]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): A consultation paper setting out the options for the control of unscrupulous immigration advisers was published on 22 January in line with our manifesto commitment. Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to interested parties. Comments are invited by 23 March.
  Mr. Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the consultation paper. He has acted swiftly—unlike the Conservative party—which did nothing for 18 years. In my short time in the House, I have been approached by a number of immigration advisers who are obviously incompetent. As the consultation document suggests, some are unscrupulous and even criminal.
  May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a specific point in the consultation paper? Does he agree that there is a strong case for compensation and appeal provisions for those who fall into the hands of bogus advisers?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As every hon. Member who has any connection with immigration or asylum cases knows, the problem with unscrupulous advisers is not just their incompetence, but often their dishonesty and sometimes their criminality. My Department has a list of 250 firms of unscrupulous immigration advisers, including nearly 40 firms of solicitors that are engaged in such practices.
  Our aim is to have a system of registration that would, in almost all cases, exclude unscrupulous advisers. It is plain that we have to think about whether there should be a system of compensation in cases where such advisers have crept within the net.
  Mr. Malins: I thank the Home Secretary for what he has said. He will be aware of my involvement in the Immigration Advisory Service, which has, over the years, provided the best possible expert help free of charge. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many in the ethnic minority community will be very unhappy at the news that he is to cut the special grant of £500,000 to the IAS, which was awarded specifically to help destitute asylum appellants? Will not most of them suffer enormously as a result of the cut that he proposes? Will he consider reinstating the grant?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. What is frustrating about the fact that a large number of people use unscrupulous immigration advisers is that reputable charities, such as the Immigration Advisory Service, provide—on the basis of Government grant—a free service which, in my experience as a Member of Parliament, is infinitely superior to the service that they receive from any of these so-called advisers. As to the hon. Gentleman's last point, no decision has yet been made.

  Electoral System
  Mr. Winnick: When he will make a statement on what electoral system is to be used in the next general election. [24615]
  Mr. Straw: The independent commission on the voting system has begun its work and has been asked to report

  705
  within a year. After that, we intend to introduce legislation for a referendum so that the electorate may decide on the future electoral system for the Westminster Parliament.
  Mr. Winnick: Why is there any need for a change to the system for elections to Westminster? Were not those who argued that the existing system meant permanent Tory government proved wrong—fortunately—last May? What we do not want is permanent coalition government.
  Mr. Straw: My personal views on the matter are well known and I have not changed them in recent weeks. I set them out at some length on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
  Many people believe that we should have a different system. My hon. Friend will recall that the former leader of the Labour party, the late John Smith, proposed that the matter be resolved by way of the electoral commission and then by referendum. I was pleased to advise the 1995 Labour party conference that that was the way forward. Those of us who take one view should be sufficiently confident in it to believe that it will be shared by the British people.
  Mr. Forth: Will the Home Secretary do his best to ensure that the electoral commission and, thereafter, the electorate, are made fully aware of the experience in New Zealand, where people were persuaded to choose what appeared to be a rather simple and easy option and, according to the evidence, have bitterly regretted it ever since?
  Mr. Straw: I know that the commission under Lord Jenkins is to make several trips. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he taking with him?"] I have no idea whether commission members are taking their wives or partners—and I am not sure whether they will travel as far as New Zealand.
  There is much to be said on both sides of the issue. One of the difficulties with the New Zealand referendum was that it was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the New Zealand electorate were asked simply to vote for the status quo or for an undefined change. The New Zealand people voted for change on the basis of some sentimental belief in the future and were then presented with a system that has caused great problems.
  Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that Italy has had proportional representation in some shape or form for God knows how long and that it has had about 50 different Governments since the end of the second world war? Does not the cockeyed idea of PR come from the Euro-fanatics among the Liberal Democrats? It is part of the common market disease. We have had a basinful of it on account of the next Euro-elections—as recommended by the Liberal Democrats. I urge my right hon. Friend to stand firm and ensure that Westminster elections are conducted according to the first-past-the-post system—and we shall knock the living daylights out of all of them.
  Mr. Straw: I must admit that I have noticed rather less enthusiasm for proportional representation on the Labour side of the House since 1 May. I point out to my hon. Friend that the Labour party commission under Lord Plant—
  Mr. Skinner: He is not standing for election.
  Mr. Straw: No, he secured a position of permanent election in the other place. The Labour party commission
  706
  under Lord Plant recommended changes to the electoral system that led to John Smith's proposal for a referendum. I do not believe that my hon. Friend should be uncustomarily generous and give credit for this proposition, which was in our manifesto, to the Liberal Democrats.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: At a time of regrettable cynicism about politicians and growing confusion about democratic accountability, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the link between the Member of Parliament at Westminster and the constituency is widely recognised? Is it unfair of those who believe that the Labour party wishes to diminish the authority of Westminster to see tinkering with electoral systems as part of that campaign?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady's latter point is profoundly unfair: in no sense do we want a reduction in the authority of Westminster. However, I profoundly agree with her first point. If we look to continental systems, where there is no constituency basis, we see the development of political elites that are detached from the electorate. I have spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches and nine months on the Government Benches and I believe that it is our constituency base which gives vibrancy to British politics and a proper accountability.

  Young offenders
  Mr. Peter Bradley: What plans he has to ensure that young offenders are asked to repair the damage they do to victims and to the community. [24616]
  Mr. Straw: A key aim of our plans to reform the youth justice system is to encourage young offenders to face the consequences of their behaviour and to make amends to their victims. We have brought forward, in the Crime and Disorder Bill, proposals for a new reparation order, which will require the young offender to make reparation to the victim, where the victim desires it, or to the community. Reparation will also be an element of the new action plan order, the existing supervision order and the proposed final warning scheme.
  Mr. Bradley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to crime, prevention is a great deal better than cure? Will he join me in commending the Wrekin community safety partnership, which has done much to divert young people from offending, to reduce levels of crime and to enhance the quality of life in the community in my constituency?
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe to put the victim back at the centre of our judicial system? Does he accept that reparation orders will play a great role in doing exactly that?
  Mr. Straw: I am happy to commend the work of the Wrekin community safety partnership.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that we want to put the victim back at the centre of the system. The problem at present is that far too many offenders do not understand that there are victims of their crimes other than themselves. Part of the purpose of our youth justice

  707
  system is to ensure that young offenders face the fact that they have offended, that there is a victim, and that the victim is not them.
  Mr. Evans: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is wrong to suggest that the majority of young people offend? The vast majority do not and it is a shame that they are all tarred with the same brush. In the context of the small proportion of young people who do offend, surely it is right that the victim should be properly consulted about reparation. We should endeavour to ascertain how he or she feels about how the young offender should pay back the price to society—or even to them, the victim.
  May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision about boot camps? When the system was operating, it was shown to be extremely effective. The vast majority of my constituents, who are neighbours of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, thought that the idea of boot camps was long overdue. They will think it a great shame if they are done away with. Indeed, doing away with them might send the wrong message to young people, who might be given the impression that they can get away with crime.
  Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that the victim is consulted; there are a number of schemes to extend that process.
  The previous Administration set up two high-intensity schemes that were described as boot camps. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are nothing like the brutal boot camps that exist in the United States. There is one at the Thorn Cross young offender institution; the other is at Colchester military prison.
  I had to close the Colchester military prison experiment on the ground of cost; each place was running at £32,000 compared with £17,000 in an ordinary young offender institution and £21,000 at Thorn Cross. Furthermore, the evidence is that the Thorn Cross experiment does a marginally better job than that at Colchester.

  Fire service
  Mr. Gerrard: If he will make a statement on the fire service settlement for 1998–99. [24617]
  Mr. George Howarth: The proposed settlement of 4.8 per cent. for the fire service has been widely welcomed in the fire service community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will set out his proposals for a final settlement for the standard spending assessment later today.
  Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend will be aware that while an extra £4.4 million in London will help to stop some of the most serious cuts, there will still be a difficult financial situation for the London fire and civil defence authority. There may still be some cuts and the possibility of station closures. Will my hon. Friend tell us what further steps he may be able to take to help the authority get out of the difficulties? Will he look especially at the
  708
  fire service pension scheme, which was allowed to run into crisis by the previous Government? It is one of the root causes of the present financial difficulties.
  Mr. Howarth: The settlement that we have proposed compares favourably with that proposed by the previous Government, who over the past three years announced settlements of 4.2, 1.5 and 0 per cent. respectively.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been concerns. Indeed, a section 19 application is currently under consideration by Her Majesty's chief inspector in respect of London. When I receive the inspector's recommendations on station closures and the arrangements for the Thames, they will be given serious consideration.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said repeatedly that we will not take any decisions that place the London public in danger of being in any way damaged or injured by fire, and that consideration will be uppermost in our minds.
  There is concern throughout the country—not only in London—about the pension scheme and the costs involved. The previous Government set up a review and I hope shortly to publish the results of it, but there is no easy solution to the difficulties facing the fire service pension fund—and, for that matter, the police service pension fund.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree with—or will he dissociate himself from—the remarks made by the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union in the latest edition of "Firefighter", who said
  "many…fire authorities simply do not have the financial resources to provide a safe and effective service for the public"?
  Will the Minister confirm that any fire station closure or appliance relocation could be done only with the approval of the Home Secretary, and even then only when he is satisfied that there will be no loss of safety or effectiveness to the public?
  Mr. Howarth: Yes. Her Majesty's chief inspector examines every proposal and advises the Home Secretary and me—on every occasion—whether it is safe to go ahead with it. Whatever the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union may have said, the fire services are in quite good shape—and in even better shape since we announced last December the best settlement that they have had for many years.

  crime
  Mr. Sheerman: What measures he will take to enhance the role of local authorities in tackling crime. [24619]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Crime and Disorder Bill will substantially improve the ability of local authorities to contribute to the fight against crime. The Bill includes measures that will require local authorities and the police service to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder problems, to draw up a strategy to tackle them and to publish targets for delivering the strategy. That process must be conducted on the basis of full consultation with local people and a wide range of other key partners. Local authorities will be

  709
  empowered to apply new orders to protect the community and required to establish multi-agency youth offending teams.
  This is a substantial package of proposals which will put local authorities at the heart of action to combat criminal and anti-social behaviour. I am glad that local authorities have warmly welcomed them.
  Mr. Sheerman: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Bringing the local community together in partnership in the fight against crime has been close to the hearts of Labour Members for a long time.
  Did my hon. Friend listen to Professor Richard Sparks this morning on BBC Radio 4, and to his pessimistic view of what will happen in towns and cities over the next 10 or 15 years? Will she ensure that our community groups and the local authorities that lead them have targets for crime reduction year on year so that we can measure our success?
  Ms Quin: There is an important reason for targets, as my hon. Friend has described. I am afraid that I did not hear the interview to which he refers—I may have been on a train at the time—but I am sure that the information will be taken into consideration. There have already been many successful examples of partnership, and it is on those that we want to build in the Bill.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Did the hon. Lady notice what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) said about the excellent work that he tells us is being done in his area without any statutory obligation? What is her estimate of the extra costs that would fall to local authorities in implementing their statutory duties under the Crime and Disorder Bill? Why should the country believe that she and the Home Secretary are serious when the Government are reducing social services budgets throughout the land?
  Ms Quin: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about some of the partnerships that exist, but the Government want to ensure that those experiences and lessons are learnt throughout the country. That is why we want a statutory duty along the lines that we have included in the Crime and Disorder Bill—we believe that it will help to tackle crime throughout the country.
  I should point out that the police and local authorities warmly welcome the proposals that we have placed before the House, on which we consulted widely in the past few months.
  We estimate that the cost is likely to be about £130 million, but that does not take into account some of the savings that we believe can be made by reducing offending, and by such measures as the home detention curfew which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House at the end of last year.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Senior citizens in my constituency tell me bitterly of their anxiety about young offenders who are involved in drug abuse, vandalism and, indeed, more serious crimes on the larger housing estates. Would it help local authorities if police authorities could recruit more special constables, thus freeing experienced officers to tackle the root of the problems, early rather than late?
  Ms Quin: A strong partnership is developing which involves special constables, but we believe that the
  710
  problems described by my hon. Friend will be tackled effectively in the Bill. Although it is called the Crime and Disorder Bill, in many respects, the emphasis is on crime prevention and early intervention, which we think will help to stop such problems developing.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Burns: If he will make a statement on the recruitment of special constables into the Chelmsford area. [24620]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): In the current financial year, 34 additional special constables have been recruited in the Chelmsford area. There are now 82 specials in the Chelmsford division. During specials week, I went to Essex and met some of the Essex specials with the chief constable, John Burrow, and I am very impressed by the increasingly professional nature of their work.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he share my concern—and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and of West Chelmsford Labour party—about the difficulty of recruiting and retaining high-calibre special constables, despite the availability of funds? The Essex police are doing a tremendous job in seeking to recruit special constables in the Chelmsford area, but does the Minister feel that local authorities also have a role? If so, does he think that Chelmsford borough council is playing its full part?
  Mr. Michael: I am surprised at the reported lack of enthusiasm of Liberal Democrats in Chelmsford for what is an essential act of citizenship—ordinary citizens acting as volunteers to help to make the community safer for others.
  Yes, local authorities can play a role as, indeed, can the business sector. We would encourage all parts of the community to work together to meet the objective that—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out—we are setting out in the Crime and Disorder Bill, and to cut crime.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Bob Russell: What estimate he has made of the number of people currently employed in the private security industry; and what proposals he has to regulate this industry. [24621]
  Mr. Michael: In evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1995, the Policy Studies Institute put the total size of the industry at about 162,000 employees and over 8,000 firms in 1992.
  The Government are committed to statutory regulation of the private security industry. While waiting for an opportunity to legislate, we are consulting and working with the industry and others on the best way in which to design regulation that is simple and effective.
  Mr. Russell: So far, so good, but did not the previous Government also conduct a consultation exercise? This is the second such exercise, and I wonder when we can have a decision on some action.

  711
  Does the Minister agree that it is strange that, although someone cannot start up a taxi firm and become a taxi driver without being subjected to a number of checks in the public interest, people can leave prison, start up their own security firms—as, indeed, people have done—and to all intents and purposes, by their demeanour and their uniforms, give the impression of being police officers? Is it not time that such people were brought under some form of regulation, in the public interest?
  Mr. Michael: Yes, we do think that there is something very odd about the situation. That is why we welcomed the Select Committee's recommendation on regulation, and why we were surprised when the previous Government, year after year, voted against amendments that we tabled to various Bills in order to introduce some form of regulation. We warned them that a new Government, with the pressure of legislation to tackle the whole criminal justice system, would not easily find an early legislative slot in order to take action that had long been needed. We will take such action as quickly as we can, however, and we believe that it is necessary.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not operating practices in the better-run parts of the private security industry be greatly helped by the introduction of a national identity card?
  Mr. Michael: A national identity card does not necessarily resonate with what is required for the private security industry. One of the problems is that managers and owners of private firms and their employees are unregulated, and there is a lot of movement among employees. As my hon. Friend suggests, we need a private security industry that meets the standards of the best. The industry and the trade unions agree with us that legislation is necessary.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on the advantages and disadvantages of a system of rolling electoral registration. [24622]
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware that I am chairing a working party that is examining rolling registers and other electoral issues.
  Mr. Barnes: Are not the current static electoral registers out of date as soon as they come into use? Masses of people are missing from the registers, and many people who have moved or died are still included. We need a much more modern system. According to the figures showing the eligible population in England, 4.7 per cent. of people are missing from the electoral register, and in Richmondshire, the local government area represented by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), 15.8 per cent. of people are missing. Perhaps some politicians turn people off more than others. We need a modern, up-to-date, electoral registration system that is compatible with a mobile society.
  Mr. Howarth: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on this subject over a number of years. He has raised concerns about the absence of people on the register due to the poll tax and for other reasons. The specific points
  712
  that he has raised will be examined by the working party, which met for the first time a couple of weeks ago and includes representatives from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. We are aware of the problems, and that we need to modernise our electoral registration system and the conduct of elections. I hope that we shall come up with a set of conclusions and recommendations that will resolve the problems that my hon. Friend describes.
  Mr. Collins: Does the Minister recognise that a rolling registration process runs the risk of an increase in honest and dishonest mistakes due to multiple entries? Will he undertake not to support any mechanism that could increase the risk of electoral fraud?
  Mr. Howarth: The integrity of our electoral system is of paramount importance to all of us, and I would not be party to any decision that undermined that. There would have to be a cut-off point at some realistic date so as to preserve the integrity of the system. Provided that we take those pointers into account, it should be possible to have a rolling register with a cut-off point before it comes into effect for any particular election.
  Mr. Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the turnout, especially for local government and European elections, is significantly lower in this country than in other European countries, we should actively explore other radical new initiatives, such as electronic voting, voting in a wider variety of places, including supermarkets, and voting on a Sunday, which is considered on the continent to be the best way in which to maximise turnout because people do not have so many alternatives?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has established a working party that is considering the re-invigoration of local elections, and issues such as electronic voting form part of its considerations.
  It is important to increase turnout in local elections because that in itself increases the authority and accountability of local government. My working party will also take those issues into account. While I would not rule out Sunday voting for all time, there are one or two changes in the pipeline already and it might be a little confusing to introduce too many changes at one go. For example, I do not suspect that Sunday voting would be a sensible option for the next round of European elections.

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Flight: What has been the total amount of compensation paid to those handing in their firearms as a result of the recent firearms legislation; and if he will make a statement. [24623]
  Mr. Michael: As at 21 January, £31.6 million had been paid to shooters and more than 28,000 payments have been made. A one month hand-in period for .22 handguns started yesterday, fulfilling our undertaking before the election and the overwhelming will of Parliament which was expressed in a free vote.
  Mr. Flight: I and, I have found, many colleagues have had many complaints from constituents who have handed

  713
  in their weapons, but who have not received compensation for considerably longer than the 21 days average that is claimed by the Home Office. The Revenue charges people interest if they pay their taxes late. First, will the Minister undertake that if compensation is unduly late, people will receive interest? Secondly, could he confirm that in assessing retail values, the Home Office is not factoring in a charge that is equivalent to VAT? Some of my constituents complain that they are not receiving full retail value as a VAT equivalent has been deducted.
  Mr. Michael: I must make it clear that we have no intention of paying interest, and neither had the previous Government. The arrangement is not a commercial transaction, but the fulfilment of a promise to pay compensation to shooters for the loss of their sport, and for the fact that they cannot use their weapons and ancillary equipment as they could before the legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman and some others underestimate the size of the task that was taken on by the previous Government, with our support. There were some 40,000 applicants. Some of them applied under the simpler parts of the scheme and some applied under the more complex parts. The rules are quite clear. All those who have handed in their guns and ancillary equipment will receive compensation in the fulness of time. We will pay the compensation as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Mullin: Now that the ban on handguns is on the statute book, what are the Government's plans for reducing the huge quantity of shotguns in circulation and for the introduction of some sort of licensing system for air weapons which, as hon. Members will be aware, cause a great deal of low-level mayhem and some serious injuries?
  Madam Speaker: The Minister is not required to answer that question as it does not relate to the main question.
  Mr. Greenway: Does the Minister realise that he must be the only person in the country who thinks that this compensation scheme is being run fairly and efficiently? Everyone else knows that it is a shambles, and it is about to be made worse by the needless banning of .22 calibre pistols. The Minister told the House that there was no need for the Government to accept a 30-day time limit for compensation payments because payments would be made as quickly as possible. Will he agree to pay interest on all claims that are outstanding not for 30 days, but for three months?
  Mr. Michael: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is simple and I have given it already. It is no, and the hon. Gentleman's Government would not have paid interest either. There is some inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's question. He is speaking about the legislation that was passed by his Government, and that is the legislation on which we have been compensating up to now. The .22 legislation relates to additional guns—about 10,000—that are to be handed in over the next month. [HON. MEMBERS: "A shambles."] It is not a shambles; the matter is being handled well. It is a major task which is being undertaken properly and as swiftly as possible. I am surprised by the pettiness of Opposition Members in a discussion on the removal of handguns from private possession to protect the British public.

  Youth Offending
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: What measures he plans to implement to ensure that there is a framework for local action to tackle youth offending. [24624]
  Mr. Straw: The Crime and Disorder Bill establishes new youth offending teams throughout the country, bringing the relevant local agencies together in partnership to work more effectively with young offenders. The Bill also establishes a youth justice board for England and Wales, which will provide a clear national framework for that local action to tackle youth offending.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I am sure that he knows that his proposals have been widely welcomed. However, it is also accepted that we need to be tough on the causes of offending. With that in mind, does he agree that, as part of the framework, we must have adequate resourcing of youth services, as well as promotion of education, training and employment opportunities for young people?
  Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the work of the youth service, which is a much neglected service. The issue in all these cases—this applies generally throughout the public sector—is not just the money that is spent on the service, but how effectively that money is used. As we saw from an Audit Commission report last week for the police, the police forces that have been most effective in reducing crime have not necessarily been those that have had an increase in resources.
  Mr. Clappison: I congratulate the Home Secretary on his good fortune in being in the Prime Minister's good books. We hope that relations with No. 11 are equally good. May not the Prime Minister have less reason to feel pleased with the Home Secretary if he considers local authority secure accommodation? Is it not true that, in the previous Parliament, when a substantial amount of extra local authority secure accommodation was being provided, the Prime Minister, then the shadow Home Secretary, promised that he would provide more? Is it not true that it was said that sending 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons rather than secure accommodation was a scandal? Is it not true that, under this Home Secretary, the Government are not providing a single extra local authority secure accommodation place, are set to continue remands of 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prison accommodation long into the future and, on top of all that, have abandoned the promising experimental regime at Colchester? Is all that not proof that they have failed to deliver on a commitment?
  Mr. Straw: Even by the standards of the Opposition Front-Bench team, that was a remarkably poorly researched question. The truth on secure accommodation is that, in 1991, the previous Administration promised a programme to increase the number of secure accommodation places by about 170 and it took them nearly seven years to achieve that. They also completely confused the legislation, with the result—until the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Bill—that some of those places were having to remain empty for 12 and 13-year-olds, while there were insufficient places for the

  715
  remands of 15 and 16-year-olds. We will take no lectures on the issue of secure accommodation for young people. We have proposed a national youth justice board. One of its tasks will be to sort out the present incoherent and expensive system of custody for young people.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Ms Beverley Hughes: What plans he has to implement the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. [24625]
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Human Rights Bill gives effect to our manifesto commitment to incorporate the convention. It will enable everyone in the United Kingdom to enforce their convention rights before our courts. It will bring rights home to the British people. Our judges must be trained and our courts ready to implement the convention's incorporation.
  Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and welcome the Government's initiative. He has rightly told us that the process of implementation will inevitably be lengthy, despite the Government's swift action. That makes the previous Government's failure all the more regrettable. When does he expect that the British people will be able to apply the protection of the convention in UK courts?
  Mr. O'Brien: We want to ensure that this important step for giving British people rights is done in the best possible way and that all the facilities and training are in place. Therefore, we have not yet set a date for completing incorporation, but we want to ensure that it is done as quickly as possible because it is enormously important that we bring those rights home to the British people.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Those who approach the Prime Minister and ask his views on the introduction of privacy legislation are firmly told that he is against it, even by the back door. However, the Lord Chancellor—both in another place and elsewhere—has let it be known that he is fanatically in favour of judicially driven privacy law. The Home Secretary sits on the fence, a leg dangling on either side, waiting to see who will win. When will the Government speak with one voice and ensure that if there is to be privacy legislation, it emerges from this place and not from the law courts?
  Mr. O'Brien: The shadow Home Secretary is somewhat confused, is he not? Does he not understand that the European convention on human rights applies in any event? Legislation will not change the substantive rights under the convention, but it will enable British people to enforce their rights in British courts. Why is the Conservative party so unwilling to allow the British people to enforce their rights under the European convention in the British courts?
  The Labour party has always supported the freedom of the press. We want to ensure that the rights of the British people are properly enforced. Indeed, the shadow Lord Chancellor appears to be of that view, too. He said:
  "One thing you can say in favour of the Bill is that it domesticates the powers of the institution of the Convention with the result that our own judges are now making decisions instead of the judges in Strasbourg."
  716
  Why do some members of the Conservative party want to keep rights in Europe, rather than bringing them home?

  Car Accident Investigations
  Mr. Hanson: If he will ensure that revised guidelines are issued to police forces with regard to the retention of vehicle evidence in car accident investigations.[24626]
  Mr. Michael: The Home Office issued general guidance to forces on the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which includes the length of time material obtained in a criminal investigation should be retained. The retention of vehicle evidence is an operational matter, but we are discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service the implications of recent court decisions, including the Regina v. Beckford judgment on the retention of vehicle evidence.
  Mr. Hanson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sarah Burton? She was killed in a car crash and the case went to court, but it collapsed because the police had destroyed the car that was needed in evidence. Although it is an operational matter for chief police officers, will my hon. Friend ensure that they introduce guidelines to ensure that cases such as Regina v. Beckford, and Sarah Burton, do not happen again?
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has brought an important matter to the House. Indeed, it is partly as a result of a letter that he wrote to me that we have decided to look afresh at the issue. As he rightly said, these are operational decisions for chief constables, but we need to consider the implications. That is why we are discussing the matter with ACPO and the CPS.

  Age of Majority
  Mr. Chope: What plans he has to lower the age of majority.[24627]
  Ms Quin: The Family Law Reform Act 1969 reduced the age of majority to 18. The Government have no plans to change it.
  Mr. Chope: I accept the Minister's response, but has she thought about the anomalies in this country, such as the age of majority being 16 in Scotland but 18 in England? In view of the much-publicised events over Christmas and the new year involving the reporting in Scotland of proceedings affecting 16 to 18-year-olds in England, will she think again about whether the age of majority in England should be the same as the age of majority in Scotland—whether that means reducing the age in England to that in Scotland, or raising the age in Scotland to that in England?
  Ms Quin: Although we do not have any plans to change the system in England, we are studying the handling of cases involving juveniles before the courts, along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  Ms Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that our system means that although at the age of 18, members of the

  717
  public may vote for their elected representatives, they may not stand to be an elected representative of either this House or a council until they have reached the age of 21? They cannot indulge in a number of other activities until they reach the age of 16, 17, 18 or 21. There should be consistency in the ages at which people attain rights. Will my hon. Friend review the matter and carefully consider whether we should ensure that people attain rights at one age?
  Ms Quin: We believe that it is important to examine the separate issues, and then to decide the most appropriate age that might apply in the circumstances. Although we do not have any plans to change the age at which people may stand as a candidate, as it seems to be very much in line with practice across Europe, the
  718
  working party on electoral procedures, which was mentioned earlier and is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), may wish to examine that issue.
  Mr. Bercow: Has the Minister received any representations on lowering the age of majority from the Minister without Portfolio—who, in a desperate search for supporters for the millennium dome project, has very wisely hired the services of an eight-year-old boy?
  Ms Quin: The citizens of the future are important voices to listen to in that process, but I have received no such representations.

Iraq
3.30
Mr. Michael Howard(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments on Iraq.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this opportunity to update the House on the latest developments.
On Saturday, I held a two-hour meeting with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss how best to deal with Iraq's continuing refusal to grant full and unrestricted access to United Nations Special Commission teams. The meeting formed part of intensive efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
I met Russian Foreign Minister Primakov on 26 January, and I spoke to French Minister Vedrine on 29 January. Our permanent five partners are also active: President Chirac has sent an envoy to Iraq; the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister is returning from there after his talks with Tariq Aziz. We support those latest efforts to end the deadlock.
The United Kingdom is currently taking the lead in the Security Council. We have prepared a draft Security Council resolution, which we shall be discussing with our Security Council partners. The resolution makes it clear that Saddam Hussein must obey the will of the international community. He must allow full and unrestricted access to all UNSCOM teams and reveal all details of his weapons of mass destruction programmes.
Saddam Hussein is persisting with his attempts to thwart UNSCOM's vital task of destroying and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM cannot carry out its duties while Saddam continues to deny access to presidential sites. Neither can there be any deadlines for UNSCOM to complete its work. The Security Council must be assured that all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related facilities have been destroyed. Even then, UNSCOM may have to continue working and monitoring for some time, to ensure that they are not rebuilt.
Saddam must be left in no doubt about our determination to secure his compliance with Security Council resolutions. Although we are pursuing a diplomatic solution, we have not ruled out, nor will we rule out, the use of force. The best way for us to achieve a diplomatic solution is to prove to Saddam that we are prepared to use all means necessary to ensure that he complies. As a precautionary measure, HMS Invincible has been deployed to the Gulf and has engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces in the northern Gulf waters. In due course, it will be replaced by HMS Illustrious.
The United Kingdom Government are very aware of the sufferings of the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. The difficulties and hardships that they face result from Saddam's failure to meet his international obligations. Even when offered a chance to provide for his people through oil-for-food arrangements,
720
he repeatedly refused to avail himself of the opportunity. Since the scheme's introduction, he has repeatedly obstructed its implementation. The United Kingdom has been in the lead in proposing and steering through the Council resolutions on oil for food. We are especially pleased that the Secretary-General will be reporting to the Security Council later today with recommendations to improve and expand that programme. We shall give his proposals our strong support.
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a serious threat. Iraq has developed the know-how and equipment to produce biological and chemical weapons on an industrial scale. Despite all that UNSCOM has achieved, we cannot be certain that important parts of that capability are not being retained. Without effective UNSCOM monitoring, Iraq could produce enough anthrax every week to fill two missile warheads and could within weeks be producing a large volume of nerve gas. It is vital for regional and international peace and security that Saddam Hussein is stopped. He should not underestimate our resolve to make sure that he is stopped.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement. As he knows, we share his determination to take whatever steps are necessary to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the Security Council and relieve the world of the threat that he will use weapons of mass destruction. We all hope that that can be achieved by diplomatic means. If, however, force proves necessary, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House, not least for the sake of the British service men and women whose lives may be put at risk, that clear objectives will be set?
The Foreign Secretary told us a little about the new Security Council resolution that the Government intend to sponsor and to which reference was made in this morning's newspapers. Does he agree that it would be far better if new initiatives of this kind were reported to the House rather than leaked to the newspapers? How would the new resolution fit in with resolution 687? Is it the Government's position that resolution 687 provides sufficient authority for military action to be taken? If so, what is the purpose of the new resolution?
Finally, I welcome from the Conservative Benches what the Foreign Secretary said about his support for the proposal made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the expansion of the oil-for-food programme. We agree with what the Foreign Secretary said about the suffering of the people of Iraq. It is not with the people of Iraq that we quarrel, but with Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support. In response to his last point, it should be understood in all corners that there is no sanction against the import of food or medicines by Saddam Hussein. The international community has at no stage sought to stand in the way of those essential humanitarian supplies. On the contrary, the international community has a better record in trying to provide the oil which can pay for them than Saddam Hussein.
Of course, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be clear objectives for any use of force. He would not expect me to say what they are, and he will understand that they are kept under close review.

721
As for the Security Council resolution, I felt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a bit hard in accusing us of leaking it when we formally made clear what we were doing. There are Security Council resolution initiatives by Britain every week, and it would not be normal to report them in advance to the House on every occasion. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the purpose of the new resolution. He is quite right to say that resolution 687 and the successor resolutions repeatedly condemned the Iraqi violations of the terms on which the Gulf war ended. He is absolutely right to say that there is plenty of authority in those resolutions for pressure to be put on Saddam Hussein.
However, it is very important that it is clearly seen that it is not just the United States or not just Britain, or not even just the permanent five that are concerned about Saddam Hussein' s flouting of those resolutions; it is important that the whole of the Security Council makes it clear that it condemns the present impasse and the obstruction of the UN monitors. It must be understood not only that Saddam Hussein poses an immediate and very serious threat to countries in his region, but that if the Security Council resolutions cannot be enforced, the whole authority of the Security Council is undermined.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not clear that if, as we all hope, Saddam Hussein backs down over weapons inspections, it will be only because of the threat of military force? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Saddam Hussein, the murderous dictator, has never backed down without the threat or deployment of military force? In respect of critics in the House, is it not clear that, had we listened to them at the time, the liberation of Kuwait would never have taken place in 1991? Should we not bear that in mind when we are denounced as warmongers?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that if, as he rightly said, we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, who were the very first victims of that murderous regime, it is absolutely essential that any military action should concentrate first and foremost on the weapons of mass destruction and that, if possible, the people of Iraq should not become the victims of bombing? Although military action can provide no guarantees, it is important that the United States, ourselves and others involved in such action should bear it in mind not only that is military action possible, but that there may well be a need for propaganda campaigns to demonstrate that the international community is acting for one reason alone, as stated by my right hon. Friend: to destroy the weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that Saddam Hussein uses fear and force quite explicitly as a political weapon. It is therefore important that we make sure that he understands that we are prepared to go all the way, if necessary, in enforcing his compliance with Security Council resolutions. The paradox is that if we want a diplomatic solution, we have to demonstrate that we are prepared to use military force. Those who counsel against military force, but want a diplomatic solution, make it more difficult to obtain by undermining the credibility and possibility of military force.
Finally, I echo what my hon. Friend said about the oppression of the Iraqi people. Nobody has done more to increase their suffering than Saddam Hussein. As we
722
consider the importance of dismantling his chemical and biological weapons, we should remember that this year, it will be 10 years to the year since Saddam Hussein used nerve gas against his own people in Halabja, and that a leader who is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people will be prepared to use them against others.
Mr. David Heath: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that there is a wide consensus that those who cheat on international law will not and must not prosper? Does he agree that every possible diplomatic avenue must be explored strenuously and with expedition to secure agreement, particularly with Mr. Primakov and Mr. Vedrine, so that all the international community is moving in the same direction? Will he continue—as far as is consistent with military security—to make clear the full horror and scope of the terrifying destructive capacity of the aggregation of weapons of mass destruction on which Iraq has embarked? Finally, in extremis, does he recognise that Britain must not flinch from joining the international community in taking effective but proportionate action? If he does, he will have our support, but in turn he must make clear the political objectives of such action and the end result that would be desired.
Mr. Cook: Let me respond straight away to the hon. Gentleman's final question. The objective of any action would be to achieve compliance with the Security Council resolutions. That compliance is easily measured by unconditional and unrestricted access to the sites that UNSCOM wishes to visit. The reason why we must achieve that unconditional and unrestricted access is precisely to prevent Saddam Hussein from retaining the capacity to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Currently, he has 17 tonnes of growth media for biological weapons agents. He cannot be allowed to retain that capacity. We must find the material and destroy it, as the UNSCOM team has done on other occasions.
Of course, we shall continue to have close dialogue with Russia and France on the issue. They both share our objective of making sure that UNSCOM is able to operate effectively. Nothing would do more to improve our chances of getting Saddam Hussein to back down than confronting him with the unity of the permanent five.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What happens when a bomb hits 17 tonnes of biological agents? What happens to the spores when a bomb hits an anthrax installation?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue which will be addressed in the targeting plans. I assure him that if military force is used, any civilian damage or threat will be reduced as much as is within our power.
Mr. Dalyell: Will they be targeted?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend must not suggest that we are planning that planes will target the dumps that he describes. There is a lot of technology required for chemical and biological weapons that does not necessarily require the agents. My hon. Friend must accept the logic of his question, which admits that Saddam Hussein possesses such weapons. My hon. Friend was among those who condemned Saddam Hussein when he used

723
such weapons against the Kurds in 1988. He cannot accept our standing back while Saddam Hussein retains that capability.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while the Conservatives accept the Government's support for the Americans, the issue goes further than that? There is a great need to keep the same alliance with the Arab nations surrounding Iraq that we have had before. Does he realise that one of the major criticisms that holds back certain Arab opinion is that we appear to have two voices—one against Iraq and another against Israel? If we were seen to be pursuing the United Nations Security Council resolutions against Israel, it might be much easier for the Americans and our Government to maintain the alliance that we want. Many Arab countries understand even better than we do the dastardliness of the Hussein regime.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. I recognise the basis of his concern. We are trying to achieve the maximum understanding and support in the Arab world for our policy towards Saddam Hussein. I hope to be in contact with some of those countries later this week. The right hon. Gentleman is also correct to say that there is a perceived link between the two issues in some Arab capitals. We have repeatedly and robustly criticised the Government of Israel for their obstruction of the middle east peace process. We have called on them repeatedly to refrain from gestures that obstruct that process, such as the expansion of settlements, and to carry out a realistic and acceptable further redeployment that would put the peace process back on the road. We shall continue to do everything that we can to remove those obstructions to the middle east peace process. I tell every Arab leader whom I meet that they are more at risk than anyone from Saddam Hussein's ambitions and are on the front line from the chemical and biological weapons if he is allowed to retain them.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Arab countries understand better than any others the difference between the noxious and loathsome policies of the Israeli Government and the internationally aggressive and dangerous policies of Saddam Hussein? Does he further accept that it is strange that an hon. Friend should intervene to say that we must not attack Saddam Hussein because he is so dangerous that we dare not? Will he pay no attention to those who scurried off seven years ago to truckle favour with Saddam Hussein when he was occupying Kuwait and holding British citizens hostage?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in going to the United Nations and seeking to secure a resolution to authorise the actions that the Government regard as appropriate, he is following Labour party policy of the past eight years? The Labour party has consistently based its policy on support for the Security Council. That support was inserted into the Labour party constitution by certain hon. Members, who seem to forget that they did so. We do not want war, but let Saddam Hussein understand that if he brings us to war, it will be his responsibility.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure whether many of my right hon. Friend's questions were addressed to me and not to
724
others who prompted such observations. I agree with him particularly on two points. First, it is important that everybody in politics in Britain and in the international community shows unity on this question. What encourages Saddam Hussein is a sign of division in the international community. We know that he began the original obstruction because of the appearance of division among the permanent five in October. It is important that we convince him that there is a unity of resolve and that he must recognise it.
Secondly, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of the United Nations both to Labour party policy and to the international community. If Saddam Hussein is allowed to ignore and flout Security Council resolutions, there will not be much point in the Security Council meeting on future occasions to pass resolutions.
Sir Teddy Taylor: If we do not know where these dreadful weapons of mass destruction are located, will the Minister explain how on earth we shall go about destroying them when the British and American Governments go all the way? Will he also indicate whether the Government have sought the opinions of the Government of Iran and their people, who suffered hugely in the Iran-Iraq war, when the Iraqi dictatorship, at the same time as it was killing Kurds, appeared to have the full and undivided support of the United States of America and indeed, much of the western world?
Mr. Cook: On that count, the hon. Gentleman needs to answer for the Government who were in charge of Britain at the time. Many Opposition Members at that time were indeed critical of the tolerance that was shown to Saddam Hussein. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that—possibly—if a more robust attitude had been shown to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, we might not now be having this exchange in the late 1990s. Having recognised the threat, and having also—perhaps—understood better than the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in government could have done in the 1980s the extent to which Saddam Hussein is willing to be aggressive and the way in which he took over a neighbouring country, it is important that we do not leave him with such a capability again.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, while there is absolute unanimity in the House on the hatred of Saddam Hussein's regime and the dangers that might follow from it, Britain and America are not the international community? Nor, indeed, does he speak for the Security Council, which has not authorised military action by two countries only, contrary to the charter. He does not speak for the European Union, of which Britain is President, and in which there are different views. Jean-Pierre Chevenement, a member of the French Foreign Affairs Commission, recently came out very strongly against intervention. My right hon. Friend does not speak for the Gulf war coalition, because the Arab League is opposed to it.
Before British troops and service men are exposed to what would be another war with Iraq, will my right hon. Friend give a clear undertaking that there will be not just a series of statements but a debate in the House, in which the Government's objectives, of which he says today he cannot tell us, can be fully explored, and in which the

725
House can determine whether it wishes to follow this course of action, which will inevitably cause many more casualties among not only American and British troops but Iraqi civilians?
Mr. Cook: The question of a debate in the House is a matter for the usual authorities. I, personally, would have no problem in defending our position and putting forward the case that I have made to the House today at greater length. I did not say that I could not tell the House what our objectives are. They are quite clear: to ensure compliance with Security Council resolutions. What I cannot tell the House, and what the House would not reasonably expect me to tell it, are our precise targeting plans in the event of any military action.
My right hon. Friend is, of course, right that the United States and the United Kingdom are not the international community. That is precisely why the Government, whom he supports, are taking the lead in the Security Council to secure a further resolution, to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein is taking on the international community. The greater the unity that we can achieve in the international community, the better the chance we have of winning.
Mr. John Wilkinson: If the most powerful democracies in the world cannot curb the aggressive potential of Saddam Hussein, will it not be a grave precedent for the international community and for the world order generally? Is it not the case that there are other countries with despotic Governments who are equally capable of flouting United Nations regimes on the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction? Would they not gain encouragement were Saddam Hussein to remain in power and to increase his arsenal?
Therefore, is it not crucial that the Foreign Secretary secure that wider consensus, beyond the permanent five of the Security Council that he spoke about? Is he, in any sense, encouraged by the attitude that he discovered in his French counterpart, given that the French are leading members of Western European Union, a collective security organisation, and given that the French, with ourselves, are the best able among the European countries to project the military power necessary to underpin the diplomatic efforts?
Mr. Cook: I obviously agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said in response to several questions, what is at stake is not just the issue of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but the authority of the Security Council and, therefore, its ability to intervene on any future occasion when we are faced with similar threats.
I have learnt from my conversations with my French opposite number and my Russian opposite number that they both deeply share our concern at the way in which Saddam Hussein is flouting the resolutions. That feeling of impatience is especially felt by the Russians, who feel that he has broken an agreement that they understood that they had achieved in November 1997.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I support everything that my right hon. Friend has said in the House today, as I did the answer to the private notice question last week by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd).
726
I welcome our intention to return to the Security Council to obtain a further resolution. The middle east countries that may find it difficult, in isolation, to say publicly what we know they are saying privately, may find themselves able, in a debate on a new Security Council resolution, to say exactly where they stand.
I welcome our intention to support the report of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, which said that oil for aid should be increased from $2 billion to approximately $3.2 billion. I also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend said that we shall support that move when the Secretary-General brings the matter to the Security Council.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the position that we have taken. I emphasise that expanding the oil-for-food programme is in no way a concession or a carrot to Saddam Hussein. Indeed, he hates the oil-for-food programme because it takes away his alibi about the hardship and the suffering of the Iraqi people. Interestingly, it is the Security Council, not Saddam Hussein, that at present is seeking a way to bring help to the people of Iraq.
Sir David Madel: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, if the new British resolution before the Security Council does not get the support of the Security Council, existing Security Council resolutions allow the use of force as a last resort?
Mr. Cook: There are plenty of resolutions, and those resolutions clearly provide a basis for the authority of the Security Council, and a basis for authority to enforce the Security Council resolution. However, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of our efforts—which are intensive—in New York at present, is to ensure that we find as tough as possible a text that is acceptable to members of the Security Council. We believe that, irrespective of the legal niceties, it is important that we carry a resolution that demonstrates the condemnation of the international community.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Has not the threat of force been counter-productive to the real aim, which is to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Did my right hon. Friend see that, in a few days, one in 20 of the Iraqi population signed up to support the regime because of the threats from the west? Would it not be a misuse of force to slaughter a "Dad's army" to strengthen a dictator?
Mr. Cook: I fear that my hon. Friend is mistaken if he imagines that the chemical and biological capabilities of Saddam Hussein are equivalent to a Dad's army. I agree with him that it would be entirely desirable if we got rid of Saddam Hussein, and if I had the opportunity, I would certainly vote for that outcome. The tragedy is that Saddam Hussein makes sure that the Iraqi people do not get the chance of that vote, and do not get the chance of choosing a leader for themselves.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Leading on from that point, everyone in the House agrees that there is no argument with the people of Iraq. The argument of the international community is with the regime and, more personally, with Saddam Hussein. Will the right hon. Gentleman further personalise the argument? I am not a

727
student of international law, but there should be means by which we could do that. In Bosnia, the President of the Republika Srpska was indicted as a war criminal. Are there means in the United Nations whereby we could take on the argument in Iraq and indict Saddam Hussein? Should not there be such means, if they do not already exist?
Mr. Cook: In the case of the Bosnian war criminals, a specific international war crimes tribunal was appointed on the authority of the United Nations to try those who carried out war crimes during the conflict in Bosnia and more widely. No such war crimes tribunal has been appointed in relation to the Gulf war or the activities in Iraq. One of the positions adopted by the Government, in a rather more advanced form than under the previous Administration, is strongly to support the creation of an international criminal court on a permanent basis. Were such an international criminal court already created, it might well decide that Saddam Hussein and those around him merited trial.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the United States is calling for military action, and the only country that supports that is Britain? No other country has endorsed the use of its own forces for that purpose, and none has offered the use of its territory from which to launch an attack on Iraq, other than Kuwait. No Arab country has come forward to support the proposal. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the use of force against Iraq will strengthen the position of Saddam, that it will probably cause enormous problems in relation to the Arab world, and that there are no internal opposition forces in Iraq that support the idea of bombing raids on their country? Does he not think that we should be looking towards a truly peaceful solution to the problem?
Mr. Cook: Yes, of course we would want to look for a truly peaceful solution to the problem. In my hon. Friend's rather lengthy question, it was difficult to see where the germs of that peaceful solution were to be found. If we want a successful diplomatic solution, we must show that we are prepared to use military force if it is necessary. I recall—because at the time of the Matrix Churchill trial, I went through all the papers—the vigorous and eloquent way in which my hon. Friend condemned Saddam Hussein for using nerve gas against the Kurds in Halabja. Having condemned Saddam Hussein for using nerve gas on that occasion, my hon. Friend must understand why we cannot now walk away and leave Saddam in possession of nerve gas.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the report in The Mail on Sunday yesterday by Chris McLaughlin, which purported to give details about the SAS already being in Iraq? Will he join me in condemning any journalism that puts the lives of our troops in danger when sensitive preliminary operations are possibly being undertaken?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that that report was probably as unreliable as most reports that I have read in The Mail on Sunday recently.
Mr. George Galloway: The first to use chemical weapons in Iraq was the Royal Air Force,
728
under the command of Winston Churchill in the 1920s. [Interruption.] That is a matter of fact. The reason why we know that there is the potential for making weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is that British and European companies sold Iraq those capacities in years gone by. The Iraqis will be relieved to hear from the Foreign Secretary that the British Government have no quarrel with them, but are we not in danger of killing them in order to save them? The United Nations Children's Fund, the World Health Organisation and Harvard medical teams have all reported that more than 1 million people have died over the past seven years as a result of sanctions.
Will the Foreign Secretary address this question pointedly? Does he understand that, in the Arab street, no one can understand why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction, regularly to defy international law, and regularly to occupy other people's countries without a scent of sanctions being imposed, let alone a single bullet being fired in its direction—
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Israel is not a dictatorship.
Mr. Galloway: That is not how it looks to the Palestinians under Israeli occupation, nor how it looked to the Jordanians, the Syrians or the Egyptians under Israeli occupation. It is these double standards that turn the stomachs of Arabs, Muslims and right-thinking people the world over—the hypocrisy of British and American policy.
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree that we should have regard to the interests of the Palestinian people. The Prime Minister met Chairman Arafat earlier this week to discuss the progress of the talks in Washington. Britain and the European Union remain resolved to try to achieve progress in the middle east peace process. The EU is the major funder of the Palestinian economy and of those activities that relate to the peace process. It is not reasonable, therefore, to criticise either Britain or the European Union for turning their back on the Palestinian people—
Mr. Galloway: What about sanctions?
Mr. Cook: I was just going to add that no one at any stage in those conversations raised with us, on behalf of the Palestine National Authority, the question of sanctions against Israel. On the contrary, the Palestinians are desperate to achieve progress on their economy—progress with which sanctions against Israel would be wholly inconsistent.
Finally, we are dealing with a country that cannot reasonably be compared with Israel. I have many criticisms of the Israeli Government, but we should remember that they were elected with the support of half the population of Israel. Half the population, to be sure, voted for contrary policies—but they had the chance to do so. It would be extremely helpful if Saddam Hussein were even to contemplate allowing his people the same expression of their democratic will. Until he does so, he is in a very different category from Israel.
Mr. Llew Smith: As military action failed on the previous occasion to remove Saddam

729
Hussein, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what is new, and why it should be successful on this occasion? And as military action on the previous occasion successfully killed so many of the Iraqi population, can the Foreign Secretary inform the House what is new, and why history should not repeat itself?
Mr. Cook: One of the difficulties of carrying the international community or the Arab world with us in the robust position that we have adopted against Saddam Hussein is the fact that the achievements of the United Nations are so often written off. Over the six years of its existence, UNSCOM most certainly has not been a failure. On the contrary, it has dismantled more weapons than were ever dismantled during the Gulf war; including 38,000 chemical weapon munitions, 480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 special missile warheads for chemical and biological weapons, and a whole factory dedicated to producing biological weapons. The reason why we are still here six years later, with sanctions and a monitoring regime, is Saddam Hussein. It is vital that we do not walk away until the job is completed.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not one of the impediments to bringing about an internal insurrection by the civil population in Iraq the fact that they fear an interregnum? Why do not the western democracies, in particular the United Nations, substantially reinforce the international credibility of the Iraqi National Congress, one of whose main bases is here in London—the other being in Washington? That, surely, is the way forward in terms of offering an alternative Government to Iraq. When the Iraqi people see that there is a credible organisation outside that is internationally recognised, they may find the courage to rise up and deal with this tyrant once and for all.
Mr. Cook: The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), has met representatives of the Iraqi opposition, and we shall continue that dialogue. In fairness to the Iraqi people, we should not underestimate the immense dangers and problems of trying to achieve what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) described as an uprising against Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein explicitly and deliberately uses fear and brutality as a political weapon, so it is not surprising that many people in his country are not prepared to take a stand against him. Their silence should not be taken as a sign of support.
Ann Clwyd: I believe that my right hon. Friend speaks for the majority of hon. Members and the people of Britain when he says that the main aim is to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with United Nations resolutions. If Saddam Hussein had allowed UNSCOM to do its job, in which it has so far been very successful, we would not now face this problem.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Saddam Hussein continues to flout other United Nations resolutions? For example, he continues to repress the Kurds in the north and to carry out ethnic cleansing—he has just
730
thrown nearly 2,000 Kurds out of the Iraqi cities into the north. Countless other UN resolutions are also being flouted; it is not this one alone.
I chair the group Indict. Our main aim is to bring Saddam Hussein and eight of his closest henchmen before an international tribunal on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We have the support of the Prime Minister, the previous Prime Minister and President Clinton, and we would welcome further Government support. Many people in Iraq are very much opposed to Saddam Hussein's rule and would like the west's support. In the past, we have encouraged the Kurds, but we have always let them down. They have been involved in several uprisings, but we have never been there behind them. Please will my right hon. Friend give the Iraqi opposition the support that they deserve to get on with the job?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to repeat the Government's expression of support for any moves that would bring Saddam Hussein to book—in particular, for the organisation to which my hon. Friend refers. She touches on a profoundly important point, on which we should all reflect. Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has shown himself to have a cavalier disregard for the lives, civil liberties and rights of his people to live a normal life. He has killed thousands of his people, using what weapons and military force he has. We should be in no doubt that if he acquired the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, he is one of the rulers who might well be prepared to use it.
Mr. John Hutton: May I offer my full support for the Government's actions to date, to ensure full Iraqi compliance with the terms of UN Security Council resolutions? In denying access to sites in Iraq, the Iraqi dictator is continuing to flout the Security Council's authority. He must not be allowed to succeed in that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Iraqi dictator was let off the hook, a terrible price would be paid by not only the world community, but the people of the middle east?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's last point is very important. It is the countries that border Iraq that are most at risk. Privately, many of them are as anxious as any hon. Member to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not the victor in the present crisis.
Several hon. Membersrose
Madam Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask your advice? As you know, last week I asked for an emergency debate and there was a private notice question. Today, there has been another private notice question, which I welcome. The Foreign Secretary says that he has no objection to such a debate, but the difficulty for the House is that making war is a royal prerogative—it requires no parliamentary consent. Our forces might be engaged in a conflict without the House having had any opportunity to consider the matter.

731
Time is short, as the diplomatic options are clearly running out. I shall not ask for an answer now, but will you, Madam Speaker, consider how, from the Chair, you can protect the right of the House to have a debate on this matter, such as occurred at the time of Suez, the Falklands and the Gulf war? I was present at and interested in all those debates.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It is obviously related.
Mr. Kaufman: Yes. Many hon. Members would greatly welcome an early debate on Iraq, to enable the House to demonstrate its overwhelming support for the Government's policy.
Madam Speaker: I take seriously the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I shall of course look into the matter. It is a very serious situation, and I have no doubt that the Government will want to come to the House before taking any further action.
I am also grateful for the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The Foreign Secretary is present in the Chamber, and perhaps one day we shall have a major debate about those issues.
Sir Sydney Chapman: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that, between the previous sitting of the House and today, this place has been occupied virtually continuously by people inspecting and repairing the ceiling of this august Chamber. I hope that you will allow me, as Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, to put on record the Committee's thanks to the craftsmen who worked literally every hour of the weekend to ensure that our proceedings were not disrupted. I also thank the Officers of the House, from the Serjeant at Arms and the Director of Works onwards, who took the remedial, urgent and necessary action with great expedition.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that we all appreciate the work that was carried out over the weekend.

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [29th January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.
Report considered accordingly.
Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Following is the report of the Business Committee [29 January]:
That the Resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 19th January be varied so that—

(a) the fourth and fifth days allotted under the Order [15th January] to proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in the following table, and

(b) each part of the proceedings in Committee on those days shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Fourth day

Clauses 45 to 49

4.30 p.m.

Clauses 50 and 51 and amendments to Clause 52 apart from any to insert words at the end of line 7 on page 27 of the Bill

6.00 p.m.

Clause 52, so far as not disposed of

7.00 p.m.

Clause 53 to 61

8.30 p.m.

Clauses 53 to 61

8.30 p.m.

Clauses 62 to 73, Schedule 4 and Clauses 74 to 79

10.00 p.m.

Fifth day

Clauses 80 to 89 and

7.00 p.m.

Clauses 90 to 104 and schedule 5

8.00 p.m.

Clauses 105 to 108, Schedule 6 and clause 109

9.00 p.m.

Clauses 110, Schedule 7, clauses 111 to 117 and Schedule 8

10.00 p.m.

Orders of the Day

  Government of Wales Bill
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 26 January].
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Government of Wales Bill
    Clause 45

      REGULATION OF PROCEDURE
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 288, in page 25, line 30, at end insert—
      '(7) Any remaking or revision of standing orders shall not come into effect unless a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 292, in clause 49, page 26, line 17, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 19 and insert—
      'not have effect until a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Jenkin: I shall be extremely brief, as time is short as a result of the private notice question. Clause 45 sets out the conditions for providing and remaking standing orders in the Assembly. Interestingly, clause 45(2) says:
      "But subsection (1) is subject to any other provision of this Act or any other enactment which regulates, or provides for the regulation of, the procedure of the Assembly (or of committees of the Assembly or sub-committees of such committees)."
      The interesting feature of the subsection is that it makes explicit Parliament's continuing power to pass Acts to regulate the standing orders of the Welsh Assembly. My first question to the Minister is why that subsection, which reasserts Parliament's powers so explicitly, is necessary at that point in the Bill, if at all. It seems a little strange.
      Amendment No. 288 is simply a probing amendment that suggests that, if we are to have the ultimate power, we should have an on-going, neater power to regulate the Assembly's standing orders. Our amendment would add a new subsection, suggesting that any remaking or revision of standing orders shall not come into effect until a resolution of both Houses has been passed.
      That would balance what is suggested by the Government in clause 49. It states that commissioners will draw up the draft standing orders, which will then be submitted to the Secretary of State who, according to clause 49(3), can make
      "such modifications as he considers appropriate."
      If the Secretary of State is to have that power over the initial standing orders of the Assembly, we rather think that that power should be regulated by the House of Commons. We have suggested that the initial standing orders should not have effect until a draft thereof has been approved by the resolution of each House of Parliament, and that constitutes amendment No. 292.
      As things stand, the two clauses seem to be rather unclear in their ultimate intention. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the amendments.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I consider neither amendment to be appropriate as both would impinge on the power that the assembly will have to determine its standing orders. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is correct to say that the Secretary of State will produce the first standing orders once he has considered advice from the commissioners. Subsection (5) provides that the standing orders can be subject to revision by the assembly. Indeed, they can be remade by it.
      Given the way in which we have constructed the Bill, we have every confidence that the assembly will be able to run its own business without having reference to the House of Commons. To have continual reference, every time the assembly wanted to change its standing orders, to the House of Commons so as to seek its approval would be inappropriate. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Jenkin: Why do we need subsection (2)?
      Mr. Griffiths: I was rather puzzled when it became clear that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make such a point about the subsection. I still cannot see that it has any real relevance to the amendments. I shall perhaps have a further discussion with him in more congenial surroundings to ascertain exactly what he is trying to get at.
      Mr. Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 46

      EQUAL TREATMENT OF ENGLISH AND WELSH LANGUAGES
      Dr. John Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 392, in page 25, line 31, leave out from 'effect' to 'to' in line 32.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 394, in page 25, line 32, leave out 'reasonably'.
      New clause 15—Translation of Assembly proceedings—
      '(1) The Assembly shall make provision for proceedings and documents to be translated from Welsh to English and English to Welsh.
      (2) Translation of oral proceedings shall be simultaneous and available to all members, staff and visitors.
      (3) Translation of written documents of the Assembly shall be available at the earliest practical opportunity.'.
      Dr. Marek: I welcome the new timetable, which enables us to debate many more of the clauses than hitherto would have been possible. I hope to be able to contain my remarks to within two minutes so as to allow other Members to speak, followed perhaps by a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister.

      735
      The purpose behind my amendment is to cut out weasel words. It turns, of course, on the English and Welsh languages. Subsection (1) reads,
      "so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable."
      That really means that Welsh is not on the same level as the English language. Yet we have the Welsh Language Act 1993, which is an equality measure. That means that we put both languages on the same level.
      When Members of the Assembly utter words in one language, they have slavishly to be translated into the other language, whether that is required to be done or not. It may be that some assembly committees consisting only of Members representing the south-east of the Principality would work in the English language. The minutes may be bilingual, but the Members could work in the English language. If a meeting were held in private, it could be held in the English language. Equally, meetings not open to the public could be held in the Welsh language in north-west Wales. They would not necessarily have to be conducted in the English language.
      Equality does not mean that what is written or said in one language must necessarily be translated into the other language. There is inequality of esteem, parity and status. The Welsh Language Act 1993 gives equality to the Welsh language. The words that I have mentioned in the Bill detract from that equality. Ministers should go away and think about it. There is nothing wrong with leaving out the clause. It would allow the national assembly to give proper status to the Welsh language as and when necessary.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: I shall speak about the importance of the equal use of the two languages. We should ensure that the essential issues are considered and make it clear that the right and the ability of Members to use the Welsh language in all debates and committees will be unconditional. There should be no question about whether it is convenient or acceptable that a Member uses the Welsh language. Instantaneous translation equipment and facilities must be available even when small groups meet in sub-committees and so on. That is the only way to ensure that we normalise the use of the Welsh language. That is what it is all about. Instantaneous translation equipment is sometimes regarded as a facility for the person who wishes to use the Welsh language. It should not be seen in those terms; it is there for the person who is among that unfortunate section who are not bilingual.
      There will, of course, be constant media coverage of the activities of the assembly, including television and radio coverage. It is important that, when Welsh is being used in a debate or Committee meeting, the feed from the translation is made available to the English media, so that there is no problem with their not being able to make use of clips, in news coverage and so on, of speeches made by those who are using the Welsh language. That is
      736
      essential. It is terribly important that the assembly establishes the Welsh language not just as a high-status language but as a normal language.
      Mr. Nick Ainger: Sit down.
      Mr. Dafis: Because the hon. Gentleman is telling me to sit down, I shall do so.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: Briefly, I draw the Committee's attention to new clause 15, which says:
      "Translation of oral proceedings shall be simultaneous and available to all members, staff and visitors."
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The Government are totally committed to the principle of equality. We believe that, in clause 46, we have provided for English and Welsh to be treated equally. We believe that that can be achieved by having regard to the Welsh Language Board guidelines issued under the Welsh language Act 1993. The advisory group is looking at all those issues in relation to the use of the language. We should expect the National Assembly for Wales to provide for equal treatment in all its proceedings in the appropriate way.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Surely the word "practicable" covers that eventuality. Doubling it up with the word "reasonably" seems biased against the equal use of the Welsh language. That concern was embodied in Plaid Cymru's amendment. I ask the Minister to consider whether we need the second word.
      Mr. Griffiths: Hon. Members are being a little pedantic about the use of the English language. Given that the advisory group will look at all those issues, and what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), I hope that we can accept the spirit behind our debate. We should expect the assembly to operate on proper principles of equal treatment for the Welsh and English languages. On those grounds, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
      Dr. Marek: That is only just about acceptable. It is all very well to complain of pedantry about the English language; we have been quite pedantic about the Welsh language, and about what is "reasonably practicable". However, the Minister is my hon. Friend, and I shall take his words in the spirit in which they were meant. I hope that he will think about the amendment carefully and, if necessary, table an amendment of his own in the other place. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      It being half-past Four o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 47 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 51

      PRESIDING OFFICER AND DEPUTY
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 294, in page 26, line 39, leave out from 'members' to 'shall' in line 1 on page 27 and insert—
      'the deputy presiding officer.
      (1A) The Secretary of State shall be the presiding officer of the Assembly, but shall not otherwise be entitled to attend or to participate in or to vote in any proceedings of the Assembly.
      (2) The offices specified in this section.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 295, in page 27, line 4, leave out 'be Assembly members who'.
      No. 296, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
      '(4) To be elected the presiding officer must secure an overall majority of the votes of Assembly members and, for each electoral region, no less than one third of the votes of Assembly members representing that region.'.
      No. 309, in clause 75, page 37, leave out lines 28 to 33 and insert—
      '(1) The Secretary of State for Wales shall be the presiding officer of the Assembly, but shall not otherwise be entitled to attend or to participate or to vote in any proceedings of the Assembly.'.
      No. 308, in clause 75, page 37, leave out lines 28 to 33.
      Mr. Evans: We hope to ascertain a more definite role for the Secretary of State for Wales, and also a sound basis for the position of the presiding officer. A growing band of people are still uncertain about what the Secretary of State's role will be after devolution becomes effective. He will lose a considerable amount of the power which, I assume, took up some of his working week, and the vacuum thus created has yet to be properly filled.
      Working on the dictum that the devil makes work for idle hands, I hope that the Secretary of State will take the amendments in the constructive and inclusive sense in which they are meant. We are not trying to smoke out from him whether he intends to stand for the assembly in his own right—well, we are actually, but I suspect that we shall not get much further today than we have in the past. What we know is that the right hon. Gentleman is devolving a substantial amount of his job to the assembly. I suspect that it may be to himself that he is trying to pass those powers, with another hat on, but the move will leave whoever is Secretary of State in his place without the same role—some would say, with an inferior role—although he will still have important financial roles, which we shall debate tomorrow.
      The amendment suggests giving the Secretary of State the role of presiding officer. He will thus be establishing a substantial authoritative role for himself, and a definite role within the new structure. He will have clout at Westminster and beyond, voicing the concerns of Wales. Whatever is decided, it is important to establish where authority lies on the various levels, and how best to ensure that Wales's voice is not muted or lost, but just inwardly directed by the devolution process.
      The First Secretary will have elected authority, and will be seen as the person who speaks for Wales. A perception could quickly and easily arise that, as the Secretary of State for Wales was the Prime Minister's choice, his voice was that of the Cabinet and the Government. Indeed,
      738
      it would be peculiar and irregular if it were otherwise, although in the past no one has competed against the Secretary of State in the context of speaking for the people of Wales. There could be clashes between the First Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales, just as Secretaries of State will argue with leaders of local authorities even when those authorities are controlled by their own political parties.
      Amendments Nos. 309 and 308 are contingent on the acceptance of amendments Nos. 294 and 295. Amendment No. 296 addresses the fears of the regions about the position of the presiding officer. People in the regions are concerned about the fair and proper working of the assembly. We seek to have their voice properly protected.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of a Speaker or a presiding officer of a democratically elected assembly who is not a member of that assembly?
      Mr. Evans: I could give the example of the vice-president of the senate, but the Welsh assembly is a new body and we are seeking new methods. We are not constrained by the methods used in local government or Westminster. Let us see what we can offer.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: The A1 Gore of Wales.
      Mr. Evans: I am not sure whether that example would sell our proposition.
      The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's continuing influence in Welsh affairs from his vantage point in Ribble Valley. Given that the two amendments are mutually exclusive, which one would he prefer?
      Mr. Evans: We are trying to find out the views of the Government and the Secretary of State. It is proper for us to table amendments that, although mutually exclusive or contradictory, seek to draw out the Secretary of State. I hope that he recognises what we are trying to do. I may not have a preference: I am interested to know what the Government propose for the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Davies: The Government may acknowledge the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument and be prepared to accept one of the amendments. I am merely wondering which one he would like us to accept.
      Mr. Evans: There is always a first for everything. If the Secretary of State were to agree with any of my suggestions, it would be a parliamentary first and would go down in history. Both amendments are important. There could be a conflict between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Secretary, and there could be a problem given that the Bill will create a vacuum in the Secretary of State's time. We hope that he will consider the amendments carefully, and accept some of our propositions. He may make his own proposals, or even declare an interest by telling us that he intends to stand for the Welsh assembly and wants to pass some of his present powers to himself in another guise.

      739
      Regional committees will be established: all we know to date is that there will be a committee of the north and other regional committees. We are seeking to have their voice protected by the constitutional safeguard of regional representation. The presiding officer would have to attract the majority support of the assembly, would have to have national appeal, and would have to win a third of the votes of Members of the Assembly representing each region. We believe that that device would allay the fears of the regions and the people who live in them.
      After the referendum, the map of Wales was clearly divided between those who were and those who were not in favour of an assembly.
      Mr. Ron Davies indicated dissent.
      Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I remember the night clearly: 11 areas voted yes and 11 voted no.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman uses the same old arguments at every debate.
      Mr. Evans: If they are the same old valid arguments, it is important to keep stressing them. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with us about looking at ways to remove the fears of people in regions such as north Wales. They should be properly assured, and one way to do that is to give those who will represent the regions an extra say and protection for their views in the assembly. That is all that the amendment would achieve, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider accepting it. It would give to a third of the representatives of the regions democratic authority in the choice of one of the most important positions in the assembly. The amendments are constructive, and I look forward to hearing the Government's views on them.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: It is good to see you, Mr. McWilliam, in the Chair because you are from one of the important regions of England.
      Despite the earnestness of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—I almost said dribble valley—the amendments are ambivalent frivolities because they contain two different ideas—one about the role of the Secretary of State and the other about the procedure for an appointment. Clause 51 provides for the assembly to elect a presiding officer and a deputy presiding officer who shall be from different parties within the assembly.
      Clause 75 entitles the Secretary of State to attend and participate but not to vote in plenary meetings of the assembly. It is clear from a study of any constitutional assembly in the world that the Secretary of State could not preside over the National Assembly for Wales because the two roles are inimical. For a start, the Secretary of State has onerous responsibilities and duties in the Cabinet and must attend its meetings
      740
      in London. That would take up a great deal of his time, so the idea of his presiding over an assembly in Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham or wherever is nonsense.
      Mr. Evans: Following devolution, what will be the Secretary of State's role? Will he attract new and additional powers? According to the Bill, he will lose powers.
      Mr. Griffiths: He will have several roles, one of which will be to represent Wales in government at Westminster and to attend the many committees which, as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will know, are held in Whitehall. He will also have to report to the assembly and take from that body to Westminster its views on Welsh matters. He will have a full job without the responsibilities of presiding over the assembly.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley advanced a completely different idea about how the presiding officer should be elected. It is plain that there is no agreement among Opposition Members about which amendment should have priority, and that means that they are not taking them seriously. The amendments are not necessary for the good working of the assembly and the one that requires specific votes from different parts of Wales would place an unnecessary constraint on it.
      Mr. Evans: The Minister may see it that way, but perhaps we could examine amendment No. 296 and the election of the presiding officer. Is it not important to protect representatives of Welsh regions? The referendum showed that some people, particularly in north Wales, had some fears about the procedure. Our amendment would give them an opportunity to have a proper and equal say in the election of the presiding officer.
      Mr. Griffiths: We have gone out of our way to try to get a better feel for views throughout Wales. We have introduced an unprecedented element of proportionality to the elections for the assembly. The hon. Gentleman and his party voted against that, but we are happy that that provision will help to take account of views throughout Wales. We do not need the prescription in the amendment and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
      Mr. Evans: We gave the Government an opportunity to start to measure up to the words of the Prime Minister on the steps of 10 Downing street when he said that he would listen to the fears of the people of Wales. Some people in north Wales and in other regions expressed fears about the assembly being Cardiff dominated.
      Mr. Ron Davies: Swansea dominated.
      Mr. Evans: It may be Swansea dominated. We do not know where the assembly will land. Today's issue of the Western Mail states that an airport site is being considered by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the assembly will have a smoother landing there than it has

      741
      had since its take off. Amendment No. 296 would have allowed the regions to be properly taken into account. It is a great shame that the Government have not taken up our suggestion, but I do not intend to press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 52

      ASSEMBLY FIRST SECRETARY
      Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 10A, in page 27, line 6, leave out from 'be' to end of line 7 and insert,
      'Prime Minister of Wales or Prif Weinidog'.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John McWilliam): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 91, in page 27, line 7, leave out
      'Secretary or Prif Ysgrifennydd y Cynulliad'.
      and insert
      'Minister or Gweinidog Pennaf y Cynulliad'.
      No. 200, in page 27, line 7, after 'Cynulliad', insert
      '(a post whose title may be amended by provision of the Standing Orders)'.
      No. 194, in clause 57, page 28, leave out lines 27 to 29.
      No. 199, in page 28, line 31, after 'Cynulliad', insert
      ', or by such title as the Standing Orders may provide'.
      No. 31, in clause 58, page 29, line 1, leave out 'a committee' and insert 'an Assembly Cabinet'.
      No. 5, in page 29, line 1, after 'a', insert 'cabinet'.
      No. 32, in page 29, line 2, leave out 'Secretary' and insert 'Minister'.
      No. 33, in page 29, line 3, leave out 'Secretaries' and insert
      'Ministers, who shall be appointed by the Assembly First Minister'.
      No. 34, in page 29, line 3, leave out 'Secretaries' and insert
      'Ministers, who shall be appointed by the Assembly First Secretary'.
      No. 35, in page 29, leave out lines 4 to 6.
      No. 21, in page 29, line 7, leave out 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
      No. 36, in page 29, line 7, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
      No. 195, in page 29, line 7, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'cabinet'.
      No. 22, in page 29, line 8, leave out first 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
      No. 37, in page 29, line 8, leave out first 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
      No. 196, in page 29, line 8, leave out
      'executive committee (to such extent as the executive committee'
      and insert
      'cabinet (to such extent as the cabinet'.
      No. 23, in page 29, line 8, leave out second 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
      742
      No. 38, in page 29, line 8, leave out second 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
      No. 25, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
      No. 39, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
      No. 197, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'cabinet'.
      No. 40, in page 29, line 14, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
      No. 28, in page 29, line 14, leave out 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
      No. 41, in page 29, line 15, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
      No. 29, in page 29, line 15, leave out 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
      No. 42, in page 29, line 17, at end insert—
      '(4A) The Assembly Cabinet shall remain in office only so long as it retains the confidence of the Assembly and no longer.'.
      Mr. Livsey: The first amendment is about the description of the head of government in Wales.
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman before he gets into his swing. Two, totally different, ideas are dealt with in this group of amendments; one group is about what people will be called, the other is about a cabinet system as opposed to a committee system. If we felt it appropriate, could we have a vote on an amendment relating to the cabinet system?
      The Temporary Chairman: That would have to be considered at the end of the debate, but of course it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman formally to propose an amendment. Standing Orders allow the group to be broken up in that way.
      Mr. Livsey: As I was saying, the amendment refers to the possibility of there being a Prime Minister rather than a First Secretary. To give the Welsh assembly higher status, we may need to change the title, First Secretary.
      If there is a First Secretary, he will on occasions have to speak to his opposite number in, for example, the Federal Republic of Germany, where each Land has its own Prime Minister, and we think that Prime Minister status would be appropriate. Such a situation would arise on many occasions. It would be nice to think that the leader of the assembly could discuss and even negotiate—perhaps with the motor regions—on an equal footing with leaders of other areas. We think that the title Prime Minister would be appropriate.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I am intrigued. The hon. Gentleman said that the leaders of the Länder are Prime Ministers. I am sure his German is very good. What is the German title? There is no Prime Minister in Bonn as far as I am aware.
      Mr. Livsey: I am not a German speaker. I speak French and halting Welsh, and my knowledge of German is not adequate to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question accurately. All I can say is that when Peter Walker was Secretary of State for Wales and met the Prime Minister

      743
      of Baden-Wurttemberg, he was described as such in the British press. If they got it wrong, they got it wrong, but that was the description. I remember that well.
      The other amendments that we have tabled in this group, including amendment No. 5, refer to a cabinet system rather than a committee system, but unfortunately they were consequential on amendment No. 11A, which has not been selected. I hope you will not rule me out of order, Mr. McWilliam, if I briefly say that the head of each Committee would automatically become a member of the Cabinet. It would therefore be a hybrid system. All the amendments refer to a Cabinet in that context. It is somewhat disheartening to have to say that, although the amendments refer to there being a Cabinet, they do so in that specific context. We believe that the amendments that refer to a cabinet system remain linked with the current selection in the sense that they are probing what a cabinet system would be like in relation to the assembly.
      As we know, there has been much discussion in Wales about the possibility of a cabinet system rather than a committee system.
      Mr. Ancram: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman right? Did he say that many of his amendments are merely probing amendments? We had understood this to be a matter of some significance and importance to the Liberal Democrats. We take it seriously ourselves. In the light of what has been said previously by his party, I should be surprised if these were just probing amendments.
      Mr. Livsey: I mentioned at the outset of my speech the context in which the references to a Cabinet are being made. No doubt during the debate the ranking of a cabinet system compared with a committee system will be debated at some length. Some hon. Members may wish to put this matter to a vote at the end of the debate. If that is so, it is so.
      We Liberal Democrats have examined the possibility of a cabinet system compared with a committee system. Committees of the assembly will represent different subject areas, different regional areas—we hope—in Wales, and other aspects of government in Wales. That being so, our party feels that we need a decisive decision-making body, which could be of the Cabinet type, where decisions will be made directly as a result of good, honest, democratic debate in the Committees. We believe that that could produce a more rapid system of decision making and clearer accountability, which is an important issue in relation to how the assembly will function. We want it to function efficiently and effectively within a democratic framework.
      There are attractions in a cabinet system. It would give the assembly more status. It would also mean that Ministers in the Cabinet were able to take on responsibilities. Indeed, the functions of the First Secretary or the Prime Minister would be devolved to them and they would become more accountable.
      We would not wish to diminish too much the participation of Members of the Assembly in the committee system, where they would contribute significantly to the day-to-day running of the assembly and have input into the running of the Government in Wales, depending on the political configuration of the
      744
      assembly. We believe that it is right to table these amendments. We need a good, honest, debate on them to find out whether hon. Members can be persuaded that a cabinet system might have some distinct advantages over the committee system as proposed in the Bill.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I should like to apologise to him in case I might slightly have misled him. I suggested that amendments could be moved later; I must caution him that amendments now selected may fall if intervening clauses run against that line, so he may not get to that point.
      Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. McWilliam.
      It is on clause 58 that the substantive question of a cabinet or committee system arises, but unfortunately—I do not criticise the selection; we are not encouraged to do that—the selection of amendments does not allow debate on an amendment to clause 58 that deals with the cabinet system.
      One of the most controversial aspects of the Bill in Wales is whether we shall be governed by a committee or cabinet system. It seems—if my interpretation is right—that we can have a debate on clause 52 on the name "Cabinet", but not on any of the substance of the clause in which related issues arise.
      The Temporary Chairman: I want to be clear for the Official Report. That is exactly right.
      Mr. Wigley: I therefore assume that you will be fairly tolerant, Mr. McWilliam, if hon. Members go beyond the purview of clause 52 because we are bound to get into the substance of a cabinet system.
      Amendments Nos. 200 and 199 deal with the right to choose an appropriate title for the officials of the assembly; they deal with whether we should have Ministers or Secretaries. The assembly should be allowed the freedom to choose the title; it should not be prescribed in the Bill. The amendment would allow the assembly to choose, rather than have a decision imposed on it. Once the assembly is up and running, there is no reason why it should not have the power to change the nomenclature of its officers. In view of the spirit in which the Government introduced the Bill, I should have thought that they want to encourage that. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about why that freedom cannot be allowed.
      5 pm
      Amendment No. 194 would pave the way—as we then saw it—for the cabinet system, as would amendments Nos. 196, 197 and 195. Unfortunately, the amendment that deals with the guts of the cabinet system—the right to elect a cabinet—has not been selected. However, amendment No. 21, which has been tabled jointly by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, involves the concept of the cabinet, so I want now to discuss whether there should be a cabinet or a committee system in the assembly.

      745
      I and my colleagues feel strongly that there should be a cabinet system, for a number of reasons. We want to avoid some of the problems that arise in local government, where the committee system can sometimes be a vehicle for delay in decision making. Decisions have to go through a committee for ratification and are not valid until that committee has ratified them. We have all seen in our constituencies the frustration that is caused when people have to work through the cycle of local government committees before a decision can be ratified. That would be an unfortunate beginning for the assembly.
      It is possible to secure answerability for the assembly's Ministers or Secretaries—whatever they are called—to a Committee without there being a committee system. Indeed, the development of Select Committees in this House has made Ministers accountable to a Committee that deals with the subject area—although the Minister does not have to go to that Committee to get approval for any decision that he makes. It is right that the assembly's Ministers or Secretaries should be held accountable to a scrutiny Committee and appear before that Committee, perhaps more regularly than is the case in Westminster. I am convinced that a cabinet system would provide a better mechanism for taking quicker decisions.
      A cabinet system would also mean that when a Minister or Secretary of the assembly takes a decision, he has personal responsibility for it—it cannot be lost in the explanation that it was the Committee's decision to do this, or not to do that.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I am interested in right hon. Gentleman's speech. Is he suggesting that if there were a cabinet system, the Cabinet would meet in secret whereas a Committee would meet in public? Is he advocating that?
      Mr. Wigley: The Cabinet that the right hon. Gentleman's party has established to run the countries of these islands meets in secret. That is inevitably the case when plans are being developed.
      Mr. Davies: Why?
      Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman should ask the Prime Minister why the Cabinet meets in secret. I am sure that, when the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister in the last Labour regime, he would have defended the need for discussions on the Budget to be held in secret. That is the difference between national government and local government. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman views the assembly as a local government body—nothing more than an overgrown county council—I understand why he wants to have a local government system of committees. In such a case, the power of national government would not be available—
      Mr. Davies: What about the Council of Ministers? Would the right hon. Gentleman defend the Council of Ministers' meeting in secret?
      Mr. Wigley: The Council of Ministers does meet in secret. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has strong feelings about the way in which Europe works—or does not work—but there are times when it is necessary for the Council of Ministers to meet in secret. I would prefer greater openness and, indeed, a different system in the
      746
      European Parliament. I would like there to be a second chamber—a chamber of the regions and nations. That would provide a different structure of openness.
      With regard to the government of countries—whether the government of the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Denmark or, for that matter, Scotland—it is right and proper that a Cabinet should take responsibility. A cabinet system would allow a more cohesive approach to government. A joint responsibility would go along with a cabinet system, but may or may not go along with the half-baked committee system that the right hon. Gentleman would like. A joint responsibility is something which adds to the ability of government to take coherent decisions and to act in support of them.
      Mr. Rowlands: I thought that the whole notion behind many of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches over many months has been that there should be a new type of politics in Wales—a new style and openness in the assembly. Instead, he is describing the culture of secrecy, accountability and total collective responsibility of the Westminster model. I thought that we were supposed to pioneer some new style of politics.
      Mr. Wigley: That will happen through the scrutiny that can be made available on a much better and more rigorous basis with a cabinet system. Individual members of the Cabinet will be responsible for the stance that they take. The hon. Gentleman appears to want the assembly to be a body more akin to local government than to central Government. That is the essential difference between his point of view and mine. I want powers to be transferred from Westminster to Wales. I want decisions to be taken on a national level in Wales; I do not want the centralisation of local government on an all-Wales level. That would be the danger of going down the road advocated by the hon. Gentleman.
      I know that the hon. Gentleman has doubts about the model and about the assembly and that he wants a weaker model—
      Mr. Rowlands: No.
      Mr. Wigley: That may be the case—
      Ms Julie Morgan: I am disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He appears to be denigrating local government. Is he aware that the most recent survey of public opinion on local government and its democratisation shows that it has scored a great deal higher than central Government, for the very reasons suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)?
      Mr. Wigley: I hear the hon. Lady. In no way am I denigrating local government, which does very valuable work, but there are valid criticisms of it and the speed it takes to produce decisions. Surely the hon. Lady has heard criticisms about how long it sometimes takes to get decisions out of local authorities. I was aware of that when I served on a local authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and I have seen it in my constituency. I have seen the frustration that occurs because of the requirements of the system.

      747
      Local government serves an important function. There are people who give a lifetime's service to it and they do a dedicated job, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best system for transferring powers to Wales. I assume that the hon. Lady is not advocating that the assembly should be more akin to local government than to devolved central Government. That is the essential point. We are talking about the devolved power of central Government.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I want to clarify a point that arose in the exchange between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). My hon. Friend suggested that the White Paper and the Bill envisage that in no circumstances will any Committees of the assembly meet other than in public—
      Mr. Rowlands: I did not.
      Mr. Davies: I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledges that that is not the case. I draw the Committee's attention to clause 69(1)(b), which makes provision in the Standing Orders for Committees to meet in camera. I think that everyone accepts that there will be occasions when matters of commercial or personal confidentiality are considered and that Committees will require the opportunity to meet in camera. I think also that everyone has acknowledged that there will be occasions when the Executive Committee, for example—which will examine strategic matters such as finance and policy development—will want to meet in camera. That is why the Bill and, I should think, the Standing Orders provide for it to do so.
      Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention. Such a provision is not to ensure built-in secrecy but coherent decision taking—to ensure that people feel that they can express aloud their ideas, determine whether those ideas are working and, if necessary, withdraw them, which is inevitable in any strategic body. A strategic approach to the issues requires that that happens not only at an all-Wales level but at an all-UK level.
      There is broad consensus in Wales in support of a cabinet system rather than a committee system for the assembly. The support cuts across party-political boundaries. People in the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru realise the merits of a cabinet system. I remember that, after Lord Roberts—our old friend Sir Wyn Roberts—expressed an opinion on the matter, the Secretary of State said that there is essentially a continuum of possible models, running from a pure committee system to a pure cabinet system, and that the Welsh assembly will perhaps land on some point along that continuum.
      I shall be glad if the Minister, in his reply, will tell us how Ministers currently think that that balance will be struck. Is there any reason, if the assembly deems that it is appropriate, why the point chosen in the spectrum should not be at or close to the cabinet end rather than the committee end? If the assembly can take the decision, that will be fair enough—because it will be allowed to develop
      748
      a cabinet system. If the Bill rules that out, however, amendments will have to be tabled either on Report or in the other place to ensure that the Bill allows the possibility of such a system.
      Ms Jackie Lawrence: I am curious about the wording of the right hon. Gentleman's amendments. As he himself has admitted that there are advantages and disadvantages with both systems, would it not have been more appropriate to table an amendment requesting that Ministers examine the advantages of both systems and the possibility of incorporating—perhaps later—the best of those systems, rather than doing what he is doing now: choosing one system that he admits has disadvantages?
      Mr. Wigley: As the hon. Lady knows, our original amendment was not selected; technically, we are debating only a name. We are therefore debating an enormously important issue without having a substantive amendment to allow us to achieve our objective. If she were so minded, yes, it would be possible to table, on Report, an amendment to achieve that end.
      Mr. Livsey: The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) mentioned providing the best of both systems, which was the objective of amendment No. 11A. That amendment was not selected, which is a pity. I know that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) also is being thwarted by not being able to debate the matter on that broader basis.
      Mr. Wigley: I hope that amendments dealing with the substance of a cabinet system will be selected for the Bill's Report stage, unless by then Ministers have said either that they interpret the Bill in a manner that allows the assembly to develop a cabinet system or that they will table amendments in the other place or on Report to make such a system possible. It is immensely important to ensure that the assembly has a central and dynamic core to drive issues forward. A Cabinet would be answerable to the subject Committees and to the assembly itself.
      We should remember that the assembly will be composed of only 60 persons. The Executive will therefore not be remote from its membership. An Executive would enable the assembly to take decisions quickly, coherently and strategically. A cabinet system would also provide necessary credibility in Europe and elsewhere.
      The type of system that the assembly will use is a very important issue. I hope that other hon. Members will follow up on it, so that—regardless of which issues the House divides on today—we reach a conclusion on the desirability of a cabinet system and can hear from Ministers how they will satisfy the feeling that has been expressed by so many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Ancram: I was somewhat entertained by listening to the comments on Cabinet secrecy. Every Friday morning, hon. Members have the wonderful experience of reading riveting stories about who is saying what to whom in Cabinet, who is being rude to whom and who is looking out of the window. Sometimes the theory of Cabinet secrecy is perhaps honoured more in the thought than in the action.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Ron Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is not trying to tell the House that he believes those stories, is he?
      Mr. Ancram: As I read that they come from "an official Downing street source", I perhaps rather naively think that they have some authority and assume that I am supposed to believe them. However, I will not get into a discussion on Cabinet secrecy, other than to say that any of those bodies can be as open or as secret as they think is appropriate at the time.
      I am in the rather surprising position of supporting amendment No. 10A, which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) says is a probing amendment. He did not say whether amendment No. 11 A, which he felt he could not speak to, is also a probing amendment. Regardless, our amendments have been tabled in all seriousness.
      I tell the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that, in tabling our amendments, we did not draw a distinction between changing the name of the First Secretary and the theory of a cabinet system. We believe that the two essentially go together and are part and parcel of what we are trying to achieve. In amendment Nos. 91 to 41, we are effectively trying to change the name of the First Secretary to the First Minister, Secretaries to Ministers and the Committee to an Assembly Cabinet. I think that we are consistent in trying to do that. Amendment No. 42 is also in keeping with a cabinet structure, as we propose that a Cabinet should continue in existence only while it retains the assembly's confidence. That would be a right and proper part of the Cabinet's role.
      We propose replacing the committee system with a cabinet system. That is not a new idea for Conservative Members, as we discussed it during the referendum campaign and have talked about it since. The reasons for the replacement are essentially those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.
      Reading the Bill, it is not easy to determine how the Committee, as it is described, would operate within an assembly. The Bill seems to be confused—perhaps because the practical detail is always difficult to envisage—about whether it is designed to share power among all the assembly's participants or to concentrate it. Either objective would be possible.
      Regardless of what happens to this group of amendments, the House will have to know a little more about how the Government think an Executive Committee will work in practice. A central question is where the power in the Committee will reside. Will it reside with the First Minister or with the Executive Committee? Will it reside with the individual Secretaries and with their Committees? Will it reside—as I sometimes fear is the case when there is confusion—with officials?
      One of our concerns is that the current blurred position will make accountability—not only to politicians but to the public—a serious issue. The people in Wales will want to know who is responsible for what and—if necessary, as is the case in politics—who to blame if things go wrong. The experience of local government and the committee system tends to show that political accountability can become blurred. With a committee
      750
      system, it is easier to argue that responsibility is shared, that it is everyone's fault if something goes wrong and, if necessary, that it is to everyone's credit if things go right. My experience is that there tends to be a less than clear political focus, although I am in no way disparaging local government by saying that.
      My understanding of the Bill is that we are not creating, or at least we should not be creating, local government. A committee structure is perhaps less in keeping with what we are attempting to do than is a cabinet structure, as there is to be in Scotland. Under that system, those holding responsibility are appointed by the First Minister or First Secretary, as our amendments seek to provide. That also creates the accountability in that the First Minister decides who his Ministers will be and they are responsible for their intromissions.
      I am surprised that the Government seem to have set about creating what I can only describe as a constitutional mule—it is neither one thing nor the other, neither local government nor the type of cabinet structure to which we are accustomed.
      My experience of committee structures is that they give undue influence to officials. Throughout local government, officials play an important role in putting forward recommendations and hold greater sway over elected members than is the case in a cabinet structure. If the assembly is a genuine exercise in democracy—I make this point having said all I have to say about devolution—and if we are trying to make it work effectively, what is proposed would undermine it.
      The proposals for a committee system are a fundamental weakness in the Bill. Our amendments, and those tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would cure that weakness. I hope that the Government will consider them, as it is a matter about which we feel very strongly.
      Ms Julie Morgan: As we consider the structure of the assembly, it is important to examine the principles behind it and incorporate them into that structure. The first principle of the assembly is that it should be as democratic as it can be. That means that people who hold positions in the assembly should be democratically elected. There should be as little patronage as possible. I know that patronage is endemic in all types of government, but it should be limited, so I do not agree with the amendment, tabled, I think, by the Conservatives, that states that the First Secretary should appoint the Secretaries to the Cabinet. That would not be acceptable. The Secretaries should be democratically elected, as that would be in tune with what we are trying to do in Wales.
      Mr. Wigley: Although we are not allowed to debate amendment No. 201, the hon. Lady might have noted that it would provide for the election rather than the selection of a Cabinet.
      Ms Morgan: Yes, I had noted that.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady is making a case for electing members of the Cabinet. Would she like that to happen in Westminster, too?
      Ms Morgan: We are not debating the system here, but patronage is too prevalent in all forms of government. We want a different style of government in Wales.

      751
      At Westminster, some people are in government, some are out, and the rest of us have to knock on the door and try to influence what is happening from outside. We do not want to reproduce that system in Wales.
      As I was saying, the first principle on which we should structure the assembly is democracy. The second should be inclusiveness—we need to involve as many people as possible. That means that there should be a role for all Members elected to the assembly, including those who are not First Secretary or Secretaries. The importance of the National Assembly is that it should weld together the whole of Wales. We must ensure that everyone in the National Assembly has a role and feels that he or she has a part to play in planning the future of Wales.
      Mr. Rowlands: A stakeholder assembly.
      Ms Morgan: Indeed.
      Another important principle on which to structure the assembly is the involvement of organisations from outside it. That can be done by some form of co-option, bringing in advisers and undertaking consultation. It will be done more easily and effectively via a committee system. A Committee should meet regularly and follow a programme of work; its members will develop expertise in the subject covered by it—although I hope that the Committees will cover a group of subjects rather than individual subjects.
      In my intervention on the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I referred to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation survey carried out in 1995. It revealed that the public had very little regard for quangos. That did not surprise us because one of the reasons we are to have devolution in Wales is the corruption of the quango system. The survey also showed that the general public had a much higher regard for local authorities than for central Government. I think that that has something to do with the element of secrecy in central Government and the fact that the Government are seen as being more removed from the people.
      I am concerned that the move towards a cabinet system in Wales has something to do with status and the feeling that in some way the overall British system is preferable. In setting up the National Assembly, we should be attempting to do something different. We should be creating something unique because we have a unique opportunity.
      Mr. Dafis: There might be an element of status, which is important in itself, but when we are talking about Ministers and Cabinets, we are not talking only about the British system. I am not absolutely sure that they are the norm, but I imagine that they are common in regional governments throughout Europe. That is bound to be the case in Catalonia, the Basque country and the German Lander. There is no contradiction between that and having a committee system that in fact enables wide consultation and participation and a thorough critique of what the Cabinet and Ministers might be doing.
      Ms Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. There is no doubt that there is a mixture of
      752
      systems in various regions and countries, but my point is that we need to come up with proposals that are dictated by what is good for Wales.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Lady agree that not everything about Westminster has been an abject failure and that one of the strongest cases for adopting a cabinet system is that it is one of the few aspects that has seemed to operate effectively in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole? Would not it be sensible to take this successful experience from Westminster and apply it to Wales?
      Ms Morgan: We should look at other models to find out what is best for Wales. Systems develop in certain ways. For example, the cabinet system could develop into a presidential system. One could say that that happened under Margaret Thatcher. There are dangers in every system. I do not consider everything in Westminster to be an abject failure—there is good and bad. We want what is best for Wales.
      It is clear, however, that we cannot discuss everything here. The advisory committee must work on the proposals, discuss them and produce advice for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that he will make that advice widely available for discussion and debate throughout Wales so that we can all participate in creating an assembly for everyone in Wales.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have been listening to the debate with increasing astonishment as I fear that the Committee has been debating a Bill other than the one before us. I thought that the purpose of considering a Bill in Committee was to investigate that Bill, rather than some abstract idea.
      I should like to speak to amendment No. 31 and the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who alone alluded to the problem: what is being created here? The Bill refers to various Committees, and it would be otiose to mention them all. However, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said that it would be nice to do something different, creative and unique. The clauses under discussion achieve exactly that—to a far greater extent than she imagines.
      Subsections (7) and (8) of clause 57 have a profound effect on whether the assembly has Committees or a Cabinet. Unless I am much mistaken, they allow for the Committees to delegate the functions that have been delegated to the assembly by the Secretary of State—or other Secretaries of State—to their Assembly Secretaries. They allow a strange bath-tub effect of delegation downwards by the Secretary of State to the assembly and then upwards again from the assembly to a Committee, and from the Committee to its Assembly Secretary.
      The Assembly Secretaries, quite possibly endowed with plenary authority by their respective Committees, sit on the Executive Committee. Under other clauses of the Bill, the entire functions of the Executive Committee can be devolved upwards to the Assembly First Secretary. It is slightly unclear, to put it mildly, whether the Assembly Secretaries on the Executive Committee can devolve the entirety of their powers—which they may have gained

      753
      from the Committees—to the First Secretary. However, it is clear that they can devolve anything that lies within the remit of the Executive Committee.
      What we have is by no means a committee structure reflecting that of local government. Any local government authority that acted in that way would immediately be taken to court and prevented from so doing. Nor do we have a Westminster system in which the Cabinet is accountable to the House and has to legislate through it. I admit that in present circumstances and with an equivalent majority, not much attention is paid to the niceties of Westminster, but, formally at least, the Bill is being debated in the House and in Committee, and the Government are accountable to the House. On the contrary, under the system outlined in this part of the Bill, the functions delegated to the assembly could be legislated on exclusively and in private—as the Standing Orders could determine—within the Executive Committee by Assembly Secretaries, each endowed with plenary authority, without the need to go back to their Committees or the Assembly.
      Mr. Ron Davies: That is quite wrong.
      Mr. Letwin: The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that that is quite wrong. It would be most helpful if he would elucidate on that.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman said that the Executive Committee would be able to legislate. The Executive Committee would have no legislative powers.
      Mr. Letwin: If the Secretary of State had been attending closely, he would know that I was trying to say that the Assembly Secretaries could have been given plenary power by their Committees, so in the Executive Committee, each of them could legislate in their own domain as a sort of corporation sole legislature. To use the phrase of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, it would be a creative, unique and different arrangement.
      In practice, if each Assembly Secretary had sole delegated power, they would discuss matters with one another. When they chose to act within whatever remit the Executive Committee had been given under the Standing Orders, they could also devolve their powers entirely to the First Secretary so that in those matters, the First Secretary could rule without reference even to the rest of the Executive Committee, let alone the other Committees or the assembly.
      Ms Lawrence: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Assembly Secretaries are subject to a democratic process, as they have to be elected by their Committees? Plenary powers would have to be vested in them democratically by their Committees.
      Mr. Letwin: I am delighted that the hon. Lady raised that point, as it brings me to my next and final point.
      It appears that the Committees will be new and democratic in their constitution because they will be disposed in proportion to the constitution of the assembly, which, it is expected, will be proportional to the electorate. So we are meant to have a system resembling that of local government, but more so, in which proportionality is reflected through the ascending
      754
      hierarchy. Far from being the case, however, that is an illusion. The Committees will vote by simple, not qualified, majority. Therefore, it will be consistently the case that a single party—the Labour party—will be able, by simple majority vote, to give plenary power to each of the Assembly Secretaries, who no doubt will be from that party, thereby depriving all other members of the Committee of the slightest vestige of power. Those individuals will then be able to legislate for Wales.
      Mr. Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is one reason why it is important to have an effective system of proportional representation? If the PR system works effectively, there will not be a monopoly of power invested in one party; instead, there will be a much wider distribution of power, so in those circumstances, his concern would fall.
      Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There could be circumstances under which the result of proportional representation would create a coalition. If the powers that I have just described were used in those circumstances, there would be an almighty constitutional muddle as the person chosen to have the plenary power could not come from all the constituent parties of the assembly.
      My point is not that it is a good or a bad system, but that it is an unholy muddle. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, it has the appearance of a committee structure, but, in reality, it is either a committee structure similar to that in local government, but more so, or, according to the Standing Orders of which we have no current knowledge, it is the most autocratic system of legislation yet invented for an assembly not only in European history, but—as far as I am aware—in world history. Providing for both those possibilities, with an ambiguity that only a legislative draftsman could achieve, and without the Secretary of State in the White Paper or elsewhere having remotely alluded to the possibility of different approaches, has resulted in an extraordinary muddle.
      Ms Lawrence: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman believes in democracy. Regardless of the constitution of the Committee, in which there may be a majority of one party, is it not the basic principle of democracy that when a democratic vote is taken, the decision rests on the will of the majority? It would appear that the hon. Gentleman is arguing against the very principles of democracy.
      Mr. Letwin: I had intended to finish, but I shall reply to that important point. There are two kinds of democracy. There is the democracy of the ballot box, which is fundamental. That has led to a Labour Government with a massive majority at the moment. I fully accept that, as I accept that similar majorities might occur in the Welsh assembly. That is no problem. However, there is another aspect of democracy, which I suspect that the hon. Lady thinks is as important as I do. Of necessity, such an election occurs only every so often. Between elections, there should be a system of accountability that ensures that when legislation comes forward, it is debated and discussed in open assembly by elected representatives, who may or may not be of the governing party.
      I am describing a constitutional muddle that would permit control over legislation by a so-called assembly to be entirely concentrated in the hands of a few people with

      755
      plenary power to legislate in private on behalf of the assembly and this Parliament, without reference to anyone and without debate. I suspect that that would satisfy the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) no more than it satisfies me.
      Mr. Rowlands: I support the system proposed in the Bill and the eloquent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West—
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: North.
      Mr. Rowlands: I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan). She demolished some of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
      It is a pity that we are not on clauses 57 and 58. As in many of his speeches, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) built great constructions around one or two points, but when we look more closely at his points, we see that they are less substantial than they appear to be. The Assembly Secretaries who form the Executive Committee will be elected by each of the Assembly Committees. It falls within the power of the Assembly Committees to dispose of or alter votes of no confidence in the Assembly Secretary if he cannot carry the support of the subject Committee that elected him. The Assembly Secretaries will be accountable to the Committee that gave them their status.
      If my interpretation is right, we are seeking a different model from that so touchingly proposed by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, which is almost identical to the Westminster model, with all its strengths and weaknesses. The Cabinet would not be elected. A Cabinet cannot be elected; it is chosen by the Prime Minister—which the right hon. Gentleman and others also want. Under the structure in the Bill, at least the Assembly Secretaries have to obtain the support of the subject Committees that they lead. That gives them the authority to be Assembly Secretaries.
      Once there is a Prime Minister and other Ministers, there will be deputy Ministers. As a student of British government, I have watched the spawning of junior ministerial ranks. In the mid-1930s, I think that there were only 25 Ministers. Certainly before the first world war, there were no more than a couple of dozen Ministers. Since then, we have gained Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Such a system of deputy Ministers and deputy deputy Ministers might grow with a Cabinet structure. Lo and behold, we might even transpose from this place the concept of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. [Interruption.] I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) was groaning or expressing hopeful anticipation of a role that he might play.
      I do not deny that I have had the pleasure of being a Minister through the patronage system, but, through the 1980s, I watched the growth of patronage in both major parties, including shadow patronage, which is as frightening because it is as binding and stifling as the real thing. That has lessened independence of thought and speech in the Chamber in the past 30 years. Transposing
      756
      such a system to a Welsh assembly would result in the gradual growth of patronage systems in the assembly, creating a dominant powerful Executive of the governing group. If we have a Prime Minister, we shall have a shadow Prime Minister. If we have a shadow Prime Minister, we shall have shadow Ministers. If we have deputy Ministers, we shall have shadow deputies. I do not want the patronage system, which I have seen grow in my parliamentary lifetime into a stifling influence, to be carried to the new and interesting politics that I hope will emerge from the Welsh assembly.
      5.45 pm
      What problem were we trying to address by creating an assembly? Surely the major problem was the concentration of power in one Department—the Welsh Office—and in the Secretary of State, who has a range of functions. Outside that system, we were trying to address the growth of the quango state. I thought that everyone campaigning for any form of devolution, however far down the road we wanted to go, wanted to bring a new spirit of openness to the decision-making processes. We wanted open debate and discussion, particularly on the allocation of resources.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset talked about legislation. The assembly will not legislate—not in the manner of the Scottish Parliament. We are establishing the assembly to have an open debate on the allocation of the £6 billion or £7 billion of Government resources that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales and the host of quangos that spend some of it. That is its fundamental task. It must be done more openly than a Westminster Cabinet style of decision making would achieve. The centrepiece of the case for devolution was that we would bring a breath of fresh air to the decision-making processes for the allocation of such large resources.
      Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend is speaking with his experience as a former Minister in the Welsh Office. If there is any merit in the arguments for moving towards a Cabinet style, it is that hundreds of decisions have to be taken every day. They are not the major strategic spending decisions that my hon. Friend is referring to, but the day-to-day decisions that are necessary to give effect to the broad strategic decisions taken collectively by the assembly.
      Mr. Rowlands: Exactly. The notion that that cannot be done by open debate in Committees is nonsense. My right hon. Friend is right. We were seeking more openness in decision making at operational and strategic level on the allocation of spending and resourcing priorities. That is the primary function of the assembly.
      Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he were trying to achieve his aim, he would have to recommend an amendment that deprived Committees of the ability to give their entire powers to Secretaries?
      Mr. Rowlands: The great value and extremely important function of our Committee proceedings is to make us read the texts over and over again. I spend quite a lot of time reading them. I began re-reading clauses 57 and 58 as a result of the hon. Gentleman's interesting

      757
      observations. I understand why clause 57 gives powers to the Assembly Secretaries. The Assembly Secretaries, with the First Secretary, can make decisions independently. I think that that system exists in local government, where certain power is delegated to various smaller groups, such as chairmen of committees, at various times in the year.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset is wrong to imply that the Assembly Secretaries described in clause 58 would be unaccountable and—I think that he used the word—autocratic, because they derive their power entirely from their election by the subject Committees, as is laid down in clause 57. That is not an autocratic system; it is directly accountable. If one of the subject Committee Secretaries cannot carry his Committee, he will be out on his ear—not by the decision of a Prime Minister in some reshuffle, but by the power of the subject Committees and other Committees. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is a different model. The clauses do not construct a local government system. They construct a different decision-making process which is suited to the assembly's central task: to bring greater democratic pressure to bear on decision making and the allocation of resources.
      The difference between a cabinet structure and even a local government structure lies in who controls the information that is given to the elected members. In a cabinet structure, as I know from experience, the information given out is controlled—even at departmental and ministerial levels. Certain options in the debate—in the Whitehall system and among Ministers—are eliminated. What is released to the House of Commons is basically the preferred option. Sometimes, slight variations are offered in Green Papers, but, generally, the process is one of filtering information for final scrutiny. The system that we are suggesting is different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North suggested, it allows greater openness. It allows officials, to whom the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred, to deliver more information to the assembly than could possibly be provided in a cabinet structure.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's theory about openness of government and giving control to Members of the Assembly is sound. Surely he should have begun that battle with his party ages ago. What about the closed list system, which concentrates power on political parties and not on individual candidates?
      Mr. Rowlands: I have made my views on the closed list system very clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends. On this occasion, I whole-heartedly support the clauses before us.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been a very important debate. It was instigated by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and has produced a wide variety of views. Most importantly, for the first time in these debates, the official Opposition have made enlightened and constructive comments on the way in which the assembly should be run.
      The purpose of the amendments is to establish a cabinet model of internal organisation for the assembly. The Cabinet would consist of a Prime Minister of Wales—an Assembly First Minister—and, perhaps, Assembly Ministers, who would be appointed by the First Minister.
      758
      That Cabinet would be collectively responsible to the assembly and would hold office only while retaining the assembly's confidence.
      I have listened very closely to both sides of the argument. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made much of the difference between a cabinet model and a committee model, especially the local government committee model. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made great play of what they felt were more open and inclusive forms of decision making in local government.
      In both cases, the strengths and weaknesses of the system are dependent on the people who are in charge. I recall some local government systems that included a full panoply of committees, but which were as closed and as secret as any cabinet committee structure. We must consider all systems in the context of who will be in charge. The Bill would allow, more or less, for either extreme to be accommodated. A cabinet model, more or less, could be accommodated, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) tried to point out in a rather theoretical way. On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum, a pure committee system could be accommodated. We believe that there can be points along the spectrum, and that the assembly can make its own decisions about how it might like to operate. The assembly will be a democratically accountable body and be able to decide such matters for itself.
      We do not want to prescribe the exact internal architecture of the assembly. The issue of how the Standing Orders might lead to the operation of the assembly has been given to the advisory group, which will pass on its thinking to the Commissioners.
      Mr. Ancram: I am listening very closely to the Minister, and I thank him for the attention that he paid to our proposals. Does not he accept that the detail of the proposed committee structure is prescriptive? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, the Bill is indistinct and confused in what it is trying to achieve. It would be for the benefit of the people in Wales, and indeed the system, if the Minister were to say now that he would accept one of the amendments as a token of his good faith in the imposition of a cabinet structure. I suggest that if he finds it difficult to accept the amendments relating to the Cabinet, he should consider amendments relating to the name of the First Minister or the First Secretary. If he could accept one of them, I would be satisfied. Obviously, if he could not do that, we should have to take our own view of what he meant by the refusal.
      Mr. Griffiths: The clauses allow for what the hon. Member for West Dorset thought was confusion, but what can be seen as flexibility in the way in which the assembly will operate.
      The Commissioners will obviously undertake their work having regard for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's guidance—although they will also be informed by this debate. We believe that the advisory group and the Commissioners will continue to consult widely in Wales on any specific proposals on how the assembly might operate—whether it is much more of a local government system or one that moves towards a cabinet system.

      759
      We believe that this debate has been very helpful in providing a view for the advisory group and the Commissioners to consider. We still see a need for consideration and flexibility in how these matters are to be handled; nothing is settled yet. The advisory group will be able to consider these things. I hope that, in that context, the amendment can be withdrawn.
      Mr. Livsey: I hear what the Minister says, and I believe that he is correct in saying that we have had a good debate. I do not have time to go into all aspects of it, but obviously there are differences of opinion about whether there should be a complete cabinet or a complete committee system. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 292.

      Division No. 145]

      [5.59pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Flight, Howard

      Amess, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Arbuthnot, James

      Garnier, Edward

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gibb, Nick

      Baldry, Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Bercow, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gray, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Green, Damian

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Greenway, John

      Brady, Graham

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brazier, Julian

      Hammond, Philip

      Breed, Colin

      Hawkins, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hayes, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Burnett, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Burns, Simon

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Burstow, Paul

      Horam, John

      Butterfill, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Cash, William

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Clappison, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Collins, Tim

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Colvin, Michael

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cotter, Brian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cran, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Letwin, Oliver

      Dafis, Cynog

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Lidington, David

      Day, Stephen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan, Alan

      Livsey, Richard

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Evans, Nigel

      Loughton, Tim

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Luff, Peter

      Faber, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fabricant, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Fearn, Ronnie

      MacKay, Andrew

      760

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stunell, Andrew

      Maples, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Syms, Robert

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Townend, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Page, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Paice, James

      Tyler, Paul

      Paterson, Owen

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Pickles, Eric

      Viggers, Peter

      Prior, David

      Walter, Robert

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wardle, Charles

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wells, Bowen

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Whittingdale, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ruffley, David

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wilkinson, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Willetts, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Willis, Phil

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Shepherd, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Soames, Nicholas

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Sir David Madel.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coleman, Iain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Connarty, Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Betts, Clive

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Crausby, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Boateng, Paul

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Darvill, Keith

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Browne, Desmond

      Davidson, Ian

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burgon, Colin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Byers, Stephen

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Denham, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dismore, Andrew

      Cann, Jamie

      Dobbin, Jim

      Caplin, Ivor

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Casale, Roger

      Doran, Frank

      Caton, Martin

      Dowd, Jim

      Cawsey, Ian

      Drew, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      761

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Laxton, Bob

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lepper, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Edwards, Huw

      Levitt, Tom

      Efford, Clive

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lock, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Love, Andrew

      Fatchett, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McCabe, Steve

      Flint, Caroline

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Follett, Barbara

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McDonnell, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      McFall, John

      Galloway, George

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gapes, Mike

      McIsaac, Shona

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McNulty, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      MacShane, Denis

      Goggins, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marek, Dr John

      Grogan, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hain, Peter

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Healey, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Maxton, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Heppell, John

      Meale, Alan

      Hesford, Stephen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Milburn, Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Miller, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Home Robertson, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hope, Phil

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hurst, Alan

      Norris, Dan

      Hutton, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Illsley, Eric

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jenkins, Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Mrs Rona (Newark)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pope, Greg

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Purchase, Ken

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kemp, Fraser

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kidney, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Rooker, Jeff

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rowlands, Ted

      762

      Roy, Frank

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Salter, Martin

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Sawford, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Todd, Mark

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Trickett, Jon

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Singh, Marsha

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Soley, Clive

      Wills, Michael

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Winnick, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wise, Audrey

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wood, Mike

      Stevenson, George

      Woolas, Phil

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stringer, Graham

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Janet Anderson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones:I beg to move amendment No.272,in page 27,line 7,at end insert
      'and the Assembly First Secretary Shall be treated as being an office of ministerial level for the purposes of Article 203 of The Treaty of Amsterdam'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 273, in clause 57, page 28, line 31, at end insert
      'and the Assembly Secretaries shall be treated as being offices of ministerial level for the purposes of Article 203 of the Treaty of Amsterdam'.
      Amendment No. 440, in clause 105, page 51, line 43, at end insert—
      '(2) The Assembly may scrutinise proposed legislation being considered by European Community institutions, to the extent that this is necessary in order to enable the Assembly to—

      (a) clarify and assess the extent of the obligations which it would incur under subsection (1) in the event of the proposed legislation being enacted, and

      (b) express a view to European Community institutions regarding these obligations.

      (3) Members of the executive committee may discuss the matters referred to in subsection (2) with the members and staff of the European Commission.'.
      New clause 5—Delegations to Europe—
      '(1) When matters over which the Assembly has some powers are being discussed with bodies of the European Union, the appropriate Assembly Secretaries shall be entitled to accompany United Kingdom Government Ministers and to participate in such discussions on behalf of the Assembly.
      (2) Where the matters to be discussed under subsection (1) are matters that only affect Wales and do not affect other parts of the United Kingdom, Assembly Secretaries shall not be accompanied by the appropriate United Kingdom Government Ministers.'.
      New clause 9—Representations in relation to European Union—
      '(1) The representations referred to in section 34 may be made by means including the following—

      (a) the selection and sending of a non-voting representative from the Assembly to meetings of the Council of Ministers of the European Union,

      (b) the selection and sending of representatives from the Assembly to the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union,

      (c) the selection and sending of representatives from the Assembly to the Committee of the Regions of the European Union,

      (d) scrutiny by the Assembly of proposals for legislation deriving from the institutions of the European Union, and the publication of any conclusions reached as a result of this scrutiny, and

      (e) the appointment of staff members to the United Kingdom representative office to the European Union.

      (2) The Assembly may decide that the representatives appointed under (c) of subsection (1) shall be the whole of the representation from Wales on the Committee of the Regions.
      (3) Where the Assembly exercises its power under (d) of subsection (1), the House of Commons shall, after consultation with the Assembly First Secretary, make such arrangements as it deems appropriate for the consideration of the representations made by the Assembly.'.
      New clause 16—Representative office for Wales in Brussels—
      '.—(1) A representative office for the Assembly shall be established in Brussels
      (2) The office shall have the functions of providing advice to, and consultation with, the institutions of the European Union on matters affecting Wales.'.
      New clause 20—Council of Ministers' meetings—
      '(1) Before any Minister of the Crown attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which consideration is to be given to any issue relating to devolved matters, the Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly and seek its views on the issue.
      (2) When a Minister of the Crown attends such a meeting of the Council of Ministers, he may permit a member of the executive committee of the Assembly to attend with and participate in the United Kingdom delegation.
      (3) Following a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which any issue related to a devolved matter has been discussed, the Secretary of State shall forthwith report on what transpired at said meeting to the Assembly and answer any questions that the members of the Assembly may have.'.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Jones: The Minister will recall the interesting discussion that we had on Second Reading. He responded to points that I had raised about the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales, and Europe and the European Union institutions. The purpose of amendments Nos. 272, 273 and 440 and new clause 9 is to flesh out and test the assurances that he gave towards the end of his speech on that occasion. I welcome the spirit of his remarks at the end of the second day of the Second Reading debate. We are moving in the same direction. However, there are matters that we want to have written into the Bill, although he will recognise that some of the amendments are probing amendments.
      764
      Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 would allow the First Secretary or the Secretaries of the subject Committees to attend the Council of Ministers and to deliver the United Kingdom vote on certain matters. It is generally accepted on both sides of the Committee that there will not be many occasions on which the representatives of the assembly will be in a position to deliver that vote, but it is important for us to make it clear that they are authorised to do so when the occasion arises. The Minister said that there would be occasions, such as debates on minority languages, when it would be appropriate for Secretaries to attend the Council of Ministers and deliver the UK vote. We all accept that that would be on the basis of agreement with the UK, but it should be specifically authorised.
      As a former Member of the European Parliament, the Minister will know that the Maastricht treaty set out the circumstances that would allow representatives of regional Governments to deliver the vote on behalf of the member state. That treaty obligation is repeated under article 203 of the treaty of Amsterdam, in identical words to those in the previous treaty. We want it to be written into the Bill that the Secretaries, as officers for the purposes of the Council of Ministers, are authorised to deliver the vote.
      There is a good reason for that. Although the Minister acknowledged that that would be appropriate in certain circumstances, the assurance would depend on the good will of the Government of the day. I have no hesitation in accepting the good will of the current Minister, the current Secretary of State or any of the current ministerial team in the Welsh Office. However, I would be worried if there were a Government of a different political complexion, or a Government who did not have the same view of those matters.
      Although we acknowledge the commitment that the Minister gave on Second Reading, will he now take it one stage further and write it into the Bill, so that any future Government would not be able to say that the Secretary was attending the Council of Ministers through the good will of the UK Government? The Secretary's attendance must be authorised under the Government of Wales Act, as we hope the Bill will shortly become.
      As for amendment No. 440, the Minister will know that under the Bill the assembly is obliged to implement any directives that emerge from the European Council of Ministers and subsequently become EU law. However, I cannot find any obligation on the EU institutions to ensure proper scrutiny by the assembly of such draft directives; or to allow the assembly to pass on any comments or observations while the documents are still being considered in draft form. In other words, what mechanism is there to allow the views of the assembly to be heard before the Council of Ministers votes on draft directives?
      It is crucial that the views of the assembly on a number of key areas be put to European Union institutions. Agriculture is one such area. The Minister knows of farmers' concern about the current crisis; and about the importance of any reform of the common agricultural policy to rural areas of the type many of us represent, because of the effects that it will have on support for agriculture. It is vital that the assembly's views on any reform proposals under Agenda 2000 be taken into account by the European institutions. For that, we need clear structures and lines of communication.

      765
      Another such issue is the environment; indeed, agriculture and the environment often go together. The proposal is to move away from direct support for agriculture—aids to production—and towards agrienvironmental payments. Here again, the assembly will need to scrutinise any key decisions that are made.
      Although transport is very important to Wales, I acknowledge that the assembly will have no responsibility for railways; but the Minister will know of the forthcoming strategic routes decisions to be taken in the EU, affecting, for instance, the north Wales coast railway line and the south Wales main line. How are they to be fitted into the European integrated transport structure? Are they to be regarded as key trans-European networks, or are they to be relegated to second-class status?
      Tourism is the fourth key area of scrutiny for the assembly in the context of European Union directives. We want the assembly to have the authority both to scrutinise the directives and to put its views to the relevant EU institutions.
      New clause 9 is a little more comprehensive than the amendments. Clause 34 provides that
      "the Assembly may consider and make representations about any matter affecting Wales."
      New clause 9 is an attempt to find out what that really means in the context of our relations with the European Union. First, the First Secretary or other Secretaries should be part of delegations to the Council of Ministers by agreement with the UK Government of the day, either in a formal capacity or with observer status on some occasions. It is important also that representatives of the assembly be on those delegations, because many important decisions are taken well before votes are delivered or prepared statements made before the Council of Ministers. It is in the crucial negotiations leading up to decisions that assembly representatives need to be present.
      The second issue dealt with by the new clause concerns the selecting of representatives to ECOSOC, the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union. Who will decide who the representatives from Wales should be? I can find nothing in the Bill referring to ECOSOC, although there is a reference to the Committee of the Regions—another matter on which the Government need to explain their thinking. Schedule 8 amends previous legislation, stipulating that representatives on the Committee of the Regions can come from local authorities or the assembly.
      The Secretary of State will recall our debates on these matters, following which it was decided that representatives from Wales should be selected by local government representatives. He will further recall the problem to do with the authority of the representatives from some member states who had been selected by local government vis-à-vis the authority of others selected by regional government. The tendency was to have two classes of representative: regional government representatives being regarded as first-class members and local government representatives as second-class members. We may or may not wish to pursue that today; suffice it to say that it was the inevitable consequence of decisions taken in the past.
      Now we want to know the Government's intentions. Theoretically, under the Bill, there could be two representatives on the Committee of the Regions selected by local government, or two from the assembly, or one
      766
      from each. Our view has always been—I hope that I carry my colleagues with me—that they should be selected by the assembly. Our reasons for saying so have always been clear—representatives to the Committee of the Regions should represent the whole of Wales. Local government representatives tend to give a voice to the areas that they represent. That is why our preference is for assembly representatives to serve on the Committee of the Regions.
      I have already discussed scrutiny on amendment No. 440, so I shall not dwell on it.
      Lastly, I want to touch on the issue of representation on United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels. On Second Reading, the Minister said that it would be possible for staff serving the assembly to be representatives, on occasion, on UKREP. That is an important issue. As the Minister knows from his experience of delegations to the Council of Ministers, much of the work is carried out well before matters are put to Ministers. Many of the ground rules are agreed during the drafting of directives by the Commission. The Commission's directive on the reform of structural funds, for example, is currently exercising many minds in Wales.
      It is important that the views of the national assembly are made clear to the Commission through UKREP while directives are being drafted, rather than when decisions are being taken by the Council of Ministers. Those matters were canvassed in general terms on Second Reading. We now want more flesh on the bones. We await the Minister's response with interest.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I was not going to speak until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones). In so far as we debated the matter during the referendum campaign, neither the representatives of some of the farming unions nor Plaid Cymru thought that there was a problem. People who raised the issue were said to be trying to spoil things. Since then, we have discovered that there is a problem.
      When the hon. Member for Ynys Mon said that he wanted the Welsh assembly to be part of UKREP—the United Kingdom permanent representation—he laid bare the illogicality of his argument.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to read the Hansard report of the debate on Second Reading? The Minister said:
      "Assembly staff will be able to be part of UKREP". —[Official Report, 9 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 892.]
      Mr. Davies: If that is a fact, I do not see why it needs to be specified in the Bill. There is a real problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There was the perfectly understandable desire—many of us have been round this course during the past 20 years—to decentralise government in Wales and devolve power from the Welsh Office. That was the basis of the whole argument for devolution. The hon. Gentleman, it seems, is no longer happy with that, and wants to turn the assembly into a Government Department.
      Usually, the United Kingdom is represented on the Council of Ministers by Ministers with Departments. The hon. Gentleman is worried that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State for Wales will no longer have a Department, which will create problems when Ministers

      767
      negotiate in the Council of Ministers and other European institutions. I understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. He wants to fill the void by sending Members of the Assembly to sit on the Council of Ministers.
      That is cloud cuckoo land, as is so often the case in the arguments of such people as the hon. Gentleman who want to move further and further down the road of devolution. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would create problems. For example, will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry represent the whole of the United Kingdom or just England, given that her departmental responsibilities will be for England and not for Wales? Similar problems will arise in relation to agriculture, and those problems are created by devolution itself. I do not see how they can be solved, but perhaps the Minister can tell us.
      Devolution brings benefits and liabilities. One of the minuses is that we shall lose a Government Department headed by the Secretary of State for Wales. The advantage of that is that we can democratically debate the allocation of resources in the assembly, although Plaid Cymru does not want a democratic debate—it wants a Cabinet to determine the allocation of resources in secret, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said.
      A nation state's representation in the European Union is based on the Council of Ministers and, within the Council of Ministers, on Ministers who have Departments. The fact that Wales will have a Secretary of State without a Department will cause considerable problems. The amendment would make very little difference to the situation, which is a minus that Wales will have to accept.
      Mr. Ancram: I broadly agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). As he said, this is not a new problem. When a number of us raised it during the referendum campaign, we were accused of scaremongering—that was the word I heard most often.
      I am reminded that, in the foreword to the White Paper, the Secretary of State said:
      "An elected Assembly will give Wales a voice—in Britain and in Europe—after years of neglect."
      He said not that he, as Secretary of State, would give Wales a voice in Europe after years of neglect—that is a strange phrase to use in a non-political document, but I shall let that pass—but that the elected assembly would. We were entitled, therefore, to see whether the Bill would establish a new way in which to create that stronger voice.
      Paragraph 3.46 of the White Paper states:
      "Wales needs a strong voice in Europe."
      It says that the Secretary of State will continue to represent Wales in the Council of Ministers. As I said when we debated the White Paper, there is nothing new in that. The only new factor in the White Paper is that there will be arrangements to allow close liaison and consultation with the assembly.
      When we look for details of that in the Bill, however, we find that it is silent. The Secretary of State may be able to be the voice of Wales in the Council of Ministers, but, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli said, his voice will be weaker, as he will not have a Department behind him. Moreover, there are no arrangements to formalise how officials will advise him.
      768
      Those who have held ministerial office in Wales and Scotland recognise that an enormous amount of preparation work is done by officials. They prepare for the deliberations of Ministers in the Cabinet Sub-Committee on European policy or work in the Commission on papers for the Council of Ministers. They can do that because, whether they are from the Welsh Office or the Scottish Office, they are officials of the United Kingdom Government. Yet nearly all those officials in Wales will be transferred to the assembly. How will they be brought back into that system of consultation? To whom will they owe their loyalty: to the assembly, which will be their master, or to the United Kingdom Government, on whose behalf they will appear to act?
      Mr. Rowlands: I am closely following the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He mentions a point on which we have not been able to engineer a debate in Committee—the concept of the concordat. I assume that the answer to some of his questions will be covered by the concordat, but we have not heard about it yet.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. As I was about to say, all the Government tell us is, "Don't worry; it will all be in a concordat." That, at least, is what we are told in relation to Scotland; I am not sure that we have been told it in relation to Wales.
      I know what a concordat means between Governments, but I do not know what it will mean in the framework of devolution. If it means an agreement between friends, it will not be worth the paper on which it is written when the friendships cease.
      How complicated will the concordat be? Will it deal with the problems of loyalty and allegiance among civil servants if they are used in that way? We are dealing with a highly complex matter that has not been thought through properly. The White Paper was pretty weak, but the Bill is totally silent. Even if there is a concordat, what will happen not if there is a political difference between London and Cardiff—as the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) suggested—but if there is a conflict of interest?
      We know that there may be a conflict of interest in the Scottish context between Scottish and Cornish fishermen, for example. Whose view would the United Kingdom representative advocate in that situation? If the interests of Welsh hill farmers conflicted with those of farmers elsewhere in the United Kingdom on the important topic of agriculture, where would the loyalty of the Secretary of State or the Minister who goes to the Council of Ministers lie? What concordat will bind him to neglect, if necessary, the interests of his area in order to represent the interests of another area where he has not been elected and has no democratic representative interest? The White Paper was pretty silent about those problems, but the Bill is completely silent.
      That is a major flaw in the legislation, which we warned the Government about during the referendum campaign and which has still not been addressed. It could lead to enormous resentment in the future, when the people of Wales find that, far from achieving the stronger voice that they were promised, their voice is much weaker.

      769
      At present, the Secretary of State can attend meetings of the Council of Ministers. He can participate in deliberations, vote and, if necessary, lead—I think that a Welsh Minister led on one occasion. If those responsibilities are transferred to the assembly, what will happen if there is a conflict of interest?
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: How many times did the Secretary of State for Wales deliver the United Kingdom votes during 18 years of Conservative government?
      Mr. Ancram: According to the only figures that I have, that has occurred once since 1992. I do not have a complete answer, but the important point is that the Secretary of State had the right to do so. That right will be severely diminished—if it can be exercised at all—in the future. Not one element of that right will be transferred to the assembly.
      I find amendments Nos. 272 and 273, in the name of Plaid Cymru, highly unacceptable and difficult to understand in terms of the rules of Europe. Amendment No. 272 states:
      "the Assembly First Secretary shall be treated as being an office of ministerial level for the purposes of Article 203 of The Treaty of Amsterdam".
      In terms of the treaty, it means that the First Minister could not only represent the United Kingdom but commit the United Kingdom within the European Union. Article 203 of the treaty of Amsterdam says:
      "The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State".
      I shall refer to the difficulties involved with that in a moment.
      The Liberal Democrat new clauses seek mandatory participation by saying that a member of the Welsh assembly "shall" participate. The new clauses go further and say that there should be United Kingdom representation of Welsh interests by a Secretary of the Welsh Assembly. Those issues raise enormous constitutional questions. The one point that is common to the proposed new clauses is that the Minister or the Secretary—whatever he will be called—who goes from the Welsh assembly to the Council of Ministers will also represent the United Kingdom.
      However, such people will not have a mandate from the United Kingdom; they will not be elected by the United Kingdom electorate. They will be elected according to the electoral mandate of the people of Wales. They cannot answer to the United Kingdom Parliament and they cannot be held to account by that Parliament. It would be constitutional nonsense to allow such a provision to prevail.
      For that reason, new clause 20 suggests the only possible means of squaring the circle: first, we should write into the Bill the obligation of the Secretary of State to consult the assembly before a matter of interest to Wales is considered by the Council of Ministers. Secondly—although it is the third part of the proposed new clause—on returning from a meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Secretary of State would be obliged to report to the assembly. That would ensure that the weak elements in the White Paper were at least present in statute, and could not be left to the whim or the invitation of a Government at Westminster.
      770
      The third part of new clause 20 suggests that a member of the Executive Committee of the assembly may participate in a United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Ministers on the basis that he is asked to do so in appropriate circumstances.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: A problem remains even if that provision is written into the Bill. The Secretary of State for Wales will be a Minister without portfolio. I do not know whether there are any precedents that allow Ministers without portfolios to sit in meetings of the Council of Ministers with other Ministers who have portfolios.
      Mr. Ancram: That is a very good question, but I shall not seek to answer it now. I do not claim that new clause 20 will solve the problem—I would not have started from this position in the first place. However, given that we are in this situation and that the Bill has created a large democratic deficit in relation to Wales and Europe, I believe that the Government should consider new clause 20 carefully.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Livsey: I realise that time is limited, and I have made short contributions to the Committee tonight. This is another extremely important matter. The Liberal Democrat new clause 5 gives the assembly the power to send a delegation to Europe. New clause 16 enables the assembly to set up an office for Wales in Brussels.
      We believe that there is a lack of statutory provision concerning the relationship between Wales and its assembly and the various institutions of the European Union. That has occurred despite the specific references that appeared in the White Paper and the Government's promise that the Bill would provide for Members of the Assembly to represent Wales on the Committee of the Regions. Apart from a provision in clause 30 enabling the power to designate a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department as being responsible for implementing European Community law, so that it is possible to designate the assembly for that purpose, and clauses 105 to 107 requiring the assembly to observe European Community law, the Bill is totally silent on the European dimension.
      I would raise many other issues if I had more time. However, I draw the Committee's attention to a statement made by the Secretary of State at a crucial point during the referendum debate. In a press release of 11 September 1997, the Secretary of State said:
      "The Assembly will be able to take part in relevant negotiations on policy at all levels, up to and including the Council of Ministers. There will be scope for executive members of the Assembly to speak on behalf of the UK in those negotiations".
      We believe that it is essential to establish within the assembly a European Community Committee that will be responsible for the assembly's relations with the EU. The assembly should have the right to send observers to working group meetings to discuss matters devolved to Wales and the right to participate fully in preparatory meetings of the United Kingdom delegations to the EU. The assembly or its European Committee should have the right to scrutinise EC legislation before it is adopted. A Committee representing Whitehall and the assembly should be established in order to co-ordinate European

      771
      policy in areas transferred to Wales. The assembly should also have the right to receive full reports from UKREP about EU meetings. Finally, we believe that there should be a written agreement or concordat that will establish the detail of the practical arrangements in order to ensure the effective working of the measures that I have outlined.
      None of those provisions are in the Bill, and we seek the Minister's response in that regard.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to have had a discussion about Europe—albeit a rather short one. It was a bit like old times, as the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said. 1 think that he was recalling the famous night when Plaid Cymru did a deal with the then Conservative Government and the former Secretary of State, David Hunt. It has been a little like old times in the past week, with Labour thinking about renationalising the railways and the Foreign Secretary doing a Henry VIII and getting rid of Anne Boleyn.
      We must consider whether it is practical for the assembly to represent what I believe must be the United Kingdom Government stance at meetings of the Council of Ministers. Clearly, the circumstances would have to be exceptional, and Parliament would have to agree to the meeting taking place.
      Some issues could arise when the Westminster Parliament would be happy for its interests in the Council of Ministers to be represented by the Welsh assembly. One example is minority languages. Wales is generally regarded as having done far more for the Welsh language than the French Government have done on behalf of the Breton language over the past 50 years for various historic reasons.
      A tragic example would be restitution of the land damaged by the Chernobyl nuclear power station accident 12 or 13 years ago. If Wales were the only part of the United Kingdom that still had land where lamb produced on it could not be eaten because caesium was still coming up through the new grass in the spring—I believe that that is the position—it would be logical for the Welsh assembly to send a representative to the Agriculture Committee or the Environment Committee of the Council of Ministers. That would clearly be sensible if it were a transferred function.
      There would have to be wholly exceptional circumstances and the transferred function would have to be by agreement with the Westminster Parliament. It would surely be curmudgeonly if we were to say that never should the Welsh assembly, or the Scottish Parliament for that matter, represent, even by agreement, the United Kingdom position at a meeting of the Council of Ministers. It would be appropriate that it should do so if a particular issue affected only Wales within the United Kingdom or where Wales was generally recognised as being in the lead and having the greatest expertise and investment in a certain interest.
      For the reasons that 1 have outlined, it is important that we establish that the Welsh assembly—although it must not give itself inappropriate airs and graces—can have an external arm. In the same way, the Welsh Office chose to make grants for Welsh-medium education in Patagonia,
      772
      and to be a participant in the Europe of the four motor regions. In the person of Sir Wyn Roberts, it chose to talk to the Governments of Lombardy, Catalonia and so on. There was nothing wrong with that. Those activities did not attract criticism when the Welsh Office was part of the United Kingdom Parliament. It seems to me that there would be nothing wrong in those inherited rights, obligations and freedoms applying also to the Welsh assembly. The council of the isles may take that process in the direction of Ireland. There would be nothing wrong in that.
      Undoubtedly, there will be exterior interests to involve the Welsh assembly, and that will be appropriate if the assembly abides by the principle of not giving itself airs and graces.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The amendments focus on the role of the assembly in discussions on European Union matters in the United Kingdom and within European institutions.
      I shall quickly get out of the new clause 16, which turns on the issue of representation in Brussels. That is something which the assembly will have to decide, as it will have to decide what resources it wants to put into it and how much it wants to do in Brussels. There is no need to have anything of that sort set out in the Bill. 1 should imagine that the assembly would want such representation.
      As the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said, new clause 9 is dealt with in schedule 8. That schedule has been constructed to provide the assembly with flexibility when it comes to whether there should be two local government members, two Members of the national assembly or one member from each. We want the assembly to be able to make that decision. The assembly should not have any difficulties with that.
      Should we delineate in the Bill the role that the assembly will play in discussions with the European Union within the United Kingdom and within European institutions? We believe that that can best be dealt with through the development of concordats with Government Departments at Whitehall. Clause 106, for example, makes it clear that the assembly will have a duty to ensure the implementation and enforcement of Community obligations in Wales to the extent that such powers have been given to the assembly within the Bill. That being so, the assembly will have a direct interest in the effects of a wide range of European Union legislation.
      Mr. Ancram: I want to pursue the matter of concordats. What will happen if the assembly and the Westminster Government cannot agree on a concordat in the absence of anything relating to that possibility being set out in the Bill? What provision will there be for dealing with that situation? Furthermore, how long does a concordat last? Is it signed between the Governments that then exist, to be broken if the Administrations of those countries change? Is a concordat just an informal agreement that, at the end of the day, is not worth the paper on which it is written?
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. He knows that, when dealing with those matters, one Parliament cannot bind a later one. The concordat will be for the duration of the Parliament unless, within that period, both sides agree that there is a need to amend the procedure. There must be flexibility to that extent. As far as we are concerned, there will be no possibility of a concordat not being achieved.

      773
      That is something which the Government and the assembly will be able to sort out. The assembly will be involved.
      Mr. Öpik: If that is the spirit and intent, as it was on 11 September when the Secretary of State issued the press release from which my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) quoted, surely it would be logical to accept the Liberal Democrat amendments. They would take away the vagueness of the concordat and insert a specific structure that everyone could understand.
      Mr. Griffiths: We do not want such a structure to be set out in the Bill because we want the flexibility to get everything in place in our discussions with other Government Departments.
      The assembly will have the right in full to scrutinise European Union legislation and documents. It will be for the assembly to choose how it gets its view over to Europe. There will be several ways of doing that. There will be the official channel, which is getting the Government to take the assembly's view across to Europe through the Secretary of State. However, there will be Members of the European Parliament in Wales, and the assembly will be able to ensure that its views are known in Europe. There is no problem there.
      Negotiations within the United Kingdom to set the United Kingdom line will be a part of the assembly's role. Participation in relevant European negotiations will be open to the assembly at member and at official level. The staff of the assembly will be civil servants and accordingly they will be able to participate in placements at UKREP and other parts of the Commission, just as Government civil servants are already able to do. Those are matters that will be in the concordat. I am giving the Committee a flavour of what will be available.
      Mr. Livsey: Why are not the layers of the concordat in the Bill, so that we might know precisely where we are?
      Mr. Griffiths: That is because we are negotiating the concordat with other Government Departments.
      I have been talking about the sort of matters that will be dealt with and the role of the assembly. Assembly Secretaries will be present at relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers where that has been agreed with the lead United Kingdom Minister. Members have cited instances of when that would be appropriate, and that is what will happen. Assembly Secretaries will be able to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers.
      Mr. Ancram: No.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman and a Committee of the House of Commons that the presence that I have described will be part of the agreement that we shall have within Whitehall and within government. There will be accountability to the House of Commons because all those matters will be publicly reported and known. The Secretary of State for Wales will be able to deliver to the House of Commons any information that the Opposition might want. There is no problem there at all.
      774
      The assembly will also implement and enforce European obligations.
      The spirit of the amendments will be embraced in the concordat. There is nothing that cannot be dealt with in that process.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I welcome the reassurances that the Minister gave on Second Reading, but I should have preferred to have seen them on the face of the Bill, or at least to have seen a draft of the concordat so that we could discussed it. On the basis of the assurances that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 53

      MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 395, in page 27, line 12, after first 'The', insert 'voting'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 85, page 27, line 16, leave out from 'shall' to 'be'.
      No. 396, in page 27, line 19, at end insert—
      '(3) In addition to those members referred to in subsection (2). each committee other than the executive committee may co—opt non—voting members.
      (4) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (3) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly.'.
      No. 397, in page 27, line 19, at end insert—
      '(3) In addition to those members referred to in subsection (2), each committee other than the executive committee may co—opt non—voting members.
      (4) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (3) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly.
      (5) The rules provided for in subsection (4) shall be drawn up having regard to the maintenance of party balance in each committee.'.
      No. 398, in clause 54, page 27, line 27, at end insert—
      '(4) Each sub—committee may co—opt non—voting members.
      (5) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (4) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly.
      (6) The rules provided for in subsection (5) shall be drawn up having regard to the maintenance of party balance in each subcommittee.'.
      7 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: Amendments Nos. 395 to 398 are part and parcel of the same thing. Notes on clauses have a fairly long but inglorious pedigree in this place. The notes accompanying the Bill are a prime example of that genre. All human knowledge and science is there. They say:
      "Clause 53 provides that the Assembly shall establish certain committees … and that it may establish any others which it considers appropriate."
      The second paragraph says the same thing, but in an even less useful way. [Interruption.] I do not for one second suggest that the Secretary of State drew them up,

      775
      but somebody did. He is not forthcoming with any information that could be of great value to the debate, if I may say so with the greatest of respect.
      The amendment might be considered in part to be a probing amendment, but it has a serious point as well. Its intention is to put on the face of the Bill the right and obligation on subject Committees to co-opt non-voting members on to the Committees. Before I am shouted at from various corners about that being a quango, I can foresee that, occasionally, people who have considerable expertise on a particular subject would be invited on to the Committees. The Committees might also include people who are well qualified in matters concerning local government. Those people might occasionally be elected councillors, but they would generally have an expertise on a subject, as opposed to the way in which quango appointments are made—only on party lines.
      The purpose of this raft of amendments is to enrich the quality of debate and assist in the formulation of policy by the various subject Committees.
      Under the Bill as it stands, the subject Committees will have a vast amount of work to undertake. The assembly should be a truly inclusive chamber—"inclusive" being the big word in use at the moment, I thought that I had better use it; otherwise, nobody on the Front Bench would listen to me—that is relevant to the people of north-east Wales, south-west Wales, and so on. We have heard the same argument before, although it was made in a rather jocular manner. It is extremely important that the national assembly gains credibility and the necessary respect of all the people of Wales across the political spectrum and geographical spread of the country.
      One of the best ways to make the forum popular throughout Wales is to show that the policies are at the cutting edge and are based on the best research available, and that they are practical and practicable. The worst possible scenario would be for the decisions of the various subject Committees that will formulate policies to be challenged widely by the people of Wales as not being in the best interests of Wales. That would indeed be a step backwards.
      Although I appreciate that the Government's response might well be to leave the matter for due consideration by the Standing Order Commission, nevertheless this is a fundamentally important point which needs to be debated at this stage.
      There has been considerable speculation and discussion about co-opting on to the Regional Committees of the assembly, so the notion of co-opting is not new. It is as least as important to co-opt on to subject Committees. Most of us have had the benefit of being on a Select Committee, and in particular of having input from experts on a given subject. They do indeed enrich the proceedings and assist greatly in the evaluation of evidence and the preparation of reports and practical and achievable recommendations.
      Mr. David Hanson: Given what the hon. Gentleman just said, perhaps he will tell the Committee whether those who give the benefit of their advice to the Committee have speaking and voting rights. I think that he will find that they do not.
      Mr. Llwyd: The point of the amendment is to co-opt people who would not have voting rights. No doubt there
      776
      will be others who will advise the Committee, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I also think that this would be a way to deal with the point in a slightly different and preferable way. Of course, civil servants and the like will assist the Committee, but my view is that the form should be strengthened, in the manner foreseen in the amendment.
      Mr. Ron Davies: Let us make it clear that there is nothing in the scheme as it exists to allow any Committee of the assembly to call people to give evidence, and so on. If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing that with his amendment, which suggests that the power of co-option should be available—I mean this in a genuine, inclusive way, and am not seeking an argument—it is necessary that he explains what he means by co-option. Does it mean that, to all intents and purposes, the individual is a full member of the Committee, but without voting rights? He really must explain precisely what he means by co-opting, as distinct from the ability of the Committee to call individuals to give specialist evidence.
      Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Secretary of State for that question. Co-option means that the person becomes a member of the Committee, albeit a limited member. That is quite different from the position to which the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) referred. No doubt, there will be specialist advisers to each Committee, who would be members. They would not have voting rights, but would have speaking rights; otherwise there would be little point in having them there. To all intents and purposes, they would be members of the Committee, dealing specifically with the work of the Committee, and called on to advise it in that capacity. They would not be full members in terms of voting and so on, as that would be completely wrong, as the other members would have been voted on to the Committees through the ballot box, and it would make no sense at all.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Bar, will be familiar with the term "otiose", which has reared its head many times in Committee. Is not his amendment otiose in the sense that there is nothing to preclude the Committee from taking advice and from consulting more widely? Why is it necessary to formalise it in the amendment?
      Mr. Llwyd: I do not know whether the people at large are getting the impression that barristers use the word otiose every time they get up, but the hon. Gentleman has used it a few times, as I have. I do not consider the amendment unnecessary; it would be a good step forward. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain why. I believe that the Committees will face an extremely heavy work load, and that another pair of hands—or a couple of pairs of hands—would help, not to vote but to deal with policy and to do the necessary work.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: That would not be democracy.
      Mr. Llwyd: It would not be democracy if those concerned were full members, but—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, he will no doubt rebut it later in his own way, and I respect the fact that he will probably wish to do so.

      777
      It is vital for the relationship between the Executive—or the Cabinet, or whatever term is decided on—and the subject Committees and the assembly to be spelt out clearly. As a matter of sound constitutional law, the Executive should be clearly separated from subject Committees, and should be responsible for the strategic direction of the national assembly as a whole. The subject Committees will probably combine—I say "probably" because it is not clear in the Bill—two functions. One might be a scrutiny function similar to that of Select Committees, although the Secretary of State has just said that the Committees would have no power to require evidence or to summon witnesses. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
      The Committees will also have a wider policy-making role: without that, there would be little point in establishing them and requiring those serving on them to devote all their time, expertise and energy to their work. The Welsh Office buzz word nowadays is "inclusivity". I believe that, if that is to become a reality, the amendment will help.
      On 27 November, at a press conference when the Bill was launched, the Secretary of State said:
      "The National Assembly for Wales will be a new and effective form of government. It will be based on modern working and political practices for the good of the whole of Wales. I hope to see political parties working together in a positive way and the development of structures which will allow people as individuals as well as other groups—local government, both sides of industry, the voluntary sector—to get their voice heard. The new … Assembly will be modern, open and accountable. Neither Westminster nor local government will provide the model: the National Assembly will make a fresh start based on the best practices from around the world. It will harness new technology and modern working practices to take Welsh democracy forward to the new millennium."
      I would not argue with that. If that is a reflection of what is to come, I welcome it whole-heartedly.
      The subject Committees will also be important in the national assembly set-up. In its document "Making the Assembly Work", the Institute of Welsh Affairs says:
      "The work of the Subject Committees will be central to the Assembly's activities. Major briefs will have to be absorbed. The more Committees a Member serves on, the more demanding will be the task. There will be room for co-option of expert advisers"—
      I stress that—
      "and the Committees should have the power to summon witnesses along the lines of the Select Committees in the House of Commons."
      I am not sure whether that is correct; the Secretary of State said that it was not likely.
      It will be up to the assembly to determine the number of subject Committees. The Institute of Welsh Affairs thinks that there may be six, but annexe A of the White Paper refers to nine. I understand that they will include Committees on education and training, health, agriculture, local government, and so on.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am sorry that I could not respond to the hon. Gentleman immediately, but he was making a number of points. He questioned whether the assembly would have the power to require people to attend. It will. The power is specified in clause 73(2), which lists the persons and organisations concerned. That is, of course, different from inviting people to give evidence.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged to the Secretary of State. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said initially that
      778
      there was no power, so let me say—with the greatest respect—that I am not sure whether he is correcting me or himself. I did not mention summoning; he did. However, I accept what he now says without reservation, and welcome his statement of fact.
      The White Paper suggests that there will also be a secondary legislation scrutiny Committee, an audit Committee, and the regional Committees, about which we already know. There will also be a European Committee. It is entirely possible that there will be 15 or 16 Committees, and an even larger number of Sub-Committees.
      7.15 pm
      Let me return to what was said by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). My point to him is this: there will be so much work to be done that it will be vital for the Committees to work well, and for their members to be able to handle their work load.
      The case for the amendment is well made. It is made on the basis of the need to bring expertise and assistance to bear, but also on the basis of purely logistical considerations. How on earth is a Member of the Assembly expected to sit on three or four Committees which, of necessity, will have to specialise? I believe that that would be far more onerous than sitting on three or four Select Committees, and, in my respectful submission, it is therefore a nonsensical proposition.
      I should be obliged if the Minister would respond to my arguments in detail. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will give due consideration to an amendment that I believe would improve the workings of the assembly.
      Ms Julie Morgan: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made some important points, some of which I want to take up.
      We have emphasised the need to involve as many people as possible in the assembly, and I think that we must use a range of measures to do that. Non-voting co-options is one possible method. That would aid the workings of the assembly by, for instance, addressing some of the problems that will be caused by the possible lack of representation of certain groups. For example, a Committee may be discussing disability, which will clearly be a major issue. A successful strategy for people with learning disabilities was pioneered by the Welsh Office, involving such people and their carers. We could enrich and improve the assembly's workings by allowing people with disabilities to come on to the Committees as non-voting members, but to contribute to their workings over a period.
      I do not think that any Committee can plan or discuss, for instance, a Wales strategy for disability unless it contains people who are disabled themselves, perhaps representing organisations for the disabled. That is relevant to a number of areas that the assembly may cover. For example, I hope that it will discuss a race equality strategy for Wales, and I hope that no such discussion will be held without the presence of black people. Indeed, I hope that both black and disabled people will be Members of the Assembly, although, given the way in which things work out, the odds are against it. I think it important for people who experience the issues that we shall try to address in the inclusive assembly that we are establishing to be part of the decision-making process.

      779
      I believe that non-voting Members should be co-opted for a period, so that they can take part in the discussions and give the Committee the benefit of their experience. Someone else could then be co-opted for another period, depending on the subject area. Perhaps the assembly will be able to do that, but these points are very important, and should not be lost in the debate.
      Mr. Öpik: The Liberal Democrats support the amendments, which strike a chord of common sense. Non-voting members add great value as experts, and are sometimes more impartial observers than voting members. It could be said that non-voting members, unburdened by the stresses of political careers or their own egos, at times add more value, and may be the voice of reason on committees when others around them are losing their heads in internecine disputes. Non-voting members can be regarded as a check or a balance for the debate as a whole.
      The amendments would enable non-voting members to know where they stand. The danger of not having these conditions enshrined in the legislation is that non-voting members would be uncertain about their rights, which could harm the contribution that they could make. Being put on the Committee through established formal structures would give them a certain gravitas.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has had considerable experience of student union politics and debating societies. Does he accept that the subject Committees will have to make hard decisions—they will have to weigh up the niceties of the argument—so they must be accountable to the electorate?
      Mr. Öpik: I certainly do accept that. Indeed, that serves to emphasise my point. Those hard choices may lead to stress and conflict, and to very charged meetings. Surely, a non-voting member will be much more likely to contribute positively if she or he clearly understands that she or he has a formal role on the Committee, albeit without a vote. In my experience in student unions, and in my own party, the formal co-option system gives non-voting members confidence that they can make a meaningful and reasoned contribution, and, even more important, that they will be respected by voting members.
      The system proposed in the amendments would enable officers to advise voting Members that certain co-options would be within the structures established for the assembly. We said earlier that we did not want to transfer the weaknesses of this House to the assembly, one of which is the etiquette that we have to use to make decisions. The assembly is in danger of inheriting a system of co-option without a clearly defined process. If we want a modern, advanced assembly in Wales, we should make the procedure as clear as possible.
      The Liberal Democrats support the element of proportionality proposed in amendment No. 398. It is a form of insurance policy: it will ensure that committees are not packed with partisan non-voting members, whose objectives may be rather more sinister. A party should not be able abuse the system and hold up proceedings by refusing to supply its quota, so that it can argue that a Committee should not have any non-voting members.
      780
      With that proviso, it is sensible clearly and publicly to enshrine in the Bill the need for political proportionality in appointments. Many non-voting members will probably not have a political affiliation, but will be appointed for their expertise. In which case, I assume that the proportionality consideration would not be relevant.
      We support the amendments. They may not be essential, but they are good practice. To say that such practice will occur anyway is no justification for refusing to take the opportunity to clarify and tidy up a part of the legislation that is vague. The Government should take these proposals on board: they are a common-sense improvement, and clarify the details of the process involved.
      Mr. Hanson: I have a great regard for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). He and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) want to improve the Bill, and speak out of a genuine desire to make it a success. However, the proposals would have a serious impact on the workings of the assembly. One of the reasons why I was passionately in favour of the assembly on 18 September was because I was tired of the who-you-know, what-you-know quango state. There is a danger that the great and the good will be co-opted to the Committees through the who-you-know, what-you-know process.
      Accountability is the important thing for the assembly: accountability for decision making, for politics, for expenditure and for the arguments. There is no problem about an individual putting a point of view to a Committee in strong terms and giving advice as a lobbyist inside and outside the chamber and in formal presentations to any existing Committees. That would be a healthy way forward. Individuals with legitimate interests in the matters being discussed in the Committees should be able to express their views. However, there is a world of difference between that and an individual being part of the Committee. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that this Committee of the House should have co-opted members to give an experienced view on the points that we are discussing. At 8.30, we would vote having listened to their views. They may influence the argument, but that would not be democracy.
      Mr. Llwyd: How can the hon. Gentleman say that having a minority of experts without voting rights co-opted on to a Committee is undemocratic? I do not follow his argument. There would be accountability, because the elected Members would vote and would ultimately make the decisions.
      With respect, I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the present constitution people are co-opted in the other place. I am not a defender of the other place, despite having a colleague there, but it has some very good working peers who are there specifically because they have an expertise.
      Mr. Hanson: I believe in the principle of accountability: people should have a mandate from the electorate to speak on an issue in a particular forum, and should not merely be selected by a body and accountable to a Committee. Members of a Committee should be accountable to and get their support from the people of Wales.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee will have

      781
      difficulty covering the issues in the time available even if only legitimately elected, mandated representatives speak? If a Committee must take account not just of evidence that it calls, but of co-opted members who sit on it as of right, its proceedings are likely to go on for ever.
      Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman has a point: perhaps he has been co-opted to this Committee because of his position as the representative of the New Forest. At least he has a mandate to sit in the Chamber, so his argument is valid.
      I am not against the idea of outside expertise influencing the decisions and considerations of a Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. However, Members of the Assembly should be accountable for their decisions. The Committees should not contain people who might advance the prejudiced views of people who have not been elected to the assembly. There should be a clear division such as exists in Select Committees. Those Committees can listen to outside experts and invite written submissions but, ultimately, the members of the Committees determine the agenda, the political priorities and the outcome. That is what they have been elected to do.
      Occasionally there may be conflicts of interest. People could be co-opted for a four-year term at the end of which their priorities would be different from what they were at the beginning. What happens when there is a clear division between elected and co-opted members? Elected members have to be accountable for their decisions but I am sure that in my area the Daily Post would make a meal of divisions between co-opted and elected Members. There is a danger of conflict being created where it does not exist.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Öpik: The answer is clear. The elected Members must have the courage of their convictions. After listening to experts they must make informed decisions. There is no democratic conflict, but perhaps elected Members who ignored the advice of experts would be required to explain more unusual decisions.
      Mr. Hanson: There is always accountability. Elected members on a committee are put there by crosses on ballot papers and not by the choice of another committee—a sort of self-selecting oligarchy. Accountability is what the assembly is all about. It is certainly what I campaigned for on 18 September.
      Co-opting is not a welcome practice in local government in Wales or elsewhere. Governments have not sought to encourage it and the model has not worked well in local government. The amendments seek to improve the Bill, to strengthen the democratic input to the assembly and to make it more inclusive. I fought for the assembly to end the quango state, but I fear that co-option would extend and develop the quango state. The issues that are in the amendments can be dealt with by Committees taking evidence, soundings and submissions.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) raised the valid issues of disabled people and those from ethnic minorities. Those can be dealt with by presentation and sympathy and by listening to people's views. It will not necessarily be dealt with by co-opting people. In some cases, dare I say it, such a move would
      782
      be seen as patronising. People who are co-opted to a Committee because are disabled or from an ethnic minority may have intrinsic gifts that could, as independents or members of political parties, enable them to play a role in a Committee.
      Ms Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend makes an important point about people being patronised. It is always raised when efforts are made to be more inclusive and to have the views of minorities expressed in a committee. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but when we try to be inclusive and a bit more adventurous to make everyone in Wales feel that he has a stake in the assembly, we sometimes have to experiment and run the risk of being accused of being patronising or of not sticking strictly to a mandate. We must take such steps if we are to become more inclusive.
      Mr. Hanson: I take my hon. Friend's comments on board because they are worthy of discussion. The debate has opened some bear traps and to be caught in them would not improve the process and would dilute my main reason for wanting the assembly.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made a valid intervention about difficult decisions. Some decisions will be down to the elected Members who are accountable for them. Under co-option, people who do not have a mandate will be responsible for defending a difficult decision only to the people who co-opted them. People who owe their position to those who co-opted them to a committee are sometimes reluctant to speak out on difficult decisions that affect their interest group or their expertise group. Those who are outside the Committee structure can put a cogent case in evidence about why a particular stance should be adopted. Those who owe their position on a Committee to assembly patronage may temper their comments. The matter needs to be seriously considered, but on the basis of what has been said in the debate, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Jenkin: In part, the co-option that the amendments seek tries to compensate for the fact that the assembly is something of a monocameral legislature. The effort to bring in talent from outwith the political party maelstrom is not intrinsically objectionable. It is a good move and, as we contemplate parallel discussions on the future of the other place, we should keep it close to our hearts that there would be no point in having extra elected people in the Welsh assembly. The richness of political debate in the assembly could be enhanced by bringing in talent that is not imprisoned by party politics.
      There is much to be said for the speech by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). We enter two caveats about the amendments. First, how far should the legislation determine the detail of the assembly's standing orders? That will be one of the themes of our comments. The Bill stipulates quite detailed arrangements but large areas will be left for determination by the assembly. How much is stuck in the Bill and how much is left to the assembly are arbitrary matters.
      Secondly, if we stipulate the composition of the Committees, the concept of party balance is important. Amendment No. 396, unlike amendment No. 397, does not state that there should be party balance in the Committees. Our amendment No. 85 deletes part of

      783
      Clause 52(2)(b) to exclude the possibility of even advisory Committees not having party balance. Why should we not stipulate that all Committees of the assembly should have party balance? Why does party balance become unnecessary in an advisory Committee?
      All parliamentary Committees are advisory and Parliament can overturn a Committee's recommendations. All our Committees reflect party balance. Perhaps an alternative is to allow assembly Committees to operate an open-house policy similar to the one that applies to Committees that examine delegated legislation under which any hon. Member can attend and speak but may not vote. That may be one way to address the matter, but we cannot understand why subsection (2)(b) should read as it does.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: I did not expect that these amendments, touching as they do on co-option, would have generated so much controversy. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who, in his opposition to the amendments, displayed a deep knowledge of local government, which perhaps was absent from comments made by some Opposition Members.
      Yes, the assembly has to be inclusive in the sense that it should reach out to all sections of opinion in Wales, but in my view, and it is shared by other Labour Members, inclusiveness should be achieved not in a formalised way, but by taking advice informally, by undertaking extensive consultation and by reaching out to people. In that sense, the amendments are unnecessary.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn put his finger on something significant. In their eagerness to enshrine inclusiveness within the workings of the assembly, perhaps accidentally, Opposition Members have confused the whole issue of accountability. By having co-opted members on a subject Committee, various problems arise. One has been alluded to by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). It involves the extent to which debating time could be taken over by a co-opted member. There is also a problem in relation to the influence that that particular co-opted member might have.
      Although patronising comments were made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about the need for Committee members to take the advice of experts in their sector, but the fact remains that co-opted experts would not be accountable. That lies at the heart of the issue and it is why I cannot endorse the amendments.
      Mr. Robert Syms: I agree with the hon. Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). I do not believe that elected and unelected members mix well. For several years, I sat on a local authority, where there were problems initially with Church members who voted on the education committee. Then their vote was taken away, but some conflict always arose between those people and those who had authority and accountability.
      It is possible to be well informed, to be well briefed and to take the widest possible view and have just elected members determine policy. One has to remember that members not only serve on a committee, but have a broader responsibility to the body corporate. Sometimes,
      784
      hard and difficult decisions may have to be taken. Elected members know that, at some point, they have to take those decisions. It will be easy for an unelected member to take over the show and to try to showboat somewhat, going against what might be politically necessary for the assembly.
      Overall, co-option is not sensible. Taking advice from the widest possible context is great, but elected members should debate and determine policy.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had a constructive debate; it is good to see the official Opposition again making a constructive contribution. Clause 53 provides for the establishment of assembly Committees. It establishes the principle that the membership of each Committee should so far as possible reflect the political balance of the assembly, but that principle is not to apply where the Committee
      "exists solely to provide advice".
      Amendment No. 85 seeks to delete those words, so that all Committees of the assembly, whether or not of an advisory character, would have memberships reflecting the political balance of the assembly. Amendments Nos. 395 to 398 provide for assembly Committees to have co-option powers, albeit limited to the co-option of non-voting members.
      We are not persuaded that Committees that are established by the assembly to advise it on a particular matter should inevitably be established on the basis of strict party balance. We think, for example, that the assembly might want to establish specialist advisory Committees where the interests or qualifications of individual members are more important than political affiliations. An example might be in relation to child abuse: an advisory Committee of Members with particular knowledge of how such a matter has been handled might considerably assist the relevant assembly Committee in formulating its policy.
      Therefore, given that these will be advisory Committees, rather than Committees with decision-making powers, we would prefer to retain the flexibility in the present wording of the subsection. If the amendment were accepted, it might be difficult on occasions to establish the right sort of advisory Committee on a specialist matter that often does not have any specific party political aspect.
      7.45 pm
      The issue of co-option excited much debate. There are no provisions in the Bill for co-option to take place. The availability of such powers has been the subject of criticism in relation to local government. In 1986, paragraph 5.99 of the report of the Widdecombe Committee said:
      "We consider that the membership of decision-taking committees should be limited to councillors, and believe that this would clarify accountability … It needs to be clear, whether or not there is a vote, that the decisions of a committee is a decision of councillors alone and this can only be achieved by limiting membership of decision-taking committees to councillors."
      We believe that, in the interests of clear accountability, that reasoning should apply to assembly Committees, so we have not provided for co-option.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) seemed at one point to imply that the National Assembly for Wales would be so overloaded

      785
      with work and Committees that one of the purposes of having co-opted members would be to take some of the load off elected members. I do not think that that is an appropriate reason to have co-opted members. What is important—my hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) expressed this view, which was supported by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms)—is that there is a better way in which to include people and to make them feel that they are part of decision making. That involves specifically inviting them to give their views, whether on an issue relating to disability or to the needs of ethnic minorities.
      Whatever the subject under scrutiny might be, there is provision for the assembly and its Committees to be able to invite people. Of course, they would not be able to force those people to be there unless they were members of the bodies that are listed in schedule 4, but co-option is not the appropriate way because there would then be some blurring of accountability. If a Committee had deadlines and one or two co-opted members took a greater share of the debating time, there could be recriminations. We believe that the obvious way in which to achieve inclusion is to be able to call people as experts to Committees so that their expertise is shared. We do not deny the need for experts, but we do not believe that co-option is the way forward.
      We accept everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who rightly expressed concern about the way in which people from minorities—whether an ethnic minority or people who are disabled. The assembly's Committees will have to hear those people, but we believe that the best way to do that is by inviting them to give evidence.
      I hope that the Committee accepts that the Bill provides for people who are not elected, but who have expertise, to play a full part. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Llwyd: When I moved the amendment, I said that it was probing. It has been an interesting debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 53 agreed to.
      Clause 54 agreed to.

    Clause 55

      DELEGATION TO COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES AND STAFF
      Mr. Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 363, in page 27, line 30, leave out from 'Assembly' to end of line 31.
      The purpose of the amendment is to remove the assembly's ability to delegate any function to a member of its staff. We want to ensure that responsibility within the assembly for all activity formally rests with elected representatives and Committees of elected representatives, rather than with those who are employed by the assembly, not elected to it. I see smiles of joy on the faces of Labour Members—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who cannot contain himself.
      Mr. Hanson: Why does the hon. Gentleman support co-option, but oppose delegation?
      Mr. Öpik: Without re-running our previous debate, I remind the hon. Gentleman that had the Committee agreed to co-opted members, that would not have taken away the responsibility of elected Members to vote on matters regardless of the advice of the non-voting, co-opted members. If the hon. Gentleman is now rejecting his former arguments, I invite him to intervene and say that he will oppose this amendment. I shall pursue my argument and then see what he has to say about it.
      First, to "delegate any function" to a member of staff is too wide-ranging a provision. Unlike co-option, the clause proposes to delegate actual activities to unelected members of staff. The way in which the clause is phrased ascribes real responsibility and real decision-making powers to people who have not been elected. That contrasts with the situation of co-opted members, who would not have the right to vote, but who would have the right to give advice. That was the core of our previous debate. To be even more specific, the clause does not include a description of what functions can be delegated. Theoretically, at least, anything we could imagine could be delegated to an unelected officer of the assembly.
      Secondly, there is no clarity about how such individuals could be seen by voters as being brought to book. As they would be employees rather than elected representatives, they would not have the same responsibility as elected Members to a constituency of support. If the hon. Member for Delyn wants to be consistent, he should support the amendment on the ground that he has been emphatic about his concern that even an assembly Committee with advice givers with no vote would be too strong a departure from responsibility being held by elected Members.
      The delegation of any function is non-democratic in the wider sense. Our discussion about co-option has clearly highlighted what certain Labour Members believe. More to the point, the discussion caused excitement and concern that non-voting individuals would have such huge influence, gravitas and sway over elected Members that it could pervert the course of democracy.
      If an officer is working on his own or in an unelected team, we do not need to suspect that he will make decisions—the clause overtly provides the authority for him to do so. That is not wrong in itself, but, as a democrat, I feel that it is dangerous to pursue that path because, inevitably, decisions will be made behind closed doors. No doubt, because of the high quality of staff, they will generally be good decisions, but the staff are not ultimately democratically accountable.
      My third concern is that with the planned committee structure, there is no need to prescribe the formal delegation of responsibilities to individual members of staff. I shall explain how a business would deal with delegation. The removal of the provision relating to delegation to staff would not mean that the elected Members would have to carry out all the work; it would mean that elected Members and Committees would be responsible for carrying the can for the outcome of any work that was carried out. That is not a subtle distinction; it is a profoundly important one. It means that the buck cannot be passed down to unelected officers if things go wrong. In other words, elected representatives would always be brought to book if things did not go according to plan. That would be common practice in business. If we want to have a businesslike assembly, we should follow that common practice.

      787
      The debate about co-option was interesting in underlining how all of us are committed to ensuring that democratic processes are not just carried out, but are seen to be carried out. It would be a matter of confidence for the public if they knew that the assembly could not, in theory, delegate wholesale the important decision-making functions to members of staff. In practice, there may be an element of scaremongering by those who suggest that the assembly would be so lazy as not to carry out or take responsibility for the functions carried out by staff. I do not think that that will happen, but there is no point in leaving a hostage to fortune in the wording of the Bill. That is why I tabled the amendment.
      Mr. Jenkin: We are inherently attracted to the amendment. We cannot understand why the assembly should be allowed to shuffle off its responsibilities on to unelected members of staff. I do not believe, although I stand to be corrected, that the Bill contains a definition of "staff'. Therefore, if we leave the Bill as it is, Parliament's intentions are far from clear.
      It is extraordinary that, after all the apparent clamouring for a Welsh assembly, no sooner will the assembly Members have all these responsibilities than they will want to hand them over to their members of staff. That is the implication in the Bill.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jenkin: I am always scared when I see a lawyer jumping up in front of me.
      Mr. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a whole range of mundane functions, such as employing people to repair the roof—to be topical—or to carry out all sorts of ancillary functions, that, on any common-sense view, need to be delegated to the staff? Does it not fly in the face of reality to say that there is strength in the amendment? The clause is purely an enabling measure.
      Mr. Jenkin: Although—unlike the hon. Gentleman—I am not a lawyer, I do not think that that is what the clause says. It does not say that mundane matters may be delegated to the assembly staff; it says that any function may be delegated. It is perfectly reasonable for assembly staff to act on behalf of elected Members, but it is quite another matter for functions to be delegated formally to staff.
      I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). Although we are being told that the assembly will provide an escape from the "quangocracy" that has dominated Welsh politics for too long, allowing such delegation would seem to take us in the wrong direction. Undoubtedly, however, the Minister will be able to give us a full and adequate explanation. I look forward to hearing his reply.
      8 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for moving the amendment, because it gives us a chance to explain exactly why the Bill makes such provision. As hon. Members know, delegation is the principal mechanism for distributing functions to
      788
      Committees and to individuals within the assembly. In central government, a principle of constitutional law—known as the Carltona principle—acknowledges that a Minister's functions can be performed on his or her behalf by duly authorised officials.
      In considering the assembly, however, the Government had some doubt about whether the Carltona principle would automatically apply in the new and novel circumstances of the National Assembly for Wales. Rather than leaving the matter to chance, we thought that we would include in the Bill a clause dealing with the daily management of government, at least as practised at Westminster.
      I should underline the fact that delegating a function to an official does not mean that the assembly Secretary or the assembly will not be responsible if something should go wrong. Some planning appeals provide a simple current example of how a Minister delegates a function. In certain well-defined circumstances, the Planning Inspectorate carries on with the job of dealing with the appeals, and the Minister does not get involved administratively in that part of the procedure.
      Clause 55 attempts only to ensure that there is a proper defence for executing government functions in Wales as they are executed in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The proposed provision is exactly the same as current provisions applying in the Welsh Office and in relationships between Ministers and civil servants. Responsibility will still rest with the assembly Secretaries or the assembly, and the clause will not permit any passing of the buck. I hope that that explanation of the clause's intention—to clarify the position and to remove a legal loophole—will persuade the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Öpik: The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) painted a graphic picture of assembly Members clambering across the roof to fix it—which would do wonders in improving the public image of politicians, and is perhaps the strongest argument in favour of passing the amendment. Nevertheless, the Minister has very helpfully defined the Government's intention in including the clause in the Bill. On that basis—despite the jangled nerves of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) in relation to democratic accountability; I hope that he will forgive me for assuming that his nerves have been calmed, as mine have—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 56 and 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 58

      EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
      Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 29, line 12, at end insert—
      '(3A) No function may be delegated to the Assembly First Secretary under subsection (3) above unless the executive committee (or the sub-committee, as the case may be) decides by no less than a two-thirds majority to make that delagation.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 198, in page 29, leave out lines 13 to 17.
      Mr. Livsey: The Bill would allow the Executive Committee to delegate any function to the First Secretary, in the same manner as it would delegate functions to staff members. We believe that that power is too wide-ranging and perhaps even dangerous. The amendment would prevent delegation to the First Secretary without a two thirds majority vote of the Executive Committee or of the Sub-Committee that is making the delegation. We think that the amendment would prevent one or two Members from deciding very narrowly to delegate functions to the First Secretary and that it would provide a necessary check.
      Mr. Letwin: Amendment No. 27 takes us back to our earlier debate on amendment No. 10A—specifically, amendment No. 31, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—and on the articulation of clause 57 with clause 58. I believe that the Liberal Democrats, in tabling amendment No. 27, are guilty of a certain incoherence. They may share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and Conservative Members the ambition—which they expressed earlier in the debate—of establishing a cabinet system rather than a committee system, but their amendment will not achieve that effect. Amendment No. 27 would clarify the model that I mentioned earlier in the debate, but it would not help in developing cabinet government.
      In the case of one Committee—the Executive Committee—no information has been vouchsafed in the Bill. The Executive Committee is quite the most remarkable Committee that 1 have come across in a piece of legislation. Its powers are entirely indistinct; it may have very great powers or very few powers. The matter will be left entirely to the Standing Orders.
      Although the Minister may correct me in his reply, I believe that it would be within the scope of the Standing Orders, as permitted by the Bill, to give the Executive Committee complete power. I can find in the Bill no checks on the Executive Committee. Let us imagine the extreme situation in which the Committee has been given complete power. It would be extraordinarily important to determine whether the Executive Committee could or could not delegate all its functions to the First Secretary, giving him plenary power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said, that would be a case of one man, one vote. The one man would be the First Secretary, who would vote for all on all occasions. It would be the extremity of autocracy.
      In a more moderate situation, in which powers have been delegated to a number of Committees and in which the Executive Committee has a defined remit that is not so great as complete power, limiting the Executive Committee's ability to delegate its powers to the First Secretary would make sense only if there were a series of coherent and parallel amendments ensuring that—by a two thirds majority, or by some other qualified majority—the other Committees could delegate their powers to their Secretaries.
      Under those circumstances, we would have a coherent Bill as opposed to a mess. The amendment would, indeed, make the Welsh assembly in some respects parallel to local government. The assembly would be governed by Committees, each in turn governed by proportional representation reflecting the composition of the assembly. One could envisage that officers would work for a
      790
      Committee as a whole, as in local government, and that decisions would be made on a rather muddled, but fairly transparent basis and with the guidance of officers, as in local government.
      If, on the contrary, the amendment is not accepted, we shall be in a muddle. One possible resolution of that muddle is to move in the opposite direction. We could have cabinet government, but of an extreme kind and without the accountability that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes rightly seeks to have installed in the Bill.
      This debate ought to give the Minister a chance to tell us what he so signally failed to tell us in response to the debate on an earlier set of amendments: in which direction the Government intend to go. Do they intend to establish Committees that will govern as Committees, with officers bringing forward matters for open discussion, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) suggested, or do they intend to create the opposite system, whereby power is delegated to individual Secretaries or to the First Secretary who will be able to govern without the slightest accountability? Alternatively, do they intend to create something for which the Bill does not provide—a middle course in which a set of people who are not accountable govern Wales? If the third option is what the Government intend, I hope that the Minister, in replying to this rather incoherent, but well-intentioned amendment, will try to come up with a middle course—a system of government for Wales which would be recognisable as effective and accountable.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The amendments give us the opportunity to reconsider delegation as a mechanism for distributing functions to Committees and individuals within the assembly and perhaps also to return to the earlier debate about the nature of the Executive Committee and the constraints on its powers—constraints that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) fears do not exist.
      The assembly is empowered to delegate functions to the Executive Committee. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 58 permit the Executive Committee further to delegate functions to the First Secretary, but subsection (4) makes it clear that the assembly can "limit or exclude" the Executive Committee's power to do that in a given case. The Executive Committee does not have a wholly untrammelled right to pass up powers to the First Secretary. The assembly as a whole has a constraining power.
      Amendment No. 27 would limit the Executive Committee's ability to delegate to the First Secretary in the first place by requiring a two thirds majority to approve any such delegation. As the hon. Member for West Dorset pointed out, there is a contradiction in that amendment No. 198 would remove the assembly's powers to prevent or limit the delegation of a particular function to the First Secretary. We cannot accept either amendment. Amendment No. 27 would place a wholly artificial constraint on the Executive Committee's power to delegate, whereas our approach is to enable the assembly to develop flexibly to meet the new circumstances that it will face. I remind the Committee that clause 70 explicitly provides for the First Secretary to be held to account through questions, so there is no possibility of the unaccountable delegation of power.

      791
      8.15 pm
      In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for West Dorset was much exercised about the First Secretary's being able to legislate, as he put it, without any constraints. The hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, in fact considering the exercise of Executive functions, but I point out to him that clause 65(2) requires subordinate legislation to be approved by the assembly.
      Clause 66(2)(a) allows for approval by the assembly to be waived if the Executive Committee determines that in particular circumstances it is not reasonably practicable to seek assembly approval. That is a very specific and narrow remit. If that were done, clause 66(3) allows Members within 40 days to move a resolution that the subordinate legislation be revoked. Therefore, there are already a number of checks and balances within the legislation, even if powers are delegated from the Executive Committee to the First Secretary. The assembly is clearly always in control and could take steps to revoke an action or call the First Secretary to account.
      Mr. Letwin: What the Minister has just said is very helpful. Much of his argument hangs on clause 65(2), but how wide is the scope of that clause intended to be? For example, would it prohibit the Secretary of a Committee or, in this case, the First Secretary from issuing a circular under the powers that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has in England and which in Wales lie with the Secretary of State for Wales, and which will, therefore, have been delegated under the transfer order powers? Would it prevent him from issuing a circular or from making discretionary judgments about expenditures, or would it merely prevent him from bringing forward and enacting orders without taking them to the full assembly? If it would simply prevent the latter, would he simply have to do what is done in this House when an order is subjected to the affirmative or negative resolution? If that is the only check—that is, if the First Secretary or the Secretary of a Committee could take matters to the point of laying orders, often subjecting them only to a negative resolution—the democratic check that the Minister is claiming exists is very slight.
      Mr. Griffiths: I was replying specifically to the issue that the hon. Gentleman had raised earlier and with which I was not able to deal in the context of that debate because of the time constraint. The First Secretary will not have a free hand in terms of subordinate legislation because it requires the approval of the assembly.
      I have to say that I do not believe that a circular is subordinate legislation. Nevertheless, I find it hard to see the First Secretary, having had delegated to him from the Executive Committee the power to issue a circular, issuing circulars that would properly be the domain of the assembly's subject Committees. If that sort of delegation were to happen, the only fallback would be for the assembly to call the First Secretary to account if it believed that that circular was improper or that it provided advice of which the assembly did not approve. The assembly would, therefore, still have a check on the power of the First Secretary under any Executive Committee delegations to him.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to ask a further and final question. Does he agree that
      792
      the Bill places no limit on the items that can be delegated to the Executive Committee? Although he does not suppose that the power of circular—which might be widely used, not just in matters of education, and might have behind it the power of expenditure—will be delegated to the Executive Committee rather than to a subject Committee, does he accept that it is possible because there is no limit on what can be delegated to the Executive Committee?
      Mr. Griffiths: Yes. Technically, under the provisions of the Bill it could happen. However, the hon. Member for West Dorset should ask himself to what extent any politician in any assembly or parliament would be likely willingly to delegate everything upwards through an Executive Committee to one person. In the real world, that is not likely to happen. Even if it did, the assembly would still have the power to call the First Secretary to book and to make changes if the entire assembly disapproved of any decision. In that respect, we can be quite clear that the assembly has a check on the power of the First Secretary.
      Amendment No. 198 would prevent the assembly from limiting or excluding delegation to the First Secretary in any given case. It seems to go in the opposite direction. It might well be appropriate for a particularly controversial matter, such as a major town and country planning order, not be delegated to an individual for decision, as is the case now when the Secretary of State can call in an application of enormous significance. We would not want to prevent the assembly or any planning Committee from being able to consider such an issue rather than referring it to the First Secretary. Under subsection (4), the assembly has the right to limit delegation. That is important to cover certain specific controversial points. I hope that, having heard those explanations, the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Livsey: I thank the Minister for his explanation which was sincere and meticulous. His answers to the probing questions from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made us realise that there were more than superficial powers controlling the First Secretary in respect of the Executive Committee. However, we must realise that the Executive Committee will be an extremely powerful body in the assembly.
      The debate has enabled us to find out more about the powers of the Executive Committee, the checks and balances in relation to the First Secretary and the lines of accountability. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 60

      MEMBERS OF SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ETC.
      Mr. Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 364, in page 30, line 3, at end insert
      'but that number shall not be less than eight.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 365, in clause 61, page 30, line 22, at end insert
      'but that number shall not be less than eight.'.
      Mr. Öpik: The amendments seek to set a minimum number of eight Members for the Scrutiny Committee and the Audit Committee, which have to be seen as fair and equitable. It is vital that no one can question their integrity, so it seems sensible to set a minimum number of members of those two Committees—we suggest eight—as that would guarantee sufficient debate among a cross section of assembly Members to ensure that justice is done. There is never a watertight guarantee of that, but we can be pretty certain that if the Welsh people vote sensibly, a selection of eight assembly Members will be a reasonable reassurance to one and all that the Committees act responsibly and fairly. That is the purpose of the amendments and we very much look forward to the Minister's response.
      Mr. Jenkin: We believe that the principle of setting a minimum number of members of the Audit Committee is a good one. We are open to persuasion as to whether the number should be eight, but it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why he has not suggested that there should be a minimum number.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Clause 60 provides for the establishment by the assembly of a subordinate legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose function it will be to consider the vires of any proposed assembly order or to draw attention to any unusual use of the order-making power. Clause 61 provides for the establishment of an assembly Audit Committee, which will work closely with the newly created Auditor General for Wales. Each of those important Committees will be chaired by a member of one of the Opposition parties in the assembly. Each will have a membership reflecting the overall composition of the assembly. The Bill proposes that the actual number of members of each Committee should be provided for in Standing Orders. The amendments suggest a minimum of eight.
      The Government have no objection in principle to the Scrutiny Committee and the Audit Committee having eight or more members, but we do not consider it necessary to put a minimum number of eight on the face of the Bill. Taking account of the debate this evening and the fact that, in principle, the Government do not object to a minimum of eight members, it would be more sensible not to include that number in the Bill as there may be a later move to re-order matters and the Standing Orders provide more flexibility.
      It is more important that both Committees will be chaired by members of Opposition parties. When one considers the need to maintain a balance between the parties, it is clear that eight would be the absolute minimum. In practice, the figure is likely to be higher. We believe that the matter should be decided under the Standing Orders and, given the Government's view, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Öpik: It sounds from the Minister's response that he is not planning a cabal. That is encouraging. On the
      794
      assumption that the first assembly is likely to set a precedent or an etiquette in respect of the number of members on the Committees, we feel wholly satisfied with the Minister's response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 61

      AUDIT COMMITTEE
      Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 401, in page 30, line 19, after second 'the', insert 'Financial'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 402, in page 30, line 20, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Assembly shall establish a committee to be known as the Environmental Audit Committee.'.
      No. 403, in page 30, line 21, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.
      No. 404, in page 30, line 23, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.
      No. 405, in page 30, line 26, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.
      No. 406, in page 30, line 28, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.
      No. 407, in page 30, line 29, after third 'the', insert 'Financial'.
      No. 408, in page 30, line 31, at end insert—
      '(5A) The Assembly shall elect one of the members of the Environmental Audit Committee to chair the Committee but a member who represents the largest party in the Assembly may not chair it.'.
      No. 409, in page 30, line 33, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.
      No. 410, in page 30, line 34, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.
      No. 411, in page 30, line 34, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.
      No. 415, in clause 73, page 36, line 15, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.
      Mr. Dafis: I must be very quick. I simply ask the Minister to respond to the idea of establishing an Environmental Audit Committee in the assembly. The Government are committed to sustainable development and have established an Environmental Audit Select Committee in the House. They regard it as a key mechanism to ensure that environmental policies are delivered across Departments. I hope that the Minister can respond quickly.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already told the House that, in accordance with the White Paper, he will bring forward an amendment on sustainable development. He has also asked the National Assembly advisory group to consider an Environmental Audit Committee because he has received representations on

      795
      that. Given our positive view on sustainability and the request to the advisory group, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Dafis rose—
      It being half-past Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 62

      REGIONAL COMMITTEES
      Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 12A, in page 30, leave out lines 36 and 37.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 90, in page 30, line 36, leave out from 'establish' to end of line 2 on page 31 and insert—
      'five regional committees for each of the five regions of Wales.
      (2) The areas comprising each of the five regions shall be determined from time to time by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales.'.
      No. 13A, in page 30, line 38, leave out 'also'.
      No. 14A, in page 30, line 38, leave out 'other'.
      No. 15A, in page 30, line 39, after 'Wales', insert
      ', listed in subsection (3) below,'.
      No. 17A, in page 30, line 41, leave out from 'constitute' to end of line 1 on page 31 and insert
      'North Wales, Mid Wales, West Wales and South East Wales'.
      Mr. Livsey: These are some of the most important amendments for debate tonight. They refer to the regions of the assembly. No offence is meant to north Wales by our proposal in amendment No. 12A to leave out reference to it. Our aim, expressed in amendment No. 17A, is to have four regions of Wales—north, mid, west and south-east. We want to restructure the Regional Committees. That is necessary to ensure inclusivity throughout Wales. Every region of Wales must feel that it is included in the running of the assembly and that it has a part to play.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: The four areas that the hon. Gentleman has referred to have different populations. Would not the mid-Wales Committee be exceptionally small? It would have only Powys and Ceredigion and would be unbalanced.
      Mr. Livsey: As a Member for a mid-Wales constituency, I cannot accept that view. Powys alone runs for 132 miles—equivalent to the distance from the Severn bridge to Hammersmith flyover. On top of that there is
      796
      Ceredigion. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), but the Development Board for Rural Wales considers his constituency to be part of that area as well.
      The population is not evenly spread throughout Wales. There has to be redress, because some areas are very rural—more rural than anywhere else in Great Britain below the highland line in Scotland. There are special needs of geography.
      The Liberal Democrats want the four Regional Committees to have the right to provide the assembly with advice about their region and to take on powers delegated from the assembly. We want to remove all references to north Wales, not because we want to be unkind to north Wales but because we want to put all the regions in the Bill and have fair play for the other regions to establish an inclusive assembly.
      The Bill establishes Committees for north Wales and the regions and states that they may provide advice, but it does not specify where they will be. It provides that Standing Orders will be used to determine the regions; we want to go further and specify them. Why is north Wales mentioned when none of the other regions are? We realise that it might have been felt that the people of north Wales were left out of the referendum process. We are sure that that was not the case, but there was a specific reference to reassure the people of north Wales that they would be included.
      The proposals in the Bill could stigmatise the north and suggest that it is inferior to the south. Of course it is nothing of the sort, but the proposals are not good for the north and make other forgotten regions, such as mid-Wales, even more forgotten. We do not want that. That is why we want to omit the references to north Wales.
      Amendment No. 90, tabled by the Conservatives, has some good points. It would remove references to north Wales and introduce five regions. We would support that, but the amendment would also remove the right of the regions to provide advice to the assembly about the area. We cannot support the amendment because of that provision.
      To have real teeth, the Regional Committees should be able to have responsibilities delegated from the assembly. We want local accountability, subsidiarity and true devolution. We want to bring devolution home to the regions of Wales.
      Our proposals are particularly relevant to the difference between rural issues and urban issues. How can a majority of south Wales urban Members take sensible decisions about rural affairs that affect mid-Wales and north Wales? Such debates need to be informed. Amendment No. 16A would help. It is important that Regional Committees should meet in the regions. Local matters should be considered as near as possible to the affected area.
      The amendments deal with many issues. We feel strongly that the regions of Wales should be defined so that they can participate in the whole and make a worthwhile contribution to a successful Welsh assembly and the successful government of Wales. People should feel involved in the decision-making process.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: The clause goes back to the dark days of the summer, when the

      797
      devolution project was doing very badly in opinion polls in the north. The White Paper made specific mention of north Wales only. It was a clear plug to keep the doubting north Wales voter on side and an acknowledgement that the project was not going well in the north. The referendum result showed that the Government were right. Only Gwynedd and Anglesey voted for devolution.
      I live on the border and have relations near Wrexham. My experience is that those real doubts still exist. There is real concern in the north that the assembly will be dominated by the south. [Interruption.] Would the Secretary of State like to intervene? No. In the markets of Oswestry and Wrexham, there is no demand for a switch of governmental powers from Westminster to the south of Wales. That is a fact and it is acknowledged by the Secretary of State, whose razor-sharp mind is now being applied to the drafting of the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has time and again proved how badly the Bill has been drafted. That may be because the Secretary of State has been distracted. He has had to put out a bush fire in his constituency party concerning the manner in which the referendum was conducted. He has also been scouring estate agents' windows in south Wales for a suitable site for the assembly.
      It is the job of us in opposition, stuck in the trenches, to try to come up with a Bill that will work. The relic of the White Paper in clause 62 cannot be left as it is. It is woolly, vague and typical of the general muddle of the Bill. Amendment No. 90 clearly states that there should be five regions. These would be roughly equal in size of electorate to the European constituencies, which vary from 17.9 per cent. of the Welsh electorate to about 21.6 per cent.
      I hope that that will satisfy the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams), who rightly criticised the Liberal Democrats' amendment—No. 17A—which proposes four uneven regions. The regions that we propose would also give some framework to the additional Members, who are bouncing around without any clear framework in which to work.
      Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Paterson: I would be delighted to.
      Mr. Liwyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted when I have finished my intervention.
      Is the hon. Gentleman honestly suggesting that a Committee should cover an area the size of the Wales Mid and West European constituency—from Eglwysbach, which is three miles from Llandudno, to Llanelli on the south Wales coast? Is he seriously telling the Committee that that is an adequate boundary?
      Mr. Paterson: That is exactly the boundary that will be used for the election of regional list Members, which I understand the hon. Gentleman's party supports.
      We should return to the ordinary Welsh voter who has a problem and wants it solved. The Secretary of State and I have discussed the matter in the Welsh Affairs Committee, but not to my satisfaction. Let us consider a project that could involve substantial inward investment—possibly from a European business—but could cause potential long-term environmental problems.
      798
      Does the voter go to his district councillor; does he go to his directly elected assembly man; does he go to the party hack—the additional Member—who is elected on the proportional list; does he go to his Member of Parliament, who will not be overtaxed by work once the assembly is set up; does he go to his Member of the European Parliament; or does he go to the great panjandrum himself, the Secretary of State, who will also be short of things to do once the assembly is set up? It is not clear. The rules have not been laid down. I particularly dislike the Liberal Democrat amendment, which adds yet more confusion to the muddle by proposing four areas, as opposed to the five that we propose.
      The ordinary voter has to pay the bill, yet there is not a hint of what the Regional Committees will cost. There is not a whiff of how they will operate. The matter is left to the Standing Orders. I would like some information from the Minister—otherwise, the proposals are a pig in a poke. We want the Regional Committees to work, but we would like to be able to tell the people of Wales what they will cost and how they will work. In the meantime, the Bill would be immeasurably improved if the House accepted our amendment No. 90.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I warmly welcome the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and congratulate him on his sojourn on the Front Bench. I do not know whether it is intended that another barrel be added to the gun that has been firing intermittently from the Ribble Valley. We shall have to see whether North Shropshire can meet the firepower requirements, which so far have not served the Opposition Benches well. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not get off to quite the start that I expected, given the confusion he showed while speaking to amendment No. 90 and commenting on those tabled by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey).
      Clause 62 requires the assembly to establish Regional Committees of an advisory character for all parts of Wales, but specifically one for north Wales. North Wales was specifically highlighted because concerns were identified from the start that north Wales felt isolated from Wales as a whole. In order to show that the Government were determined that north Wales would be an integral and full player in the National Assembly for Wales, we specifically suggested a North Wales Committee. There will be Regional Committees in other parts of Wales. We have left the advisory group to suggest the configuration which would make most sense politically, economically and socially.
      Mr. Paterson: The Minister has not addressed the problem that people in north Wales are worried that the assembly will be weighted towards south Wales. If we leave the division of the Regional Committee areas to the assembly, south Wales will have the final say. That is the concern in north Wales.
      Mr. Griffiths: I fail to see how the configuration of two, three or four Regional Committees in the rest of Wales can have any significant bearing on the role of an Advisory Committee in north Wales. We identified specifically a part of Wales which should be most definitely recognised as a region with an Advisory

      799
      Committee of its own. For the rest of Wales, where the matter was not so clear, we felt that it would be best to consult on the boundaries.
      Amendment No. 90 suggests that we should use the European constituency boundaries, which have a political role given the election of people on the additional Member list. We do not see any necessity to be constrained by that political situation when trying to make sense of the economic and social needs of Wales. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out that to use the European constituency of Wales Mid and West would create a regional advisory Committee for almost all of west Wales—from north to south.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) display an ignorance that is extraordinary even for somebody who purports to be the nearest thing the Conservative party has to a Welsh Tory?
      Mr. Griffiths: That is a burden the hon. Member for North Shropshire has to bear. He is obviously cracking up under the strain.
      All the north Wales Members of Parliament campaigned for the National Assembly and they clearly felt that there was a positive aspect to having a Regional Committee for north Wales.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Recalling the debate on the Floor of the House on the boundary commission report that led to the creation of the five current Euro-constituencies, on which the most recent Euro-elections, in 1994, were fought, can my hon. Friend confirm that, whereas coherence is a desideratum in boundary commission reports, it is only a secondary desideratum to trying to achieve an equal population in each region, whereas, in any committee structure that we devise, coherence must come first and population equality would be only a subsidiary consideration?
      Mr. Griffiths: I can confirm that my hon. Friend is correct on that point. The report resulted in much heart-searching in political parties in Wales about how best to configure the Euro-constituencies, bearing in mind the population requirements and the fact that, perhaps for other reasons, the boundaries that were chosen were not ideal. The advisory group will consider what the best configuration of regional advisory Committee boundaries in Wales will be.
      We need to bear in mind—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy did not mention it this time, but he has in the past—the local debate that is going on about the way in which his constituency and local authority area should be located for these purposes.
      The advisory group will be able to consider these issues, take advice from around Wales and come up with a proposal that can be debated more widely. Eventually, the commission that is established will be able to make formal proposals to the assembly. I think it is best for us to await its conclusions.
      Mr. Llwyd: The Minister mentioned my constituency. Can he confirm that the commission will not be bound
      800
      solely by counting the population in each area, which would do a disservice to the process? As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) just said, in some areas, due to geographical factors, life is quite difficult and different from that in, for example, a valley area. I hope that the commission will have the widest possible remit to allow it to come up with the best possible answer.
      Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it will have a wide remit. We would not want to make population a primary consideration, but obviously that can be considered alongside all the other issues that can make most sense out of where the boundaries of the Regional Committees should be.
      I hope that the amendments—with the agreement of the Committee—can be withdrawn. Let us see what conclusions the advisory group reaches; then we can debate on them.
      Mr. Livsey: I think that the Minister should know that, in parts of Wales, there is extremely strong feeling on the subject of Regional Committees. I understand that he is saying that the advisory group will devote time and effort to try to define the regions more satisfactorily than, for example, the Euro-constituencies are now defined.
      I would not have welcomed the idea of the five regions in amendment No. 90 if I had known that that meant the Euro-constituencies because, as has been said, the Wales Mid and West Euro-constituency has an extraordinary geography. It stretches from one end of Wales to the other, encompassing not only the western seaboard but mid-Wales and the eastern boundary with England. I know not how we got it, but it covers a vast area of Wales.
      Especially among the agriculture community, given recent events, people are aware of the benefits of a Welsh assembly. They believe that, if the Regional Committees of the assembly represent an area that means something to them, the assembly may have the germs of some of the solutions that are needed to tackle the huge economic problems of the agriculture community. They believe that, in those circumstances, the assembly may ensure the maintenance of the structure of farms and the farming community and that resources to the agriculture community will not be reduced if there is a transfer of resources from production support to environmental schemes, for example. People want those matters to be debated in the Welsh assembly.
      People in some parts of Wales also want the Regional Committees of a Welsh assembly to allay the fears that a south Wales-based assembly would take away some decision-making powers from them; their fear that they cannot contribute adequately to the efficient and effective running of their region within Wales; and their fear that they cannot contribute as well as they might to the running of a Welsh assembly. The assembly must be a sensitive body because of the great variety of regions in Wales, it is very important that people feel included in the process.
      I believe that people will be persuaded that they are included in the process if they are given genuinely meaningful Regional Committees within the assembly and if those Committees can take decisions in the region instead of in the assembly building, far away. They need

      801
      to be connected to the assembly. We believe that to be extremely important and I believe that I would let down people in some parts of Wales if I did not press the amendment to a vote.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 16A, in page 30, line 40, after 'region', insert
      'and carry out any of the functions which the Assembly has delegated to the regional committees following a majority vote of Assembly members.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 67, in page 31, line 14, at end insert—
      '(7) Each regional committee shall hold regular meetings at a location in the region which the committee represents.'.
      Mr. Livsey: Amendment No. 16A is the amendment that refers to the meetings of the Regional Committees within the regions of the assembly. I made that point—I beg your pardon, Mr. Martin—in my summing-up just now, and I should have made it as a separate proposal that meetings take place in a region.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: We have debated clause 62, providing for the establishment of Regional Committees in all parts of Wales, and it might be said that amendments Nos. 16A and 67 try to provide a little icing on the cake.
      Amendment No. 67, the principle of which we have no problem with, is unnecessary. Again, I ask the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) to imagine the members of the Regional Committee not opting to hold regular Committee meetings in their region. Of course, there may be times when they will want to hold a meeting at the assembly building, whether it is in Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham, Abercynon, or even Bridgend. I believe that Bridgend has proposed five sites. There are plenty of places where the assembly may meet, and the Regional Committees of the assembly may, because of pressing and urgent business, want to hold a meeting there from time to time. However, we believe that the Regional Committees will want to meet in their regions, and that there is no need to specify that in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 16A provides for Regional Committees to have executive functions. That clearly goes beyond the advisory and representational responsibilities that we envisage for those bodies and which were envisaged in the White Paper. Local government will have its own functions and decision making at the local level. The National Assembly for Wales is a strategic body looking at the whole of Wales. The Regional Committees are designed to enable the regions to feed back specific advice to the Welsh assembly when it makes its decisions.
      We invite the Committee to reject amendment No. 16A, because it goes beyond what was envisaged in the White Paper, and to reject amendment No. 67, because we believe that all the Regional Committees will want to meet regularly in their regions anyway, so there is no need to specify that in the Bill.
      9 pm
      Mr. Livsey: We thought that the functions of the Committees should be stronger in the regions. The Minister dealt with that in his response. Perhaps there
      802
      should have been more emphasis on the matter in the Bill, but I accept what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 400, in page 30, line 40, at end insert—
      '(2A) A committee established under this section may nominate persons for membership of any non—departmental public body mentioned in Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 and of which the responsibilities lie wholly or partly within the geographical area covered by the committee.'.
      We are somewhat concerned about the role of the regional dimension in Wales. If we are to fill what is perceived as a partial vacuum in regional terms, we believe that assembly Members should have a specific, constructive and reasonably full job to do in their regions, as well as in Wales as a whole.
      The rationale behind the establishment of the assembly comes in part from the problem of dealing with the quangos. We heard about that in earlier debates today. That is undoubtedly an important aspect of the role that the people of Wales see for the assembly. Some quangos can be abolished entirely, as is the case with Tai Cymru if it is to be subsumed into the assembly. Others, such as the Arts Council, may remain at arm's length.
      There remains the question of how we are to deal with the lack of democracy in some of the regional quangos. That does not seem to be addressed in the Bill as drafted. Let us consider, for example, the health service in Wales and the health trusts. Either we should move forward, as we would like, to make the health service fully democratically answerable within its area, but that lies way beyond the scope of the Bill; or at the very least, there ought to be a specific attempt to ensure some democratic input into the health service, not just on the all-Wales level, but in bodies such as the North Wales health authority and health authorities for other parts of Wales, if they are to continue to exist.
      A few months ago, in the autumn, I attended a public meeting that takes place once a year of the community health trust in my area. There were eight members of the trust, four with specialist knowledge from the health service, and four lay people who had been made quango members of the trust. I am certain that the vast majority of my constituents had not the remotest clue who those members were. I have no doubt that the trust members were doing an honourable job according to their lights, and that they were asking questions at the appropriate time, but there was no direct access from the electorate to the members of the trust. The electorate could get at officers, of course, but not at people who were supposed to be there as the long stop on behalf of the public.
      Given that in north-west Wales there will be four assembly
      Members,it seemed Obvious that if those four slots were available,they could go to their elected assembly Member
      And take up matters that could be followed through in the meeting of the trust. Equally,one could appoint Members to the health authority for the whole of north Wales.
      I realise that Minister have considered the matter and decided that there may be some difficulty with regard to the health authority being answerable to the assembly

      803
      centrally. I recognise that answerability, but there is also a day-to-day answerability for the detailed functions in the area itself—the sort of problems that we encounter in our constituency surgeries, such as difficulties in getting a booking for time in the hospital, or difficulties with the services provided by a trust. Those could be answered on a local level, with no need to go to the all-Wales level.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to be sure that I understand the construction that I should put on the wording of the amendment. Is the right hon. Gentleman in effect saying that the Regional Committee of elected Members shall form the non-executive directors of the trust or the health authority, or is he saying that they shall offer people for nomination whom they know well and who can therefore be seen to be indirectly accountable to them? There is a crucial difference between the two.
      Mr. Wigley: We had explored the possibility of the Committee taking over that role, but that would entail a major change to primary health legislation. I can see arguments for that, but, if we are going that far, we should democratise the entire structure of health care in a different way from that for which the Bill provides.
      Our idea was that nominations should come from among elected Members. I realise that there may be a deficiency in the wording of the amendment in that respect. The present nomination process is rather vague. I do not know how it will continue, once the assembly has come into existence. The regional body should be responsible for that, and the elected Members should go through to provide at least some elected link to public bodies.
      The proposal may not be necessary or appropriate for many of the bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4. They may not have a dimension into which elected Members would easily fit. Nevertheless, some of those bodies do operate on a regional basis in Wales; one thinks of the Welsh Development Agency—
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Or the TECs.
      Mr. Wigley: Yes, although they are not listed in the schedules. Perhaps the Bill could be amended later to include them. In any case, there must be better accountability at the regional level, as well as better democracy for the whole of Wales.
      The Minister may reply to the debate by saying that the power we seek already exists. If so, well and good. If, however, the Minister says that this is not regarded as a suitable job for the regional bodies set up under the assembly, how will some democratic legitimacy be achieved?
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), I am still not quite sure whether the amendment is intended to enable members of the Regional Committees to nominate representatives from among themselves to health authorities, trusts and other regional quangos; or whether it is intended that they should nominate other people who they feel are particularly suited to the jobs.
      Mr. Wigley: The amendment is intended to cover a range of circumstances under schedules 3 and 4.
      804
      We certainly hoped for nominations to the health trusts and TECs from among the elected regional Members themselves. Schedules 3 and 4, however, contain quite a mixture of bodies on which there may be a slot for only one person with specialist knowledge from a particular region of Wales to serve as a member—possibly a United Kingdom body. Some semblance of answerability to an elected regional body would, in our view, produce better democratic links.
      The purpose of the amendment was to allow elected Members of the regional body to take over at least some responsibility and to be a conduit for public accountability on those bodies. The regional bodies could put forward the names of specialists to serve on some of the specialist bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4. Therefore, the amendment covers both options.
      Perhaps the Government have a different vision of how the plethora of quangos in schedules 3 and 4 can be more responsive to the regions. If so, I shall be glad to hear about it. I hope that the amendment may tease out of the Government how they see things developing.
      Dr. Marek: I would advise the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to be cautious. We should try to avoid amendments that would make the Bill even more detailed or intricate, thus trammelling the assembly even more. I should prefer a Bill more along the lines of the Scotland Bill, with its permissive powers. That is not what we have; we have another style of Bill. As it is, we are creating a fairly tight-fitting corset for the assembly, and it would be wrong to make it any tighter—
      Mr. Wigley: I, too, would prefer the broad-brush approach of the Scotland Bill, but the wording in the amendment is "may nominate". There is no specific responsibility to do so. We are trying to remove an uncertainty that would otherwise exist.
      Dr. Marek: I accept that. Secondly, we do not want the assembly—perish the thought—to be a local council, in which one councillor says, "I don't want you interfering in the planning decision on my agricultural bungalow; and in return, I won't mess with your patch." We must not allow that to happen. If we allow Regional Committees to decide these issues, we may descend—this is the danger—into a glorified county council.
      This will be the National Assembly for Wales. Decisions must be taken by the assembly. A possible halfway house would allow the Regional Committees to suggest names and the assembly to nominate on the advice of the Regional Committees. I would not object to that, but ultimately the appointments must be for the assembly.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I am pleased that we have had a short debate on the amendment. When it began, I thought that I knew what the purpose of the amendment was, but, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke, I began to entertain one or two doubts.
      The amendment would give the Regional Committees nomination rights in respect of public appointments to quangos. I had thought that the amendment's intention—the right hon. Gentleman agreed that it could be so understood—was to give the Regional Committee the right to nominate people to serve on the quangos

      805
      listed in schedules 3 and 4 and on regional or local quangos, such as health authorities and trusts. In that context, the amendment is unnecessary. Anyone can nominate a person for a non-departmental public body in Wales. The post may be advertised, and there is a proper procedure to ensure that the people with the best experience and qualifications are appointed. The Regional Committee will be able to nominate people who, although not elected Members of the assembly, are felt to be particularly suitable either as representatives of north Wales on quangos that operate solely within north Wales, or as the voice of north Wales on a national quango. That will happen without the amendment.
      9.15 pm
      I come to the idea that members of the Regional Committee could decide that, to increase democratic accountability, one of their number should serve on a quango. For example, someone who had previously worked as a GP in the health service might be thought suitable to be a member of a trust or health authority. Unfortunately, those non-executive directorships will be regarded—according to the rules that also currently apply to Members of this House—as offices of profit under the Crown, and such people will not be eligible to serve on the health authority or trust.
      The issue is being reviewed in the context of the National Assembly for Wales. We are still considering disqualification and the posts for which elected Members of the assembly may be eligible. Given that, and because, under current legislation, Members of the Assembly will be disqualified from being members of health authorities and trusts anyway, I hope that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Wigley: I shall respond briefly. I was intrigued by the way in which the mists of incomprehension surrounded the amendment when I spoke earlier. I hope that I do not always have that effect.
      I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Obviously, I accept that anyone can make a nomination under the procedures, but the intention of the amendment was to go further. I noted that the Minister said that elected Members of the Assembly would not be able to serve on such bodies unless disqualification rules were changed. He said that the Government were considering that, and I hope that the change can be made, so that flexibility can be built into the procedures. In one way or another, quangos need to have greater local accountability.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was worried that Members of the Assembly would become involved in local government matters. That is the last thing that I want. There may be a way in which some of those bodies can be democratised through local government, but that is not proposed in the Bill. As I understand it, the regional quangos will remain after the assembly is up and running; the Bill contains nothing to democratise them.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the health trusts are currently being re-examined and there are likely to be fewer when that process is
      806
      completed. He must recognise also that the creation of a National Assembly, with far greater scope to scrutinise the quangos that exist in Wales, will herald a new era of democratic accountability.
      Mr. Wigley: I accept that entirely on an all-Wales level. I hope that many quangos will be abolished and I hope that there will be much better scrutiny of those quangos that remain, as well as better accountability on an all-Wales level. I do not dispute that point.
      However, my question relates to regional Wales. The trusts are being reviewed at the moment, but unless the Minister foresees an all-Wales acute trust and an all-Wales community trust—heaven forbid, that would be centralisation rather than decentralisation—there will be some regional bodies. There may be a different configuration, but regional bodies will continue to exist in Wales. As far as I know, the brief given to the health authorities undertaking the review does not include the question of how they may be made more democratically accountable.
      We have a solution on the all-Wales level, and no doubt there will be a role for local authorities at the local level. However, on the regional level—which the Bill recognises the necessity of addressing by creating regional bodies in Wales comprising elected assembly members—the legislation is afraid to allow elected Members to be involved in creating a democratic mechanism for regional quangos.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I said earlier that we were still examining issues relating to disqualification that currently prevent Members of the Assembly from playing any role whatsoever. We accept that there is a need to strengthen democratic accountability. That may be achieved by moving from the position whereby the Welsh Office, with the Secretary of State and two Ministers, has responsibility for all those matters, to the point where a democratically elected 60-Member assembly assumes that responsibility. That will enable the assembly to scrutinise those bodies more closely. I suggest also that Regional Committees will be able to examine what is happening in their regions and make recommendations and provide advice upon which the National Assembly may act appropriately.
      Mr. Wigley: We are now starting to tease out some of the responses that I had hoped for. In other words, the Minister is beginning to understand our assertion that elected assembly Members can play a legitimate role regionally in order to keep an eye on regional quangos.
      The Minister said that the Government are still considering how the process will work and are willing to contemplate changing the disqualification rules to allow freedom of action. In that way, the assembly may be able to move down the road in a manner that it deems to be appropriate. I want to ensure that that course of action is not ruled out. We must consider the legitimate question of regional democracy in Wales. Members of the Assembly may be able to contribute to improving

      807
      answerability and scrutiny of regional quangos. That point has been made. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak during the stand part debate because clause 62 goes much wider than the amendments that we have discussed so far. Indeed, the clause is central to the success of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) moved an amendment regarding the number of regions, and I congratulate him on his maiden voyage from the Opposition Front Bench. I assure him that it is a compliment to be savaged by the Minister—the only person I know who can waffle while reading an official brief.
      In all seriousness, we are unhappy with the clause as it stands and with Regional Committees as they are proposed. We made that clear in the aftermath of the referendum and implied it in our reasoned amendment. The problem must be addressed if we are not to create yet another democratic deficit that, in the long term, could undermine the success of the assembly.
      The Minister said that the proposal for north Wales was to make the Committees full players. I am not sure what definition he gives to "players". The clause merely creates Advisory Committees, which are hardly players in other than the most remote sense. We are faced with a sop to the real concerns expressed by the people of Wales in the divided result of the referendum vote.
      The Regional Committees will be unable to initiate anything. They will have no ability to oppose or veto anything and they will have no Executive authority. Under any definition of talking shops, those Regional Committees would be included. Only the directly elected Members in the region are guaranteed a place on them. The rest will be elected by the assembly, so the geographical or numerical majority in the assembly could effectively dictate who else gets on the Regional Committees. If there are no directly elected Members for any parties in Wales, it could be decided that those parties could have no representation on the Committees. That is the dangerous power that the clause will create.
      There is no protection against permanent geographical discrimination. The clause is purely cosmetic. It creates a democratic deficit that, if not addressed, will cause problems. I regret that my amendment No. 300 was so technically deficient that it could not be selected for debate. That was entirely my fault. I shall try to adjust it so that it can be retabled on Report, when I hope that it may be selected. The amendment covers one of the areas that we have been discussing—our desire to see a representative of each of the Regional Committees on the Executive Committee as a full member who has been mandated by his or her regional peers to represent the interests of the regions in the centre of what will be the decision-making process.
      808
      I know that this will be somewhat uncomfortable for those who see the proposed Executive Committee as a cosy arrangement. However, in terms of giving a real voice to the regions of Wales, I think that we are making an important suggestion, and I hope that we can return to it. It would give a greater power to the Regional Committees than just the responsibility of providing advice.
      On the day after the referendum, the Prime Minister said in Downing street that the Government would take on board the fears expressed in the vote. There is no doubt that that vote was regionalised. A Labour Member said earlier in our consideration of the Bill, rather significantly, that the effect of the vote had been to move Offa's dyke westward. Against that background, we looked for change in the clause as against the White Paper, to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise that some means would be produced of addressing the fears that had been expressed in the referendum vote. However, there is nothing new to be found in the clause. Indeed, there is nothing in the clause that can offer any comfort.
      We feel that there should be greater regional protection even than that which would be achieved by putting a member of each Regional Committee on to the Executive Committee. I should like to see regional powers of veto over certain decisions where demographic and geographic majorities can hold a perpetual sway in the absence of such a veto. We shall seek to introduce such a veto and such a power in a new clause, if it is selected.
      In the absence of any of the arrangements that I have outlined, the clause represents a deceit on the people of Wales. It promises much, but in practice it will achieve almost nothing. The issue is central to all that we have been saying since the referendum. It is a matter to which we shall wish to return both in the House of Commons and, if necessary, in another place.
      Mr. Livsey: I cannot agree with much that was said by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Many of his remarks were divisive. None the less, I am sure that the Minister will take on board the concerns that have been expressed about the importance of the regions within Wales. I am sure also that he and the Secretary of State will ensure that the Advisory Committee that is considering those matters will take the concerns on board and produce something meaningful within the regions of Wales so that true devolution can take place.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I should not have been surprised at the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who poured scorn on the idea of the Government accepting advice, just as the Conservative Government regularly scorned advice, with the result that there were disasters such as the poll tax. The point about the Regional Committees and their advisory role is that we believe in listening to people and in being able to accept advice when it is well targeted. We have made provision in clause 62 for Advisory Committees because we believe that, on balance, we shall get good advice from them. I can understand why a Conservative might regard the role of an Advisory Committee as deceiving the people in Wales, because in a Tory context it would. The Tory Government never listened to the advice that they were given. That is the only context in which the right hon. Gentleman's words can have any meaning.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the Minister will define what he means by a "real player"—the words that he used earlier about the northern Regional Committee. He obviously listens to advice, but how many amendments has he accepted during the passage of the Bill—not just from me, because I understand that he probably does not want to accept amendments from me, but from his right hon. and hon. Friends, and from other hon. Members? From that, we shall learn whether he takes advice.
      Mr. Griffiths: It is most apt that the right hon. Gentleman should have made those remarks this evening, when, in earlier debates, we have said that we want to listen. I pointed out that he had made constructive comments in the debate on amendments and that we wanted to examine ways in which we could, perhaps, take on board some of those ideas. I am quite sure that, at the end of the Committee's proceedings, we shall have accepted a number of amendments, or the ideas contained in them.
      We believe that the Regional Committees will give Members of the Assembly the opportunity to focus on their areas and to give advice to the assembly to develop national strategies in Wales that take account of regional sensibilities. I know that taking account of sensibilities was not a strong point of the Conservatives when in government. I am afraid that I cannot scorn the concept of receiving advice in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government did when in office. I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to be added to the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 64

      WIDENING OF REGULATORY APPRAISALS
      Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 412, in page 31, line 23, leave out 'likely', and insert 'financial, social and environmental'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 413, in page 31, line 36, after 'business', insert 'and other organisations'.
      Mr. Dafis: Amendment No. 412 relates to costs and benefits. Amendment No. 413 relates to organisations that are concerned with social and environmental issues, rather than confining it to business organisations.
      I take it that integrating sustainable development—again that phrase, which means integrating environmental and social equity considerations into all areas of policy—will be a central theme of the National Assembly, as indeed the Government claim it to be their central theme.
      The assembly will come into existence at a time when sustainable development, environmental sustainability, will be rising to the top of the agenda—there is not much doubt about that—globally and at the European and United Kingdom levels. It is important that the same
      810
      should happen at national level. It is already beginning to happen at local level, through the local Agenda 21 process. We may have an opportunity to debate the whole issue of sustainable development more comprehensively when we reach part VI, which concerns the new development agency.
      Let me establish straight away that, when we speak of costs and benefits and cost-benefit analysis, we are not just talking in traditional economic terms. I hope that we are talking not merely about financial costs and benefits, but about social and environmental costs and benefits, which are a key component of sustainable development. As it stands, clause 64 seems to refer only to financial and, in the traditional sense of the word, economic costs and benefits. If I am right about that, it is old-fashioned thinking—old-style COBA. That is inappropriate in this day and age: nowadays it is wrong to separate financial considerations from those that are environmental and social. We cannot erode our environmental capital, or indeed our social assets, without imperilling economic welfare.
      The amendments make it explicit that any regulatory appraisal and study of cost compliance must be comprehensive in the way that I have outlined. The outcome of an appraisal of that kind could be significantly different from the outcome of the narrow appraisal provided for by clause 64 as it stands.
      I do not wish to say any more now, as there will be further opportunities. The amendment is tabled in the same spirit as amendments Nos. 401 and 402 on the Environmental Audit Committee, to which the Minister responded positively. I trust that the amendments will receive a similar response, enabling the assembly to benefit from an up-to-date response to policy.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Clause 64 is a significant and radical innovation in itself. It builds on the non-statutory compliance cost assessments that have been part of Government practice for some time when new laws or regulations are to be introduced. It is vital for the assembly to create an economic environment in Wales that promotes healthy and sustainable economic growth, and a more widespread prosperity than Wales has enjoyed in the past. That means an economic policy that respects the environment, and recognises that there is economic as well as social benefit in conserving the beauty and ecological diversity of Wales. It means a policy that works actively to bring greater prosperity to our more socially deprived communities.
      All those will overwhelmingly be matters for the policy of the assembly. In the Bill, we aim to create the framework, and, in doing so, we must be careful not to build in procedures that risk becoming excessively bureaucratic. If we attempt to legislate for procedures that try to constrain the assembly's policies, we multiply the opportunities for legal challenges on procedural grounds; we also risk entrenching the status quo, while warring interest groups battle for control of the assembly's procedures as a way of controlling its policies.
      We are not opposed to a procedural framework that lays some basic duties on the assembly. Hence, the Bill refers to local government, to regulatory appraisals and to the voluntary sector. We are also committed to tabling an amendment that recognises the importance of the principle of sustainable development.

      811
      Having said that, the Government cannot accept the amendments, because they would broaden the scope of the regulatory appraisal beyond the specific aspect of the costs that may be added to business. We believe that a social, environmental and financial appraisal of all secondary legislation is not necessary in the context of the clause. The consultation process should only include business.
      It is important for the assembly to consider the financial costs that will be laid on business as a result of regulations that it introduces. If there are serious costs, it is right that representatives of business should be consulted.
      Placing additional legal constraints on the assembly is going too far. As a democratic body, the assembly will be free to develop its own policies. It will have to account for its success or failure to the people of Wales when the time comes to be re-elected. Its processes will be much more public and open than we have been used to. That, and not more complex statutory provision, however well intentioned, is the best way to ensure that the assembly has proper regard for the social and environmental consequences of its actions.
      I ask the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) to take account of the fact that we shall table an amendment on sustainable development, which will deal with the concerns that he has expressed. He wants to bolt the provisions in the amendments on to the clause, but it has a specific purpose, so that is not the most appropriate way to achieve his objectives.
      Mr. Dafis: I am not altogether convinced by the Minister's response. I am glad to hear that the Government intend to table an amendment on sustainable development. It should be worded carefully, and should impose a duty on the assembly to have regard to sustainable development in the formation of its policies: it should not merely have to consider sustainability. It is important to put this issue at the heart of the assembly's activities.
      The Minister said that it is not appropriate to broaden the consultation process. I believe that it should be broadened, because organisations concerned with the social and environmental impact should be given parity of esteem with business interests.
      Environmental and social appraisals will increasingly be part of policy development. Environmental sustainability issues will be brought into accounting systems. They will be brought to the heart of the way in which the effects of policies are measured. The time is coming when cost compliance and cost-benefit analysis will have to be brought into such matters. I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote, but I look forward to a more thorough debate at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 31, leave out lines 27 to 30.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 307, in clause 67, page 33, leave out lines 21 to 24.
      Mr. Jenkin: Clause 64 applies the equivalent of a compliance cost assessment to draft subordinate
      812
      legislation that is being considered by the assembly and it requires the executive committee to carry out such an assessment. Clause 67(2), to which our amendment No. 307 refers, requires the equivalent of a money resolution. Clause 64(2) can set aside the provision for a regulatory appraisal
      "if in the particular circumstances it is inappropriate".
      The words used in clause 67(2) are, "may contain an exception". Is it appropriate for Parliament to suggest that those laudable procedures, which we endeavour to apply, should be set aside?
      Dr. Marek: Surely the provisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are de minimis. Is the hon. Gentleman serious in suggesting that they should be deleted from the Bill? Amendment No. 307 proposes to delete a reference to small sums but for good and efficient administration that reference ought to remain in the Bill. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment to a vote because it would damage the Bill.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that votes are not two a penny in our deliberations. These are probing amendments. Our procedures do not allow primary legislation that would be a charge on the Exchequer to proceed without a money resolution, and we do not think that the assembly should be able to set aside analogous procedures because it considers that convenient. It may find that the subordinate legislation which it expected to have minimal cost is expensive. Unless the matter is examined or debated, depending on the assembly's standing orders, there should be a procedure to guard against the setting aside of such procedures.
      Perhaps like the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who moved amendment No. 412, I shall be told by the Government that my amendment is a good one and they will ask me to withdraw it, assuring me that they will table an amendment. That would enable them to say that it was their idea in the first place.
      Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend has rightly described this as a probing amendment. Perhaps I could use it to probe the Minister on the following chain of logic. It may be false and it would be reassuring to hear that it is. My query arises in relation to the specific issue of regulatory appraisals and more generally to clauses 64, 65 and 67.
      The Minister has told us that clause 65(2) in particular limits the nightmare vision of Secretaries and the First Secretary legislating. The Minister has also admitted that that does not prevent the First Secretary and Secretaries from undercutting the need to legislate by using the power of the purse and the method of the circular to achieve results that would otherwise have been achieved by subordinate legislation.
      Nevertheless, I and other Opposition Members have to accept that there is a difference between that indirect method of crypto-legislation and genuine subordinate legislation by order or regulation. Therefore, the extent to which the following logic applies is important. Is it true that, in the light of clause 64(2), which amendment No. 303 would remove, and of the phrasing of clause 65(2), which refers to "a resolution" but not necessarily to an affirmative resolution, it would be possible for the

      813
      First Secretary or the Secretary concerned to bring forward subordinate legislation without regulatory appraisal, to put it before the assembly only in the sense of asking it not to make a negative resolution, and then to carry that proposition into law through subordinate legislation, which, as a result of there not having been a negative resolution prayed, would never have been debated in the assembly?
      That is extremely material because, if there is neither a regulatory appraisal nor a debate, but merely legislation that is prepared and, by that means, so to speak, invisibly enacted by the First Secretary and the Secretaries, we indeed have the prospect of a devolution of power upwards to those persons. They will be able to run an unaccountable legislature in the full sense, with merely the theory of accountability.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Clause 64 requires that the assembly Standing Orders must contain provision for regulatory appraisals, as we have just debated, and that those must be undertaken before the subordinate legislation is made. The purpose of the appraisals will be to assess the costs and the benefits, particularly as they affect business.
      Clause 64(2) provides that, in particular cases, the requirements for a regulatory appraisal can be dispensed with if it would be inappropriate or if it were not reasonably practical to have one. Amendment No. 303 proposes that clause 64(2) be removed so that there should be regulatory appraisal in respect of every proposed order.
      I am surprised that the amendment has been proposed because it would subject the assembly to stricter rules than are currently applied in Whitehall. It would involve assembly staff in unnecessary administrative work and take up the assembly's time with examining unnecessary reports.
      For example, under the arrangements that exist for Whitehall and Westminster, regulatory appraisals are not required for a range of subordinate legislation: those whose sole impact is on the public sector; regulations that increase a statutory fee by a predetermined formula; changes to the existing regulatory regime that do not impose additional costs or savings on business, charities or voluntary organisations.
      Mr. Jenkin: Would it not have been helpful to have set out those exemptions in the Bill, so that the assembly could be clear about Parliament's intention, instead of having to divine it from the words that the Minister is now uttering?
      Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps we had unfairly assumed that the workings of Whitehall in these matters were fairly familiar and that we did not need to prescribe step by step. These exemptions are not found specifically in primary legislation. Similar exemptions are prescribed in secondary legislation.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The constitutional age for beginners. It is in the book.
      Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State is now getting excited from a sedentary position. The point is that it is assembly Members who will have to understand this legislation and how this is going to work. It is clear what
      814
      the Government's intention now is, and it should have been spelt out in the Bill. That would have been much clearer. What is the objection to that? There will be many beginners in the assembly, as the Secretary of State refers to them.
      Mr. Griffiths: Those beginners will be provided with all the briefing and background to those matters when they become Members of the Assembly. If we were to prescribe in detail every little piece of legislation in Westminster and Whitehall that will be applied in principle to the assembly, the Bill would be a thousand times longer.
      I am pleased to have brought some enlightenment to the Committee's proceedings. If the amendment were accepted, a situation could easily arise in which a regulatory appraisal of identical subordinate legislation was considered unnecessary in England but had to be carried out in Wales.
      Mr. Letwin: Who is to be the judge of inappropriateness? If it is to be the assembly, is there any guarantee that it will take the view that the Minister has espoused? Could not the assembly decide that all regulatory appraisal was inappropriate?
      Mr. Griffiths: The assembly could not decide that. Some matters are in primary legislation; I shall give the hon. Gentleman a few more examples. Under the present arrangements at Whitehall, a regulatory appraisal is not required for road closure orders or for regulations that amend an existing regulatory regime without imposing any additional costs or savings on business, and so on. All those matters are in secondary legislation.
      The assembly will not be able to go beyond the constraints that currently apply under legislation enacted at Westminster. It will not be able to say, "We are going to make an exception." The primary legislation will not allow that to happen.
      Mr. Letwin: Perhaps we are making progress, although I now no longer understand subsections (1) and (2) of the clause. The Minister's line of reasoning seems to be that if, under primary legislation, there is a requirement for regulatory appraisal when the Secretary of State lays an order, that will apply automatically to the assembly. So why on earth are subsections (1) and (2) in the Bill? Why would there be a need to legislate for such procedures that are contained in subsection (1) if they already exist in statute?
      Mr. Griffiths: The powers are being transferred to the assembly. Under primary legislation, Parliament does not have the power to dispense with regulatory appraisal of everything; it is specified in legislation. In that same way, the assembly's powers will be specified in legislation. The legislation that applies to Westminster and Whitehall will be the same legislation that will apply to the assembly. It will not be able to move outside exactly the same constraints as apply at Westminster and Whitehall.
      Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give us an assurance that no secondary legislation that does not have the appropriate regulatory constraints applied to it will be delegated to the assembly?
      Mr. Griffiths: Further advice has come my way. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked whether the assembly could decide not to have any regulatory appraisals at all. The answer is no, it could not adopt an all-embracing policy to set such matters to one side. Primary legislation governs what the assembly will be able to do, just as primary legislation governs what this Parliament is able to do.
      Mr. John Hayes: Now that we are clear on what the assembly cannot do, will the Minister explain why there is no difference between the clauses and no discretion is provided? That is the point that he has not dealt with. He has dealt with what the assembly cannot do, but he has not said why the clauses are in the Bill, given the complete lack of discretion that they provide.
      Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate, he would have heard me say that the Government have included in the Bill a framework for regulatory appraisal, which will make the process much clearer in the National Assembly for Wales. As the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, it is based—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 65 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 71

      INTEGRITY
      Amendment made: No. 282, in page 35, line 18, at end insert
      'fails to comply with or'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 73

      POWER TO REQUIRE ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 283, in page 36, line 26, leave out 'either'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Clause 73, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 4 agreed to.

    Clause 74

      WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendments made: No. 390, in page 36, line 41, after 'concerned,' insert
      'or such other person as may be authorised by the standing orders'.
      No. 391, in page 36, line 42, at end insert
      'and may administer the oath (or affirmation) to him.'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 76

      DEFAMATION
      Amendment made: No. 284, in page 38, line 8, at end insert
      'and shall be treated as if it were a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of paragraph 11(1)(c) of that Schedule (report of proceedings of person appointed by a Minister etc. for the purposes of an inquiry).'.— [Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 77 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on any Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government Finance not later than Ten o'clock.[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mrs. Anne McGuire and Ms Hazel Blears be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and Mr. Jim Dobbin and Mrs. Rosemary McKenna be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Huw Edwards be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. David Drew be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Fiona Mactaggart be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Helen Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Alan Johnson be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Ms Margaret Moran be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen Hesford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Big Cats (Norfolk)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: I must begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for attending this Adjournment debate on the subject of big cats in Norfolk. My objective in asking for the debate was to establish ministerial responsibility for monitoring big cats and to consider how we can best evaluate any evidence of the probability of big cats living in our countryside. This is a subject which, as hon. Members may know, has excited a great deal of public and media interest, especially in my constituency of Mid-Norfolk.
  Over the past 20 years, there has been a steady increase in the number of sightings of big cats in many parts of the United Kingdom. These are often described as pumas, leopards or panthers. A survey carried out in 1996 claimed sightings of big cats in 34 English counties, so Norfolk's big cat has to compete with, among others, the Fen tiger, the beast of Bodmin, the Durham puma, the Nottingham lion and the cougar of Cupar. I must say that many of these sound like the nicknames of hon. Members.
  Norfolk has had its fair share of sightings of big cats. Last year, Norfolk police received reports of 54 sightings of big cats from July to December, and they still receive, on average, reports of two sightings a week. In my constituency, there have been reported sightings at Dereham, Beetley, Lenwade and Crostwick, to name just a few places.
  I must commend the Norfolk police who have consistently taken sightings of big cats seriously and who have attempted to monitor them. There are 36 volunteer police officers trained as wildlife liaison officers who participate in this monitoring. I must also commend two of my local newspapers—the Eastern Daily Press and the Evening News—which have taken a responsible attitude to the sightings and have genuinely sought to inform public opinion.
  Many sightings have been reported in my constituency by members of the public who were out walking their dogs or driving down country roads, often at dawn or at dusk. Usually the sighting is of a big cat, frequently described as a puma or leopard. There have also been a number of incidents in which it has been claimed that ewes, lambs and horses have been attacked—and, in some cases, killed—and have received injuries more extensive than could have been inflicted by dogs or foxes. Of course, the fact remains that, despite many sightings and some superficial evidence, we do not yet have authoritative evidence that big cats are at large in Mid-Norfolk or, for that matter, in other parts of the UK.
  How should we regard the sightings of big cats in Mid-Norfolk? It could be merely an extension of folklore going back to the 18th century. Perhaps Old Shuck or Black Shuck, the mythical large dog which roamed our Norfolk landscape looking for his master all those years ago, has returned to haunt his descendants—perhaps, but unlikely. Perhaps it is merely a question of farmers looking for compensation on a scale the likes of which they have never seen—perhaps, but unlikely. Perhaps our thriving tourist industry in Mid-Norfolk is looking for its

  819
  equivalent of the Loch Ness monster or the hound of the Baskervilles to attract even more tourists—perhaps, but unlikely.
  Some reports are undoubtedly hoaxes. At least one recent sighting reported to the police suggested that the large cats had been brought down by the Martians, and there is always a suspicion that a few sightings may be the consequences of late-night spiritual imbibing. However, the overwhelming majority of sightings of big cats, not only in my constituency but elsewhere in the UK, have been reported by perfectly normal, rational members of the public.
  I suspect that many people have not reported sightings on the ground that they would be considered eccentric, to say the least. Even if one accepts that in the majority of cases, people have genuinely mistaken large domestic cats, dogs or foxes for big cats, there is still an element of probability that, at least in some cases, there may be a big cat explanation.
  A number of distinguished wildlife experts have suggested that some pumas or leopards could have been released into the countryside when the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 made it illegal to own such animals without a licence. They would have been able to roam over a wide area of countryside, live off wild or domestic animals and possibly breed. I realise that this case is not directly comparable, but I am old enough to remember as a child in Norfolk the spread of the coypu 40 years ago as a consequence of several escaping from captivity and breeding in the wild on such a scale that they threatened to destroy our river banks.
  So what is to be done? How do we best establish a rational method, at national and local levels, to monitor the sightings of big cats and to evaluate the evidence scientifically? Last year, I attempted to establish ministerial responsibility and learnt from a written answer that
  "The Home Office has no responsibility for monitoring the sightings of big cats'—[Official Report, 1 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 49.]
  In practice, monitoring is done very conscientiously at local level by the police. A similar question to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced the following reply from the Minister:
  "A number of Departments have responsibilities in relation to 'big cats'. This Department is concerned with the safety of livestock, the Home Office for the safety of people and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the legal keeping of such animals by, for example, zoos and circuses. These Departments co-ordinate their actions according to the circumstances of the case."—[Official Report, 2 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 149.]
  Many of us, in one way or another, are old Whitehall warriors, and that final sentence gave it away. There is obviously a certain element of pass the parcel.
  I realise that the Minister is here to reply to an Adjournment debate on big cats in Mid-Norfolk as the matter relates to the safety of livestock. In the past, his Department has been involved in evaluating evidence of big cats. One case involved the so-called "Beast of Bodmin" when his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), asked the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to investigate the carcases of dead farm animals and a
  820
  number of photos and videos allegedly showing big cats. The conclusion of the study proved that the farm animals had been victims of large dogs and the photographic evidence proved the cats to be domestic. I understand that the Minister has promised another investigation into big cats in the west country, where local public opinion is somewhat sceptical about the evidence.
  I should like to suggest two positive measures for the Minister to consider. At national and local levels, it is logical that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be the lead Government Department for co-ordinating the monitoring and evaluation of evidence concerning big cats. In Norfolk, a proper scientific evaluation of evidence—particularly footprints, droppings or carcases of dead farm or domestic animals—could be undertaken using DNA tests at the Food Science Laboratory at Norwich. That would enable us to distinguish between fact and fiction. The facility should be widely publicised locally, so that if farm or domestic animals are savagely attacked or killed, they can be examined scientifically. If the Minister is responsive to my proposals and they are implemented, we would be nearer proving or disproving the weighty question of whether there are big cats at large in Mid-Norfolk.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I should like to make one or two brief points in support of what my hon. Friend has said. In my constituency—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Can the hon. Gentleman satisfy me that he has received the agreement of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and the Minister before making an intervention?
  Mr. Robertson: I apologise. I have not spoken to the Minister about it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These Adjournment debates are intended for the benefit of the Member proposing the subject. Another Member can intervene only by special arrangement. I do not know whether the Minister has any objection.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman making a brief contribution.
  Mr. Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and to the House.
  I have been visited more than once by farmers in my area who have shown me photographic evidence of attacks on farm animals, which I do not believe could have been carried out by anything other than big cats. Lambs with their heads ripped completely off and fang marks of a width that no dog could produce are part of the evidence. One of the problems that farmers in my area have—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not attempting to hound the hon. Gentleman, but this is a debate about big cats in Mid-Norfolk. He must speak on that subject.
  Mr. Robertson: I shall end by saying that it seems that the problem—this may well be the case in Mid-Norfolk —is that people are reluctant to seek publicity because of stories such as those about the beast of Bodmin.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I understand the points that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) has made. The possibility of one or more big cats living or breeding in the countryside is a serious issue. I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's extensive knowledge of the history of sightings of big cats. As he rightly said, many allegations and comments have been made for many years and none have been substantiated.
  Many sightings have turned out to involve domestic cats. I remember that not many years ago London zoo was called out to deal with an escaped lioness in north London. It turned out to be a large ginger torn cat sunbathing on a wall. I own a fairly big cat. Fortunately, he finds it too much of an exertion to go far from my house, so he does not disturb the neighbours on his perambulations.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the division of responsibility between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Home Office. The Ministry's main responsibility on big cats is confined to whether the presence of a big cat poses a threat to the safety of livestock. To make a rough and ready split, reports of big cats eating people would be a matter for the Home Office, whereas reports of big cats eating livestock are a matter for MAFF. That is a curious division of labour, but that is roughly how it is.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that where it is believed such a threat exists, MAFF will take action to investigate the case and evaluate any available evidence, as it has done in the past, particularly on the beast of Bodmin.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to use the proper title. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) referred to the beast of Bodmin. It is the beast of Bodmin moor. The worthy people of Bodmin take some exception to the incorrect description because the beast has never been seen in Bodmin.
  I have a serious point about the division of responsibility and am concerned that perhaps no Minister will take responsibility. I hope that the Minister will follow the precedent established by his predecessor in response to my original request for an inquiry that MAFF be the lead Ministry on such issues. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has said, there have been no attacks on human beings, despite the many sightings, but there have been many attacks on livestock. I hope that the Minister recognises that his Ministry should have primary responsibility for investigating the beast of Bodmin moor in my part of the country and for dealing with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk.
  Mr. Morley: I can confirm that. It is particularly so when the attacks involve livestock. As MAFF has facilities to investigate such reports and no other Department does, it is logical that it takes lead responsibility—and has done so with reports that it has received.
  I am aware that there have been a number of alleged sightings of big cats in the Norfolk area. None has been reported to the Ministry so far, although I have noticed reports of them in the press. A major concern is the
  822
  potential threat to public safety, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said. First, it must be ascertained whether there is a likelihood of such a cat living in the wild. Each year, there are several hundred reports of sightings of big cats throughout the country. I am sure that hon. Members agree that, however well intentioned, the vast majority of reports are not genuine sightings of big cats.
  The subject generates a great deal of media interest. A reported sighting in one area is often followed by a sudden flurry in the press of reported sightings in other areas. Although reports are often made with genuine sincerity, the Ministry has to be assured that there is a genuine case to investigate. Unfortunately, it is not unknown for practical jokers to be involved—such as the one who planted the skull of a leopard in a stream near Bodmin moor. I take the point of the hon. Member for North Cornwall that, although the beast of Bodmin moor may be a tourist attraction, the beast of Bodmin is not. It turned out that the skull was from a leopard skin rug and had been planted.
  Despite such reports, the Ministry takes these matters seriously. There are a number of big cats in zoos, circuses and in private ownership and it is not impossible that some of them may have escaped or been illegally released into the wild. The security of big cats held in captivity is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  The Ministry is aware that a total of 16 big cats have escaped into the wild since 1977. They include lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars and pumas, but all but two animals were at large for only one day.
  I recall that at least three of the lions escaped from a circus in Grimsby. I remember it very well because one unfortunate person was quite badly savaged. He ran to the car in which his wife was sitting, but she was so terrified by the lions that she refused to open the door. I am quite sure that that was due to her fear and nothing to do with any acrimony between her and her husband.
  Because there is a risk that big cats can escape into the wild and because of the threat that such animals could pose to livestock, the Ministry investigates each report in which it is alleged that livestock has been attacked. Reports to the Ministry are usually made by the farmers whose animals have been attacked. In addition, the Ministry takes note of articles in the press describing big cat incidents and will consider them if there is evidence that livestock are at risk.
  Incidentally, of the 16 escaped large cats, the two that stayed at large for some time were a leopard and a puma. The leopard managed to avoid capture for seven days, after which it was cage trapped. The origin of the puma, which was captured near Inverness in 1980, is unclear, but it was quite tame and has subsequently been kept in a wildlife park. That sounds like a case of a semi-domesticated animal that was released into the wild.
  On receipt of a report of a big cat, the Ministry will ask the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, the Ministry's wildlife advisers, to contact the person who reported the sighting. The FRCA will discuss the situation with the fanner and seek to establish whether the sighting is genuine and whether any evidence can be evaluated. It will follow up all cases where there is evidence of a big cat that can be corroborated and all cases where it is alleged that livestock are being taken.

  823
  The FRCA will consider all forms of evidence, including photographs given to it by members of the public and farmers, plaster casts of paw prints and video footage. In addition, it will carry out field investigations of carcases of alleged kills for field signs of the animal responsible. That will include looking for signs of how the animal was killed and of scavenging by other animals, such as badgers, foxes, dogs or other big cats. If it is thought that a big cat may be responsible, the carcases of suspicious livestock kills will be submitted for post mortem analysis to gather more information on the cause of death.
  Where a reported sighting is the only evidence, the Ministry will not usually become involved; it would not be an appropriate use of public funds to investigate such reports on the very remote possibility of finding field evidence to corroborate the sighting. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk understands that that would be a diversion of the Ministry's time and resources. When there is a very strong allegation—especially when stock are involved and the matter can be investigated—an investigation will of course be made, but I could not give an undertaking that the Ministry will investigate every report or every sighting unless there is strong evidence.
  The Ministry must rely on evidence being submitted for proper consideration by the FRCA, and it may be indicative that much of the evidence reported in the press is not made available for public scrutiny and has not been made available for the Ministry to examine in depth.
  824
  Evidence such as plaster casts, sheep carcases, video footage and still photographs were submitted and evaluated by MAFF as part of the Ministry's investigation in 1995 of the evidence for the presence of a large exotic cat or cats in the Bodmin moor area and their possible impact on livestock. That was the investigation that the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned. The subsequent report, which was published, concluded that the photographs and video footage were of domestic cats and that the footprints were those of cats and dogs. There was no field or post mortem evidence to indicate the involvement of big cats in any of the livestock deaths that were followed up during the investigation.
  In fact, to date, none of the investigations that the Ministry has been involved with has provided any firm evidence of the existence of big cats living in the wild. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked about co-ordination between Departments. I have already said, in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, that MAFF will take the lead in the investigation and that, when there is evidence that is worthy of investigation, we shall ensure that an investigation is carried out.
  It is impossible to say categorically that no big cats are living wild in Britain, so it is only right and proper that the Ministry should continue to investigate serious claims of their existence—but only when there is a threat to livestock and when there is clear evidence that can be validated. I am afraid that, until we obtain stronger evidence, the reports of big cats are still in the category of the mythical creatures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his opening remarks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Non-Career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Council how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to her Department since 1 May 1997. [25845]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The number of casual, fixed term appointees and Special Advisers appointed since 1 May is four.

  Anti-drugs Tsar
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specific powers she plans to allocate to the new Anti-drugs Tsar. [24644]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The UK Anti-Drugs Coordinator, Keith Hellawell, took up his post as a special adviser to Government on 5 January. He therefore has no specific powers, and has been tasked with reviewing all aspects of the Government's existing action against drugs—including overseeing a Comprehensive Spending Review of existing drug resources. When this review is complete, he will advise Ministers on a new strategy.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Structure Plan (West Sussex)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings he or Ministers in his Department had with representatives of the House-builders Federation to discuss matters relevant to the West Sussex structure plan between 2 May and 3 December 1997. [22897]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Train Overcrowding
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about overcrowding of trains on the trans-Pennine routes; and if he will make a statement. [25275]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have received 2 representations specifically about overcrowding on the trans—Pennine routes between Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. Both representations were complaints about journeys affected by disruption which caused some cancellations and delays, affecting available capacity. The Franchising Director places an obligation on operators to avoid excessive overcrowding by requiring train operators to make reasonable endeavours to ensure that sufficient capacity is provided on each train.

  Airedale and Wharfdale Lines
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding services on the Airedale and Wharfdale lines, between Keighley, Shipley and Leeds and Ilkley, Ben Rhydding and Leeds. [25631]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have received 15 representations specifically about the performance of rail services on the Airedale and Wharfdale lines between these points.

  Performance on services in the West Yorkshire area has improved significantly in recent months as Regional Railways North East have reduced the impact of driver shortages. I want that improvement to be sustained.

  Transport Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which United Kingdom transport operators have powers to prevent the publication of safety information relating to their operations. [25962]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No United Kingdom transport operators have powers to prevent the publication of safety information relating to their operations beyond those that are provided by normal rules of commercial confidentiality.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many letters he has received to date(a) supporting and (b) opposing the proposed privatisation of the London underground system; and if he will make a statement. [26053]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It was the previous Government which proposed the privatisation of London Underground. We are totally opposed to wholesale privatisation and are developing proposals for public-private partnership. We have received over eight hundred letters about the Underground since the election. While detailed figures are not kept, it is clear that, of those letters which referred to privatisation, only a handful supported it and the vast majority opposed it.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of the HSE in making available support for private prosecutions under health and safety at work legislation. [26257]

  Angela Eagle
  Private prosecutions under health and safety legislation can be brought with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The role of the Health and Safety Executive in relation to a private prosecution would be to disclose to the parties, on request, any information available publicly under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, and any other information it has which the Court requires it to provide.

  Rail Services (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the reliability of the rail service from Portsmouth to London in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [26058]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director is responsible for monitoring train operators' performance and publishes performance details, though on groups of routes rather than on individual lines, in quarterly Bulletins. A copy of the Franchising Director's Bulletin is available in the House Library.

  Empty Properties (NHS Trusts)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will encourage health trusts that are disposing of property to liaise with local councils to use those properties for temporary housing or shelter for the homeless. [26143]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has issued, in 1995, a Guidance Note for Departments entitled "Government Residential Property—Securing Better Use of Empty Homes", which encourages Government Departments to liaise with local authorities about the use of empty homes and encourages temporary letting, particularly when empty properties are not being sold immediately. It is for individual health trusts to decide for themselves how best to make use of surplus property, but the guidance was circulated to all trusts in June 1995 so that they could have regard to its advice.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposal he(a) advanced and (b) supported in respect of the maximum concentration of boron to be permitted in drinking water during discussion with EU partners on the Drinking Water Directive; and if he will make a statement. [26823]

  Angela Eagle
  The Commission proposed a standard of one milligramme per litre for boron. The Council in its Common Position unanimously accepted that value.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the terms of the amended EC Directive on Drinking Water as they relate to the powers given to exempt drinking water supplies(a) of less than 10 cubic metres of water per day and (b) serving 50 people or less from the terms of the directive; and if he will make a statement. [26821]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposal for a revised Drinking Water Directive is at the stage of the Council having agreed a Common Position. The proposal now goes to the European Parliament for Second Reading, before coming back to Council for consideration of any amendments. Policy on implementation cannot be decided until the terms of the Directive are settled, which may not be for some time.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the pesticides for which he sought relaxation of the maximum 454
  concentrations permitted in drinking water during discussions with EU partners on the Drinking Water Directive; and if he will make a statement. [26822]

  Angela Eagle
  No such relaxations were sought.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise planning guidance in respect of the development of back garden land in urban and suburban areas. [26423]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Rail Industry
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to take an equity stake in the rail industry in return for Government subsidy. [26564]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Renationalisation of the railways would be extremely costly and cannot be a priority given the other pressures on public expenditure. We therefore have no such plans. Our main task is to improve the railways as we found them, not as we would have wished them to be.

  Local Authority Employees (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidelines on the use of added years for purposes of early retirement for local authority employees. [26424]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have no plans to do so. Decisions about early retirement for local authority employees are the responsibility of locally elected councillors. It is for them to establish their own policies and decide, within the appropriate regulations, whether or not to award added years in each particular case. However, my Department will be reviewing several aspects of the early retirement compensation arrangements, taking into consideration the Audit Commission's recent report on early retirement in local government.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has decided to hold a public inquiry into Railtrack's application for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 in respect of the Thameslink 2000 project. [27355]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the light of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions statement to the House on Wednesday 28 January 1998,Official Report, columns 466–74, about the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), the Secretary of State has decided to defer until 25 March the date by which he must reach a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry into Thameslink 2000. The reason for this is that powers for works which form important components of the Thameslink 2000 project are contained in the CTRL Act 1996 and cannot be used other than as part of the CTRL.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the outcome of consultation on the local government finance settlement; and if he will make a statement. [27182]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am today laying before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99, the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1998–99, and the Special Grant Report (No.31). These reports establish the amounts of revenue support grant (RSG) and non-domestic rates (NDR) to be paid to local authorities in 1998–99, and the basis of their distribution; specify the amounts which are to be used as the basis of comparison for measuring increases in certain local authorities' budgets in 1998–99 for the purposes of capping, and provide for a special Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) reduction grant to be paid to certain authorities for 1998–99. Drafts of these reports were issued for consultation on 2 December 1997. I also announced on that date my provisional guidelines for capping the budgets of local authorities. The Department received written representations from 248 authorities and my Ministerial colleagues at DETR met 95 delegations from local councils.

  I have considered the views of local authorities and others who have commented on my initial proposals. However, I have decided to make no changes in the SSA methodology which formed the basis of consultation, nor in the capping guidelines. The SSAs for individual authorities may be slightly different from those at consultation, generally reflecting more accurate data that have become available since then.

  This year's local government finance settlement is better, fairer and more flexible than the plans set out by the previous Government. We have been able to achieve this within the tight constraints on public expenditure needed to achieve this Government's economic aims. The Government's intention is that local authorities should be able to respond by giving top priority to education—the Government's and the nation's priority. That is why we have made available £835 million extra for education on top of what was originally planned.

  We are also publishing, for the first time, a Plain English guide to the dauntingly complex world of local government finance. This carries the Crystal Mark of the Plain English Campaign. I am keen that hon. Members and members of the public have the clearest possible understanding of how local government finance works.

  I shall be sending copies of these reports and the Plain English guide to all authorities, together with tables showing each authority's Standard Spending Assessment and its entitlement to RSG, NDR and special grant, and information on capping guidelines and limits. Copies of the reports, tables, the capping information and the guide have been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to his Department since 1 May 1997. [25847]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The number of casual, fixed-term appointees and Special Advisers appointed since 1 May 1997 is seven.

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are the proposed acitivities the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts will undertake which will prevent it acquiring charitable status. [25891]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Charitable status is unlikely to be compatible with NESTA's objective to support the commercial development of new ideas. It would be for the Charity Commission, in the first instance, to consider whether NESTA is a charity.

  USA Visit
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will give a breakdown of the meetings and film screenings attended by(a) the Minister for Film and Tourism and (b) officials in his Department on the Minister's visit to the USA. [25549]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer Monday 26 January 1998]: During his visit to the United States, my right hon. Friend visited the Sundance Film Festival in Utah to promote British Film, and visited Los Angeles to discuss co-operation with the US industry. At the Sundance Festival, my right hon. Friend attended an informal lunch for key members of the British film industry and hosted a reception for a wider audience including many film makers from countries outside the US and UK. He also had discussions with the organisers of the Festival and with the Utah State Film Commissioner and attended screenings of 'Blind Faith' and 'The Spanish Prisoner'.

  In Los Angeles, my right hon. Friend met senior executives at four of the seven major studios: Sony Pictures Entertainment; Fox Filmed Entertainment; Universal Studios; and Viacom/Paramount; and also Mr. Jack Valenti, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association, which represents the interests of the seven major studios. He also met senior executives at Polygram Filmed Entertainment and the head of International Creative Management. More informal discussions were held with representatives of the remaining major studios, other talent agencies and various US film makers during evening events. My right hon.
  457
  Friend also had lengthy discussions with FCO officials based in Los Angeles about the promotion of British interests in the United States.

  My right hon. Friend was accompanied by his Private Secretary to all meetings and screenings both at Sundance and in Los Angeles, and my special adviser accompanied him to all meetings in Los Angeles.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above within his Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within his Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26026]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport was created (as the Department of National Heritage) on 13 April 1992 with staff from six existing departments: Department for Education, Office of Arts and Libraries, Department of the Environment, Department of Trade and Industry, Home Office and Department of Employment. The number of staff who have spent their entire career within the Department is therefore very low.

  The DCMS has a total of 22 staff in the Senior Civil Service.
  (a) 5 per cent. of these staff have spent their entire civil service career within this department.

  Although no Senior Civil Service staff have had secondments to the private sector or other departments from DNH or DCMS, some have in their previous Departments.
  (b) (i) 14 per cent. have had secondments to the private sector prior to joining this department.
  (ii) 32 per cent. have been on secondment to other departments prior to joining this department.
  (c) 95 per cent. have come from other departments, 23 per cent. are currently on loan to DCMS.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many civil servants in his Department at grade 3 or above have(a) resigned, (b) retired before pensionable age and (c) moved to different responsibilities within the Department since 1 May 1997; if he will indicate the Ministers to whom each was responsible; and if he will make a statement. [26926]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  None.

  Sovereign's Works of Art
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress is being made on the compilation of the inventory of works of art held by the Sovereign. [26487]

  Mr. Fisher
  I understand from the Royal Household, which is responsible for the Royal Collection Department, that the first phase of the computerised inventory of the Royal Collection (basic data capture and inputting) has been completed on schedule. In the second phase, consideration will be given to the best way of refining this information, and making it more widely accessible.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on arrangements for charging for TV licences in hotels and guest houses; and what revenue would be raised if such establishments had to buy a licence for each television set provided. [26505]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: At present, a television licence taken out by the managers of a hotel covers the installation and use of television in up to 15 guest rooms, with an additional licence fee payable for each additional five rooms with television. The same licensing arrangements apply to guest houses offering units of overnight accommodation. Charging a separate licence fee for each guest room with television in such establishments would raise an estimated £31.5 million in additional licence fee revenue.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the use of the BBC's increase in licence fees. [26425]

  Mr. Fisher
  As at 29 January, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had received 25 representations from Members of Parliament and 89 from members of the public about the television licence fee increases due to come into force on 1 April this year. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained on 11 December 1997,Official Report, column 636, these increases are determined under a five-year formula announced by the previous Government. The Government consider that the formula remains appropriate. The increases this year reflect the additional costs faced by the BBC in launching its new digital services.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the administrative cost of changing back to joint taxation of married couples; and taxing child benefit. [24956]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pre-tax Income
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees would lose, through higher tax and National Insurance Contributions and lower benefits(a) 100 per cent. or above, (b) 90 per cent. or above, (c) 80 per cent. or above, (d) 70 per cent. or above, (e) 60 per cent. or above and (f) 50 per cent. or above of the increase in pre-tax income resulting from (i) an extra five hours work per week and (ii) a pay increase of £20 per week. [23579]
  459
  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Working an extra 5 hours a week

  Earning an extra £20 a week

  Above 100 per cent.

  10

  5

  Above 90 per cent.

  140

  130

  Above 80 per cent.

  4901

  285

  Above 70 per cent.

  605

  645

  Above 60 per cent.

  630

  665

  Above 50 per cent.

  750

  680

  The estimates are rounded to the nearest 5,000. Based on Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to 1997–98 levels for Great Britain. Figures are calculated for benefit units where at least one partner works 16 hours a week or more.
  1 The figure of 490,000 contains a large number of cases with ratios just over 80 per cent., which have marginal deduction rates of 79.9 per cent. when measured by 'point' methods.

  Tax and Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees face marginal withdrawal rates tax and benefits of(a) 0 per cent. or gains, (b) less than 10 per cent., (c) less than 20 per cent., (d) less than 30 per cent., (e) less than 40 per cent. and (f) less than 50 per cent. if they were (i) to work an hour a week less and (ii) to earn £10 a week less before tax. [22979]

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension (including SERPS and over 80s additions)

  Incapacity Benefit (received for more than 28 weeks of incapacity)

  Yield in a full year from taxing benefit (£ million)

  Yield as a percentage of total benefit expenditure

  Yield in a full year from taxing benefit (£ million)

  Yield as a percentage of total benefit expenditure

  1994–95

  1,900

  7

  1—

  1—

  1995–96

  2,000

  7

  30

  2—

  1996–97

  2,100

  6

  70

  1

  1997–98

  2,100

  6

  100

  1

  1 Incapacity Benefit replaced sickness benefit and invalidity benefit from April 1995.

  Prior to that date, both these benefits were not liable to tax.

  2 Less than 0.5 per cent.

  The percentage estimates for incapacity benefit are based on the total benefit expenditure—a large part of which is not liable to tax.

  Blind Trusts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Treasury's definition of a blind trust. [25535]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The expression "blind trust" describes arrangements which have existed under Governments of both Parties such as those referred to in paragraph 119 of the Ministerial Code issued by the Cabinet Office in July 1997, where investments are placed in a bare trust under which the Minister is not informed of changes in investments or of the state of the portfolio, but remains fully entitled to both the capital and income generated.

  Social Security Benefits (Taxation)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax in the future social security benefits which are presently not taxed; and if he will make a statement. [25293]
  460
  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of families facing marginal deduction rates of below 50 per cent. currently, and assuming they work an hour a week less, and earn £10 a week less:

  Millions of families

  Working one hour a week less

  Earning £10 a week less

  MDRs

  0 per cent. or gains

  0.5

  0.6

  10 per cent. or less

  0.6

  0.7

  20 per cent. or less

  0.8

  0.8

  30 per cent. or less

  3.2

  3.3

  40 per cent. or less

  14.1

  14.1

  50 per cent. or less

  15.9

  15.9

  The estimates are rounded to the nearest 100,000. Based on Family Expenditure Survey data, uprated to 1997–98 levels. Figures are calculated for benefit units where at least one partner is in work.

  Incapacity Benefit and Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax revenue generated by the taxation of(a) incapacity benefit and (b) state pensions in (i) the current and (ii) the previous three financial years; and if he will express that revenue as a percentage of the cost of those benefits. [24010]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: Information is given in the following table.

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

  Air Fares
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage rate of tax would need to be levied on air fares to produce the same revenue as the existing flat-rate air passenger duty. [26270]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to make a reliable estimate.

  Earnings
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people earned over £100,000 in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [26051]
  461
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 2 February 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on the number of people earning over £100,000 in the United Kingdom.
  The information has been derived from the New Earnings Survey for April 1997.
  The estimated percentage of employees on adult rates, whose gross earnings are more than £100,000 per year (which equates to £1919.40 per week) in Great Britain and whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence, is 0.2%.

  Government-authorised Expenditure
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made since May 1997 to the classification of items of Government-authorised expenditure for the purposes of producing(a) the control total, (b) the public sector borrowing requirement and (c) the reserve. [26520]

  Mr. Darling
  Recent classification changes affecting the published aggregate Control Total are described in paragraph 4B.14 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", July 1997 (HC85) and paragraph S2.23 of "The Economy and the Public Finances: Supplementary Material", November 1997 (HM Treasury). No change has been made to the definition of the Control Total since then. None of these classification changes affects the PSBR. Expenditure provision in the Reserve is made on the same definitional basis as the rest of the Control Total.

  Tax Law
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the tax law rewrite project. [26175]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: The tax law rewrite project continues to make good progress. The project aims to rewrite the UK's direct tax legislation so that it is clearer and easier to use. It commands widespread support from tax professionals and is overseen by a small high-level Steering Committee, chaired by the right hon. Lord Howe of Aberavon CH, QC. In addition a Consultative Committee of representative bodies and other interested parties meets every month to consider issues in more detail.

  There will be full consultation throughout the life of the project. The first example of rewritten legislation (on trading income of individuals) was published for consultation last July. It was very well received. A response document will be sent later this week to all who offered comments. A Discussion Document to confirm that our rewrite techniques work on complex provisions, was published in November. A second Discussion Document, examining possible purposive approaches to drafting will be published next month.
  462
  This is a highly innovative project, which involves Revenue officials working closely with drafters from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and tax professionals recruited from the private sector. It continues to command the Government's support.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic instruments are available to him to promote housing development on brownfield sites in preference to greenfield ones. [26178]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: There are a number of possible economic instruments that could be used to help promote housing developments on brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites. These are being considered in the Comprehensive Spending Review, alongside other economic instruments that offer potential scope for improving the efficiency of the land-use planning system. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly be making a statement on the Government's policy on the issues raised in the consultation paper. "Household Growth: Where Shall We Live".

  Drug Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of deaths of children aged 13 to 16 years resulting from ingesting(a) heroin, (b) alcohol, (c) ecstasy, (d) speed, (e) glue, (f) Temazepam, (g) cannabis and (h) LSD in each of the last five years. [26470]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 2 February 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to answer your recent question asking for the total number of deaths to children aged 13 to 16 years in each of the last five years resulting from ingesting1 (a) heroin, (b) alcohol, (c) ecstasy, (d) speed, (e) glue, (f) temazepam, (g) cannabis and (h) LSD.
  Data for 1992 may be obtained from Table 10 of "Mortality Statistics: Injury and Poisoning 1992", Series DH4 no. 18, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. This table lists all substances mentioned in the records of deaths assigned to accidental and other poisoning by solid or liquid substances.
  The table shows deaths to people aged under 20, data for children aged 13–16 are only available at disproportionate cost.
  The following table shows the remaining data for 1992 and also data for 1993–1996.

  Deaths in England and Wales to children aged 13–16 years, 1992–96

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  (a) Heroin

  —

  0

  1

  2

  2

  Alone

  —

  —

  0

  0

  2

  With other drugs2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  0

  (b) Alcohol4

  0

  2

  0

  1

  3

  (c) Ecstasy

  —

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Alone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  With other drugs2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  463

  Deaths in England and Wales to children aged 13–16 years, 1992–96

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  (d) 'Speed'

  (Amphetamines)

  —

  0

  2

  3

  0

  Alone

  —

  —

  1

  0

  —

  With other drugs2

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  (e) Glue3

  22

  17

  13

  15

  n/a

  (f) Temazepam

  —

  0

  2(1)

  2

  0

  Alone

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  With other drugs2

  —

  —

  2(1)

  2

  —

  (g) Cannabis

  —

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Alone

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  With other drugs2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  (h) LSD

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Alone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  With other drugs2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The figures in brackets are those deaths with a mention of alcohol and are included in the non-bracketed figures.

  Deaths from alcohol for 1992 are those that were registered in the year, deaths for the years 1993–96 are those that occurred.

  1 The route of administration (i.e., whether swallowed, injected, inhaled, etc.) of a toxic substance is not usually specified on the death certificate. The data above represent all mentions of drugs, however administered, where the death was certified as due to poisoning, drug dependence or non-dependent abuse of drugs.

  2 If, for example, both heroin and cannabis are mentioned on a death certificate, the death will occur twice in the table, once under 'Heroin with other drugs' and once under 'Cannabis with other drugs'.

  3 Data supplied by St. George's Hospital Medical School and are those deaths involving all volatile substances, including glue.

  4 Deaths certified as due to alcoholic psychoses, alcohol dependence syndrome, non-dependent abuse of alcohol, alcoholic cardiomyopathy, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, and toxic effects of alcohol.

  Pre-payment Meters
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the percentage of pensioners who pay their fuel costs with pre-payment meters. [26172]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Rendel, 2 February 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your recent question on the percentage of pensioners who pay their fuel costs with pre-payment meters.
  An estimate from the 1996–97 Family Expenditure Survey is that seven per cent of households headed by a pensioner (including cases where the sole person in the household is a pensioner) made payments for gas and/or electricity using slot meters, cards, discs or tokens.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date his Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27028]
  464
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Department has an 18 working day deadline for answering correspondence. The percentage receiving replies within the target date is reported annually to Cabinet Office. Figures for average time taken to answer letters are not recorded. No assessment has been made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to his Department since 1 May 1997. [25849]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of casual and fixed-term appointees and Special Advisers appointed since 1 May 1997 is 1,081. This excludes fee-paid usher appointments, information on which is not held centrally.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of continuing with the institution of Queen's Counsel. [25622]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to review the continued existence of the institution of Queen's Counsel.

  Commonhold
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) research he has commissioned and (b) consultation he has held into the introduction of commonhold as a form of tenure. [25745]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. However, in due course the development of a workable commonhold scheme will be undertaken in full consultation with interested parties.

  Wills
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the adult population of England and Wales(a) has used the system for the deposit and safe-keeping of the wills of living persons operated by the principal registry of the family division and (b) he estimates have made wills. [25735]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) There are currently 83,000 wills deposited at the Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD). This means that 0.2 per cent of the 40,073,200 adults over the age of 18 in England and Wales have used this service. (b) It is not possible to say what proportion of the adult population have made wills as there is no requirement for wills to be registered or deposited with PRFD.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) information and (b) opportunities to register an interest are to the public in the system for the deposit and safe-keeping of the wills of living persons operated by the principal registry of the family division. [25734]
  465
  Mr. Hoon
  (a) There is no facility currently available to register an interest in a will. (b) Details of how to deposit a will for safe-keeping by the Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD) are published in a leaflet available at PRFD and all Probate Registries. Wills can be deposited at any Registry and are then forwarded to PRFD where they are retained.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the annual costs of the system for the deposit and safe-keeping of the wills of living persons operated by the principal registry of the family division gross and net of any fee income charged; and if he will assess the costs of operating the system as an open register with facilities for inspection and registering of third party interests and appropriate fees for such services. [25736]

  Mr. Hoon
  Two staff operate the system for receipt and safe-keeping of wills. Their combined annual cost is £60,500. This does not include the cost of storing the wills and the management of the staff, which are incorporated into the overall cost of running the Principal Registry of the Family Division and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. 13,732 wills were deposited in 1997 at a fee of £1 each and so the net annual cost is £46,768. It is not possible to assess the cost of operating the system as an open register with facilities for inspection and registering third parties' interests as there is no information available on the number of requests such a system would generate. To research the number of requests that might be made would incur a disproportionate cost. In any event, the wills of living persons are not public documents.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the current review of legal aid will include consideration of the up-rating of the £2,500 exemption from the statutory charge in matrimonial cases. [25741]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are considering, in the light of Sir Peter Middleton's recommendations, whether any aspects of the financial conditions for civil legal aid, including the statutory charge, need to be reformed. We expect to announce our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department under what provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the Government propose to withdraw legal aid from civil claims for money or monetary compensation. [27004]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor would implement such changes to the scope of civil legal aid by regulation under section 14 of the Legal Aid Act 1988.

  Pre-marriage Contracts
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals his Department has to reform the law relating to marriages with particular reference to pre-marriage contracts. [25740]

  Mr. Hoon
  Officials have been asked to look at a wide range of issues relating to the area of matrimonial property, including pre-nuptial contracts. The work is at 466
  an early stage and it is soon to say what recommendations will be made with regard to the options under consideration.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members: what target date his Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27035]

  Mr. Hoon
  For 1997, the average time taken by this Department to answer letters from hon. Members was approximately 19 working days. The target date for replies is twenty working days. For 1997, 76.54 per cent. of letters were answered within the target date. All letters are dispatched by the first class post or delivered by hand to the House of Commons.

DEFENCE

  Military Personnel, Equipment and Installations
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those private individuals and companies to which military personnel, equipment and installations have been hired out by his Department since 1 May 1997.
  [24457]

  Dr. Reid
  I am today placing such a list in the Library of the House.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for his Department. [25899]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Strategic Defence Review is my Department's contribution to the Government's wide Comprehensive Spending Review. I have put no mechanisms in place specifically to address sustainable development in advance of the completion of the Review. Environmental issues are being taken into account in our work on the Review and there may be decisions arising from it which will affect future policy.

  West Indian Guardship
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to public funds of the West Indian Guardship in 1997. [25992]

  Dr. Reid
  The cost of the West Indian Guardship for the year 1997 was £8.77 million. Her associated Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker was provided at a cost of £2.55 million.

  United Kingdom Land Command
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of the site and buildings of UK Land Command headquarters at Wilton. [26253]
  467
  Dr. Reid
  My Department does not hold any figures for the current market value of the site and buildings at Headquarters Land Command in Wilton. The value of estate on the open market is calculated only when a disposal is under consideration, and there have been no recent, nor are there any current, proposals for the Army to vacate Erskine Barracks.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops were under the command of UK Land Command(a) 1989 and (b) 1997. [26252]

  Dr. Reid
  Land Command was formed in 1995 in place of United Kingdom Land Forces, and to assume responsibility for Army units based in Germany.

  The Commander in Chief United Kingdom Land Forces in 1989 was responsible for the majority of the 41,000 Regular Army personnel based in the United Kingdom, other than personnel providing and undertaking individual training, and of 73,000 Territorial Army personnel.

  The Commander in Chief Land Command presently has command of some 50,000 Regular Army and 58,000 Territorial Army personnel in the United Kingdom and of a further 23,000 Regular Army personnel in Germany.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) service and (b) civilian personnel were employed at United Kingdom Land Command headquarters in Wilton in (i) 1989, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1995 and (iv) at the latest available date; [26141]

  (2) what is the annual cost of maintaining United Kingdom Land Command headquarters at Wilton currently; and what it was in 1989 at 1998 prices. [26142]

  Dr. Reid
  Headquarters Land Command at Wilton was formed in 1995, to assume most of the responsibilities previously undertaken by the former Headquarters United Kingdom Land Forces and also responsibility for the Army in Germany upon the disestablishment of Headquarters British Army of the Rhine in that year. There were at that time a number of other significant organisational changes which affected the composition of the Headquarters at Wilton. The size of the headquarters prior to and after 1995 are not, therefore, comparable.

  The information requested is not available for 1989, so figures for 1990 have been provided instead.

  The authorised establishment of Headquarters United Kingdom Land Forces was as follows:

  Civilian personnel

  Service personnel

  1990

  418

  275

  1992

  407

  290

  The authorised establishment of Headquarters Land Command was as follows:

  Civilian personnel

  Service personnel

  1995

  507

  358

  1997

  521

  370

  Hyderabad Barracks, Colchester
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons new buildings are being erected at Hyderabad Barracks, Colchester; what the buildings are for; and what is the cost for the development. [26290]

  Dr. Reid
  Hyderabad and the adjacent Meeanee Barracks, Colchester are currently being modernised and extended to rectify, as a matter of urgency, serious deficiencies in the living accommodation for single soldiers. The refurbishment is expected to cost £6.7 million.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new assessment he has made of the role of Trident. [26345]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Trident will contribute to maintaining strong defences while we press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons in line with our manifesto commitment. As part of the Strategic Defence Review, we are considering the minimum level of capability required for this role in current strategic circumstances.

  Staff College Camberley
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the future use of the buildings of the Staff College, Camberley; [26364]

  (2) what assessment he had made of the advantages of relocating the Defence Studies College to the Staff College site, Camberley. [26365]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: A number of options are being examined for the future military use of the former Staff College buildings at Camberley, but no final decisions have yet been taken.

  Recruits
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits to(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Air Force aged 16 to 18 years came from (i) a family background and (ii) local authority care for each year since 1990. [26838]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of recruits under 18 years of age who entered the UK regular Armed Forces are detailed in the table:

  Financial year

  RN

  1Army

  RAF

  1990–91

  2n/a

  8,270

  1,410

  1991–92

  2n/a

  7,100

  661

  1992–93

  499

  4,850

  67

  1993–94

  232

  2,938

  70

  1994–95

  229

  3,508

  70

  1995–96

  579

  4,397

  299

  1996–97

  1,103

  5,727

  401

  1997–983

  570

  3,025

  319

  1 The Army figures includes Apprentices and Junior Soldiers.

  2 RN figures for FYs 1990–91 and 1991–92 are not available.

  3 Data for FY 1997–98 covers the period 1 April 1997 to 30 Seotember 1997.

  The further information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Attack Helicopter (Training)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements will be made to provide ground-based and simulator training for the Army's Attack Helicopter air and ground crew. [27241]

  Mr. Spellar
  Subject to satisfactory completion of contract negotiations, we intend to place a Public/Private Partnership contract with a Joint Venture Company (JVC) formed by GKN Westland Helicopters Limited and the Boeing Corporation. The JVC will provide a service to meet all our requirements for ground based training and simulators in support of Attack Helicopter.

  This contract will ensure that we can take full advantage of the capabilities of the Attack Helicopter. The contract will run for 30 years and the JVC will be responsible for supplying all the equipment and instructional staff necessary to provide the required level of service.

  Mid-air Collisions
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the results of the study called for by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch on the probability of a random mid-air collision. [27250]

  Mr. Spellar
  The study, by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, concluded that the principle of `see-and-avoid' in the open Flight Information Region below 2,000 ft resolved confliction in over 99 per cent. of occasions. This implies a worst-case collision rate of 0.118 per 10,000 flying hours for single seat military fast jet aircraft and 0.005 per 10,000 flying hours for General Aviation aircraft.

  The Study acknowledged that certain conspicuity measures could further increase the effectiveness of see-and-avoid. We have already initiated a programme to paint the majority of training aircraft black including the Hawk, the Tucano, the Dominie and the Jetstream; training helicopters and the Firefly aircraft are painted in a combination of yellow and black. In addition, the majority of military aircraft are being fitted with High Intensity Strobe Lights, and RAF aircraft with High Power Light Assemblies where installation is not cost prohibitive.

  The Study also concludes that an effective safety enhancement would be the installation of a collision warning system to military fast jets. The procurement of CWS is under consideration as part of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Flight safety is, and will remain, a key priority and we will continue to pursue initiatives that promise further improvements in that area.

  Copies of the Study Report and an accompanying MOD commentary have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date his 470
  Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27042]

  Mr. Spellar
  Statistics are not held in the form requested. My Department has a target of reply to letters from hon. Members within 15 working days of receipt. Since 14 May 1997, ministers have replied to 63 per cent. of letters within this target and to 79 per cent. within 20 working days. All replies are normally taken by hand to the mail room at the House of Commons, unless we have been asked to make other arrangements by the hon. Member concerned, within 1 working day of being signed.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Land Mines
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which existing land-mine clearance projects the Government assist financially; and what clearance methods these projects use. [26060]

  Clare Short
  We are currently directly supporting clearance projects in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Laos, Northern Iraq and Mozambique. We are also supporting demining activities through the United Nations and the European Community. Directly supported projects all involve manual clearance methods though some also use mechanical devices and dogs.

  Dr. harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the Dervish land mine clearance device, developed at Edinburgh University; and if she will provide financial assistance to support its forthcoming trials in Bosnia. [26059]

  Clare Short
  Dervish Mine Clearance recently submitted a funding proposal for three years support costs. This is presently being technically appraised. The proposal makes no mention of trials in Bosnia.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how long on average it takes her Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date her Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment she has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27036]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International development has a target of 15 working days in which to answer letters from honourable Members and 90 per cent. of letters are answered within that target. Every effort is made to ensure that letters are copied, despatched and delivered within 24 hours of signing.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning United Kingdom aid to Zimbabwe. [26954]
  471
  Clare Short
  We co-ordinate closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the formulation of Government policy.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her fellow EU Ministers concerning EU aid to Zimbabwe. [26953]

  Clare Short
  We co-ordinate closely with our European Union colleagues on a range of issues, including EU aid to Zimbabwe. We support EC's approach on land reform and balance of payments support for Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with representatives of the (i) World Bank and (ii) IMF concerning(a) loans, (b) United Kingdom bilateral and (c) EU aid to Zimbabwe. [26958]

  Clare Short
  We co-ordinate closely with the World Bank and the IMF on a range of issues including aid to Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to impose conditions on United Kingdom bilateral aid to Zimbabwe similar to those attached to the most recent EU aid package. [26959]

  Clare Short
  Following publication of the White Paper on International Development, we are discussing with the Government of Zimbabwe whether we can form a partnership with them to eradicate poverty. This discussion will include their approach to achieving the International Development Targets, economic management and land reform.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the conditions attached to the EU aid programme to Zimbabwe. [26952]

  Clare Short
  The European Union has agreed to release the second tranche of its Structural Adjustment Support programme which was agreed in 1994, based on assurances that the Government of Zimbabwe would meet their budget deficit targets. The Government have assured the EC that the land reform programme will be implemented in a transparent manner and in accordance with the Government of Zimbabwe's administrative and financial capacity to acquire and resettle the land successfully. The EC has encouraged the Government to consult international partners to make a clear statement of how they intend to proceed with land reform.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning the provision of training assistance to the Indonesian police force. [26951]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have kept us informed of their plans to provide training assistance to the Indonesian police.

  Caribbean Nations
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will give details of 472
  (a) trade preference agreements, (b) debt relief and (c) aid currently being made available by Her Majesty's Government to (i) Trinidad and Tobago, (ii) Jamaica and (iii) Belize. [26563]

  Clare Short
  Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Belize are eligible for trade preferences from the European Union under the Lomé Convention. No aid debt relief is currently being made available to any of the three countries. Total UK aid for 1996–97 was £278,000 for Trinidad and Tobago, £9,673,000 for Jamaica and £7,666,000 for Belize. We are currently considering whether debt relief should be extended to Jamaica and Belize under the Commonwealth Debt initiative.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  to ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) scientific advisors and (b) other Government personnel are visiting St. Helena in 1998; and for what purposes. [26417]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 30 January,Official Report, column 441.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment on the Government's efforts to assist poor countries; and if she will make a statement. [26717]

  Clare Short
  The Government support the aim of providing a better international framework for investment, which we believe has an important part to play in helping the poorest countries attract inward investment. My Department is commissioning a study to look at any implications the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) may have for developing countries, which we will share with our negotiating partners. Although the MAI is not designed for poorer developing countries, we support continued consultation with them on this matter.

  Mixed Credits
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the use of mixed credits by DFID will receive independent scrutiny; and if she will make a statement. [26748]

  Clare Short
  The Select Committee on International Development have recently recommended that the use of mixed credits by DFID should receive independent scrutiny. We are currently considering this proposal.

  International Development Budget
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what commitment the Government have made in terms of the percentage of GNP to which the International Development budget will be increased during the next five years. [26700]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to reversing the decline in the development assistance budget and to moving towards the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. We have undertaken to work within existing financial
  473
  ceilings this year and next, while conducting a comprehensive expenditure review to ensure that all our resources are used effectively, in accordance with out policy priorities. Having done so, we can justify increasing the development assistance budget from 1999–2000.

  Paris Club
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to incorporate the Government's objectives, as set out in the White Paper, "Eliminating World Poverty", in the forthcoming Paris Club meetings. [26702]

  Clare short
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Exchequer leads on debt policy. But my Department is closely involved because debt relief can make an important contribution to the elimination of poverty in developing countries. In agreeing the Government's line to take for Paris Club meetings, the Department for International Development seeks to ensure that, in determining the amount of relief to be provided, due account is taken of the debtor country's ability to pay, and that essential public expenditure, particularly in the social sectors, can be maintained.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the current British aid projects in Nicaragua. [26753]

  Clare Short
  Current British aid projects in Nicaragua are as follows:

  (i) Technical Cooperation Programme projects Land Resources Monitoring Project

  (ii) Joint Funding Scheme projects (the principal mechanism for supporting NGO projects based on a 50:50 share of funding.

  Agency

  Project title

  CODA International

  Institutional Capacity Building Programme

  Health Unlimited

  Community Health Care Programme

  International Cooperation for Development

  Promoting Gender and Development with Women's and Mixed Organisations

  Marie Stopes International

  Developing participative Programme Management Capacity

  One World Action

  Community Health Care Programme

  One World Action

  Support for Solidez

  Y CARE International

  Acahualinca Youth and Community Development

  Y CARE International

  Integrated Rural Community Development Programme

  The list of Joint Funding Scheme projects currently being funded does not include those supported through the block grants provided to certain agencies. Information on these will not be available until mid 1998.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Accommodation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will list, in relation to office accommodation made available to hon. Members for their personal use in the Parliamentary precinct,(a) the average floor space, (b) the smallest floor space, (c) the largest floor space and (d) the number of hon. Members sharing offices; and if he will make a statement. [26258]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The average floor space made available to hon. Members is 18.5 sq m. The smallest floor space is 5.6 sq m and the largest is 52.2 sq m. Some 80 hon. Members share offices with other Members.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the amounts of personal expenditure claimed by and reimbursed to the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97 and (v) 1997 to date. [20754]

  Mr. Ingram
  The first table shows the amounts of personal expenditure on business incurred by and re-imbursed to the present Secretary and Chief Executive. The second table gives the total amounts of expenditure incurred by the present secretary and by his predecessor, including accounts which were submitted to and settled by the Authority on their behalf.

  Table 1

  £

  July 1995-March 1996

  Nil

  April 1996—March 1997

  664.00

  April 1997—December 1997

  1,229.00

  Table 2

  £

  Previous Secretary (left post on 30 June 1996)

  April 1993—March 1994

  6,296.00

  April 1994—March 1995

  5,739.00

  April 1995–30 June 1996

  279.00

  Present Secretary (in post since 1 July 1996)

  1 July 1996—March 1997

  3,424.00

  April 1996—March 1997

  9,855.00

  April 1997—December 1997

  4,172.00

  All figures rounded to the nearest £.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of official journeys outside Northern Ireland by the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland in terms of(a) travel, (b) subsistence and (c) entertaining paid from official funds or for which reimbursement was claimed in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997 to date. [20752]
  475
  Mr. Ingram
  The costs are as follows:

  Travel

  Subsistence

  Hospitality

  1995–96

  1,600

  1,064

  225

  1996–97

  5,495

  2,432

  205

  1997-to date

  2,100

  992

  Nil

  All figures rounded to the nearest £.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are in place to authorise or reimburse personnel expenditure by the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. [20753]

  Mr. Ingram
  All travelling and subsistence claims made by the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority are dealt with in accordance with Paragraph 6663 of the NICS Pay and Conditions of Service Code. They are made on a purpose designed Authority claim form which is used by all Authority staff.

  Bloody Sunday
  Ms Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on Bloody Sunday. [24858]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer to my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last Thursday 29 January 1998,Official Report, columns 501–03.

  Student Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 172, on fourth year fees for eligible Northern Irish students, what factors are being considered in the ministerial discussion; and when she expects to announce a decision. [26796]

  Mr. Worthington
  The discussion is focused mainly on matters of equity relating to student support and costs. A decision is expected soon.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the consequences of military action against Iraq in(a) Iraq, (b) the Arab world and (c) Iran. [26985]

  The Prime Minister
  Saddam has demonstrated that he is prepared to attack his neighbours by attacking Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990.

  So long as Saddam Hussein retains the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction he will remain a real threat to his own people and to the whole Middle East region.

  It would not be sensible to speculate on possible military action at this stage.

  We, and Security Council partners, continue to pursue through diplomatic means the objective of ensuring full Iraqi compliance with the Council's demands.
  476
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 348, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), concerning Iraq, to which neighbours he was referring; and what action he has taken to ascertain their view of the efficacy of bombing without the use of ground forces. [26807]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 130.

  Security Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the categories of persons who since 1 May are no longer the subject of security service interest. [26409]

  The Prime Minister
  The operations of the Security Service are constrained by its statutory remit which allows it to conduct investigations only into persons whom it suspects of presenting a threat to national security or to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, or in support of the law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime.

  Power Generators
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has seen the signed agreement reached by the Paymaster General with the power generators. [26413]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: No agreement was reached between the power generators and the Government. Arrangements for coal deliveries were agreed by the relevant parties.

  Animal Issues
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to rationalise departmental responsibilities for animal issues to achieve better policy co-ordination. [26786]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers with responsibilities for animal welfare are actively considering what new arrangements may be needed for interdepartmental co-ordination on animal welfare policies and their presentation. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out departmental responsibilities for biotechnology issues; and what steps he takes to ensure(a) cross-departmental co-ordination and (b) that environmental aspects are fully taken into account. [26787]

  The Prime Minister
  These issues cut across a number of Government Departments. Specific information on departmental responsibilities in respect of regulation, information sources and support for biotechnology in the UK is available through the "BioGuide", published by the DTI. Copies are available in the Library.

  The President of the Board of Trade as Cabinet Minister for Science, supported by the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, takes overall responsibility for co-ordination of biotechnology issues across Government.
  477
  The cross-departmental co-ordination of biotechnology policy is undertaken, at official level, by the Interdepartmental Group on Genetic Modification Technology (IGGMOT). IGGMOT was established under the auspices of the Office of Science and Technology in 1993 to provide a forum for consideration of biotechnology policy across Government, both domestic and international. Since its inception, IGGMOT has become increasingly important tool for the co-ordination of biotechnology policy, including environmental aspects.

  The official Cabinet Committee on Science and Technology (EASO), chaired by the Government's Chief Scientific Advisor, also maintains an overview of biotechnology issues.

  Women's Employment
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to assist women aged over 50 years back into employment. [27047]

  The Prime Minister
  We shall continue with policies of economic stability and growth that create employment opportunities for all. The latest figures announced on 14 January 1998 show a continued increase in the number of people in work in the UK and a further fall in the number unemployed. Falls in unemployment have been relatively even across all age groups for both men and women.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Coal (Land Holdings)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the remaining land holdings held by British Coal, indicating which are(a) in the process of passing to the Coal Authority and (b) subject to conditional planning consents relating to opencast coal mining. [25511]

  Mr. Battle
  British Coal retains approximately 30 properties where sales are contracted but not yet completed. In addition it holds leasehold interests in 14 office properties and approximately 200 recreational sites which are due to transfer to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation shortly.

  It is not intended to transfer any of these properties to the Coal Authority and none are subject to conditional planning consents to opencast coal mining.

  A full list detailing all the properties will be available in the HoC library.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the cost to companies of their being required to submit testimony in person at industrial tribunals. [25305]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The most recent Survey of Industrial Tribunal Applications collected information on the total costs for employers responding to Industrial Tribunal cases (1992 Survey of Industrial Tribunal Applications: Trelett and Banerji—Employment Department, February 1994). This did not differentiate between the costs of attending a hearing and other costs. The overall median 478
  total cost was £1,486, although this varied greatly between cases and organisations and included all costs incurred including attending a hearing, legal advice etc. The Third Survey of Industrial Tribunal Applications, which will be carried out during this year, will allow a better breakdown of the costs to both parties.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the reduction proposed for the fossil fuel levy. [24964]

  Mr. Battle
  The setting of the rate of the fossil fuel levy is a matter for the Levy Collector. On 19 December the Levy Collector announced that the rate of the fossil fuel levy for the year beginning 1 April 1998 would be 0.9 per cent.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on what parts of the electricity generating industry the fossil fuel levy will apply; and how much will be realised with the new formulas for the fossil fuel levy. [24967]

  Mr. Battle
  The Fossil Fuel Levy Bill, now before the House, would result in electricity supplied from nuclear and fossil fuel sources being subject to the fossil fuel levy as well as electricity produced under Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation arrangements. The Levy Collector estimates that the levy will need to realise £119 million in 1998–99.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to announce the rate and incidence of the non-fossil fuel levy. [24404]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: On 19 December the Levy Collector announced that the rate of the fossil fuel levy for the year beginning 1 April 1998 would be 0.9 per cent. This is pursuant to my previous answer on 24 November 1997, Official Report, column 417, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry's answer to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), on 24 November 1997, Official Report, column 417.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action she will take during the British presidency of the European Union in respect of the White Paper on Renewable Energy; [22287]

  (2) what was the outcome of the meeting with European Union energy ministers on 8 December about the European Union White Paper on Renewable Energy. [22288]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: The Commission made a presentation of their White Paper to the Energy Council on December 8.

  The theme of our current meeting will be energy and environment. During our Presidency we will initiate a detailed discussion of the White Paper and Action Plan with our partners to see what can realistically be done to promote the uptake of renewables throughout Europe. We intend to hold a debate on energy and the environment at the Energy council under our Presidency. This will address the role of renewables, and the Commission's White Paper, as a key item. Within the UK, we are

  479
  currently reviewing our policy on renewable energy including consideration of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK's electricity needs from renewables by 2010.

  Funerals
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will take action to warn(a) pensioners and (b) others about the activities of funeral directors who encourage people to opt for unnecessarily expensive funerals. [24723]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I share the hon. Member's concern about this issue. Funeral directors have a duty to deal fairly with people at times of stress. The codes of practice of all the funeral trade associations require their members to make a basic funeral available with its price clearly indicated. Where funeral directors do not do this, I urge consumers to report them to the relevant trade association of the Funeral Ombudsman Scheme as applicable. I am concerned that there is not enough transparency in this and in other aspects of the funeral business and I am looking to the industry in the first instance to improve consumer protection.

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations she has had with representatives of the gas industry about future strategies for energy supply. [24320]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: The gas industry comprises a heterogeneous range of companies—over 60 gas suppliers (many of whom are in other energy businesses such as electricity or upstream oil and gas activities), the transmission network, and manufacturers and suppliers of gas equipment of all kinds. I and my officials meet, from time to time, a range of companies with gas interests, and various issues are discussed, including long-term energy supply.

  Coal Industry
  Mr Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has(a) attended meetings, (b) read papers and (c) made comments on coal industry matters in the last three months. [24264]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: Matters concerning the coal industry are the responsibility of the Minister for Science, Industry and Energy. His responsibilities also include European coal issues, dealt with at the Energy Council which he attends.

  Coal industry matters have arisen only incidentally, e.g. in meetings at which the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has been present. He has had no direct dealings with the issue.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Board of Trade if the Paymaster General will ensure that the report on the future of the coal industry is completed before the current redundancy terms for miners end on 30 June. [25426]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Government are not preparing a report on the coal industry. On 22 December, the President of the Board of
  480
  Trade announced details of a review of energy sources for power generation. That review is being carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry, not HM Treasury. The Department has invited representations by 16 February. The review is expected to reach conclusions before 30 June.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much extra British coal she estimates will be burned in British power stations in the second quarter of 1998 as a result of the agreement facilitated by the Paymaster General. [25421]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: National Power and Eastern Electricity agreed with RJB Mining to accelerate deliveries of 600,000 tonnes between them in the April-June quarter 1998. Power Gen agreed to purchase 1.1 million tonnes from RJB in this period.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the revised sulphur protocol issued by the Environment Agency on coal mines and jobs in the coal industry. [25418]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Exchanges I have had with the electricity generators suggest that, if implemented, the revised limits proposed by the Environment Agency in a recent consultation paper would have the effect of constraining their purchases of coal and coalburn. My Department is entering into discussions with the Environment Agency and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the proposed limits.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the amount of coal burned will increase in the second quarter of 1998 as a result of the agreement reached by the Paymaster General with the power generators. [26783]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Following discussions between the electricity generators and RJB Mining in December 1997, National Power and Eastern Electricity agreed with RJB Mining to accelerate deliveries of 600,000 tonnes between them in the April-June quarter of 1998. Power Gen agreed to purchase 1.1 million tonnes from RJB in this period. The volume of coal burned in the quarter in relation to other quarters will depend upon the decisions of the individual generating companies.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total cost of the receptions held at her official residence. [25236]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: In relation to the costs of official receptions, I refer to my reply to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 29 January 1998, Official Report, column 356. The costs of any other functions have been borne privately.

  Power Generators
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Ministers of her Department were notified of the details of the agreement reached by the Paymaster General with the power generators; and if she will publish details of the agreement. [25422]
  481
  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: No agreement was reached between the Paymaster General and the power generators. Arrangements for coal deliveries were agreed between the power generators and RJB Mining. The President and I were fully aware of the discussions that led to these arrangements.

  I have arranged for a record of the details of the agreement, agreed with the parties, to be placed in the Library.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what mechanisms she has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for her Department. [25907]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Sustainable development is a factor in all my Department's work. As part of the comprehensive spending review, I aim to ensure that sustainability, including environmental and social issues, is integrated in all areas and by all Directorates. I have also made sustainability a key part of the remits for my Competitiveness working Groups (business advisory panels) on Management Best Practice and innovation.

  Solar Heating
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what surveys have been carried out into the benefits of solar heating systems in houses; what discussions she has had with housebuilders regarding installing solar heating systems when building houses; and if she will make a statement. [25296]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) have the policy lead on solar energy technologies, whereas it is the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) which sponsors the construction industry. There is, of course a constructive dialogue between the Departments for implementing policy in this area.

  A detailed survey was carried out in May 1995, commissioned by the DTI's New and Renewable Energy Programme. The objectives of the survey were to establish how many active solar water heating systems have been installed, how many are still in use and how they have performed. As part of the work, a questionnaire was sent to about 1400 households, 50 per cent. of which were returned. The report concluded that some 49,000 active solar heating systems had been installed in Britain, of which 42,000 were still in use. In general, systems were performing well and the majority of users were 'very satisfied' with their system. The report is available from the Renewable Energy Enquiries Bureau at ETSU—"Survey of Active Solar Heating Systems in the UK—ETSU S/P3/00238/REP".

  In addition, as part of the DETR's Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, an R and D project is currently underway, aiming to assess the performance and economics of installing modern solar heating systems on a housing association site of new-built family houses. Following occupation, eight of the houses will be monitored to measure solar radiation and energy input into heating and domestic hot water, to establish the ratio
  482
  of hot water provided by the solar system. Occupants will also be questioned on their level of satisfaction. A parallel EU-funded THERMIE project aims to establish economic factors such as installation and running costs.

  There have been no discussions between DTI or DETR Ministers and housebuilders regarding installing solar heating systems when building houses. However, DTI officials have an active collaboration with the solar heating industry and DETR officials have regular contacts with the building industry on a whole range of energy saving measures in housebuilding.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by her Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant. [25652]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: Information technology equipment is only occasionally sold by the DTI. Purchasers are invariably specialist organisation which will be well aware of the potential non-compliant status of older equipment.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham of 20 January 1998 relating to membership of the Ministerial Group on the year 2000 problem. [27074]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon, Member to the answer I gave her on 30 January 1998,Official Report, column 568.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of civil service staff of grade five and above within her Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within her Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26036]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Of the Senior Civil Service currently working in the DTI 24 per cent. have spent their entire Civil Service career here; 12 per cent. have had secondment to the private sector; 31 per cent. have worked in other departments and 42 per cent. have come from other departments.

  Electricity Companies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce regulations to reduce delays in obtaining repairs by requiring electricity companies to provide special emergency numbers for nursing homes and old people's homes. [26242]

  Mr. Battle
  The Office of Electricity Regulation is currently investigating the performance of the Public Electricity Suppliers (PES) in dealing with the aftermath of the recent storms.

  The investigation includes the problems that occurred with the communication system and why it took so long to reconnect the supply of some nursing homes.

  483
  The current Codes of practice provide that PES keep a list of elderly and disabled customers.

  Football World Cup
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she has referred to the Director General of Fair Trading, the ticket allocation system for the 1998 Football World Cup; and if she will make a statement. [26264]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  No. In the first instance the ticket allocation system for the 1998 Football World Cup is a matter for FIFA and the French organising authorities. My hon. Friend, the Minister for Sport, is concerned about the inadequacy of World Cup tickets and I understand he has discussed this with the FA. I also understand that both they and the Scottish Football Association are doing everything they can in making representations to the French World Cup organisers and to FIFA to maximise the number of World Cup tickets available for English and Scottish supporters.

  Algeria
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of ECGD exposure in Algeria for(a) defence-related equipment and (b) non-defence equipment; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to trade with Algeria. [26014]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: From data readily available exposure under ECGD guarantees for defence business with Algeria was £97.8 million at end of December 1997 with a further £82 million exposure in respect of non-defence business giving total exposure of £179.8 million. Over £160 million of this total exposure has been paid as claims, but these sums have been rescheduled and thus are expected to be recovered. There is currently no medium term ECGD cover available for defence-related goods as ECGD cover for new business is primarily available for sales of equipment to the Oil and Gas sector.

  The Government maintain trade relations with Algeria within the framework of the EC/Algeria Co-operation Agreement: we support the current negotiations on a new EU/Algeria Association Agreement, providing for reciprocal liberalised trade: we also welcome Algeria's application to accede to the World Trade Organisation.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 512, if she will list the equipment covered by the categories (a) MI5, (b) ML9, (c) ML10, and (d) ML 11. [24611]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: Description of the goods covered in these entries are set out in Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No.2) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/2663). The description of the goods covered by entry MLIO has since been amended by article 7(5) of the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No.3) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/2758). These instruments are in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the safety of the United Kingdom's nuclear reprocessing facilities. [26387]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel takes place at two sites in the UK: BNFL'S Sellafield site in Cumbria and the UKAEA's Dounreay site in Caithness. Both these sites are subject to the nuclear safety regulatory system enforced by the nuclear industry's independent safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Under the nuclear site licensing regime, continued operation of any civil nuclear installation, including reprocessing facilities, is dependent on the HSE being satisfied about its safety.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if nuclear reprocessing will continue at each of the present sites in the United Kingdom. [26386]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Subject to satisfying the regulatory requirements on safety and discharges, BNFL and UKAEA can be expected to fulfil their contractual commitments to reprocess spent nuclear fuel for their customers.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if rates for ECGD cover for the latest Hawk Jet order from Indonesia reflected a revised risk assessment.[26391]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: The premium rate charged reflected ECGD's assessment of the risk at the time.

  ECGD's premium charge for individual transactions is fixed at the time its guarantee is issued and is not subject to review during the life of the guarantee.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her latest estimate of ECGD losses in 1997–98. [26380]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: ECGD does not expect on its current forecast to record a trading loss in 1997–98.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when ECGD last revised its risk assessment of(a) Indonesia, (b) South Korea, (c) Malaysia, (d) Hong Kong and (e) China; and what changes it made. [26384]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Formal risk assessments were last made as follows:

  (a) for Indonesia in December 1997;

  (b) for South Korea in September 1997;

  (c) for Malaysia in May 1997;

  (d) for Hong Kong in November 1996;

  (e) for China in November 1996.

  As a result, premium rates were raised for Indonesia and China and reduced for Malaysia. The precise amount will vary according to the terms of support for individual transactions.
  485
  Rates were last raised for South Korea in February 1996 and for Malaysia and Hong Kong in December 1995.

  New assessments for South Korea, China and Hong Kong are currently under way and a further assessment of Malaysia is planned.

  Additionally, since the onset of financial turbulence in South East Asia, ECGD is monitoring the situation continuously.

  Exports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list by category, the records which her Department maintains on exports over the last 30 years of British(a) agricultural machinery, (b) motor lorries and (c) motor cars. [27018]

  Mr. Battle
  Information on UK exports of goods is collected and published by HM Customs and Excise ("Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise"). In 1997 under the combined Nomenclature classification system there were approximately 60 categories of agricultural machinery, 15 categories of motor cars (excluding motor caravans) and 30 categories of lorries. The exact number of categories has varied from year to year as the classification system has been adapted to changes in the range of products. The last major revision to the classification system was 1988.

  The Department holds copies of the relevant publications for 1976, but the cost of extracting the data for the relevant categories would be disproportionate. However, the 1997 edition of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' publication "World Automotive Statistics" helpfully reproduces Customs and Excise data on car, commercial vehicle, and agricultural tractor exports from 1946 to 1996. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 28 October 1997 on behalf of Mrs. Tomayan. [26374]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to him on 26 January 1998, Official Report, column 64.

  Airbus 340X
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade is she will make a statement about the application by British Aerospace for launch aid for the Airbus 340X. [27297]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am pleased to announce that the Government have agreed to a public/private partnership with British Aerospace involving a long-term investment of up to £123 million in British Aerospace towards the design and development of the wing for the new Airbus A340. This represents a major step forward for the UK's involvement in Airbus Industries, which enjoyed its most successful year to date in 1997; it is also a further 486
  demonstration of British Aerospace's world class expertise in wing design and manufacture—expertise which it has brought to all Airbus programmes to date.

  The agreement with British Aerospace continues the Government's drive to create a new partnership between Government and industry. The investment by the Government is repayable and will be on a commercial basis. The terms of the partnership reflect the risk that the taxpayer has been asked to share. The Government will monitor the programme carefully to ensure that the employment and other economic benefits are fully realised, and that all the conditions of the partnership are met.

  The new Airbus A340–500 will be the longest range aircraft on the market, operating up to 8,500 nautical miles. Seven launch customers have already placed orders and commitments for around 100 A340–500/600 aircraft; this represents an excellent start which I hope bodes well for the success of the programme.

  I am also delighted that Rolls-Royce will provide the engines for the new aircraft, taking the overall British interest in the aircraft to around 50 per cent. The Government announced in November that they would support Rolls-Royce in its engine development programme for this aircraft.

  British Aerospace is a major investor in R&D in the UK and much of its technology is diffused to other sectors of the UK economy. Some of the new technology to be incorporated in the new wing has been researched with support from the DTI's Civil Aircraft Research and Technology Demonstration (CARAD programme.

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

SCOTLAND

  Benefits
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish for each constituency in Scotland his estimate of the numbers of(a) male and (b) female (i) lone parents, (ii) pensioners, (iii) recipients of DSS benefits and (iv) unemployed persons, (1) under the age of 18 years, (2) aged 18 to 24 years and (3) aged over 24 years. [24037]

  Mr. Wilson
  The numbers of lone parents and pensioners are given in the table. The source is the 1991 Census of Population.

  Parliamentary constituency level information is not available for all DSS benefits. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to write supplying the data that are available.

  The Office for National Statistics measures unemployment using the internationally standard ILO unemployment rate. This is measured through the Labour Force Survey, which is a survey of households in the United Kingdom. This is internationally-agreed and counts as unemployed people who are: (a) without a paid job; (b) available to start work within the next two weeks

  487
  and (c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

  ONS also published figures on the number of people who are claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance Credits. This is published monthly and is known as the Claimant Count.

  1991 Census: Parliamentary Constituencies as at the 1997 General Election

  Lone parents1

  Males 65+

  Persons

  Males

  Females

  Females 60+

  Males 65+

  Females 60+

  Scotland

  223,170

  28,940

  194,230

  908,486

  298,115

  610,371

  Aberdeen Central

  2,490

  240

  2,240

  13,461

  4,123

  9,338

  Aberdeen North

  2,970

  440

  2,530

  9,438

  3,239

  6,199

  Aberdeen South

  2,430

  340

  2,090

  14,041

  4,348

  9,693

  Airdrie and Shotts

  3,930

  530

  3,400

  12,407

  4,026

  8,381

  Angus

  2,550

  340

  2,210

  14,852

  4,898

  9,954

  Argyll and Bute

  2,350

  390

  1,970

  14,001

  4,667

  9,334

  Ayr

  2,630

  310

  2,320

  15,481

  4,964

  10,517

  Banff and Buchan

  2,480

  420

  2,060

  12,569

  4,347

  8,222

  Caithness, Surtherland and Easter Ross

  2,040

  250

  1,780

  9,605

  3,298

  6,307

  Carrick, Cummock and Doon Valley

  3,410

  450

  2,970

  15,396

  5,318

  10,078

  Central Fife

  3,440

  350

  3,100

  12,061

  4,026

  8,035

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  3,640

  440

  3,200

  12,945

  4,110

  8,835

  Clydesdale

  2,890

  410

  2,490

  13,703

  4,538

  9,165

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  3,250

  450

  2,800

  11,558

  3,688

  7,870

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,690

  330

  2,360

  7,337

  2,366

  4,971

  Cunninghame North

  3,180

  330

  2,850

  14,553

  4,680

  9,873

  Cunninghame South

  3,390

  340

  3,060

  9,524

  3,151

  6,373

  Dumbarton

  3,690

  470

  3,220

  12,730

  4,068

  8,662

  Dumfries

  3,020

  390

  2,630

  15,463

  5,259

  10,204

  Dundee East

  4,240

  470

  3,770

  15,196

  4,992

  10,204

  Dundee West

  4,460

  520

  3,940

  14,317

  4,542

  9,775

  Dunfermline East

  2,720

  430

  2,290

  11,817

  4,150

  7,667

  Dunfermline West

  2,650

  360

  2,290

  10,723

  3,617

  7,106

  East Kilbride

  2,940

  430

  2,520

  12,061

  3,983

  8,078

  East Lothian

  2,640

  380

  2,260

  14,007

  4,824

  9,183

  Eastwood

  2,960

  410

  2,550

  14,028

  4,564

  9,464

  Edinburgh Central

  2,380

  310

  2,080

  14,344

  4,448

  9,896

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  3,500

  440

  3,060

  15,755

  5,042

  10,713

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  3,250

  350

  2,900

  13,003

  4,074

  8,929

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  3,370

  470

  2,900

  12,210

  3,928

  8,282

  Edinburgh South

  2,710

  280

  2,440

  15,810

  4,700

  11,110

  Edinburgh West

  2,900

  360

  2,550

  14,751

  4,957

  9,794

  Falkirk East

  2,720

  290

  2,440

  11,916

  4,017

  7,899

  Falkirk West

  2,620

  230

  2,380

  12,778

  4,262

  8,516

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  2,530

  400

  2,130

  14,694

  5,185

  9,509

  Glasgow Anniesland

  4,880

  590

  4,290

  16,563

  5,273

  11,290

  Glasgow Baillieston

  5,910

  620

  5,290

  10,795

  3,521

  7,274

  Glasgow Cathcart

  4,040

  470

  3,570

  13,221

  4,124

  9,097

  Glasgow Govan

  3,560

  550

  3,010

  12,622

  3,703

  8,919

  Glasgow Kelvin

  2,280

  290

  2,000

  11,983

  3,617

  8,366

  Glasgow Maryhill

  5,360

  690

  4,670

  12,225

  3,870

  8,355

  Glasgow Pollok

  5,000

  490

  4,510

  14,231

  4,314

  9,917

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  3,940

  470

  3,470

  13,054

  4,130

  8,924

  Glasgow Shettleston

  4,480

  550

  3,930

  12,709

  4,092

  8,617

  Glasgow Springburn

  5,740

  740

  4,990

  14,010

  4,413

  9,597

  Gordon

  1,760

  220

  1,540

  11,580

  4,148

  7,432

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  3,910

  540

  3,370

  12,851

  4,120

  8,731

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  3,630

  510

  3,120

  10,309

  3,341

  6,968

  Hamilton South

  3,030

  430

  2,600

  8,870

  2,848

  6,022

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  2,740

  430

  2,310

  13,546

  4,513

  9,033

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,750

  420

  3,330

  14,377

  4,654

  9,723

  Kirkcaldy

  2,920

  410

  2,520

  13,500

  4,464

  9,036

  Linlithgow

  2,690

  450

  2,240

  10,204

  3,508

  6,696

  Livingston

  3,180

  430

  2,750

  8,638

  2,837

  5,801

  Midlothian

  2,440

  360

  2,080

  10,525

  3,697

  6,838

  Moray

  2,630

  420

  2,210

  13,499

  4,642

  8,857

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  3,040

  340

  2,700

  12,962

  4,132

  8,830

  North East Fife

  2,210

  330

  1,890

  14,714

  4,959

  9,755

  North Tayside

  2,390

  370

  2,030

  16,738

  5,798

  10,940

  Ochil

  3,020

  360

  2,660

  11,616

  3,883

  7,733

  Orkney and Shetland

  1,270

  320

  960

  7,257

  2,580

  4,677

  488
  The information requested can be derived only from the claimant count as the Labour Force Survey does not give detail below local authority district level. This information is available through the Norris database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.

  489

  1991 Census: Parliamentary Constituencies as at the 1997 General Election

  Lone parents1

  Males 65+

  Persons

  Males

  Females

  Females 60+

  Males 65+

  Females 60+

  Paisley North

  3,780

  450

  3,330

  11,153

  3,444

  7,709

  Paisley South

  3,560

  460

  3,100

  12,545

  3,952

  8,593

  Perth

  3,190

  470

  2,720

  15,599

  5,178

  10,421

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  2,890

  350

  2,550

  12,566

  4,354

  8,212

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  1,950

  300

  1,650

  12,942

  4,497

  8,445

  Stirling

  2,680

  420

  2,260

  11,970

  3,956

  8,014

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  2,720

  420

  2,300

  12,188

  4,068

  8,120

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2,020

  260

  1,750

  11,704

  3,950

  7,754

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  1,710

  200

  1,510

  10,480

  3,648

  6,832

  West Renfrewshire

  2,530

  370

  2,160

  10,015

  3,365

  6,650

  Western Isles

  1,280

  200

  1,080

  6,190

  2,123

  4,067

  Note:

  1 Based on a 10 per cent, sample. A common grossing factor has been applied to give an estimate for the total lone parent population in each constituency.

  Source:

  1991 Census of Population General Register Office for Scotland.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year form 1985–86 to 1996–97 the total value of discounts for the right-to-buy scheme for(a) council tenants, (b) Scottish Homes tenants, (c) new town tenants and (d) other public tenants in Scotland. [24394]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information available for council tenants, Scottish Homes tenants and new town tenants is set out in the table. Information on Right to Buy sales to other public sector tenants is not held centrally.

  Total value1 of discounts for the right-to-buy scheme, 1985–86 to 1996–97.

  £ million

  Council tenants

  Scottish Homes tenants

  New town tenants

  1985–86

  98.7

  1.4

  10.9

  1986–87

  110.6

  1.6

  9.6

  1987–88

  196.4

  1.7

  18.9

  1988–89

  317.8

  0.8

  22.5

  1989–90

  402.2

  1.1

  40.7

  1990–91

  356.3

  3.7

  29.5

  1991–92

  319.6

  10.9

  17.4

  1992–93

  327.1

  13.1

  15.1

  1993–94

  299.6

  18.8

  18.4

  1994–952

  305.9

  38.9

  23.5

  1995–962

  232.2

  28.0

  1T.4

  1996–972

  201.9

  26.8

  3.3

  1 The values given are in cash terms.2 The figures for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not yet finalised.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were ready for discharge from hospitals in Scotland awaiting appropriate accommodation and packages of care in the community and in nursing homes at the most recent date for which figures are available. [25010]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of patients ready for discharge to the community is not collected routinely.

  Social Work Services
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require Scottish local authorities to have a common charging policy for social work services. [25608]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Local authorities are required to apply a common charging policy for people whom they place in residential nursing home care. Authorities have discretionary powers to charge for certain day and domiciliary care services. In all cases, account must be taken of a person's financial circumstances when assessing the level of charge.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for his Department. [25900]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have asked my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for agriculture, the environment and fisheries in Scotland, whose responsibilities as Green Minister include the promotion of sustainable development, to assist colleagues in the comprehensive spending reviews in my Department. In fulfilling this role Lord Sewel will ensure that the Government's commitment to sustainable development is properly reflected in all the reviews currently being conducted in my Department.

  Non-Scottish United Kingdom Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total financial contribution of non-Scottish United Kingdom students to the Scottish economy in off-campus expenditure for each of the last five years. [25348]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Scottish Office has made no such estimate. However, I am aware of the report "The Impact of the Scottish Higher Education Sector on the Economy of Scotland" (the McNicholl Report), commissioned by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals and published two

  491
  years ago, which suggested that non-Scottish UK students contributed £100 million annually in off-campus expenditure on goods and services.

  Prison Staff Pay
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce regulations to establish a framework for the determination of prison staff's pay under the terms of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. [26151]

  Mr. McLeish
  This matter is under consideration. In Scotland, discussions between management and unions in the Prison Service have been taking place on what conciliation/mediation arrangements might be appropriate, should there be a failure to reach agreement on pay.

  Acute Beds (Lothian)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the number of admissions by specialty to acute beds in the Lothian Health area in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1995–96; and the projected number of such admissions in 2002–2003. [26420]

  (2) if he will list by specialty the number of acute beds in the Lothian Health area (a) projected for 2002–2003 and (b) in (i) 1989–90 and (ii) 1995–96. [26421]

  (3) what was the throughput by specialty for acute beds in the Lothian Health area in (a) 1989–90 and
  (b) 1995–96; and what is the projected throughput for such beds in 2002–2003. [26419]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Information on the average number of available staffed acute beds, the number of admissions to acute beds and throughput by specialty in Lothian Health Board are for the years to 31 March 1990 and 31 March 1996 and projected for the year 2003 is given in the tables which have been placed in the Library. The projected figures were provided by Lothian Health Board.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions police officers in(a) Strathclyde and (b) elsewhere in Scotland have discharged CS spray in the last year; how many police officers were injured; and if he will make a statement. [25831]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Operational trials of CS aerosol incapacitant spray began last October in Strathclyde and Tayside Police areas. Since the trials began the spray has been used on 3 occasions in Strathclyde and once in Tayside. On 2 occasions, officers were in the course of being assaulted when they used the spray. They suffered minor injuries, though they were fit to continue on duty: the use of the spray avoided the risk of much more serious injuries. On one occasion, the officers themselves were slightly affected by the spray, but were fit to continue on duty and suffered no lasting effects. The trials are due to end in March.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to deal with 492
  domestic violence,; what funds he is making available to (a) local authority and (b) voluntary association projects; and if he will make a statement. [25832]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: The Government recognise that domestic violence is a serious problem which threatens many people, mainly women and children. It is unacceptable in itself and also impacts on many areas of the lives of victims and on their freedom to live their lives without fear and in the way they wish. The Cabinet Sub-Committee on Women's Issues has designated the need to tackle domestic violence as one of 3 major issues it is committed to addressing. We are taking a number of steps to combat the problem in Scotland.

  Almost £240,000 has been provided this financial year to Scottish Women's Aid under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

  The Urban Programme supports around 5 projects addressing the needs of women and children suffering from domestic violence and other forms of abuse. These projects will receive funding amounting to around £400,000 in 1998–99.

  The previous Government commissioned a research study from Dr. Sheila Henderson of Reid-Howie Associates to inform future policy on domestic violence and addressing 3 main questions.
  What services are currently available in Scotland to women (and their children) who suffer violence at the hands of their partner?
  What gaps exist in the provision of services in Scotland, whether in the type, quantity or geographic location of services and how might these gaps be filled?
  What do service providers consider is the most appropriate role for The Scottish Office and others in the effort to combat domestic violence?

  We have received a report from Dr. Henderson and will consider very carefully its wide ranging recommendations in partnership with service providers.

  Nursing Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria will be used to determine which applicants to courses in nursing, midwifery and the professions allied to medicine will be successful in receiving maintenance bursaries. [26558]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Applicants gaining a place on courses in nursing, midwifery and the professions allied to medicine will be eligible for maintenance bursaries. I expect that the total number of places available will remain at around current levels. Such bursaries for students undertaking degree courses in nursing, midwifery and the professions allied to medicine will be means-tested.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the amount of maintenance bursary for nursing, midwifery and the professions allied to medicine students. [26559]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Students undertaking full-time Nursery and Midwifery diploma courses will continue to be offered non-means tested bursaries as at present.
  493
  Students undertaking degree nursing, midwifery and professions allied to medicine courses will have access to means-tested bursaries.

  Standard bursary rates for Scottish domiciled nursing and midwifery degree students, and professions allied to medicine students in academic year 1998–99 will be:

  £

  Students living in the parental home

  1,325

  Students living outwith the parental home

  1,735

  Such students will also be entitled to apply for a student loan.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the funding arrangements will be for student nurses qualified with HND/RN who wish to continue directly on to full-time degree study. [26561]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: It is not possible to qualify as a nurse with a Higher National Diploma/Registered Nurse.

  Students with a Diploma in Higher Education in Nursing or Registered Nurse or Midwife who progress to a full-time degree may be given credit for their existing qualification by the institution offering the degree. Their eligibility for student support arrangements for that qualification would be on the same basis as others taking the course.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what compensation and from whom will be available to Scottish institutions for the revenue they will lose as a result of the waiving of fourth year tuition fees for Scottish domiciled students. [26562]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: There is no question of Scottish institutions losing revenue as a result of the Government's decision on fourth year tuition fees for Scottish domiciled students. As I announced in my speech to the Annual Forum of the Conference of Scottish Higher Education Principals on 27 October 1997, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland will pay the tuition fee for Scottish students in Scottish higher education institution for the fourth or honours year of courses which are a year longer than comparable courses elsewhere in the UK. This is in line with the Garrick Committee's recommendation that the fees contribution from Scottish students should be equitable with that from students on comparable courses in the rest of the UK.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date his Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27033]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department has a target of 17 working days to reply to Ministerial Correspondence and 57 per cent. of correspondence receives a reply within this target. My Department monitors performance against the 494
  target but does not keep statistics on the average time taken to answer letters from hon Members or on the length of time taken to deliver a letter after it has been typed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many pensioners on income support in the West Chelmsford constituency received outdated giros to pay for their winter fuel bills; and when they can expect to receive their new giros; [26545]

  (2) how much it will cost the Exchequer to rectify the sending of out-of-date giros to pensioners for winter fuel bills; [26546]

  (3) how many pensioners have been adversely affected by the error in the cheques sent to pensioners receiving the additional money to help with their winter fuel bills; and when she expects them to receive their money; [26547]

  (4) if she will make a statement on the reasons for the computer error that has led to the sending of out-of-date giros for winter fuel payments to pensioners on income support. [26548]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter fuel payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. This is the first time any Government have made a payment to all pensioners towards their heating costs.

  This is an enormous and unprecedented exercise, involving the making of around 10 million payments to over seven million pensioner households at a total cost of around £200 million.

  A problem occurred earlier this week which has now been rectified. Replacement girocheques along with an apology have been sent to all of the 40,801 pensioners who received out-of-date cheques.

  No pensioners in receipt of Income Support in the West Chelmsford constituency should have received outdated giros for winter fuel payments.

  I have set up an investigation into the error.

  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 30 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the computer error that led to the issue of out-of-date giros for Winter Fuel payments, the cost to the Exchequer to rectify the position and in particular the number of pensioners on Income Support in your constituency who received outdated giros.
  You may find it helpful if I explain that the Benefits Agency is currently engaged in issuing Winter Fuel Payments to around ten million pensioners. Priority has been given to issuing payments to the poorest pensioners—the 1.5 million who are receiving Income Support. All those payments have now been issued and should be received by the end of this week.

  495
  Computer services are provided by an external contractor through the Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA) on behalf of the Department. An error by a computer operator led to out-of-date girocheques being sent to 40,801 pensioners in receipt of Income Support. This was an isolated incident which is confined to these customers. Arrangements have been made for pensioners to receive replacement girocheques by 31 January 1998.
  The five Benefits Agency District offices affected by the computer error are listed below:
  Clyde Coast and Renfrew District, which includes offices of Greenock, Port Glasgow and Renfrew.
  Ealing District, which includes the offices of Ealing, Acton, Nottinghill and Southall.
  Glasgow East District, which includes the offices of Shettleston, Bridgeton and Provan.
  West Pennine District, which includes the offices of Bury, Manchester Middleton and Rochdale.
  Palace District, which includes the offices of Fulham, Crystal Palace, Dulwich, Kensington and Peckham.
  The cost of remedial action will be borne by the supplier. A full investigation is now taking place.
  I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice(a) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and (b) other Ministers in the Treasury received from civil servants on the consistency of the proposed winter fuel payments for pensioners campaign with the Civil Service rules on Government advertising; and if she will make a statement. [26792]

  Mr. Denham
  The Civil Service rules on Government advertising clearly state that it is right and proper for governments to use public funds for publicity and advertising to explain their policies and to inform the public of the government services available to them and of their rights and liabilities.

  Within this Department a multi-media campaign was recommended, in accordance with guidelines, as the most cost effective way of making sure that pensioners had information about Winter Fuel Payments. Pensioners need to know what payments are coming to them, how and when, in order to make informed decisions about how to heat their homes.

  Winter Fuel Supplement
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the winter fuel supplement she estimates will be paid after 28 February. [26171]

  Mr. Denham
  The additional help of £400 million over this winter and next, announced by the Chancellor on 25 November 1997,Official Report, columns 773–98, demonstrates the Government's commitment to help the elderly keep warm in their homes.

  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Rendel, dated 29 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what percentage of the winter fuel supplement she estimates will be paid after 28th February.
  496
  This is an enormous and unprecedented exercise for the Department. All payments are being issued as quickly as possible. Payments will be issued automatically without the need to make a claim.
  Current planning assumptions are that approximately 10m pensioners will receive a Winter Fuel Payment.
  Priority has been given to making payments to the poorest pensioners—the one and a half million receiving Income Support and Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based). All those payments have now been made and should be received by the end of January. Payments to these pensioners totals £70 million. This represents 35% of the overall expenditure and approximately 15% of the total number of eligible pensioners.
  As soon as payments have been made to the Income Support and Job Seekers Allowance pensioners, around 15 million computer records will be checked to identify other eligible pensioners. Addresses will be matched to determine whether a payment of £20 or £10 should be made. Given the sheer size of the task, it will take a number of weeks to complete. Payments will be made using the pensioners normal payment route. For example where a pensioner is paid at the Post Office they will obtain payment at the Post Office and where they are paid directly into their bank or building society, payment will be paid direct into their account. These payments will start being issued during March and represents approximately 85% of the estimated eligible pensioners.
  This programme means that the vast majority of payments will be sent by the end of March.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment she has made of the difficulties faced by claimants in filling in the new questionnaire for claiming of disability living allowance; [25063]

  (2) how many claimants have had their benefit stopped following the new procedure introduced for claiming disability living allowance. [25069]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 30 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what assessment she has made of the difficulties faced by claimants in filling in the new questionnaire for claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and how many claimants have had their benefit stopped following the new procedure introduced for claiming DLA.
  Minor revisions to the DLA/Attendance Allowance claim packs were made in April and October 1997. A new child specific claim pack was introduced in April 1997, following a lengthy and wideranging consultation exercise with a large number of groups representing disabled customers. The introduction of the child specific claim pack was as a direct result of concerns expressed by customers who felt that the existing DLA claim pack did not adequately cater for children. The introduction of these claim packs did not include a questionnaire for claiming DLA.
  However a questionnaire was introduced for the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP). The BIP was set up in response to the recent Benefit review of DLA. Over the next two years, specially trained staff will make enquiries by postal questionnaire or home visit in over 400,000 cases to establish whether DLA is paid correctly. The BIP will look again at existing DLA awards of the higher rate of mobility combined with either the middle or highest rate of care.

  497
  The questionnaire used by the BIP is based on the DLA claim pack in use until October 1997. However, it also takes account of customer research undertaken by the Benefits Agency in 1996–97 which highlighted that more "free text" space was needed rather than using a "tick box" format. Although the questionnaire is more than 30 pages long this makes sure that people have the opportunity to fully describe their circumstances and that we obtain enough information to allow Adjudication Officers to reach properly informed decisions. Project staff are considering to what extent the improvements in the revised DLA claim pack can be introduced into the BIP questionnaire.
  The most appropriate and sensitive method of gathering information from people receiving the higher rate of mobility combined with the highest rate of care is to visit them and complete an enquiry form. This form is designed to provide an up to date picture of their circumstances. The visits are by appointment and are made at least a week in advance. The letter informing the person about the appointment invites them to have a friend or carer present, reassures them the appointment can be rearranged if it is inconvenient and asks them to contact the Disability Benefits Helpline if they have any special needs, such as an interpreter. Calls to the Helpline are charged at British Telecom's local rate.
  People receiving the higher rate of mobility combined with the middle rate of care are sent an enquiry form by post. They have three weeks to complete and return the form. The letter accompanying the form informs people that they can contact the Disability Benefits Helpline if they have difficulty completing or need more time to return it.
  There has been no formal monitoring of the difficulties encountered by DLA customers who have been sent a questionnaire as part of the BIP. Approximately 10 people a week have made use of the BIP forms completion service, which involves a member of the BIP team. This suggests that generally people do not find completing the questionnaire difficult. The average time taken to return the questionnaire is 19 days compared with the 21 days allowed, as at 30 November 1997.
  At 30 November, a total of 33,490 cases had been examined of which 6,953 have been changed. Of these changes, 2,232 have been disallowed, 3,880 reduced and 841 increased. Figures for the period to 31 December and subsequent months will be placed in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number of claimants and the number of new claims of(a) disability living allowance care, (b) disability living allowance mobility,
  (c) attendance allowance and (d) long-term incapacity benefit in each year since 1992 in the Newcastle Benefits Agency District; and if she will estimate the age-distribution of claimants of these benefits in this district in the age bands (i) up to 30, (ii) 31 to 40, (iii) 41 to 50, (iv) 51 to 60 and (v) over 60 years. [22985]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Social Security benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend. In addition, some tables have been placed in the Library.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 30 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the number of claimants and the number of new claims of (a) Disability Living Allowance (DLA) care, (b) DLA mobility, (c) Attendance Allowance (AA) and (d) long term Incapacity Benefit (IB) in each year since 1992 in the Newcastle Benefits Agency District; and an estimation of the age distribution of claimants of these benefits in this district in the age bands (i) up to 30, (ii) 31 to 40, (iii) 40 to 50, (iv) 51 to 60 and (v) over 60 years.
  498
  The information is not available in the format requested. The new claim statistics for IB are bot available broken down into age bands. Statistics for AA are not available prior to February 1996.
  Such information as is available is shown in the attached tables.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Cabinet Committee on Women
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Women last met; and when it will next meet. [27050]

  Ms Ruddock
  In accordance with longstanding practice, information about the proceedings of the Cabinet and Cabinet committees is not made public.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if cold weather payments would have been triggered for(a) Orkney and (b) Shetland for the period 17 to 20 January if the wind chill factor had been incorporated into the recorded or forecasted temperatures. [26084]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested cannot be ascertained, because the existing Cold Weather Payments scheme does not contain a trigger criterion which combines wind speed with external air temperature.

  A number of formulae are used to calculate the combined effects of air temperature and wind speed on the human body when in the open air ("wind chill"). The Building Research Establishment advises that this way of combining temperatures and wind speed is not appropriate when assessing heat loss from buildings, because different heat transfer mechanisms apply.

  The amount of additional heating required during a spell of low air temperatures depends on a number of varying factors in addition to wind speed. These include the house type, site and location, insulation standard, the method of heating and its efficiency.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long on average it takes her Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date her Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment she has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27030]

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

  Our target is to reply to letters from hon. Members within 20 working days. Due to the very high volume of letters in the last six months this target was achieved for only 51 per cent. of the letters received during 1997.

  We remain committed to answering all correspondence within 20 working days and are taking active measures to reduce turnaround times.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a break-down of family credit recipients by gender in the last year for which figures are available. [26251]
  499
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  757,000 families are currently in receipt of Family Credit. Of these, 14,300 families are headed by a male lone parent and 336,400 by a female lone parent. The vast majority of couple families have a female recipient as there is a requirement for the female member of a couple to be the claimant. There are, however, occasional exceptions to this rule, for example, to cover mental incapacity.

  Source:

  1. Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of all awards.

  Notes:

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the Exchequer subsidy to the National Insurance Fund for each of the last 10 years. [26852]

  Mr. Denham
  The amount paid to the National Insurance Fund for each year in the period from 1987–88 to 1996–97 are shown in the table.

  Payments into the National Insurance Fund1 1987–88 to 1996–97

  Year

  Amount (£ million)

  1987–88

  2,135

  1988–89

  1,653

  1989–90

  NIL

  1990–91

  NIL

  1991–92

  NIL

  1992–93

  NIL

  1993–94

  7,589

  1994–95

  6,280

  1995–96

  3,575

  1996–97

  1,900

  1 Treasury Supplement until 1988–89; Treasury Grant from 1993–94.

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of non-means tested benefits in 1996–97; and what estimates he has made of the costs of means tested benefits in 1997–98 separately identifying (i) the cost of payments to customers and (ii) the cost of administration. [26981]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Cost of payments to customers for benefit expenditure only

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Non-means tested benefit

  60,152

  —

  Means tested benefit

  —

  33,530

  Note:

  The information about the cost of administration is not available. The information requested for 1996–97 is currently being finalised and will be included in the Departmental Report scheduled for publication following the Spring Budget Statement. The report will also contain benefit forecasts and forecasts for contributory and non-contributory benefits administration costs on a Departmental basis only. Administration costs are not forecast by individual benefit.

  Source:

  March 1997 Social Security Departmental Report.

  Pensions Policy
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to publish her Department's proposals on pensions policy; and if she will make a statement. [27006]

  Mr. Denham
  The pensions review, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 July, is looking at the central areas of insecurity for elderly people. A key objective of the review is to ensure that pensioners should have an adequate pension in retirement; that they should share fairly in rising prosperity, and that public finances should be both sustainable and affordable.

  The first part of the review ended on 31 October and we are now carefully considering the many responses we have received. We are also consulting on how best to take forward our proposals for Stakeholder Pensions and have asked for comments by the end of this month. We aim to publish an initial framework for change in the first half of this year. There will then be a period of further consultation before final proposals are developed.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list(a) the building societies used in the calculation of the standard rate of interest, (b) their current rate of interest and (c) the current standard rate of interest used to calculate income support for mortgage interest; and if she will publish the rate of interest which would apply based on the interest rates of the top 20 mortgage lenders. [26957]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The standard rate is based on the weighted average interest rate charged by building societies. A list of the societies used in the calculation of standard rate, whose combined assets represents over 95 per cent. of the industry's assets, is below, together with the basic rate currently charged to existing borrowers.

  Building society

  Current interest rate (per cent)1

  Birmingham Midshires

  8.70

  Bradford and Bingley

  8.45

  Britannia

  8.60

  Chelsea

  8.60

  Cheshire

  8.55

  Coventry

  8.70

  Cumberland

  8.60

  Derbyshire

  8.15

  Dunfirmline

  8.15

  Furness

  8.54

  Lambeth

  8.55

  Leeds and Holbeck

  8.45

  Leek United

  8.60

  National Counties

  8.29

  Nationwide

  8.10

  Newcastle

  8.64

  Norwich and Peterborough

  8.10

  Nottingham

  8.20

  Portman

  8.49

  Principality

  8.10

  Scarborough

  8.69

  Skipton

  8.45

  Staffordshire

  7.99

  501

  Building society

  Current interest rate (per cent)1

  Stroud and Swindon

  8.55

  West Bromwich

  8.45

  Yorkshire

  8.25

  Source:

  1 Moneyfacts.

  It should be noted that the standard rate is calculated using the weighted average of basic rates. The most recent
  502
  average figure of 8.15 per cent., published in Table 7.1L of January's "Financial Statistics", did not increase the standard rate, currently 7.97 per cent., as changes are triggered by a minimum movement of 0.25 per cent.

  The rate of interest based on the top 20 mortgage lenders it not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost However, a combined rate of the top building societies and banks, currently 8.53 per cent., is also published in Table 7.1L of "Financial Statistics".

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the savings in(a) transport costs and (b) car mileage which will result from the introduction of electronic red boxes and the electronic transfer of the information contained in them. [26395]

  Dr. David Clark
  The electronic red box has the potential to be a more convenient and powerful way of processing Ministers' documents, and to reduce a number of costs, including paper-handling as well as transport costs. I expect the benefits to be progressively realised as take-up and connectivity increase.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to issue a progress report on the action taken by Government departments and agencies in eliminating year 2000 computer compliance problems. [26983]

  Dr. David Clark
  As I said in my statement to the House on 27 November 1997,Official Report, columns 1104–05, I intend to review and report to the House on central Government's progress on tackling the millennium date change problem on a regular basis. Work is in hand for the first review in the spring.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the current advertising budget for the promotion of the Millennium Dome(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas. [25269]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Resources for media advertising are incorporated in the New Millennium Experience Company's integrated communications contract awarded to M&C Saatchi after competitive tendering in August 1997. The overall value of that contract, as stated in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 25 June 1997, is approximately £16 million over the life of the project, including media costs, purchasing, production, direct marketing, advertising agency services and other elements of integrated communications.

HEALTH

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial allocations have been made to the Redbridge and Waltham Forest District Health Authority in each year since its establishment; and what was the real terms increase in each year compared with the previous year. [24973]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is in the tables. However, there have been a number of changes which distort inter year comparisons.504

  Table 1: Revenue allocations for Redbridge and Waltham Forest District Health Authority

  £000

  Real terms increase

  Allocation Cash

  Allocation 1993–94 prices

  £000

  percentage

  1993–94

  159,278

  159,278

  —

  —

  1994–95

  168,257

  165,767

  6,489

  4.07

  1995–96

  222,861

  213,679

  47,912

  28.90

  Notes:

  1. Allocations have been expressed in real terms by using the relevant gross domestic product (GDP) deflator for each year to convert them to 1993–94 prices.

  2. Redbridge and Waltham Forest District Health Authority (DHA) was established in 1993–94 from the merger of Redbridge DHA and Waltham Forest DHA.

  3. Allocations to DHAs were made by regional health authorities (RHA). These figures have been adjusted to take account of the effects of different regional allocation policies.

  4. The 1995–96 figures are not comparable with those for earlier years. This is due to additions which were made to DHA allocations for:

  (a) entry of special health authorities into the internal market.

  (b) inclusion of certain former national top sliced budgets.

  (c) inclusion of capital charges.

  Table 2: General allocations and real term increase for Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority

  £000

  Real terms increase

  Allocation

  Allocation 1993–94

  £000

  percentage

  1996–97

  212,275

  198,039

  —

  —

  1997–98

  221,589

  201,294

  3,255

  1.64

  1998–99

  231,328

  204,418

  3,124

  1.55

  Notes:

  1. Allocations have been expressed in real terms by using the relevant gross domestic product deflator for each year to convert them to 1993–94 prices. Consequently, the real terms increases between years will not equate to the announced real terms growth.

  2. Figures for 1996–97 are not comparable with earlier years because of:

  (a) the merger of DHAs and family health services authorities (FHSAs). This means that some elements of expenditure that were previously FHSA will be accounted for in the heath authority allocation.

  (b) loss of population caused by boundary changes at the formation of Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority in 1996–97.

  (c) re-calibration to ensure that 1996–97 HA baselines were constructed on a common basis (as RHAs pursued different sub-regional allocation policies). This includes funds which were built into DHA baselines before 1996–97 which subsequently former parts of national levies.

  AIDS and HIV (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women were registered as suffering from (i) AIDS and (ii) HIV by London borough council authority in December 1997. [25432]

  Ms Jowell
  At the end of December 1997, the number of men and women with AIDS reported voluntarily by
  505
  clinicians to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (of the Public Health Laboratory Service) as resident in London boroughs and not known to have died is shown in the table. These figures are subject to some under-reporting and take no account of movement into and away from London after first report. Similar information for diagnosed HIV infection is not available. For reasons of confidentiality the figures are not shown separately by sex.

  Local Authority

  Total Cases

  Barking and Dagenham

  4

  Barnet

  67

  Bexley

  6

  Brent

  58

  Bromley

  16

  Camden

  162

  City of London

  4

  City of Westminster

  157

  Croydon

  47

  Ealing

  60

  Enfield

  24

  Greenwich

  27

  Hackney

  100

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  158

  Haringey

  101

  Harrow

  13

  Havering

  2

  Hillingdon

  20

  Hounslow

  39

  Islington

  132

  Kensington and Chelsea

  183

  Kingston Upon Thames

  15

  Lambeth

  230

  Lewisham

  64

  Merton

  36

  Newham

  79

  Redbridge

  18

  Richmond Upon Thames

  31

  Southwark

  111

  Sutton

  5

  Tower Hamlets

  76

  Waltham Forest

  44

  Wandsworth

  145

  Note:

  Excludes 105 residents in London, local authority not known.

  Minister for Mental Health
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has(a) to establish a dedicated budget for and (b) to appoint a minister for mental health; and if he will make a statement. [25879]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is for health authorities to determine the resources that they allocate for mental health provision from their overall allocation, in the light of the priority accorded to mental health services in the National Health Service Priorities and Planning Guidance 1998–99 and local circumstances. Similarly, it is for local authorities to determine the level of funding they allocate to services for people with mental illness from their total resources.

  In recognition of the importance which we place on mental health, we have increased the Mental Illness
  506
  Specific Grant by 9 per cent. to £73.3 million for 1998–99.

  These additional resources will be made available through a new £2 million fund for child and adolescent mental health services and through a £4 million local authority mental health partnership fund. This will be matched by a £4 million NHS mental health partnership fund.

  We have no plans to appoint a Minister with exclusive responsibility for mental health.

  Positive Care Link
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much HIV/AIDS funding has been allocated by his Department to the voluntary organisation Positive Care Link for each of the last three financial years and for 1998–99.[26003]

  Mr. Boateng
  Positive Care Link (PCL) is in receipt of a three year grant of £30,000 per annum funding its core administration costs for the years 1996–97 to 1998–99.

  PLC has also made an application for funding for a project costing £40,000 a year for three years with effect from 1998–99. A decision about this has not yet been taken.

  In addition, for the years 1994–95 to 1997–98, PCL has received "earmarked" AIDS Support Grant funding of £20,000 a year (£60,000 in total) from each of the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham. The funding was originally awarded for "pumping-priming" purposes and PCL were informed in September 1997 that the arrangement would not be extended beyond 1997–98. PCL also receives funding from local authorities and health authorities for the provision of local services.

  AIDS (Viral Load Tests)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce viral load testing sensitive enough to detect viral loads of below 50 for people with AIDS using combination drug therapies. [26004]

  Ms Jowell
  We have no plans to specify which viral load tests should be used by the National Health Service. The choice of treatment regimen for people with HIV and AIDS is a matter for discussion between doctor and patient. The British HIV Association published guidelines for antiretroviral treatment of HIV seropositive individuals last year. These guidelines suggest treatment regimens based on biological markers including viral load measurements. The choice of which test system to use for viral load measurements needs to be informed by clinical and virological expertise.

  Child Care Orders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child care orders were made by each local authority in the Greater London area in 1997. [26048]
  507
  Mr. Boateng
  The latest figures available are for the year ending 31 March 1996, and are given in the table.

  Care orders under the Children Act 1989 made during the year ending 31 March 1996, Greater London

  Number of Care Orders

  Authority

  Interim

  Full

  Number of children who became subject to either type of order during year3

  Inner London

  Camden

  18

  11

  28

  Greenwich1

  33

  33

  46

  Hackney

  18

  24

  36

  Hammersmith

  15

  20

  35

  Islington

  29

  16

  44

  Kensington

  24

  21

  39

  Lambeth

  36

  28

  59

  Lewisham

  38

  42

  76

  Southwark

  69

  49

  94

  Tower Hamlets2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Wandsworth

  28

  19

  43

  Westminster

  48

  25

  68

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  Outer London

  Barking

  7

  14

  18

  Barnet

  28

  22

  32

  Bexley

  8

  1

  9

  Brent

  21

  14

  33

  Bromley

  19

  28

  38

  Croydon

  61

  31

  79

  Ealing

  20

  20

  34

  Enfield

  10

  12

  21

  Haringey2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  11

  9

  18

  Havering

  11

  4

  12

  Hillingdon

  21

  13

  21

  Hounslow

  19

  19

  33

  Kingston upon Thames

  3

  1

  4

  Merton

  9

  10

  18

  Newham

  16

  17

  31

  Redbridge

  17

  3

  18

  Richmond upon Thames

  9

  7

  13

  Sutton

  14

  24

  32

  Waltham Forest

  8

  12

  19

  Total:

  668

  549

  1,051

  Notes:

  1 Estimates for Greenwich have been adjusted to take account of missing data.

  2 Figures are not available for Tower Hamlets and Haringey.

  3 Where a child became subject to a care order or an interim care order on more than one occasion during the year ended 31 March 1996, the child has only been counted once in the figures in this column.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people live within the catchment area of St. George's Hospital, Tooting. [26050]

  Mr. Milburn
  Catchment area data for individual hospitals or National Health Service trusts are not collected.
  508
  St. George's Hospital provides services for most residents of the London Borough of Wandsworth and also for parts of Lambeth and Merton. The hospital also serves a much wider population with a number of its specialist services.

  Health Records (Access Charges)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of charges levied on patients for access to their health records. [26260]

  Mr. Milburn
  Under the Access to Health Records Act 1990, holders of manual records are permitted to charge an application fee not exceeding £10 to cover the cost of retrieving, collating and examining files. Additionally, the cost of producing a photocopy of the records may be recovered. Computer records are covered by the Data Protection Act 1984. Currently, an application fee not exceeding £10 may be charged for providing copies of computer records.

  MS Drug Treatments
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the benefit to MS sufferers of Beta Interferon and Betaferon drug treatments; and if he will amend the guidance contained in circular EU(94)72 to promote wider use of such drugs. [26083]

  Ms Jowell
  As part of our health technology assessment programme, an evaluation and pharmaco-economic analysis project is being undertaken on Beta Interferon for multiple sclerosis.

  We are committed to ensuring that new treatments, including new medicines, are introduced into the National Health Service as fast as possible where they represent a genuine therapeutic advance and are cost-effective. EL(94)72 asked health authorities to establish a mechanism for assessing new treatments, and most authorities have now established prescribing committees.

  ME Association
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support his Department(a) currently gives and (b) plans to give to the ME Association. [26144]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has provided funds to the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of £37,000 from 1995–96 to 1997–98 and, in the same period, of £94,673 for their development of support services project. Funding is provided through the Section 64 scheme of grants.

  Further funding is currently being considered.

  Irena
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy on the natural health supplement, Irena. [26145]

  Ms Jowell
  The product Irena, when presented as a medicinal product, is subject to medicines legislation.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 26 January 1998,
  509
  Official Report, column 45, from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make it his policy to collect information on the results of medical research on cannabis where a Home Office licence has been granted. [26271]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department of Health routinely uses available research evidence to support policy development. There is, therefore, no need to make it policy that we will collect information on the results of medical research of cannabis where a Home Office licence has been granted.

  Social Care
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government has made of the numbers of social care staff working(a) in residential and nursing homes for the elderly, in both the public and private sectors, (b) in residential homes for children, (c) as paid care assistants in the community and (d) as paid domestic child care. [26706]

  Mr. Boateng
  In September 1996, the latest date for which the information is available, the numbers of full and part time social care staff directly employed by local authorities were:

  (a) residential care homes for the elderly: 59,750

  (b) residential homes for children: 16,520

  Information is not held centrally on items (c) and (d). The number of social services staff in England providing home care/home help services to people in their own homes was (at the same date) 75,910.

  Information on employment in the private and voluntary sectors is not held centrally. However, the report of the "Independent Sector Workforce Survey 1966" conducted by the Local Government Management Board showed that the numbers of nursing and care staff in private and voluntary residential and nursing establishments for the elderly and elder infirm in England were:

  residential/dual registered homes: 156,000

  nursing homes: 119,300.

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the last 10 years in the totals of(a) women and (b) men under the age of 24 years who are smokers of tobacco; and if he will make a statement.[26474]

  Ms Jowell
  The available information is in the table.

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking amongst persons aged 16 to 24, England, 1986 to 1996

  Percentage

  Year

  Men

  Women

  1986

  36

  35

  1988

  33

  33

  1990

  34

  36

  1992

  35

  32

  510

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking amongst persons aged 16 to 24, England, 1986 to 1996

  Percentage

  Year

  Men

  Women

  1994

  36

  34

  1996

  34

  35

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics General Household Surveys.

  Any rise in young people's smoking is cause for concern. Measures to reduce smoking will be published in our White Paper on tobacco control later this year.

  Prescription Charges (Exemptions)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to consider the addition of(a) asthma and (b) other chronic conditions to the list of those whose sufferers are exempt from NHS prescription payments. [26346]

  Mr. Milburn
  All aspects of prescription charges are being examined as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review which will report in the summer. The Review in the Department of Health is being undertaken in the context of our manifesto commitment:"if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your general practitioner happens to be or on where you live".

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements exist for central recording of patients requiring elective surgery who are excluded from hospital waiting lists because there is little likelihood of their treatment. [26510]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 204, if he will estimate the number of (a) kidney dialysis machines, (b) intensive care cots for premature babies and (c) intensive care units which cannot be repaired or replaced before 31 December 1999. [26721]

  Mr. Milburn
  Although little firm information is yet available as to which models of medical equipment may be affected by year 2000 problems, the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) expects them to be few in number. The MDA is not aware of any reason why it should not be possible for affected items to be upgraded appropriately or replaced in due time.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate by health authority area the number of patients who will be de-registered from their dentists as a result of the new regulations in(a) numerical and (b) percentage terms. [26851]
  511
  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, columns 527–28.

  Continence Pads (VAT)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the terms of reference given to officials in their review of VAT charging on continence pads supplied by the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [26971]

  Mr. Milburn
  Officials have been asked to identify ways of overcoming any financial effects which may have resulted from the Value Added Tax Order which came into effect on 1 January 1998.

  Broadmoor Hospital
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions tests using hormones have been carried out on patients at Broadmoor Hospital since 1968. [24760]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: There are no summarised records of tests using hormones carried out on patients at Broadmoor Hospital since 1968. It is known that a study was conducted at Broadmoor Hospital between 1971 and 1973 under the auspice of the Special Hospitals Research Unit of the Department of Health and Social Security to measure the effect of hormones in the treatment of deviant sexual behaviour. 12 male patients participated in the study on a voluntary basis. The study's findings were published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (volume 125, September 1974). No records of any other tests involving hormones have been traced but hormones are used in the treatment of patients at Broadmoor Hospital on a regular ongoing basis, for example hormone replacement therapy.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Ships
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of prison ships. [24628]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service has only one ship, Her Majesty's Prison Weare, based in Portland. This ship was obtained as an exceptional measure to cope immediately with an unprecedented surge in the prison population.

  The Weare provides suitable accommodation equivalent to one medium-sized prison and thus helps to avoid costly and inappropriate use of police cells.

  However, there are no plans to use further prison ships.

  Public House and Club Licensing
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision on the further extension of public house and club hours. [24629]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The previous Government carried out a consultation exercise in 1996 on the subject and it identified important concerns about the relaxation 512
  of licensing hours. Those concerns, and the issues they raise, require careful consideration. This is one of a number of licensing issues which we are looking at. I cannot at this stage say what the outcome will be or when a decision will be reached.

  European Year Against Racism
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage the active participation by organisations in the United Kingdom in the European year against racism. [24630]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am pleased to report that thousands of organisations throughout the United Kingdom were involved in this initiative which ended on 31 December. After May I chaired the National Co-ordinating Committee which brought together representatives from business, industry, voluntary organisations and community and faith groups. My Department funded a public information unit at the Commission for Racial Equality which offered help and advice to thousands of organisations across the country and we also provided financial support to a number of organisations running projects under the Year. Hundreds of organisations put in bids for the £300,000 we made available after May to promote the European Year Against Racism.

  Community Sentences
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to improve public confidence in community sentences. [24632]

  Ms Quin
  The Crime and Disorder Bill contains proposals which will both increase the range of community sentences available to the courts and create a new framework for the effective supervision of community sentences imposed on juvenile offenders. We are looking to the probation service both to improve its enforcement of community sentences and implement the forthcoming guidance from her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation about supervision programmes which are effective in reducing repeat offending. We are also looking to the Comprehensive Spending Review, which is now in progress, and the prisons/probation review, in particular, to identity further measures to strengthen the credibility of community sentences as effective and demanding forms of punishment.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the implications for privacy law of his plans to incorporate the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom domestic law. [24633]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received a number of representations from media organisations and others about the possible implications for them of the Human Rights Bill. Most of the main points at issue have been discussed in the course of debates on the Bill in another place.

  Prisons (Drug Testing)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last reviewed the mandatory spot tests for drugs carried out in prisons. [24634]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The mandatory drug testing programme is being reviewed as part of a broader review of the Prison Service Drug Strategy that we have commissioned. The scope for changing the overall level of testing, for altering the balance between random and targeted testing and the implications for mandatory testing of increased levels of voluntary testing are being explored.

  EU Presidency
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the priorities of his Department for the United Kingdom presidency of European Union in respect of co-operative measures. [24635]

  Ms Quin
  The United Kingdom Presidency in the Justice and Home Affairs field will be concentrating particularly on practical co-operation to tackle organised crime including drugs, terrorism and illegal immigration. Key objectives will be to get Europol up and running, and to take forward other uncompleted tasks in the Action Plan on organised crime agreed at the Amsterdam European Council. Priorities here will include work on the draft European Union Convention on mutual legal assistance and on measures to tackle fraud and corruption. As President I shall carry forward preparatory work on incorporation of the Schengen agreements into the European Union framework, and promote justice and Home Affairs issues in the context of enlargement of the European Union. We shall also take action to follow up the European Year Against Racism 1997.

  Restorative Justice
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will ensure that lessons learnt by the pioneers of restorative justice are built into such programmes in new police areas. [24636]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government is monitoring the development of restorative justice in this country and abroad. We welcome the work to develop these ideas such as that of Thames Valley Police and the Northamptonshire Diversion Scheme. Best practice from existing schemes will be taken into account of in guidance to support the implementation of the new Final Warning Scheme. Our proposals for reform of the youth court, set out in the White Paper "No More Excuses", are consistent with the principles of restorative justice and include the introduction of a specific Reparation Order.

  Police Corruption
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure the thorough investigation of alleged cases of police corruption. [24637]

  Mr. Michael
  We are determined to provide the powers necessary to deal with corrupt officers and we are considering the current arrangements in the light of the Home Affairs Select Committee's recent report on Police Disciplinary and Complaints Procedures.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the fire service in Essex. [24639]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received one such representation, which was from the hon. Member.

  Voluntary Sector
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he will bring forward to improve the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector. [24640]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government place a high priority on developing and strengthening partnership between Government and the voluntary sector. The main vehicle for this will be a Compact between Government and the voluntary sector on which we are currently collaborating with the sector, and which will set out the principles which should govern the relationship.

  Drug Use
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission research into the connection between the use of(a) cannabis and (b) other drugs. [24641]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office's research programme on drugs is kept under regular review. We have no current plans to commission new research into the connection between the use of cannabis and other drugs.

  Bribery
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make bribery of hon. Members an offence. [24642]

  Mr. Michael
  As my right hon. Friend re-iterated when he appeared before the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege on 20 January, the Government are committed to tackling all forms of corruption, including the bribery of hon. Members. My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement on the reform of the law in this area soon, taking account of the results of the consultation exercise which he launched in June and of proposals which the Law Commission are preparing and which are awaited. He will also take account of the views of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate immigration advisers. [24643]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A consultation paper setting out the options for the Control of Unscrupulous Immigration Advisers was published on 22 January in line with our manifesto commitment. Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to interested parties. Further copies are available on request. Comments are invited by 23 March.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on physical violence and abuse by pre-teenage juveniles. [24645]

  Mr. Michael
  In 1996 the number of children between 10 and 13 years old who were cautioned or found guilty of offences of violence against the person and sexual offences were 1,004 and 104 respectively. In 1996, 71 children between 10 and 13 were convicted of crimes of violence against the person and six children were found guilty of sexual offences. Children under ten are below the age of criminal responsibility so actions which would be an offence in the case of an adult do not appear in the criminal statistics.

  Policing
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policing objectives. [24646]

  Mr. Michael
  As I said in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) on 3 November 1997,Official Report, column 29, I have arranged for copies of the Key Objectives and Key Performance Indicators for the police service in 1998–99 to be placed in the Library.

  The two new objectives which I have set for the police in 1998–99 on dealing speedily and effectively with young offenders and targetting and reducing local problems of crime and disorder reflect the particular importance which the Government attach to tackling these problems. For the first time there will also be a separate key objective on drug-related crime in the light of widespread concern that a high proportion of all crime is attributable to drug misuse. We recognise that it not the responsibility of the police alone to deal with these problems. So all three of these objectives focus on what the police can do in partnership with other local agencies.

  We have kept the existing objectives requiring the police to maintain and, if possible, increase the number of detections for violent crime: to increase the number of detections for burglaries of people's homes: and to respond promptly to emergency calls from the public. We have done this to provide some continuity in the objectives and, more importantly, to reflect the fact that these continue to be issues of serious public concern.

  Holloway Prison
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit Holloway prison to discuss women offenders. [24647]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to visit Holloway. As part of my delegated responsibilities, I visited Holloway on 16 May 1997. I propose to visit Holloway again on 7 May when I will attend a meeting of the Board of Visitors' representatives to discuss issues relating to women and young offenders.

  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are afforded greater protection in court. [24648]
  516
  Mr. Michael
  We wish to offer greater protection in court for vulnerable witnesses, means of doing so are currently being considered by the inter-departmental review of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, which were announced by my right hon. Friend on 13 June 1997. The review, which is nearing completion, is wide-ranging and is covering procedures relating to the investigation stage through to the trial itself, including ways to assist vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence safely to the court.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is proposing to tackle disorderly and anti-social behaviour. [24649]

  Mr. Michael
  The Crime and Disorder Bill contains a number of tough new powers to deal with anti-social behaviour. There will be an anti-social behaviour order which local authorities and the police will be able to seek from a court to restrict such conduct, with firm penalties for anyone who breaches an order; a child safety order, which is a welfare-based order to prevent children from behaving in an anti-social manner; local child curfews to protect both young children and their local communities and the establishment of statutory local crime prevention partnerships between local authorities and the police.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deal with criminal anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods. [24631]

  Mr. Michael
  Anti-social behaviour which harasses and intimidates neighbours is unacceptable and the Government are determined to take action against it. The Crime and Disorder Bill includes a number of tough new powers to deal with such conduct, including anti-social behaviour orders; child safety orders; local child curfews; and statutory crime prevention partnerships between local authorities, the police and others.

  Prisons (In-cell Television)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 285, when he expects to make a decision about the future of in-cell television; and if he will make a statement. [24650]

  Ms Quin
  The case for wider availability of in-cell television has been raised in a number of contexts, including the Learmont report in 1995, the all-party Home Affairs Committee report in March 1997, and reports by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons. The Government are reconsidering policy in this area and will announce a decision as soon as possible. Any extension of in-cell television would preserve the principles that this privilege should be earnable and similarly liable to be forfeited, and that prisoners should substantially meet the costs involved.

  Terrorism (Information)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the supply of information relating to terrorism to the United States of America. [24651]
  517
  Mr. Straw
  The UK and the US co-operate closely in the fight against terrorism.

  Prisons (Drug Testing)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the results of random drug tests in prison. [24618]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A comparison of mandatory drug test results from 1996–97 with those from April to October last year shows a reduction from 19.9 per cent. to 17.4 per cent. of random samples testing positive for cannabis. Similarly, the percentage of random samples testing positive for the opiates has fallen from 5.4 per cent. to 4 per cent. The causes of these trends are not yet established. Work is currently underway to review the entire Prison Drug Service Strategy. In addition, the results of two pieces of research on the effects of mandatory drug testing are expected imminently. Together, this should provide a clearer picture and indicate how these encouraging trends might be maintained.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter immigration and nationality directorate staffing levels to respond to the changing work load. [24638]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's staffing levels depend on the resources available for immigration work. Plans for 1998–99 reflect the previously agreed funding but the future allocation of resources will be assessed in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Probation Officers (Prisons)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons the Merseyside Probation Service has not been contacted to supply the probation input into HMP Altcourse; [24174]

  (2) what contractual arrangements exist for seconded probation officers at Her Majesty's Prisons at (a) Mold, (b) Doncaster, (c) Blakenhurst and (d) Buckley Hall;
  [24175]

  (3) if the contractual arrangements for the secondment of probation officers will be used at (a) Her Majesty's Prison in Altcourse and (b) the new prison at Bridgend; [24176]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the terms and conditions of employment of the private social workers at Her Majesty's Prison, Altcourse. [24281]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: At Altcourse prison, the contractor and Merseyside Probation Service have now entered into an agreement for the secondment to the prison of probation officers.

  The contracts for the Wolds and Parc prisons require the contractor to negotiate the terms of probation service input with the local probation service. Responsibility for the provision of probation service staff at Blakenhurst, Buckley Hall and Doncaster prisons lies with the relevant Prison Service area manager.
  518
  The contractual conditions for seconded probation officers at the six privately managed prisons now open, Altcourse, Blakenhurst, Buckley Hall, Doncaster, Parc (Bridgend) and Wolds are drawn from the Framework Document published by the Prison Service under cover of Instruction to Governors 30/93 and entitled "National Framework for the Throughcare of Offenders in Custody to the Completion of Supervision in the Community". The Framework Document also applies to the secondment of probation officers to directly managed prisons. The terms and conditions of service of the qualified social workers at Altcourse prison are a matter for their employer, Group 4.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales where(a) men and (b) women are being held under the Immigration Act 1988 powers. [26002]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information on persons detained in prison establishments in England and Wales under immigration powers as at 31 December 1997, by gender, is given in the table.

  Table 1. Persons recorded as being detained in prisons in England and Wales1 solely under Immigration Act powers, by gender, as at 31 December 19972

  Prison establishment

  Total detainees

  Male detainees

  Belmarsh

  9

  Birmingham

  3

  Blakenhurst

  5

  Bristol

  7

  Brixton

  9

  Bullingdon

  5

  Chelmsford

  3

  Doncaster

  3

  Elmley

  3

  Haslar

  124

  High Down

  19

  Holme House

  2

  Leeds

  9

  Manchester

  2

  Norwich

  4

  Pentonville

  3

  Reading

  2

  Rochester

  188

  Wandsworth

  8

  Wormwood Scrubs

  16

  Other

  7

  Total—Male Detainees

  431

  Female detainees

  Holloway

  16

  Total—Female Detainees

  16

  1 Figures exclude persons detained in immigration detention centres and police cells.

  2 Data are provisional.

  519
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many posts were abolished in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the 1996–97 financial year; and how many job losses are planned for the 1997–98 financial year. [26516]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Over the financial year 1996–97, the total number of posts increased by ten. Current projections for 1997–98 indicate a decrease of around 150 posts.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will decide on the review of the refusal to grant Mr. Farrakhan permission to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [26261]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are carefully considering the representations we have received from a wide range of groups and individual members of the public. A decision on whether Mr. Farrakhan should continue to be excluded from the United Kingdom will be taken once that consideration has been completed.

  Former Prisoners
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) standard and (b) future of post-release supervision programmes for former prisoners. [25983]

  Ms Quin
  The Probation Service is currently expected to supervise prisoners released on licence in accordance with the 1995 National Standards. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation review the quality and effectiveness of this work as part of the process of inspecting each area probation service in England and Wales. All reports are placed in the Library. The general conclusion from recent reports is that in most cases the overall quality of supervision was satisfactory, although more could and should be done to improve compliance with the 1995 Standards.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate will shortly be publishing guidance on effective supervision programmes, drawing on the results of inspection and of research. This will apply both to supervision following release and to supervision under community sentences. All probation services will be expected to make use of this guidance. In addition, we shall be considering possible changes to the 1995 National Standards in the light of experience of their operation: legislative and other changes since their issue: and the outcome of the prisons/probation review.

  Rehabilitation (Prisoners)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on trends in the standard and availability of rehabilitation and education programmes for prisoners(a) between 1984 and 1990 and (b) since 1991. [25984]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are committed to the provision of constructive regimes in prisons targeted at reducing offending behaviour. To this end, we are helping the Prison Service to make the best use of its resources and improve the delivery of regimes.
  520
  The Prison Service has always laid stress on the need for rehabilitation and education programmes. Rule 1 of the Prison Rules 1964, as amended, says that the purpose of the training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to encourage them to lead a good and useful life.

  The broad trend over the years in the standards and availability of such programmes has been to target resources on needs more effectively. Latterly, and particularly since the Prison Service was given Agency status in 1993, this has focused on what research shows to work in reducing re-offending.

  In 1991, a central unit to develop offending behaviour programmes was established: it developed the Sex Offender Treatment Programme, delivery of which began in 1992; and in 1993–94 it introduced two more cognitive skills programmes designed to address the impulsive and self-centred approach to life commonly found in repetitive offenders.

  Competitive tendering of prison education was introduced in 1993. This involved the development of educational priorities around a national Prison Service core curriculum which includes literacy, numeracy, information technology and life and social skills.

  More recently the Prison Service has adopted an accreditation process and associated key performance indicator to encourage development, by Prison Service establishments and others, of programmes to address offending behaviour which reach a required level of effectiveness in reducing re-offending.

  Suicides (Prisons)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the rate of suicide amongst (i) young people and (ii) adults(a) serving custodial sentences and (b) held on remand, for each year since 1983. [25985]

  Ms Quin
  The table gives the rate per 100,000 average daily population (ADP) for each category of prisoner requested.

  Suicide rates for prisoners
  1984–1997

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Year

  21 years and under

  over 21 years

  21 years and under

  over 21 years

  1984

  70

  171

  10

  52

  1985

  97

  182

  10

  41

  1986

  64

  161

  22

  22

  1987

  117

  332

  46

  48

  1988

  213

  195

  24

  46

  1989

  254

  276

  69

  49

  1990

  276

  290

  32

  72

  1991

  142

  180

  51

  78

  1992

  235

  249

  110

  40

  1993

  74

  315

  39

  63

  1994

  267

  249

  75

  87

  1995

  179

  258

  103

  77

  1996

  374

  262

  45

  48

  1997

  201

  328

  140

  56

  Notes:

  1. Data prior to 1984 are not available in a format which would allow the calculation of the rate of suicides per ADP.

  2. Not all self-inflicted deaths conclude with a verdict of suicide.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on custodial sentences for fine defaulters. [25986]

  Mr. Michael
  A court judgment (Cawley in 1995) has made it clear that the power to imprison fine defaulters should be used only as a last resort. Before imprisoning a fine defaulter, the court must be satisfied that the default is due to the offender's wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay and it must have tried or considered all other methods of enforcing payment before rejecting them as inappropriate or unsuccessful.

  It must be remembered that, in some cases, the imminence of a short prison sentence leads to the payment of fines which have been outstanding for some time, during which the offender has made no effort to pay them. However, prison is an expensive option and we are keen to explore other options for dealing effectively with defaulters. That is why we are currently piloting provisions contained in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 which allow courts to impose community service orders, curfew orders enforced by electronic monitoring, or a disqualification from driving on fine defaulters who might otherwise be committed to custody. These pilots began on 2 January in Norfolk and Manchester and will run for 18 months.

  The Working Group on the Enforcement of Financial Penalties chaired by the Lord Chancellor's Department also continues to identify and promote good practice in the enforcement of financial penalties. This Group's objective is to find ways of enabling the courts to enforce payment of financial penalties more effectively without resorting to imprisonment unless this is absolutely unavoidable.

  The measures which have been taken to encourage good practice have resulted in a decrease in the number of people being sent to prison for fine default from a high of 22,469 in 1994 to 8,555 in 1996.

  Prisoner Statistics
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department estimates will be the number of prisoners held(a) on remand, (b) awaiting sentence and (c) serving a custodial sentence, in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [25990]

  Ms Quin
  The figures are given in the table. Long term projections of the prison population in England and Wales have been published in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin (issue 2/98) on 29 January 1998.

  Projected prison population 1997–98—1999–2000

  Sex/type of custody

  Year 1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Male

  Untried

  8,200

  8,200

  8,200

  Convicted unsentenced

  3,400

  3,900

  4,100

  Sentenced

  47,400

  50,200

  54,200

  522

  Projected prison population 1997–98—1999–2000

  Sex/type of custody

  Year 1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Female

  Remand1

  600

  600

  700

  Sentenced

  2,100

  2,400

  2,700

  1 No separate projections are made of untried and convicted unsentenced female prisoners.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children under the age of 16 years were prosecuted for engaging in prostitution in each of the last five years. [26166]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 27 January 1998,Official Report, columns 140–42.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) industrial, (b) charitable and (c) voluntary organisations, of implementation of the measures contained in the Data Protection Bill [Lords], in respect of (i) initial and (ii) annual revenue running costs; and what estimates have been made by EU institutions of such costs in (1) the United Kingdom and (2) other member states. [26044]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A compliance cost assessment for the 1995 European Communities Data Protection Directive to which the Data Protection Bill gives effect is included in the Regulatory Appraisal, a copy of which is in the Library. Costs to business are estimated at £836 million initially, and £630 million a year thereafter. Costs for charities and voluntary organisations are estimated at £120 million initially, and £37 million a year thereafter.

  I am not aware of any assessment by European Union institutions of the costs of the Directive as adopted.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the decision of the Data Protection Registrar's Management Board, on 16 January, that the Security and Intelligence Services should register under the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [26291]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I know of no such decision.

  Speed Cameras
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total sum collected in fines for speeding where the offence was identified using a speed camera, broken down by police force in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [26157]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available centrally nor is information available to distinguish whether or not speeding offences dealt with by fines were detected by automatic cameras. However,
  523
  the average fine for all speeding offences in England and Wales is given in the table, together with the number of camera detected offences dealt with by court proceedings.

  The majority of speeding offences detected by automatic cameras are dealt with by fixed penalty notice, the current charge being £40. The number of such offences for England and Wales is also contained in the table.

  Such figures by individual police force area could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Speeding offences by how detected and how dealt with and average fines

  Camera detected offences dealt with by fixed penalty

  Camera detected offences dealt with by court proceedings

  Average fine for speeding (all offences)

  £

  1992

  —

  290

  87

  1993

  25,767

  6,390

  127

  1994

  95,510

  20,630

  113

  1995

  170,014

  36,916

  107

  19961

  212,600

  49,800

  101

  1 Provision figures

  Durham Prison
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners have died (i) in each of the last five years and (ii) in December 1997 at HMP Durham. [26225]

  Ms Quin
  The table shows how many male and female prisoners have died in each of the last five years at Durham prison. In December 1997 one death occurred.

  Deaths of prisoners at HMP Durham

  Year

  Male prisoners (Number of deaths)

  Female prisoners (Number of deaths)

  1993

  1

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  1995

  2

  —

  1996

  2

  —

  1997

  3

  —

  Persistent Young Offenders
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to measure the effectiveness of his Department's measures to reduce the time from arrest to sentencing for persistent young offenders; and if he will collect regular and prompt statistics on the interval between arrest and sentencing. [26149]

  Mr. Michael
  Since coming to office, the Government have carried out a survey of persistent young offenders dealt with by the youth justice system in 1996. That survey indicated that in 1996 the average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders was 142 days. The Government are committed to halving that figure to 71 days. To monitor progress towards that pledge, we are ensuring that systems are put in place to 524
  produce regular data on the time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders. In March of this year, we will also be contacting all Youth Courts to find out what progress has been made locally to tackle delays and to establish fast tracking arrangements for persistent young offenders. It is intended that the monitoring of a clearly identified group of persistent offenders will ensure that it is clear whether our objectives are being met. However, it is intended that the youth justice system will also fast-track those who would be regarded as persistent on common-sense judgment but who fall outside the monitoring definition of "persistent offenders"—for instance "spree" offenders. We will ensure that the youth justice system hits the real targets.

  Altcourse Prison
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Departement how many prisoners have been transferred into Altcourse Prison, Fazakerley since 1 December 1997; [26072]

  (2) how many prisoners have been transferred out of Altcourse Prison, Fazakerley since 1 December 1997; and how many of these requested a transfer. [26073]

  Ms Quin
  At 28 January 1998, 14 prisoners had been transferred to Altcourse prison since 1 December 1997 directly from another prison; all were transferred at their own request.

  At 28 January 1998, 3 prisoners had been transferred out of Altcourse to another prison since 1 December 1997, of whom 2 had requested their transfer.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the reform of the right to silence as implemented by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and if he will assess the advantages of returning the law to the previous position on the right to silence. [26297]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate has been monitoring the effects of the 1994 right to silence legislation since its introduction. The findings of the first part of the research, published last December, covered the changes in the frequency of the suspect's use of the right to silence in police interviews. The key findings were a significant reduction in the use of right to silence in police interviews. This reduction applied to both the number of suspects giving complete "no comment" interviews and those who refused to answer questions on a selective basis. The research also shows that those accused of serious offences still exercise their right of silence more frequently than other criminals. The second part of the research is due to be published in the spring and will look at the wider impact of the provisions on the criminal justice system. I shall take a close interest in the findings of this research.

  Bail Support and Enforcement Programmes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has(a) introduced and (b) planned since 1 May 1997 to extend bail support and enforcement programmes. [26300]
  525
  Ms Quin
  Clause 29 of the Crime and Disorder Bill places a duty on local authorities, acting in co-operation with other local agencies, to ensure that bail support for juvenile defendants is available in their area. The youth offending teams established by local authorities under clause 30 will be able to provide the support themselves or oversee the placement of the bailee with an appropriate community programme or voluntary sector provider.

  Asylum Seekers
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries from which he considers people need not claim political asylum. [26347]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In accordance with our international obligations, we consider all applications for asylum in the United Kingdom on their merits and against the criteria for recognition as a refugee contained in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Anyone who satisfies those criteria will be granted asylum.

  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to accommodate asylum and immigration detainees in Scotland in premises other than HM Prisons; and if he will make a statement;
  [25218]

  (2) what recent representations he has received concerning the use of prisons to accommodate asylum and immigration detainees in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [25216]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Due to the relatively low numbers of persons held in Scottish prisons under sole immigration powers, it would be difficult to justify a custom built facility solely for Immigration Act detainees. However, further discussions are being held with the Scottish Prison Service to explore any possible alternatives.

  A number of letters has been received from members of the public and interested groups urging support for Early Day Motion 253, which contains an amendment seeking the construction of an immigration detention centre at Glasgow airport.

  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the privately-owned detention centres used for the accommodation of asylum and immigration detainees in terms of(a) size and (b) ownership and location; and if he will make a statement; [25215]

  (2) how many detention centres are used to house asylum and immigration detainees; and if he will make a statement. [25217]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Tinsley House Detention Centre at Gatwick Airport, Sussex, is leased by the Immigration Service from Lynton PLC and has 150 detention spaces.

  Campsfield House Detention Centre at Kidlington, Oxfordshire, and Harmondsworth Detention Centre near Heathrow Airport are both owned by the Home Office and have current capacity for 110 and 91 detainees respectively.

  Firearms (Compensation)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding unpaid claims there were for compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 on 21 January. [26218]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: On 21 January 1998, there were 18,482 claims awaiting processing under Options A and B and 10,411 claims awaiting processing under Option C, the great majority of which are mixed claims on which the Options A and B elements have been paid.

  The total number of claims received as of 21 January under Options A, B and C was 40,078.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applicants under the terms of the 1997 Firearms Amendment Acts for compensation for pistols, revolvers and accessories have(a) served notice on the Home Office stating intention to sue for payment and (b) issued proceedings in the county courts, listing in each case (i) the number of guns involved, (ii) the name of each court and (iii) the current state of the action; [26553]

  (2) how many prospective litigants, and litigants, in cases of outstanding claims for compensation under the terms of the 1997 Firearms Amendment Acts for compensation for pistols and revolvers and accessories have been sent letters stating that costs will be claimed against them if they proceed with their actions against the Home Office. [26549]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answers 30 January 1998]: The number of claimants indicating an intention to sue for early payment of firearms compensation is not recorded. County Court proceedings have been issued in four such cases, as follows:

  Court

  Number of guns involved

  Current position

  Ilford

  2

  Case struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action

  Cheltenham

  3

  Awaiting hearing

  Norwich

  8

  Awaiting hearing

  West London

  2

  Subject to Appeal

  The Appeal in the fourth case above is by the Home Office against a District Judge's refusal to strike out the case as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. A further case, before a Sheriff Court in Scotland, has been struck out.

  Under Order 38, Rule 1(3) of the County Court Rules and Order 62 Rule 3(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Courts, the normal practice in interlocutory applications is that costs are borne by the unsuccessful party. Standard correspondence from the Treasury Solicitor warns Plaintiffs of this, especially where a case involves a litigant in person who may be unaware of the rules relating to costs.

  Winwick Prison
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the new prison planned for Winwick will be designed to hold category A prisoners if necessary. [26077]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: No. The proposed new prison at Winwick would be built to category B standards and there is, at present, no requirement to locate category A prisoners there.

  In the event of such a requirement arising in the future, the additional security measures which would be necessary would need planning approval from the local planning authority.

  Prisoners (Drug Addiction)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the total number of prisoners in the United Kingdom are known to be drug addicts. [26540]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Between 1 April 1996 and 31 March 1997, Prison Service establishments in England and Wales reported 13,191 notifiable drug addicts under the Misuse of Drugs (Notifications of and Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1973 and 8,839 non-notifiable drug addicts. The figures are aggregates for the year and cannot meaningfully be expressed as a percentage of the daily prison population.

  Colchester Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the study of the experimental regime at Colchester Young Offenders Institution carried out by Dr. Kate Painter of Cambridge University's Institute of Criminology. [26307]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: It is our intention to publish the study of the experimental regime at Colchester Young Offender Institution carried out by the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge when it is complete.

  Winchester Prison
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the budget for Winchester Prison in the next financial year; and what estimate he has made of the maximum number of prisoners who will be held in the prison over that period. [26249]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: The budget for Winchester prison has not been finalised but the governor was informed this week that the indicative baseline budget for the financial year 1998/99 is £10,323,610. This figure includes an additional £381,840 allocated to the prison to maintain staff safety, control and regime protection.

  The current operational capacity of Winchester prison is 612 prisoners and, while there are no immediate plans to change this number, it will be reviewed as and when the prison population changes.

  Medical Research (Animal Tissues)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals by species not subjected to a licensed procedure under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have been culled in each year since 1980 so that their tissues can be used for medical research; and if he will make a statement. [26824]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 282.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the Inspector's Report into Lewes Prison; and if he will make a statement. [26825]

  Ms Quin
  Under the protocol procedures for the handling of the Chief Inspector's inspection reports, Ministers approve publication of a report once the Director General of the Prison Service has confirmed its factual accuracy. The Prison Service is currently considering the factual accuracy of the Chief Inspector's draft report of the inspection of Lewes Prison. I will make a decision about publication in the light of the Director General's advice.

  Handguns
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many handguns have been surrendered under the Firearms Amendment Acts; how many have been(a) destroyed and (b) disposed of by other means; and if he will list each of those means. [26565]

  Mr. Michael
  A total of 142,000 handguns were surrendered to police forces during the three months period which ended on 30 September.

  The majority of these firearms will be destroyed under local arrangements in each police force area once the claimant has received compensation from the Home Office Firearms Compensation Section. A very small number may be retained by police forces for training purposes or passed on to museums for public display. There is no central record of firearms which have been disposed of to date in these ways.

  To keep administration to a minimum, we are not collecting information on disposal during the course of the operation but once the compensation process has been completed, each police force will be asked to confirm the number of weapons destroyed or otherwise disposed of.

  Family Court Welfare Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the Family Court Welfare Service; and if he will make a statement.
  [25488]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 21 January 1998,Official Report, column 588.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg will be available(a) to the Government and (b) to a public body under the provisions of the terms of the Human Rights Bill in the event of an adverse judgment against them in the House of Lords. [27005]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Human Rights Bill cannot and does not affect the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, it will still be the case that a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation of the Convention may apply to the Strasbourg institutions, and it will still be the case that the Government, and other authorities not themselves claiming to be victims of a violation of the Convention, may not.

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer of 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 347, by how much he has increased the amount planned for expenditure on the police for 1997–98. [26850]

  Mr. Michael
  The spending power of police authorities in England and Wales increased by £247 million, or 3.7 per cent. in 1997–98 under the spending plans of the previous Government.

  Our proposals for 1998–99 will allow the overall spending of police authorities in England and Wales to increase by £258 million, or 3.7 per cent. over 1997–98 to around £7.15 billion. This is a healthy increase for the police at a time of restraint on public expenditure.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority in England the cost of the extra employers' pension contributions those authorities will have to make as a result of the abolition of the tax credits to pension funds. [26834]

  Mr. Michael
  There will be no such costs in relation to the employment of police officers. The police pension scheme is not based on a pension fund, but is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. Only civilian staff employed by police authorities in England are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). It will not be possible to indicate future employer pension costs arising from the abolition of tax credits to local authority pension funds until the completion of the 1998 LGPS valuation exercise.

  Prisons (Medical Services)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Prison Service to ensure the quality of on-site medical services in privately-run prisons. [26078]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: I hold regular discussions with the Director General for the Prison Service about the broad range of prison issues, including healthcare.
  530
  Contractually managed prisons are required to provide medical services to prisoners to specification agreed with, and monitored by, the Prison Service. This includes the provisions of on-site care to a standard equivalent to that available from the National Health Service and appropriate to the needs of prisoners.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on local government revenue spending and grant support for 1998–99. [27389]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have given very careful consideration to the representations I have received. I chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 15 December 1997 and met a delegation from Welsh local government last week at which settlement matters were discussed.

  I have decided to confirm total standard spending (TSS) at £3,090.5 million and aggregate external finance (AEF) at £2,701.9 million for 1998–99. The increases on 1997–98 in TSS and AEF are 4.0 per cent. and 3.2 per cent. respectively. TSS includes £352.9 million to fund police authorities; £50.3 million extra for schools; an additional £4.4 million for 4 year old education; and £190.2 million for care in the community. I acknowledge that the settlement will mean some authorities will have to make tough decisions, I too have had to make hard decisions on spending priorities within the Welsh block. Under the provisional capping limits I announced in December, Welsh local authorities will be able to increase their year-on-year revenue spending, on average, by 4.8 per cent. The increase for police authorities is 3.8 per cent. In the circumstances I believe it to be a fair deal for local government in Wales.

  AEF will comprise £1,799.9 million in revenue support grant; £612.0 million in distributable non-domestic rates; £258.8 million in specific grants (including police grant); and £31.2 million to help local authorities limit council tax increases. Actual council tax levels will depend on the budgetary decisions of individual local and police authorities.

  I am laying the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1998–99 before the House today together with the Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1998–99 and the Special Grant Report (No 2) (Wales) 1998.

  I am placing final settlement details for individual local authorities and police authorities in the Library of the House. My decisions are subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 January 1998,Official Report, column 1001, by what date the Minister expects welfare savings resulting from the New Deal in Wales to exceed the cost of the New Deal programme in Wales. [25787]
  531
  Mr. Hain
  The New Deal for 18–24 year olds started this month in Swansea and West Wales and will be extended from April to the rest of Wales. We expect the New Deal to make a real difference in improving the employability of our young people and helping them to move from unemployment into work. The impact of the New Deal and our other welfare policies will be carefully evaluated and the question of benefit savings will be considered as part of this.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much new deal money is allocated for Alyn and Deeside; if he will make a statement. [26153]

  Mr. Hain
  The level of funding to be made available to the Employment Service District of North East Wales, which covers Alyn and Deeside, will depend on the take up; it is not possible to be more precise at this stage.

  The New Deal will help young and long term unemployed people to secure sustainable employment. We want to give people the self-respect that comes from working and we want to give the Welsh economy the talent and skills that it needs to compete now and into the next century. Through the New Deal and our other Welfare to Work policies we will attack unemployment and the despair that it brings and help people to escape from poverty and welfare dependency.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many New Deal places he proposes for Alyn and Deeside. [26152]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest forecast by the Employment Service suggests that some 400–500 placements will be required in the Local Authority area of Flintshire, which covers the Parliamentary Constituency of Alyn and Deeside, for New Deal clients aged 18–24 in the year April 1998 to March 1999.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the principal objective of the New Deal is.
  [26154]

  Mr. Hain
  The principle objectives of the New Deal are to help young and long term unemployed people into work and to enhance their employability.

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to his Department since 1 May 1997. [25839]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The number of casual, fixed term appointees and Special Advisers appointed since 1 May 1997 is 169.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for his Department. [25904]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend is currently carrying out a Comprehensive Spending Review of the Department's spending priorities. The Government's532
  objective of promoting sustainable development will continue to be taken fully into account as part of that Review.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the average net annual income for farmers in Wales from 1990 to the present. [25788]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is as follows:

  Levels of net farm income for all dairy and livestock farms in Wales

  Year

  Income £000/Farm

  1989–90

  12.3

  1090–91

  10.5

  1991–92

  14.0

  1992–93

  16.9

  1993–94

  18.3

  1994–95

  11.6

  1995–96

  23.2

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new home starts there were in (i) Flintshire and (ii) the constituency of Alyn and Deeside in 1995–96; and how many are proposed for 1998–99.
  [26155]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  In 1995–96 there were 449 new home starts in Flintshire in all sectors. 278 of these were in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside. Information on the number of all starts proposed for 1998–99 is not available. I will write to my hon. Friend with estimated housing association starts as soon as the information is available.

  School Nurses
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many school nurses were employed by each health authority in Wales in each of the past five years. [26210]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information concerning directly employed NHS nursing staff by area of work is collected centrally but school nurses are included with "Other community nursing staff' and not, therefore, separately identifiable. The following table shows the whole-time equivalent number of "Other 1st level community nursing staff' in post at 30 June 1997. (This excludes district nurses and health visitors.) Although they are employed by NHS Trusts they are shown in the table under the Health Authority area in which the Trust is situated.

  Other 1st level community nursing staff in post at 30 June 1997 (Wte)

  Health authority area

  Number

  Bro Taf

  109

  Dyfed Powys

  109

  Gwent

  42

  Morgannwg

  36

  North Wales

  115

  Total

  411

  School Governors
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many disputes between minor authorities as to co-option on school governing bodies his Department has had to resolve in each of the last 10 years. [26156]

  Mr. Hain
  School governors decide who to co-opt onto their governing body. The Secretary of State has no locus in these appointments. The Secretary of State has a role when two or more town/community councils are entitled to nominate a representative to a single place on a governing body and cannot reach agreement on the appointment. In the last 5 years the Secretary of State has adjudicated in one case. Information covering the last 10 years is not readily available.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on prescription fraud.
  [26697]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The responsibility for detecting and preventing fraud in the NHS in Wales lies with Health Authorities. To assist with the detection and prosecution of fraud in the Family Health Services, including prescription fraud, I announced on 26 November the establishment of a new anti-fraud unit within the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. My officials are now working closely with Health Authorities and WHCSA to produce detailed plans of action for combating fraud in the FHS. When complete, these plans will be published.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure the wider geographical spread of inward investment in Wales. [27148]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend and I are determined that the whole of Wales will enjoy economic and industrial success through the attraction of inward investment and, importantly, through the growth of indigenous companies. The Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency will continue to focus on those areas which need the most help and we will make every effort to steer new inward investment projects to our priority areas.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date his Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27029]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  For the period 1 May-31 December 1997 the average length of time taken to reply to letters was 13.65 working days. The target date set by my Department is 15 working days, and the percentage which received replies within the target date was 73.5 per cent. Statistics are not kept on the length of time it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above within his Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within his Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26031]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: About 10 per cent. of staff equivalent to Grade 5 and above, joined the FCO from other Government departments and at least a third have had (or are on) secondments, loans or attachments outside the FCO. In the past, about three quarters of these have been to other Government departments or Governments overseas, but we have been expanding our Interchange programme and the number of loans to the private sector has increased. More precise information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  BBC Monitoring Service
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to set an external financing limit for the BBC Monitoring Service in 1997–98. [26839]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The external financing limit for 1997–98 for the BBC Monitoring Service will be set at £1,183,000. The creation of the EFL reflects the change in the funding arrangements of the BBC World Service Monitoring Service from grant in aid subscription based funding, which I announced on 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 201.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action was taken following the meeting between the Under Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South on 5 November. [26404]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 5 January 1998, the UK joined with other EU Partners in making a demarche to the Jamaican Government about their decision to withdraw from the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

  Kenya
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received, and what assessment his Department has made, of human rights violations in Kenya. [26704]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We receive reports from a variety of sources about human rights in Kenya. We are particularly concerned about the persistent problem of police brutality and the evidence of torture and extra-judicial killings. The Kenyan Government are bound under international obligations to end such practices. We will play a full part in ensuring that pressure for such progress is maintained.
  535
  We have been deeply concerned by recent violence in parts of Kenya's Rift Valley, which appears to have both ethnic and political origins. Our High Commission in Nairobi issued a public statement on 28 January, in concert with other diplomatic missions, expressing concern over the slow and ineffective response by the Kenyan security forces. The statement also urged the Government of Kenya to take prompt, effective action to put an end to the violence and to bring its perpetrators to justice.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Kenyan authorities in respect of reported human rights violations; and if he will make a statement. [26701]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We maintain a vigorous dialogue with the Kenyan Government on human rights issues through our High Commission in Nairobi and at Ministerial level when the occasion arises. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised human rights issues with the then Kenyan Foreign Minister during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. The subject was also raised during my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's meeting with President Moi on 4 January and my telephone conversation with the new Kenyan Foreign Minister on 28 January.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya in respect of recent reports of violence. [26975]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our High Commission in Nairobi issued a public statement on 28 January in concert with other diplomatic missions, expressing concern over the slow and ineffective response by the Kenyan security forces to recent ethnic clashes in various parts of Rift Valley Province. The statement also urged the Government of Kenya to take prompt, effective action to put an end to the violence and to bring its perpetrators to justice. I reiterated our concern over recent events during a telephone conversation with the Kenyan Foreign Minister on 28 January.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Government's ethical approach to international relations will be applied to the combating of reported human rights violations in(a) Kenya and (b) Algeria. [26703]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made our concerns about civil and political rights abundantly clear to the Kenyan authorities. Human rights remains an important issue in our bilateral dialogue with the Government of Kenya. Concerns over police brutality have, for example, led to decisions under the revised criteria for licensing arms exports to reject applications for various categories of riot control equipment for the Kenyan police.

  On Algeria we, along with EU partners, have made clear our concern for the protection of the Algerian people from terrorist attacks. During the EU Troika mission to Algiers on 19–20 January, we made clear the concerns of the British and European people and pressed the Algerians
  536
  to accept a visit by UN Special Rapporteurs. We will reiterate our concerns to the Algerian authorities in our regular contact with them.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations and meetings he has had with other EU members regarding human rights violations in Kenya and Algeria. [26705]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On Kenya, our High Commission in Nairobi are in regular contact with EU partners on the question of human rights violations. The subject is also discussed in the relevant EU Working Groups.

  Human rights and other issues concerning Algeria are also discussed regularly with EU partners. The most recent discussions were held at Foreign Minister level at the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 26 January when my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Derek Fatchett, reported on the EU ministerial Troika visit that he led to Algiers on 19–20 January.

  Department for International Development
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to co-ordinate policy objectives with the Department for International Development. [26344]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The White Paper on international development, which was presented to Parliament in November 1997, sets out the Government's agreed objectives. Ministers and officials of the Department for International Development and this Department have regular meetings to discuss policy and operational matters.

  EU Councils
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Councils of the European Union for February; and if he will list major European Union events for the next six months. [26532]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following Councils are scheduled:

  Monthly forecast of business for February 1998

  Date

  Venue

  12 February 1998

  Brussels

  Research Council

  16 February 1998

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  16–17 February 1998

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23–24 February 1998

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  26 February 1998

  Brussels

  Telecom Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  12 February: Research Council
  Proposal for an EP and Council decision on the Fifth Framework Programme of the EC for research, technological development and demonstration and demonstration activities (1998–2002): Common position.
  Proposal for a Council decision on the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for research and training activities (1998–2002): Political agreement.
  Article 130j decision—rules of participation: Exchange of views (possible item).

  537
  Divers—Working document on the specific programmes: Progress report by the Commission (possible item).

  A points.

  16 February: Ecofin Council

  Agenda not yet available.

  16–17 February: Agriculture Council

  Organisation for Economic Coordination and Development Agriculture Ministerial: EU Coordination.

  Reform of the tobacco regime: Commission presentation.

  Reform of the olive oil regime: Commission presentation.

  Operation of ewe premium: Report.

  Agrimoney developments 1996/97: Report.

  Laying hens in battery cages (possible item).

  Veterinary equivalence agreements (possible item).

  23–24 February: General Affairs Council

  Enlargement.

  Lomé: Orientation discussion.

  Estonia: Adoption of EU position for Association Council (possible A point).
  Latvia: Adoption of EU position for Association Council (possible A point).
  Lithuania: Adoption of EU position for Association Council (possible A point).
  EU/Malta: Commission Communication on future relations (possible item).

  EU/Russia Summit: Information point.

  ASEM II: Progress Report following senior officials meeting.

  Western Balkans.

  Middle East Peace Process.

  Cyprus (possible item).

  Belarus (possible item).

  Generalised System of Preferences: Extension of Lome trade terms to Non-ACP Least Developed Countries.
  Generalised System of Preferences: social/environmental incentive clause (possible A point).
  Third Country meetings in margins: Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia Association Councils.

  26 February: Telecom Council
  Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on an International Charter for Global Communications: Debate and (possible) Conclusions.
  Green paper on the implications for the regulatory framework of convergence between telecommunications, audiovisual and information technology: Open debate.
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on connected telecommunications equipment and the mutual recognition of the conformity of equipment: (possible) Common Position.
  Commission Communication on the implementation of telecommunications legislation: Presentation (possible item).
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision on universal mobile telecommunications system: Presentation (possible item).
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on digital signatures and security of communications: Presentation (possible item).
  Commission Communication on the century date change problem: Presentation (possible item).
  538
  European Calendar: February-July 1998
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  February 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  9–11

  Costa Rica

  EU/San José Group

  11–12

  Brussels

  Select Committee on Trade and Industry visit

  12

  Brussels

  Research Council

  12–13

  Panama

  EU/Rio Group

  12–13

  London

  Political Committee

  13–15

  Cambridge

  Internal Market (Informal)

  16

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  16–20

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  23–24

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  26

  Brussels

  Telecom Council

  March 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  9

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council (t.b.c.)

  9–10

  Manchester

  UK Presidency Conference

  9–13

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  12–13

  London

  Joint Social and Education (Informal)

  14–15

  Edinburgh

  Foreign Ministers' Informal

  15–17

  Macclesfield

  Seminar for Cultural and Audiovisual Ministers

  16–17

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  19

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  19

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  20–22

  York

  Ecofin Informal

  23

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  24

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  30

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  30–31

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  30–31

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  31–1 April

  Moscow

  G8 Energy Ministerial

  April 1998

  1–3

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  2–4

  London

  ASEM II

  6

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  6–8

  Birmingham

  Audiovisual Conference

  7

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  16

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  20–21

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  21

  Luxembourg

  Ecofin Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  24–26

  Chester

  Environment and Transport (Informal)

  27–28

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  European Parliament

  30

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  May 1998

  1–3

  Brussels

  Ecofin and Special EMU Council

  5

  Brussels

  Political Committee (t.b.c.)

  7

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  10–12

  Newcastle

  Agriculture (Informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  11

  Brussels

  Euro-Med Energy Ministerial

  539

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  12

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  11–15

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  14

  London

  EU/Canada

  14–16

  London

  conference on Culture and Employment

  15–17

  Birmingham

  G7/8 Summit

  18

  London

  EU/US Summit

  18

  Brussels

  Development Council

  18

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  19

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  28

  Brussels

  Culture and Audiovisual Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  June 1998

  2

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  4

  Luxembourg

  Education and Social Affairs Committee

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  8–9

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  15–16

  Cardiff

  European Council

  15–19

  Luxembourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  Joint Environment and Transport Council

  18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  July 1998

  6

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  6–7

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  8–10

  Luxembourg

  Employment/Social Affairs/Women (Informal)

  13

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  13–14

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  17–19

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council (Informal)

  20–21

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  27

  Luxembourg

  Budget Council

  General Affairs Council
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the General Affairs Council held on 26 to 27 January in Brussels. [26533]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  24 of the 25 A Points in document 5487/98, the text of which will be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is available, were approved. Germany asked for the point on the adoption of a common position with a view to adopting a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products to be withdrawn.
  540
  At the instigation of the UK Presidency, the General Affairs Council adopted as an A Point a new EU Common Position on Afghanistan. It supports UN peace efforts and promotes work on respect for human rights (particularly the rights of women) and the fight against drugs.

  The Council noted the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament listed in Documents 11496/97 and 11502/97. Copies of these documents will also be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as they become available.

  The Council opened with an open debate on the Presidency work programme for the first half of 1998. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as President of the Council, highlighted the main issues in the coming months: EMU, unemployment, crime and drugs, enlargement, and making Common Foreign and Security Policy more effective. The President of the Commission then explained the Commission's programme with reference to the Presidency's intentions. Other Member States commented and gave their full support to the programme's implementation.

  In discussion of relations with the Western Balkans, Ministers welcomed the formation of a new Government in Republika Srpska and, in particular, the commitment by the new Prime Minister, Mr. Dodik, to cooperate fully on the implementation of the Dayton/Paris peace agreement. The Council agreed to provide an initial 6 million ecu in financial assistance. The appropriate Council bodies, in close coordination with the Office of High Representative, will be taking this forward urgently.

  The Council welcomed the intended immediate Presidency/Commission visit to Banja Luka to review further assistance for the new government. The Council also looked forward to receiving detailed recommendations on the Commission's proposals for modifying procedures for delivering aid.

  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) reported to the GAC on the Troika Mission which he led to Algeria from 19–20 January. The Council reaffirmed the strong commitment of the Union to remain engaged and agreed to take forward the EU/Algeria dialogue, notably through the negotiations for the EU/Algeria Association Agreement and the proposed meeting between Foreign Minister Attaf and the UK Presidency. The Council expressed its regret that offers of humanitarian assistance had not so far been taken up: they remained on the table. The Council also urged greater transparency on the part of the Government of Algeria. It regretted that the Government had not been able to provide unhindered access for international organisations, NGOs and the media. It looked to the Government of Algeria to accept a visit by representatives of the United Nations in the near future and encouraged greater contact between Algerian and European parliamentarians.

  The Presidency briefed the Council on its proposed handling of the European Conference launch in London on 12 March, the launch of the accession process on 30 March and the start of accession negotiations on 31 March.
  541
  On China, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reported on his recent visit to China and Hong Kong. The Council agreed this proposal for an EU/China summit and the need for an intensified dialogue on human rights questions.

  Ministers expressed their concern at the increase in violence in Burundi and the stalled regional-sponsored peace process. The EU will review the situation in the Great Lakes region in early February, once the EU Special Envoy for the Great Lakes has returned from the region, and consider further action.

  Sir L. Brittan presented the Commission proposal for removing Russia and China from the list of Non-Market Economies for the purposes of anti-dumping. The Presidency informed Member States that they expected to deal with this issue formally at the February GAC.

  The GAC took note of the written report on the seventh EU/Japan Summit (Tokyo, 12 January 1998).

  In response to the major influx of migrants from Iraq and the neighbouring region, the Presidency has drawn up a 46 point action plan covering elements from all three pillars to deal with the problem. It has also established initial contact with the Turkish government and the UNHCR. The Action Plan was adopted and will be considered at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 29–30 January. Progress will be reviewed at the next GAC on 30 March.

  The Council had a lengthy discussion on Iran and agreed that, given Iran's record of support for terrorism and its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the EU should keep in place and develop measures to deter and impede Iranian activity in these areas, including by working for greater EU/US cooperation in these shared areas of real concern. However, the Council also agreed that recent political events in Iran were encouraging and merited a review of the common position adopted by the General Affairs Council on 29 April 1997. Until this review is completed, the existing common measures will remain in force.

  The Council discussed the situation in the Middle East Peace Process in the light of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Washington, the visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and President Clinton's talks with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Arafat.

  The Council reiterated that full and unconditional implementation of commitments made by the parties under the existing agreements is essential to restore mutual confidence in the peace process and provide a firm basis for a full resumption of negotiations on the Palestinian track. It stressed in particular the need for early progress on credible and significant further redeployments in line with the commitments made at the time of the Hebron Agreement, as well as on other outstanding commitments under the Interim Agreement. The Council also underlined the importance of maximum and sustained cooperation between the parties in fighting terrorism, and of the avoidance of unilateral acts which pre-empt final status talks, in particular on settlements and Jerusalem.
  542
  The Council reiterated its support for US efforts to restore momentum in the peace process and reaffirmed its intention to play an active role in support of the negotiations, including through the activities of its Special Envoy, Ambassador Moratinos.

  The Commission presented a communication on the role of the European Union in the Peace Process and its future economic assistance. The Communication will be discussed in depth at a later Council meeting.

  In the margins of the GAC, Ministers also held the first Cooperation Council with Russia following the entry into force of a partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia on 1 December 1997. There was a useful discussion on foreign policy issues, and the EU and Russia agreed to continue with ongoing consultation on key foreign political topics.

  There was also a Political Dialogue meeting with Albania at Foreign Minister level on 27 January. EU Ministers gave their full support to helping Albania achieve reconciliation and a return to normality but stressed that primary responsibility lay with the Albanians themselves. The meeting reinvigorated the contact between the parties under the 1992 Cooperation Agreement.

  Euro-Mediterranean Process
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect of recent events in Algeria on the Euro-Mediterranean Process under the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. [26522]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The UK Presidency is committed to using the Euro-Mediterranean process to increase co-operation and trust throughout the region; to liberalise trade and to promote investment in the region. The recent tragic events in Algeria underline the importance of the European Union having a wide-ranging dialogue with Algeria, including through the Euro-Mediterranean process.

  Arms Sales
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom proposals for an EU Code of Conduct on Arms Sales include a system for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability in member states. [26972]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our proposals for an EU Code of Conduct develop the EU's eight Common Criteria agreed in 1991 and 1992 using language in the UK's national criteria announced by my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29. Those criteria did not include prior parliamentary scrutiny of licence applications and we are not proposing such a requirement in the Code of Conduct.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the French Government concerning his proposed EU code of conduct on arms sales; and if he will make a statement. [26963]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Following a number of contacts at Ministerial and official level with the French Government, we have succeeded in agreeing on a draft text for an EU
  543
  Code of Conduct on arms sales. We have now circulated this draft to EU partners and look forward to discussing it with them in detail, with a view to having the Code adopted by Council Declaration during our Presidency of the EU.

  The text which we have circulated develops the eight EU Common Criteria agreed at the Luxembourg and Lisbon European Councils of June 1991 and June 1992, using language from the UK's national criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29. It also includes a no-undercut mechanism which will involve notifying all partners of denials of export licences and provide for bilateral consultation if one partner is considering a similar export to that which another partner has refused.

  If agreed, these measures will break important new ground in regulation of the arms trade. Never before has a no-undercut mechanism been applied to conventional arms exports.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he is making in agreeing on EU code of conduct on arms sales during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU; and when he intends to publish the code. [26962]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier answer. At present, the text of the Code of Conduct is being discussed by EU Member States. We will publish it as soon as final agreement has been reached.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe in respect of violations of its Declaration of Rights agreed at Lancaster House on any property or interest of property. [26956]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government of Zimbabwe have not, so far as we are aware, violated any of the Declaration of Rights agreed at Lancaster House.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Department for International Development concerning aid provision to Zimbabwe during the United Kindgom's presidency of the EU. [26960]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Department for International Development and this Department consult regularly about policy towards Zimbabwe, including the provision of aid, and will continue to do so during our Presidency.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise the proposed seizure of land by the Government of Zimbabwe with his fellow EU foreign ministers during the United Kingdom's presidency. [26961]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We regularly consult our EU partners about African issues, including Zimbabwe's land acquisition programme, and will continue to do so during our Presidency.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has 544
  received concerning Her Majesty's Government's proposals to provide training assistance to the Indonesian police force. [26955]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received representations from Members of Parliament, NGOs and members of the public expressing a number of views on the question of training assistance for the Indonesian police force and the best ways of contributing to the human rights situation in Indonesia.

  South Africa
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his priorities for the EU-South Africa trade talks during the United Kingdom presidency; and if he will make a statement. [26974]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Early progress in negotiating a Trade and Cooperation Agreement, together with parallel agreements on fisheries and wines and spirits, between the EU and South Africa is a priority for our Presidency. We shall press for an outcome on terms that are liberal, WTO-compatible, and of benefit to both parties. We are in close contact with the Commission, the South Africans, and other EU member states to that end.

  Algeria
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit Algeria. [26976]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to visit Algeria.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which Her Majesty's Government have been obliged to bring forward(a) primary legislation and (b) secondary legislation, in order to comply with the United Kingdom's treaty obligations to keep its domestic law in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. [27078]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Primary legislation has been brought forward in order to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the following cases:

  Sunday Times (1979)

  Young, James and Webster (1981)

  X (Mental patient) (1981)

  Campbell and Cosans (1982)

  Malone (1984)

  O, H, W, B and R (Parental access) (1987)

  Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell (1990)

  Boner and Maxwell (1994)

  Hussain and Singh (1996)

  Chahal (1996)

  Secondary legislation has been brought forward in order to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the following cases:

  Golder (1975)

  Dudgeon (1981)

  Silver and Others (1983)

  Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali (1985)

  545

  McCallum (1990)

  Campbell (1992)

  McMichael (1995)

  Benham (1996)

  In relation to the cases of Fox, Campbell and Hartley (1990), Findlay (1997) and Coyne (1977), changes in primary legislation had already been made which in the Government's view ensured that United Kingdom law was compatible with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

  Primary and secondary legislation may have also been enacted in order to implement decisions of the Committee of Ministers in cases where reports of the European Commission of Human Rights have been transmitted to them under Article 32 of the Convention, but this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Egyptian Dissidents
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been Her Majesty's Government's response to the Egyptian Government over their complaints about the presence of dissidents in London. [26978]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have reiterated to the Egyptian Government our commitment to support them in their fight against terrorism. We continue to work closely with

  Dates

  Minister

  Venue

  Purpose of visit

  Spouse cost including travel and incidentals (£)

  1994

  7–10 July

  The then Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd

  Italy (Naples)

  G7 Economic Summit

  307.84

  11–20 September

  Lord Hurd

  Thailand, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Japan

  Bilateral

  10,495.66

  26–29 September

  Lord Hurd

  USA (New York)

  UNGA

  3,977.66

  29 September-3 October

  Lord Hurd

  Canada

  Bilateral

  209.64

  Total

  14,990.80

  1995

  18–19 March

  Lord Hurd

  France (Carcassonne)

  EU/FM Informal meeting

  966.44

  19–28 March

  Lord Hurd

  South Africa

  State Visit

  2,385.28

  7–8 May

  Lord Hurd

  Norway (Oslo)

  Accompanying TRH Duke and Duchess of Kent

  98.16

  25–26 June

  Lord Hurd

  Germany (Bonn)

  Anglo-German Summit

  565.00

  8–10 September

  The then Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Spain (Santander)

  EU Ministers Informal Weekend

  2,310.00

  Total

  6,324.88

  1996

  3–12 January

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Azerbaijan, Armenia Uzbekistan, Hong Kong and China

  Bilateral

  7,366.70

  6–12 January

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Hong Kong and China

  Bilateral

  4,956.00

  8–10 March

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Malta and Italy

  Bilaterals and EU Foreign Minister's Informal Meeting

  1,557.50

  25–29 March

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Poland and Czech Republic

  State Visit

  835.00

  8–17 April

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Barbados, Jamaica, Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia

  Bilateral

  12,757.89

  23–27 September

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  USA (New York)

  United Nations General Assembly

  4,454.02

  27 October-1 November

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Thailand (Bangkok)

  State Visit

  150.00 Estimate

  31 October-6 November

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Vietnam, Israel UAE and Yemen

  Bilateral

  7,500.00 Estimate

  Total

  39,577.11

  546
  Egypt to this end. Any new information about alleged suspicious activities in the United Kingdom is thoroughly investigated. Where this yields evidence that individuals—or organisations—are engaged in terrorism, action is taken in conformity with our law. We discussed these points, and the relevant laws, with Dr. Al Baz, President Mubarak's adviser, when he visited London in December.

  Overseas Travel
  Mrs. McGuire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent for(a) official foreign travel and (b) incidentals on the (i) spouses and (ii) partners of the previous two Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in each year of their tenure. [26316]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 January 1998, c. 389–90]: Owing to an administrative error, the figures given in the first answer to my hon. Friend were incorrect.

  Mrs. Rifkind did not attend the EU Informal Foreign Minister's Meeting in Tralee 6–8 September 1996 due to ill health.

  The cost of Mrs. Rifkind's visit to Switzerland (Davos) for the World Economic Forum, 31 January - 2 February 1997 was £846.64 and not £4,405.00 as previously stated.

  A revised table is printed below.

  547

  Dates

  Minister

  Venue

  Purpose of visit

  Spouse cost including travel and incidentals (£)

  1997

  31 January-2 February

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Switzerland (Davos)

  World Economic Forum

  846.64

  15–16 March

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Netherlands (Apledoorn)

  EU Informal Foreign Ministers Meeting

  848.48

  Total

  1,695.12

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance has been given to those authorities responsible for border inspection posts to inspect consignments of beef imported from outside the European Union for specified risk materials. [27002]

  Mr. Rooker
  An instruction, in the form of an Animal Health Circular, was issued to Official Veterinary Surgeons and Divisional Veterinary Managers responsible for Border Inspection Posts on 23 December. The Circular, numbered AHC97/231, has been deposited in the Ministry's Whitehall Place library and is available to the public on demand.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received approval from the EU Commission for his HLCA package announced on 22 December; and if he will make a statement. [25674]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Consultation with the Commission is still in progress. I hope to be able to make a statement very soon.

  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce an early retirement scheme for farmers. [25671]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce an EU early retirement scheme for the UK agriculture industry; what level of resources is estimated to be available; and how soon the scheme will become available. [25240]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Options for a possible early retirement scheme for the livestock sector are under consideration. Any scheme will have to accord with the relevant EC Regulation No. 2079/92. We will consult the industry on this initiative as soon as possible.

  Imported Meat
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that no imported meat is from animals fed on animal by-products. [25613]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to prohibit the import of pigmeat from animals fed meat and bonemeal; and if he will make a statement. [26396]
  548
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Conditions on lntra-Community trade in meat, and third country imports, are subject to Community rules. These do not include requirements relating to the feed of the animals from which the meat was obtained. Commission Decision 94/381/EC prohibits the feeding of mammalian protein, with certain exceptions, to ruminants. In addition, Switzerland has equivalent provisions in its national legislation. Thus, all countries which have reported cases of BSE in home-bred animals have restrictions on the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants.

  Within the UK, to prevent the risk of cross examination between different types of feed, there is also a ban on feeding mammalian meat and bone meal to all farmed livestock. The UK has had far more cases of BSE than anyone else and that is why our measures go considerably further than those taken elsewhere.

  Beef Labelling
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the regulations regarding the labelling of beef in supermarkets. [25801]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no plans to review arrangements for the labelling of beef in supermarkets. The Government have recently launched the beef labelling scheme, which takes full effect from 31 March 1998. From that date all retail outlets, including supermarkets, will be required to seek prior approval from a competent authority for use of any detailed information, such as geographic origin, which cannot easily be verified at the point of sale. While the Scheme will be voluntary in the first instance I expect the majority of beef sold retail will be covered.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy (Cats and Dogs)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) carried out and (b) evaluated on spongiform encephalopathy in (i) cats and (ii) dogs. [25919]

  Mr. Rooker
  Apart from their inclusion in studies of the PrP gene sequences of species that are apparently resistant to BSE, MAFF has no specific programme of research on spongiform encephalopathies in canines. A survey carried out in 1990/91 on the brains of hounds culled for a variety of reasons from packs in all parts of Britain found no conclusive evidence of spongiform change. The outcome was, however, hampered by the fact that the majority of the 444 brains examined did not come from animals that were suffering from neurological disease.

  With respect to cats, MAFF receives notifications of diagnoses of spongiform encephalopathy in domestic and exotic felidae. In collaboration with colleagues in universities and other institutes, MAFF scientists have

  549
  defined lesion profiles and methodology for confirmation of diagnosis. Epidemiological analyses are also in progress.

  Farming (Financial Support)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to an average family of the financial support paid to the farming industry in each of the last five years. [26471]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the most recent five years for which data are available, the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy in the UK is estimated to have been between £12 and £15 per week for a typical family of four. This consists of costs to consumers due to higher prices for food and expenditure by taxpayers. In addition, UK taxpayer expenditure on national agricultural policies was typically of the order of £1 per week for a family of four, although it was closer to £2 per week in 1996.

  These estimates are based on calculations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of total transfers resulting from agricultural policies in the European Union, with adjustments in respect of the abatement to the United Kingdom's contribution to the European budget.

  The estimates are likely to overstate the savings which could be made by UK consumers and taxpayers if the CAP were removed; in the absence of support, world prices would be higher than at present.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which EU member states the sale of unpasteurised milk(a) has been banned at any time since 1968 and (b) is currently banned, with the dates concerned in each case. [27049]

  Mr. Rooker
  In addition to the ban in Scotland since 1983, retail sales of unpasteurised cows' drinking milk have been banned in the Republic of Ireland since July 1996. On 1 January 1998 Germany banned the serving of unpasteurised milk in catering in all regions. Other member states permit the sale of such milk under restrictions of varying types.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Minister of State will reply to the letter of 5 December from the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border on a constituency matter. [27048]

  Mr. Rooker
  I replied to the letter of 5 December 1997, from the right hon. Member, enclosing correspondence from Mr. R. Carruthers of Low Moat Fishing on 29 January 1998.

  Vitamin Supplements
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 209, for what reasons he has not made an assessment of the professional status or 550
  qualifications of those who have written to him about the proposed controls on food supplements containing vitamin B6; and if he will make a statement. [26790]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a large number of unsolicited representations on the subject of the Government's proposed controls on vitamin B6 in dietary supplements, many in the form of standard letters. It is our policy to reply to all representations received, regardless of the status of the correspondent. We see no reason to either record or assess the qualifications of those making representations.

  The regulations required to implement the proposed controls on dietary supplements will be the subject of a formal consultation exercise and, subject to the views of respondents, the responses received will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he uses to assess the relative merits of the advice from(a) the Committee on Toxicity and (b) other independent scientists who have made representations to the Ministry on the safety of vitamin B6; and if he will make a statement. [26397]

  Mr. Rooker
  The role of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is to provide independent advice on matters within its remit. Its members are recognised nationally and internationally as experts in their disciplines which include the interface between toxicology and nutrition. Representations from scientists criticising the COT's advice on the safety of vitamin B6 have been copied to the COT secretariat and, where appropriate, to the Chairman of the COT for comment.

  Food Product Labelling
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take during the United Kingdom presidency to complete negotiations on a standard European Union-wide system of food product labelling to indicate genetically-modified ingredients; and if he will make a statement. [25753]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the UK presidency I will be pressing for agreement to be reached as quickly as possible on a standard EU wide system of labelling for genetically modified food ingredients that is both practical and meaningful to consumers.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the actions so far taken by the United Kingdom Government to meet the requirements agreed at the EU summit in Florence in order to get the ban on beef exports lifted; and what additional actions now remain to be taken. [25251]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Agreement secured at the EU summit in Florence permits the progressive resumption of exports on fulfilment of five pre-conditions. The following action has been taken to meet those pre-conditions:
  The selective slaughter programme has been implemented: 59,347 animals have been slaughtered under the scheme up to 16 January 1998.

  551
  A compulsory animal identification and movement recording system has been introduced. All cattle born or imported after 1 July 1996 are registered on a computerised database and may be moved only if accompanied by a valid passport recording the animal's movement history. A total of 3,984,010 cattle passports had been issued up to 10 January 1998.
  Legislation for the removal of mammalian meat and bone meal from feed mills and farms has been implemented and the European Commission confirmed that arrangements were acceptable after an inspection in July 1996.
  2,001,921 animals have been culled under the Over Thirty Month Slaughter Scheme up to 11 January 1998. Meat and bonemeal and tallow from carcases rendered under the scheme is being securely stored until it can be incinerated.
  Controls on slaughterhouses to ensure the removal of Specified Bovine Materials (SBM) have been strengthened.

  BSE
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there have been any findings of the BSE agent in the dorsal root ganglia of cattle born after 1 August 1996. [25455]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: No cattle born after 1 August 1996 have yet been reported as showing signs of clinical BSE.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the number of confirmed cases of BSE(a) for each year since 1990 and (b) for each month since January 1997. [25804]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following tables show:

  (a) the number of cases of BSE confirmed in Great Britain for each year since 1990

  Year of confirmation

  Number of cases

  1990

  12,829

  1991

  22,613

  1992

  34,712

  1993

  36,271

  1994

  25,579

  1995

  15,451

  1996

  8,740

  1997

  4,847

  (b) the number of cases of BSE confirmed in Great Britain for each month since January 1997

  Month of confirmation

  Number of cases

  January

  659

  February

  550

  March

  423

  April

  471

  May

  391

  June

  458

  July

  410

  August

  169

  September

  327

  October

  404

  November

  288

  December

  297

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on how and when 552
  he will be implementing his plans to safeguard Britain's fishing industry from the effects of quota hoppers. [25456]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I am currently awaiting the Commission's views on detailed proposals for ensuring that all British registered fishing vessels maintain a real economic link with those populations in the UK dependent upon fisheries and related industries. Those proposals are based on a consultation paper issued in July 1997 and subsequent discussions with all sectors of the fishing industry. Once the Commission's views are known, an announcement will be made on the way forward.

  BSE (Canine Immunity)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the potential for canine immunity to BSE-related disease to be used to develop vaccines for BSE and CJD. [25920]

  Mr. Rooker
  Any resistance that canines may have to infection with BSE may not be associated with an immune response. Indeed there is no "immunity" in the traditional sense of the word with any of the TSEs, so consequently vaccination in its recognised form is unlikely to be possible. In experimental studies in mice, defects in the immune system actually lead to resistance to infection with TSE agents.

  Current thinking suggests that "resistance" to infection is associated with significant differences in amino acid sequences of the "incoming infectious agent" and the amino acid coded for by the PrP gene of the animal being challenged. The greater the disparity, the greater the resistance to infection. Studies are currently in place to evaluate the extent of differences in PrP gene sequences of some species, including canines, that appear to be resistant to BSE. These studies are incomplete.

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to his Department since 1 May 1997. [25843]

  Mr. Morley
  The table sets out the number of civil servants appointed by my Department and its Agencies since 1 May 1997 on casual and fixed-term contracts, and other appointments of a temporary or conditional nature including Special Advisers.

  Department

  Staff on fixed term contracts

  Staff on casual contracts

  Other non—permanent staff

  Core MAFF

  83

  508

  31

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  0

  9

  0

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  0

  0

  1

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  7

  61

  0

  Meat Hygiene Service

  75

  0

  0

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  47

  39

  2

  553

  Department

  Staff on fixed term contracts

  Staff on casual contracts

  Other non—permanent staff

  Central Science Laboratory

  18

  36

  1

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  38

  35

  0

  MAFF total

  268

  688

  35

  Animal Welfare (Transportation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions were brought under the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, relating to the importation of non-human primates for research purposes. [25752]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rendered Bovine Material (Disposal)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total tonnage of rendered bovine material currently held in store; and what plans he has for its disposal. [25877]

  Mr. Rooker
  Some 307,700 tonnes of meat and bonemeal (MBM) and 159,500 tonnes of tallow from cattle rendered under the Over Thirty Month (OTM) and Selective Cull (SC) Schemes are being safely and securely stored in the UK. The Government are considering a number of options for the disposal of these products. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 15 January 1988,Official Report, column 294, in which I stated that the Intervention Board has now terminated the restricted stage of its 1997 incineration tender in order that it can pursue disposal options which appear to offer a better prospect of safe, prompt and economical disposal of waste from these schemes. In the interim some MBM is already being burned in high temperature waste incinerators and a number of rendering plants are burning tallow produced from the OTM and SC Schemes as a fuel to power the rendering process.

  Beef Bones (Disposal)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he plans to issue on the disposal of beef bones for which there is no longer a commercial market. [25876]

  Mr. Rooker
  Such bones must be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, which is enforced by local authorities. An explanatory note on the 1997 amendment to the Order and which covers butchers' waste is being sent to local authority bodies and is available to inquirers. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member and have arranged for one to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sheep Exports
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to prevent live 554
  sheep being exported from the United Kingdom for slaughter in France at the Eid-el-Kebir festival; and if he will make a statement. [25641]

  Mr. Morley
  A judgment against the United Kingdom in the European Court of Justice has made clear that there are severe constraints on our power to prevent the export of livestock because of the way they may be treated in the Member State of destination. We are however considering the position. We will in particular be contacting the French government to seek their assurance that steps will be taken to prevent a repeat of the sort of scenes that have occurred with the Festival of Eid-el-Kebir in recent years.

  Food Standards
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to ensure that food standards in other member states of the EU match those in the United Kingdom. [25861]

  Mr. Rooker
  Most areas of food law are harmonised in the EU through EC legislation. The UK negotiates hard to make sure that the health of the consumer is properly safeguarded at home and abroad.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for his Department. [25902]

  Mr. Morley
  In accordance with the terms of reference for the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, the Department is reviewing all aspects of its expenditure and determining how best its programme can contribute to the Government's objectives, including in particular the aims of enhancing opportunity and fairness and promoting employment and investment for sustained economic growth.

  Farming Industry (Meetings)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how regularly Ministers meet representatives of the farming industry; what formal fora for discussion exist; and if he will make a statement. [25295]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I and my Ministerial team are in regular contact with representatives of the farming industry at both a national and regional level.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to pay the fourth year of tuition fees for eligible English and Welsh students beginning degrees at Scottish universities from 1998 onwards; and if he will make a statement. [27046]
  555
  Dr. Howells
  Students domiciled in England and Wales who begin degree courses at Scottish universities 1998 onwards will be eligible for financial support with the payment of fees for each year of their course, depending on their parents' or spouse's and their own income. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans for the whole fourth-year tuition fee to be paid out of public funds for all such students, regardless of income.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what income level EU migrant workers resident in England and applying to a Scottish university for a four year degree will be means tested for eligibility for the fourth year tuition fee. [26973]

  Dr. Howells
  From 1 September 1998, new entrants to full-time higher education domiciled in England will be eligible for assistance with their fees for all years of their courses. An EU migrant worker living in England who is eligible for assistance is entitled to be treated no less favourably than a UK national who is similarly eligible and living in England. It is not possible to say now what the relevant income figures will be in assessing eligibility for assistance with fees in four years' time.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new child care places have been created since 1 May 1997. [27076]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of new out of school child care places created by the Out of School Childcare Initiative is collected cumulatively within each financial year. For the financial year 1997–98, 5,278 new places have been created up to 28 December 1997.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost of a current child care place; and what was the average cost in 1996. [27077]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The average cost of child care places is not collected on a national basis. However, the third evaluation of Out of School Childcare Initiative, based on a survey of 145 schemes and undertaken in the second half of 1997, found that the average weekly charge for an after-school place was £18.60, a before and after school place £29.50, and a holiday place £50.40. The report was published on 22 January and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many child care places were created by the out of school child care initiative in each of the years(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [27075]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of new out of school child care places created by the Out of School Childcare Initiative is collected on a financial year basis and is as follows: in 1994–95, 22,286 places, in 1995–96 35,182 places, and in 1996–97 12,446 places.

  School Budgets
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer of 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 91, what extra
  556
  amount per pupil would be made available to schools if all local authorities held back the same percentage as Dudley Metropolitan Borough council. [26853]

  Mr. Byers
  The following table gives the information requested as a listing of local education authorities in England for 1997–98. The figures are derived from the budget statements produced by the local education authorities under section 122 of the 1996 Education Act.

  Extract—Section 122 Budget statements (England) 1997–98 Extra amount per pupil which would be made available to schools if all local authorities held back the same percentage as Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (96.3 per cent. of PSB)

  Authority

  £

  Corporation of London

  261

  Camden

  233

  Greenwich

  34

  Hackney

  129

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  100

  Islington

  96

  Kensington and Chelsea

  198

  Lambeth

  179

  Lewisham

  102

  Southwark

  170

  Tower Hamlets

  173

  Wandsworth

  137

  Westminster

  175

  Barking/Dagenham

  172

  Barnet

  147

  Bexley

  82

  Brent

  41

  Bromley

  151

  Croydon

  101

  Ealing

  145

  Enfield

  150

  Haringey

  254

  Harrow

  132

  Havering

  90

  Hillingdon

  124

  Hounslow

  146

  Kingston

  130

  Merton

  137

  Newham

  238

  Redbridge

  91

  Richmond

  125

  Sutton

  88

  Waltham Forest

  56

  Birmingham

  99

  Coventry

  114

  Dudley

  0

  Sandwell

  82

  Solihull

  39

  Walsall

  146

  Wolverhampton

  78

  Knowsley

  90

  Liverpool

  71

  St. Helens

  131

  Sefton

  142

  Wirral

  119

  Bolton

  170

  Bury

  64

  Manchester

  96

  Oldham

  93

  Rochdale

  54

  Salford

  109

  Stockport

  158

  Tameside

  117

  Trafford

  145

  Wigan

  74

  Barnsley

  144

  Doncaster

  172

  Rotherham

  108

  Sheffield

  139

  557

  Extract—Section 122 Budget statements (England) 1997–98 Extra amount per pupil which would be made available to schools if all local authorities held back the same percentage as Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (96.3 per cent. of PSB)

  Authority

  £

  Bradford

  111

  Calderdale

  158

  Kirklees

  148

  Leeds

  50

  Wakefield

  156

  Gateshead

  217

  Newcastle

  148

  North Tyneside

  85

  South Tyneside

  141

  Sunderland

  53

  Isles of Scilly

  141

  Bath and North East Somerset

  128

  Bristol

  144

  North Somerset

  142

  South Gloucestershire

  158

  Hartlepool

  103

  Middlesbrough

  145

  Redcar and Cleveland

  147

  Stockton on Tees

  126

  Hull

  110

  East Riding

  144

  North East Lincolnshire

  111

  North Lincolnshire

  158

  North Yorkshire

  120

  York

  131

  Luton

  118

  Milton Keynes

  120

  Derby City

  142

  Poole

  64

  Bournemouth

  214

  Darlington

  162

  Brighton and Hove

  151

  Portsmouth

  120

  Southampton

  80

  Leicester City

  169

  Rutland

  103

  Stoke-on-Trent

  113

  Swindon

  112

  Bedfordshire

  62

  Berkshire

  56

  Buckinghamshire

  92

  Cambridgeshire

  160

  Cheshire

  94

  Cornwall

  177

  Cumbria

  78

  Derbyshire

  135

  Section 122 Budget Statement (England) 1997–98

  Non-delegated total as % of GSB % (a)

  GSB less ASB per pupil £ (b)

  All S.E.N. (non-delegated) funding per pupil £ (c)

  Column (c) as % of column (b) %(d)

  Corporation of London

  35.8

  1,657

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  33.5

  1,283

  136

  10.6

  Greenwich

  22.7

  690

  14

  2.1

  Hackney

  28.4

  961

  57

  5.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25.3

  873

  51

  5.8

  Islington

  32.7

  1,133

  55

  4.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27.2

  1,050

  95

  9.0

  Lambeth

  26.3

  929

  141

  15.2

  Lewisham

  20.2

  604

  22

  3.7

  Southwark

  27.6

  871

  68

  7.8

  Tower Hamlets

  32.9

  1,148

  106

  9.2

  Wandsworth

  25.8

  840

  122

  14.5

  Westminster

  30.2

  1,040

  98

  9.5

  Barking/Dagenham

  30.7

  912

  111

  12.2

  Barnet

  30.0

  858

  130

  15.1

  558

  Extract—Section 122 Budget statements (England) 1997–98 Extra amount per pupil which would be made available to schools if all local authorities held back the same percentage as Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (96.3 per cent. of PSB)

  Authority

  £

  Devon

  105

  Dorset

  103

  Durham

  151

  East Sussex

  117

  Essex

  125

  Gloucestershire

  88

  Hampshire

  108

  Hereford/Worcester

  118

  Hertfordshire

  58

  Isle of Wight

  127

  Kent

  131

  Lancashire

  129

  Leicestershire

  147

  Lincolnshire

  155

  Norfolk

  81

  Northamptonshire

  60

  Northumberland

  89

  Nottinghamshire

  137

  Oxfordshire

  83

  Shropshire

  84

  Somerset

  114

  Staffordshire

  72

  Suffolk

  75

  Surrey

  114

  Warwickshire

  134

  West Sussex

  130

  Wiltshire

  132

  England

  115

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority(a) the percentage of their schools budget that is not delegated to schools, (b) the amount in (a) expressed in pounds per pupil and (c) the amount not delegated to schools allocated for special educational needs expressed in pounds per pupil; and what proportion (c) represents of (b). [26833]

  Mr. Byers
  The following table gives the information requested as a listing of local education authorities in England for 1997–98. The figures are derived from the budget statements produced by the local education authorities under section 122 of the 1996 Education Act.
  559

  Section 122 Budget Statement (England) 1997–98

  Non-delegated total as % of GSB % (a)

  GSB less ASB per pupil £ (b)

  All S.E.N. (non-delegated) funding per pupil £ (c)

  Column (c) as % of column (b) % (d)

  Bexley

  24.3

  559

  56

  10.0

  Brent

  25.2

  722

  30

  4.2

  Bromley

  31.6

  805

  133

  16.5

  Croydon

  28.1

  763

  77

  10.1

  Ealing

  26.0

  720

  116

  16.2

  Enfield

  30.5

  865

  91

  10.5

  Haringey

  34.8

  1,149

  113

  9.8

  Harrow

  22.5

  614

  111

  18.1

  Havering

  18.1

  429

  77

  18.0

  Hillingdon

  21.7

  535

  25

  4.6

  Hounslow

  27.6

  815

  43

  5.3

  Kingston

  21.3

  499

  77

  15.4

  Merton

  18.5

  453

  111

  24.5

  Newham

  30.3

  842

  106

  12.6

  Redbridge

  23.5

  609

  20

  3.3

  Richmond

  17.8

  446

  101

  22.7

  Sutton

  29.6

  821

  38

  4.6

  Waltham Forest

  25.5

  752

  4

  0.5

  Birmingham

  22.4

  589

  57

  9.6

  Coventry

  24.1

  622

  58

  9.4

  Dudley

  19.6

  447

  26

  5.8

  Sandwell

  21.9

  510

  55

  10.9

  Solihull

  19.8

  457

  56

  12.3

  Walsall

  23.0

  538

  61

  11.3

  Wolverhampton

  25.1

  602

  39

  6.5

  Knowsley

  23.1

  573

  23

  3.9

  Liverpool

  24.5

  592

  45

  7.5

  St. Helens

  23.9

  574

  70

  12.1

  Sefton

  21.0

  494

  62

  12.5

  Wirral

  24.4

  569

  52

  9.1

  Bolton

  27.7

  656

  128

  19.6

  Bury

  21.5

  464

  19

  4.2

  Manchester

  27.2

  696

  26

  3.7

  Oldham

  24.3

  588

  46

  7.8

  Rochdale

  23.4

  536

  53

  10.0

  Salford

  32.5

  863

  64

  7.4

  Stockport

  26.8

  938

  124

  13.2

  Tameside

  34.9

  858

  52

  6.0

  Trafford

  29.6

  668

  72

  10.8

  Wigan

  23.4

  583

  25

  4.3

  Barnsley

  30.5

  687

  107

  15.6

  Doncaster

  26.6

  659

  106

  16.0

  Rotherham

  23.6

  539

  57

  10.5

  Sheffield

  35.2

  949

  75

  7.9

  Bradford

  35.1

  916

  103

  11.2

  Calderdale

  32.6

  790

  115

  14.6

  Kirklees

  28.0

  666

  74

  11.1

  Leeds

  26.3

  675

  21

  3.1

  Wakefield

  36.9

  957

  87

  9.1

  Gateshead

  36.3

  1,033

  94

  9.1

  Newcastle

  26.0

  659

  53

  8.0

  North Tyneside

  27.6

  685

  65

  9.6

  South Tyneside

  26.3

  607

  63

  10.4

  Sunderland

  21.9

  516

  53

  10.3

  Isles of Scilly

  25.8

  1,164

  164

  14.1

  Bath and North East Somerset

  21.4

  537

  73

  13.7

  Bristol

  22.0

  563

  43

  7.7

  North Somerset

  29.8

  806

  77

  9.5

  South Gloucestershire

  23.1

  691

  102

  14.8

  Hartlepool

  21.1

  453

  52

  11.5

  Middlesbrough

  25.2

  602

  63

  10.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  22.9

  522

  68

  13.1

  Stockton on Tees

  22.3

  510

  49

  9.6

  Hull

  22.5

  521

  52

  9.9

  East Riding

  23.1

  563

  53

  9.3

  North East Lincolnshire

  21.6

  501

  49

  9.9

  North Lincolnshire

  26.0

  629

  58

  9.3

  North Yorkshire

  21.5

  511

  66

  12.9

  York

  21.0

  471

  67

  14.3

  560

  561

  Section 122 Budget Statement (England) 1997–98

  Non-delegated total as % of GSB % (a)

  GSB less ASB per pupil £ (b)

  All S.E.N. (non-delegated) funding per pupil £ (c)

  Column (c) as % of column (b) %(d)

  Luton

  27.0

  637

  42

  6.6

  Milton Keynes

  30.2

  729

  60

  8.3

  Derby City

  29.1

  628

  101

  16.2

  Poole

  28.0

  612

  68

  11.0

  Bournemouth

  35.4

  877

  98

  11.2

  Darlington

  23.9

  515

  85

  16.4

  Brighton and Hove

  25.8

  650

  94

  14.5

  Portsmouth

  28.6

  776

  40

  5.1

  Southampton

  19.2

  465

  24

  5.2

  Leicester City

  24.2

  570

  98

  17.2

  Rutland

  20.5

  442

  61

  13.8

  Stoke-on-Trent

  23.6

  520

  51

  9.8

  Swindon

  24.5

  533

  79

  14.8

  Bedfordshire

  23.5

  556

  20

  3.7

  Berkshire

  17.4

  394

  26

  6.5

  Buckinghamshire

  29.5

  739

  40

  5.5

  Cambridgeshire

  33.2

  826

  148

  18.0

  Cheshire

  22.0

  515

  58

  11.3

  Cornwall

  29.9

  745

  136

  18.3

  Cumbria

  25.7

  600

  63

  10.6

  Derbyshire

  30.4

  691

  100

  14.4

  Devon

  24.7

  588

  73

  12.4

  Dorset

  20.0

  433

  58

  13.4

  Durham

  28.1

  682

  89

  13.0

  East Sussex

  27.2

  705

  58

  8.3

  Essex

  26.2

  628

  98

  15.7

  Gloucestershire

  24.9

  559

  75

  13.4

  Hampshire

  21.4

  510

  26

  5.1

  Hereford/Worcester

  24.7

  577

  85

  14.7

  Hertfordshire

  22.5

  537

  76

  14.2

  Isle of Wight

  21.0

  486

  90

  18.6

  Kent

  24.3

  563

  99

  17.6

  Lancashire

  25.5

  608

  104

  17.2

  Leicestershire

  22.9

  533

  74

  14.0

  Lincolnshire

  24.2

  587

  106

  18.0

  Norfolk

  24.6

  618

  65

  10.6

  Northamptonshire

  23.8

  555

  32

  5.7

  Northumberland

  24.2

  561

  68

  12.1

  Nottinghamshire

  26.7

  599

  59

  9.8

  Oxfordshire

  25.4

  625

  66

  10.6

  Shropshire

  28.5

  703

  42

  5.9

  Somerset

  23.5

  555

  101

  18.2

  Staffordshire

  23.7

  527

  57

  10.7

  Suffolk

  20.3

  480

  47

  9.8

  Surrey

  26.7

  692

  73

  10.6

  Warwickshire

  28.1

  687

  80

  11.7

  West Sussex

  21.6

  510

  67

  13.1

  Wiltshire

  28.9

  691

  80

  11.6

  England

  25.6

  633

  70

  11.0

  Examination Papers (Marking)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information his Department collates on the average time taken and payment made for marking(a) GCSE examination and (b) A-level examination papers. [26393]

  Dr. Howells
  Data are not collected centrally on the time taken to mark GCSE and GCE A-level examinations. The marking timetable is determined by the need to notify candidates of their results in August each year.

  The Department does not collate information on the average payment made for marking. However in 1997, the average fees charged by awarding bodies in respect of GCSE and GCE A-level examination entries were
  562
  £16 and £29 respectively. These fees include payment to the awarding bodies for the marking of examination papers.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will be sending a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam dated 27 June 1997 concerning the Astra Group Pension Scheme. [24665]

  Dr. Howells
  Department for Education and Employment officials are seeking a speedy resolution to the ex-Astra issues, but are still working on the "package" of measures potentially to assist ex-employees of the Department who transferred to Astra. Negotiations also
  563
  involve other Departments—including HM Treasury and the Government Actuary's Department—and due partly to the legal complexities involved, these have been protracted.

  The precise nature of the package should be agreed soon, and this Department will be contacting the appropriate former employees with details as soon as it is able. The hon. Member will also be informed.

  Training (Voluntary Sector)
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the contribution of the voluntary sector to training provision for people with learning disabilities. [24857]

  Dr. Howells
  There has been no central assessment of the voluntary sector's contribution to training people with learning disabilities.

  Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) are responsible for delivering publicly funded, high quality training programmes, which include provision for people with learning disabilities. It is for TECs to contract appropriately with local providers. The Department and TECs value highly the contribution of the voluntary sector in helping people with learning disabilities take full advantage of training opportunities.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of college fees have been paid in accordance with his Department's deadlines by each local education authority in each of the last three years; [24861]

  (2) what percentage of student maintenance awards have been paid on time by each local education authority in each of the last three years. [24862]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's guidance to local education authorities is that they should:pay students the first instalment of their maintenance award at the start of their first term, and further payments at the start of each term after that; and
  pay tuition fees direct to universities and colleges on time—either by the dates set in the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations or within one month of receiving a valid fee invoice, whichever is later.

  The Department does not routinely monitor LEAs' performance against these targets. Some information on mandatory awards is available from the Audit Commission's yearly reports on 'Local Authority Performance Indicators': these include an indicator for the percentage of new mandatory awards paid by each LEA by 10 October each year. Copies of the reports are in the Library.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many inquiries from students and parents concerning student maintenance and fees awards were received by local education authorities in each of the last three years. [24860]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not collected centrally.
  564
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the resources required by the Student Support Agency to meet the volume of inquiries currently managed by local education authorities and to deal with them to the same standards. [24859]

  Dr. Howells
  We have had a preliminary look at this but we have made no detailed assessment of the resources required by a student support agency to meet the volume of inquiries currently managed by local education authorities and to deal with them to the same standards.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 22 January 1998, Official Report, column 700, in relation to the future arrangements for the administration of HE student support and to our planned review of options.

  Further Education
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many complaints have been made to him under section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; what was the subject matter of the complaints; and what was the outcome. [24978]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend receives many representations about the activities of the governing bodies of further education colleges and they are followed up where it seems appropriate to do so. The Department does not maintain a register of all complaints.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to amend the regulations concerning governing bodies of further education colleges; [24974]

  (2) what plans he has to include representatives of local education authorities on the governing bodies of further education colleges; [24975]

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that staff and students are represented on the governing bodies of further education colleges. [24976]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce his plans for the future constitution of governing bodies of further education colleges in the forthcoming White Paper on Lifelong Learning.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many governors have been removed from the governing bodies of further education colleges as a result of being found unfit to serve; and what were the reasons for these findings. [24977]

  Dr. Howells
  Decisions on whether a Member of a governing body is unfit are matters for the governing body. The Department does not collect such information.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he proposes to exempt participants on further education teacher training courses from the payment of tuition fees. [24979]

  Dr. Howells
  The £1,000 tuition fee contribution to be introduced for new students in 1998–99 will not apply to students on courses of initial teacher training, including courses for further education teachers, other than students
  565
  on a BEd, BA or BSc degree course. This reflects the importance which the Government attach to enhancing the quality of teaching and encouraging the effective training of teachers.

  Special Education Provision
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Green Paper on special educational provision existed in draft form when he took office. [24980]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No: the Green Paper drew on the Labour Party's consultation document, 'Every Child is Special', published in March 1997. The Green Paper was drafted in the period July to October last year, in consultation with the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in reducing classroom sizes in Southend since 31 July. [25266]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on 29 January 1998,Official Report, column 370.

  Veterinary Students
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the proceeds which will be received by Her Majesty's Treasury as a result of the imposition of tuition fees on veterinary students under his proposals for the funding of higher education. [25513]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the new higher education funding system being introduced from 1998–99 universities and colleges will receive £1,000 for every home or EU full-time undergraduate new entrant—from the student and/or from the local authority depending on income assessed. We estimate that this will amount to around £130 million in England in 1998–99, after allowance has been made for costs of some 5 per cent. for collection and any default. This includes tuition fees for new veterinary undergraduates.

  The Government have made it clear that the savings from the introduction of tuition fees would be used to improve quality, standards and opportunity for all in further and higher education. For 1998–99 we have announced an extra £165 million for higher education to spend, including a total of £129 million for higher education institutions.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many veterinary students are currently in receipt of(a) full and (b) part maintenance grants. [25518]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the subject of study of award holders is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the letter of 566
  9 January from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), what estimate he has made of the extent of the deficit in veterinary graduates qualifying from United Kingdom veterinary schools. [25517]

  Dr. Howells
  Veterinary graduates are employed largely in private practice and the Government do not attempt to forecast demand for them or to estimate whether supply does or does not meet requirements. However, the increase in the numbers of overseas registrations as shown by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' registration statistics suggests that demand for veterinary graduates in the UK is not being met from UK registered graduates.

  Registered Veterinary Graduates

  Year

  UK

  Commonwealth, foreign and EU

  Total

  1995

  369

  469

  838

  1996

  384

  531

  915

  The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is currently conducting a survey to gauge the needs of the profession in future years.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research he has conducted into the manpower demand of the public sector for graduates in veterinary medicine. [25516]

  Dr. Howells
  Most veterinary graduates are in private practice. Neither this Department nor the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conducts research into, or attempts to forecast, public sector demand for veterinary graduates. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons conducts periodic labour market research to gauge the needs of the profession.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the levels of indebtedness likely to be experienced by graduates and students of veterinary medicine as a result of his proposals for the funding of higher education; [25514]

  (2) if he will estimate the total cost, including tuition fees and maintenance, of a five year veterinary course for students with a family income of (a) less than £23,000 per annum, (b) between £23,000 and £35,000 per annum and (c) over £35,000 per annum under his proposals for the funding of higher education. [25515]

  Dr. Howells
  The amount that a student of veterinary medicine will be able to borrow under the student loans scheme will depend on a variety of factors including the length of the course, the place of study, and the student's and his or her parents' or spouse's income. A student
  567
  completing a five year course who began studying in 1999 and took out the full loan available each year might expect to have borrowed a total of between £13,205 and £17,255 in 1998 prices, depending on his or her individual, parental or spouse's income.

  The level of monthly repayments that graduates will be expected to make will depend entirely on their incomes. In this respect the position of veterinary students will be no different from that of students of any other discipline. The Government have not, therefore, seen the need to commission specific research into the effects of their proposals on veterinary students.

  The following table indicates in 1998 prices the contributions to fees and maintenance that parents would be expected to make, where their income was taken into account, for each year of a five year course outside London. Similar scales apply to spouses where appropriate. No parent or spouse will be expected to contribute more under the new arrangements to the cost of fees and maintenance combined than they would contribute to the cost of maintenance alone under the existing arrangements.

  £

  Income1

  Annual parental contribution to fees

  Annual parental contribution to maintenance

  Maximum loan available to student for full year

  Low income

  0

  0

  3,545

  Middle income

  1,000

  0

  3,545

  High income

  1,000

  810

  2,735

  1 The contribution parents are expected to make will depend, as now, on their residual income, rather than gross income. The total incomes to which the residual income figures correspond will vary according to individual circumstances. The residual income below which no contribution is expected ("low income") is £16,945: on average this might equate to a total income of around £23,000. The residual income at which parents will be expected to contribute the full £1,000 towards fees ("middle income") is £27,119, which on average might equate to a total income of around £35,000. The residual income at which the maximum contribution towards fees and maintenance is expected ("high income") is £34,068. Contributions between these points are on a sliding scale.

  Further and Higher Education (Cornwall)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what developments to increase the provision of further and higher education he plans in Cornwall. [25627]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend announced last November additional funding for further education totalling £83 million. The allocation of funding to individual colleges is the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council for England, who have a duty to ensure that adequate and sufficient provision is made.

  In respect of higher education it is for the Higher Education Funding Council for England, in partnership with institutions, to consider the provision of higher education in Cornwall having regard to national needs.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions his Department has had with the European Commission on the compatibility of the unemployment subsidy in the new deal with EU competition policy. [26224]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The European Commission's guidelines on aid to employment published in 1995 make clear that the Commission is generally sympathetic towards measures which are intended to encourage firms to recruit individuals who have difficulty finding work.

  Officials from the Department will be meeting officials from the Commission to inform them about the new deal and answer any questions the Commission may wish to raise.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Government proposes to extend the new deal from 18 to 24-year-olds to 25 to 34-year-olds. [26226]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I announced on 5 January that we would develop pilots, for introduction in the autumn, with a view to extending the new deal to people over 25 who have been unemployed for a year or 18 months. These will need to be thoroughly evaluated before decisions can be taken on the time or nature of a full extension.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Lord Bauer—Took the Oath.

Tax Havens
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to review the status of the several tax havens under British sovereignty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no internationally agreed definition of a tax haven. The Question refers to territories under British sovereignty. The Foreign Office is currently conducting a review of policy towards the UK's dependent territories. The questions under consideration include the state of financial regulation in the dependent territories and the constitutional relationship between the dependent territories and the United Kingdom. I understand, however, that the responses from the territories so far show little or no wish for change in their current constitutional status. Separately, the Home Secretary announced a review of financial regulations in the Crown dependencies, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, on 21st January.
The UK has been active in supporting international agreements to tackle harmful tax competition. On 1st December 1997 the ECOFIN group of Finance Ministers agreed a package of measures to tackle harmful tax competition, including a code of conduct on business taxation which aims to eliminate special business tax regime loopholes. The UK has also made a central contribution to work in the OECD on harmful tax competition, on which it is expected to produce a report shortly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, in particular his references to the erosion of the tax base as regards business taxation. Will he confirm that this is a live question within the European Union as far as concerns British Crown dependencies, including Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? I understand that that is an item on the European Union's agenda. Will he confirm that, by any definition of a tax haven, a number of our Caribbean dependent territories rank high as places for businesses to base their operations in order to avoid high taxation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's first question, I have already given an outline of the ECOFIN meeting on 1st December and of the results of that meeting. Those results do not, of course, relate specifically to UK dependent territories; they are about harmful tax competition wherever it may occur.
424
In answer to the noble Lord's second question, if there is no internationally agreed definition of a tax haven, I cannot say what countries would or would not fall within such a definition.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister give some indication as to whether, at the meeting of ECOFIN to which he referred, the Commission raised the question of the Duchy of Luxembourg, which might he held to be in competition with the Channel Islands, not to mention the Netherlands Antilles and the Cayman Islands?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware of any part of the ECOFIN report which refers to any of those three territories.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why an international definition of a tax haven is thought to be desirable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. If there is indeed harmful tax competition between countries, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said in his supplementary question, can be damaging to business, it is desirable that there should be a certain degree of common action to avoid that damage.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I appreciate the comprehensive replies that the Minister has given, hut, in the interests of greater transparency. would he care to set out clearly the objectives of our review? In other words, on the tax front, regardless of what happens in the European Union—which would upset my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—will it have as an objective the removal of the tax status altogether, which would damage the investment in those islands from non-UK taxpayers, or will it primarily be concerned with UK taxpayers and their relief from tax havens?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I had given a fully comprehensive reply, I could, of course, have given more detail about both the Foreign Office review and the Home Office review. The Foreign Office review will be explained in more detail by the Foreign Secretary in a speech on Wednesday to the Dependent Territories Association. I ask my noble friend to be patient until he has heard that speech.
The Home Office review of Crown dependencies is specifically concerned with financial regulation and will be fairly wide-ranging in its coverage of different issues within financial regulation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that sort of capital tends to fly around from one tax haven to another. Can the Minister give an undertaking that, whatever measures are introduced, they will not have retrospective effect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot give that undertaking without advice. However, I should be surprised if it were possible to introduce new regulations with retrospective effect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in retrospect, does the Minister regret that the Government did not consult with the Isle of Man and Channel Island authorities prior to making their Statement on 21st January, as reported in The Times? Is not that at variance with the comments of his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn on 19th January in your Lordships' House when he indicated clearly that, with their independent jurisdictions, they should be properly consulted and every due regard given to their views? Does he further agree with his noble friend that that is one of their human rights?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they will be consulted and due regard will be had to their views.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a significant quantity of inward investment comes to this country specifically because the tax regime is found to be more attractive than elsewhere? Does he agree also that investors are frequently encouraged by Her Majesty's Government and the Bank of England to take advantage of those benefits?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already indicated that there is no internationally agreed definition of a tax haven. There is certainly no definition which includes the United Kingdom as a tax haven.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to expand a little further on the background to the Home Office inquiry? It was interesting that the timing of that inquiry coincided with significant publicity regarding the use of Guernsey in particular as a tax haven. Is the noble Lord prepared to indicate whether the Home Office inquiry is more concerned about the use of Guernsey and the Channel Islands as a tax haven or whether the interest is related particularly to the use of those islands as money laundering areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Home Office inquiry is in relation to financial regulation. I referred to it only for the sake of completeness in answering the Question about tax havens from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
Lord Sandhurst: My Lords, I come from Jersey and we should be grateful if, in future, the constitutional conventions could be more closely observed. Will the Government note that only last year the ambassador from the United States came to Jersey and rewarded the island with a cheque for 1 million dollars in response to its successful efforts in the prevention of money laundering?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already indicated that neither of the reviews to which I referred involve any challenge to the constitutional arrangements either of the dependent territories or of the Crown dependencies.

Road Maintenance: Spending
2.46 pm.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the current level of road maintenance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, no. Too little has been spent on maintenance in recent years and, as a result, the condition of our roads has deteriorated. That is why we recently announced a 50 per cent. increase in spending on trunk road capital maintenance next year. That should be sufficient to prevent further deterioration. Future levels of provision are under consideration in the comprehensive spending review.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital that our road network is properly maintained? According to the Transport Select Committee in its report early last year that work was not being done. Can the Minister indicate why it has been held up? Is it not a penny wise and pound foolish policy? The ultimate bills are often five to six times greater. For the future efficiency of British economy, will the Minister ensure that our roads are properly maintained?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept a great deal of what my noble friend says. Not spending money in a timely fashion on maintenance certainly causes future bills to be much higher. That is why we took the decisions we did in regard to reversing the downward trend of investment in maintenance. It is a question for the previous government as to why the work was held up in the past; they cut the road maintenance programme.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments in relation to trunk roads. However, does she accept that that is only part of the problem? Local roads in many parts of the country are just as bad, if not worse than trunk roads. What do the Government intend to do about them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept that cuts made by the previous government affected local as well as national roads. We have taken priority action on the national road network because damage to roads is done predominantly by heavy goods vehicles and although the network comprises less than 4 per cent. of all roads it carries more than 50 per cent. of such vehicles. We are examining the issues and many local authorities are looking at funding for maintenance in their own areas where the same considerations in regard to investment apply. We are considering these matters in the context of the current comprehensive spending review.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that poor road maintenance is not only a waste of a national asset: it is also a matter of

427
safety? Does she agree also that the categories of road user most affected are pedestrians and cyclists, who are the very categories we are now trying to encourage?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the effect on safety of bad and deteriorating road surfaces is sometimes underestimated. It does not just affect cars or lorries; it affects cyclists and pedestrians as well.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are encouraged by the announcement of government spending on the trunk road network. However, can the Minister explain why the standard spending assessment for highway maintenance by local authorities is set to fall next year by 3.5 per cent? The vast majority of roads are under the control of local authorities. The National Road Maintenance Condition Survey says that approximately 5,7(K) kilometres of major roads need urgent structural repair: the County Surveyors Society says that that figure underestimates the extent of the problem. Are there any plans to review the workings of the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the methodology of the survey to which the noble Lord refers was considered by the Transport Research Laboratory for the County Surveyors Society. Its conclusion was that it was sound, although it suggested some minor changes, particularly in the presentation of the data. We are certainly taking that on board.
As to the noble Lord's point on the condition of local roads, I said in my previous reply that we had to consider what the priority was. We decided that the priority was the national road network, particularly because of the increased damage to that network caused by the large amount of freight traffic on it. However, we are looking within the comprehensive spending review at what the standard spending assessment for road maintenance ought to be for local authorities for the future.

Age Discrimination
2.51 pm.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce legislation on age discrimination in employment, care and other services.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government deplore unjustified age discrimination and are committed to ensuring that all people are treated fairly, whatever their age. The Government are consulting widely about how best to tackle issues facing older workers, and my right honourable friend the Minister of State held a meeting with a range of key figures from business, the lobby and other interested parties on 27th October last year. He has also met a number of older workers and organisations. He plans to continue the consultation into the spring. The Government are also proposing to draw up a code of
428
practice in consultation with, for example, the CBI and the TUC. The code will aim to promote fair practices both for older people seeking work and those already in work. At this stage there are no plans to legislate against age discrimination.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that expected reply. Although this issue has been debated on a number of occasions in both Houses of Parliament, government replies have been more or less the same. They have been very consistent over about two decades. Age Concern is very worried about this matter, as are we all. There is still an arbitrary cut-off point in many government departments—the DSS. the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry. Recent surveys show that 3.4 million people are discriminated against in healthcare. Forty per cent. of heart attack rehabilitation units operate an upper age limit; 7 million people have been discriminated against in insurance services; 3.5 million have been discriminated against in the benefits system; and 4 million people have been discriminated against in education and training. While we hear much, and rightly so, about the shortage of skilled labour—I welcome and applaud the actions being taken to train youngsters—we are at the same time discriminating on the basis of age against thousands of skilled men and women who have the skills we require as a nation.
Does my noble friend accept that while voluntary action and codes of practice are welcome they have been condemned by the DfEE's valuation, which recently said that they had had little or no impact? Will she now reconsider her reply and agree that legislation is urgently required if we are to reverse the situation whereby thousands of capable men and women are condemned to a life of vegetation, vegetation, vegetation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend has made a long speech. As the only granny in the Government, perhaps I may say that I agree with quite a number of the things he said about the importance of avoiding discrimination on grounds of age. The Government are very aware of the need to deal with some of the issues he raised. However, I disagree with what he said about a code of practice. The Government think it is right to develop a code of practice and to do so after consultation with all the parties concerned, including those involved in supporting older people in our community, and with the CBI and the TUC. In that way we shall develop a voluntary code which we have every intention of ensuring produces good results.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the downsizing in industry which took place under the previous government resulted in large numbers of people having to accept early retirement, which they did not want, at the age of 50-plus? What is being done to ensure that such people, who are still capable of making a contribution, are not excluded from the labour market?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree very much with my noble friend. Many people over the age of 50 have the skills, experience and wisdom to make a major contribution in a wide variety of areas. It is true that under the previous government large numbers of people in their fifties were displaced from the labour force. Some 30 per cent. of people now economically inactive are aged between 50 and 65. This Government, by a variety of measures, including through the proposals in the White Paper on lifelong learning to be issued in the near future, are determined to ensure that people's skills go on being developed right up to the age at which they retire.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1995 the number of people over 50 and under 65 who were excused from the actively seeking work rules because they had not worked for the previous 10 years was 2.594 million? Has that figure increased or diminished since then? If she does not have that figure to hand. I wonder whether she will write to me.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have a figure not quite as precise as the one the noble Earl has just given. It is that there are 2.5 million people who are economically inactive at present. Employment among those aged 50 to 64 has been growing at an above average rate over the past couple of years. That is a good sign. However, there is still a lot more we have to do and a long way to go in providing gainful employment for large numbers of people in this age group.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a good deal of age discrimination takes place in the public sector? Is she aware that public sector workers over the age of 50 are often singled out for early retirement? Can she say whether the Government themselves operate any age bar in ministerial appointments; and if so, what is that bar?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not think I would be occupying this position if there were an age bar against people over the age of 50; or indeed over 55. I may perhaps be allowed a little poetic licence. It is important that we do not discriminate on the ground of age. What matters is merit and whether people can do the job. I am not aware that the public sector has a worse record than the private sector in that respect. Both have records that could be improved. And that is something we have to do.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on the subject of age discrimination, can the noble Baroness confirm that there will be no upper age limit for membership of a reformed House of Lords?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. I can neither confirm nor deny that.

Central European Department: Staffing
2.59 pm.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the impending entry of eastern European nations, and especially Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, into western European institutions, whether they are satisfied with the level of manning of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Central European Department.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. We are satisfied that the current level of staffing—and I use the term "staffing"—is sufficient to meet the demands facing the Central European Department. There are no current plans to increase the size of the department, but procedures exist for reviewing staffing levels where necessary.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he join with me in thanking the former director for Europe, Mr. Francis Richards, and the head of the Central European Department, Mr. Howard Pearce—and indeed all members of that overworked and understaffed department—for the work they have done over the past three years? Will he also give this assurance to the House? If there is to be any further salami slicing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, the important Central European Department—it has much work to do to catch up in our relations with the 10 nations in that department which were so rudely interrupted over the past half century—will be left untouched?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am extremely happy to pass on the good wishes from the noble Earl. I am not sure that I can accept the reference to understaffing. As my Answer indicated, there is certainly a lot of work on the Central European desk in anticipation of accession. The staffing levels are under constant review, as are those of our embassies in the countries concerned.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to convey to Sir John Kerr. the new and excellent Permanent Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the best wishes of us all in his formidable task?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will he also give him the assurance that the Government recognise that many of our missions, whether in central Europe or elsewhere, are under great stress and strain? Further. through Sir John Kerr, will the Minister express to those diplomats in those missions the deep appreciation of those of us in both Houses of Parliament who have received such a welcome and such help when in their countries on public duties?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, and for the murmurs of approval around the House. I shall certainly pass to the Foreign Office the appreciation of this House for its work and for our diplomatic staff overseas. It will be much appreciated there.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, assuming that the satisfactory manning levels about which the Minister spoke are sustained, what new proposals are being developed to help the applicant countries in central and eastern Europe and the Baltic states, which are not in the first wave of accession negotiations, to prepare for eventual entry to the European Union so that a negative signal on their prospects for becoming future member countries of the EU is not sent to them by the present member countries?
Lord Whitty: My Lords. I was gently pointing out to the noble Earl, and I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we use the term "staffing" these days rather than "manning" in the Foreign Office. However, as regards the central European countries, it is absolutely clear that the position of Her Majesty's Government and of the European Union is that none of the applicant countries should regard itself as being excluded from the process, but will be involved in the inclusive process of moving towards full membership of the European Union. The first six countries will engage immediately in formal negotiations from the end of March. Those other countries will continue to be supported to be brought into full membership of the European Union. The United Kingdom and the European Union will be providing resources to ensure that they meet the requirements.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the eyes of the Treasury, the proposition that levels of staffing or of funding are sufficient is a tautology? But can he say anything to convince those of us who use less circular terminology that his first Answer to my noble friend was correct?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that all my answers to the noble Earl's noble friend are correct. Clearly, the Treasury has its job to do, as does the Foreign Office. It is the latter which assesses its priorities and we consider the staffing to be adequate, albeit well stretched.

Business
3.4 pm.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the latest developments relating to Iraq.

Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30th January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking account of any new information relevant to events on that day.—(Lord Richard.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is aware, on this side of the House we accept the Prime Minister's judgment in setting up this tribunal and do not oppose this Motion. But the Lord Privy Seal said on Thursday, when he responded to questions following the Statement, that the setting up of a new tribunal was in no way a criticism of Lord Widgery. That seems to me to be an extraordinary thing to say. He seems to be one of the very few people who believe that. After all, if the newspapers are correct about the papers given to the Government by the Irish Government, which include the new evidence and which have led to the new inquiry, they are filled with criticisms of Lord Widgery's tribunal, including the evidence that he did not take and the conclusions he came to.
The Lord Privy Seal also said that this was a wholly separate matter from the peace process. But, as I understand it, the Government hope that going into these matters will have a beneficial impact on the peace process. Whether it does or not only time will tell. We hope that it will. Is it not already clear that Sinn FeinfIRA are going to milk this new tribunal for maximum propaganda throughout? The Government should be prepared to respond to that.
The Lord Privy Seal did not respond to the question on prosecutions which he was asked last Thursday. There is another opportunity for him to do so in support of this Motion. But perhaps he would prefer to do so in correspondence.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to respond. Such researches as we have been able to carry out lead us to believe that questioning of this sort on such Motions is virtually unprecedented in this House. Certainly on two occasions since 1994, when the previous administration set up tribunals of inquiry, the time for questioning was when the Statement was made and not when the Motion was presented. But there we are. If the noble Lord wishes to ask questions I suppose he is entitled to get answers.
I said that the tribunal was not a criticism of Lord Widgery, and I still say that. The great difference between now and then is that there is new evidence which he did not have. In those circumstances, to say to

433
a court of appeal that there is fresh evidence that the judge who presided over the trial would have considered if it had been available is no criticism of the first judge. It is merely saying that he did not have the evidence. That is what I said last week and that is what I am saying today.
The noble Lord asked that I expand on how this inquiry is separate from the peace process. It is self-evidently separate from the peace process. That process is a set of negotiations which are taking place. They are highly political and highly charged issues. This is an inquiry into events which took place 26 years ago. Of course the Government hope that it will have an effect in bringing the communities together. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing sinister in the Government expressing a hope that one of the results of setting up the inquiry, which is justified, is that the communities may come together rather than be driven further apart.
As to whether I have anything to add on immunity from prosecution, I say this. The establishment of a public inquiry does not preclude a criminal investigation or prosecution if in the light of all the evidence which may emerge either course seems justified. It will be open to the RUC to commence a criminal investigation at any stage where it is felt that the evidence so warranted it. Such investigation will receive full government co-operation. Any subsequent proceedings would be subject to any undertaking on immunity which had been given to those who provided evidence to the inquiry.
Perhaps I may say a word about immunity so that we can clear the matter up beyond peradventure. Because the inquiry is to be established under the 1921 Act, any person who can give material evidence will be under a legal obligation to do so, subject only to the right not to incriminate themselves. If the exercise of that right by any individual or group of individuals were to hamper the ability of the inquiry to obtain significant evidence. it could invite the Attorney-General to consider providing the witness with a suitable undertaking, or in an extreme case, immunity. Each case will be considered on its merits. I hope that that clears up the matter to the satisfaction of the noble Lord.
Lord Blease: My Lords, within the provisions of the 1921 Act, does the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal consider that it might be helpful to the scope and purpose of the proposed tribunal to seek to include a suitably qualified citizen of South Africa or of another country outside the European Community?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Government announced on Thursday that the tribunal would have three members. The name of one of the members has been announced; the other two are to be announced. We have said that they will come from Commonwealth countries with knowledge and experience of similar legal systems to our own.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
3.10 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn):MyLords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Crime and Disorder Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4,

Clauses 18 to 21,

Clauses 5 to 7,

Clause 16,

Clauses 8 to 15,

Clause 17,

Clauses 22 to 25,

Clause 68,

Clause 26,

Clause 79,

Clauses 27 to 32,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 33 to 43,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 44 to 47,

Clauses 70 and 71,

Clauses 48 to 51.

Schedule 3,

Clauses 72 to 77,

Schedule 5,

Clause 78,

Clauses 52 to 55,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 56 to 65.

Clause 91.

Clauses 66 and 67,

Clause 69,

Clauses 80 to 87,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 88 to 90,

Clauses 92 to 94,

Schedule 7,

Clause 95.

Schedules 8 and 9,

Clause 96.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, although this is the Crime and Disorder Bill, I have never seen the order in which we are to consider a Bill put forward in such a disorderly way. We occasionally take a clause or schedule out of order, but, within my recollection, such a chaotic plan has never been put before us.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on the detail, but the proposed order of consideration means that Schedule 4 is being taken after Schedule 5—for no apparent reason, so far as I can see. If we now look at Clauses 27 to 32 and later at Clauses 33 to 44, we find that Clause 33 is grouped in the list with Clauses 27 to 32, and not with Clauses 33 to 44. Strangely, Clause 68 and Clauses 70 and 71 have been promoted while Clauses 52 to 55, Clauses 56 to 65, Clauses 66 and 67, and Clause 69 have been demoted.

435
It is strange that Clauses 72 to 77 come within a group dealing with Scottish law. Scottish law and practice differ from those in England and Wales in various ways and should surely be considered separately instead of being grouped together with similar clauses relating to England and Wales. We do not normally proceed in that way.
I have always admired the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, presents matters to the House. He normally does us a great service. I cannot believe that he was the inventor of this chaos.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not do it all on my own, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is about to leap to his feet to confirm. It was done through the usual channels with the absolute support and affirmation of the Opposition Front Bench. What we have tried to do is helpfully—I stress the adverb—group related clauses.
On the Scottish question, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, approached me to see how the Scottish matters might be dealt with. We thought carefully and concluded that the appropriate Scottish clauses should be grouped together to follow their English brethren. I am sure that that is a convenient way of proceeding. As I said, it was all done by agreement with the usual channels and in the usual way. Your Lordships will agree that it must therefore be 100 per cent. right in every respect.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, having been dragged to my feet by those words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I voice my support for what my noble friend Lord Renton said. Although it is true that the usual channels agreed to this Motion, it was not without some discussion as to its merits because, as my noble friend pointed out, it is extremely unusual. However, the Government are the Government and if they have decided in their wisdom that this is the best and most appropriate way to proceed, who are we to disagree? It was not until heard my noble friend that I realised the seriousness of the flaws in the Government's argument. I am sure that the Government will want to reflect on what my noble friend said, but we shall not oppose the Motion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say a few more words. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his attempt to answer the case that I put forward. I thank also my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for destroying that attempt.
I should have thought that between now and tomorrow the Government should be given the opportunity to think again, certainly about some of the earlier clauses. This would be a bad precedent to set. If we have a Bill with a carefully considered order of presentation—this Bill undoubtedly has, because the order of the clauses as set out in the Bill is readily understandable—it seems unacceptable that we should then have to consider the clauses in a different order.
436
Therefore, although time is short, I suggest that the Government should be asked to think again about the earlier clauses. However, I shall not oppose the Motion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House and the Opposition Chief Whip that the order was largely suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and that we agreed with him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.16 pm.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I recognise that data protection does not sound like a subject to attract obsessive interest; witness the general exodus from your Lordships' House as I start to introduce this Second Reading. Data protection is redolent in many ways of computers and electronic processing: necessary but essentially technical providers of services. In fact it affects our well-being in a much more general way. It shares common ground to that extent with the Human Rights Bill. That Bill will improve the position of citizens of this country by enabling them to rely on the wide range of civil and political rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Those rights include the right to respect for private and family life. The Data Protection Bill also concerns privacy, albeit a specific form of privacy: personal information privacy. The subject matter of the Bill is, therefore, inherently important to our general social welfare.
The scope of the Bill is also a measure of its importance. We inhabit the information age. Information can be gathered, manipulated and disseminated more quickly now than ever in our history. Much of that information is information about individuals. I doubt whether there is a single individual in our country about whom some organisation or another does not have some personal details on record. This Bill is about those individuals and their secrets. It is also about those organisations. It affects virtually every organisation which holds personal information—organisations providing public services, meeting the needs of business customers, and carrying out charitable and other voluntary activities. The Bill seeks to regulate appropriately the way in which organisations collect and use information about individual people who in the jargon of our day are called "data subjects".
We have had data protection law in this country since 1984. The 1984 Act was based on the 1981 Council of Europe Convention on Data Protection. The 1984 Act enabled us to ratify that convention, which we did in 1987. The purpose of the convention was twofold: to protect individuals' privacy in relation to the processing of their data; and, in doing so, to allow personal data to flow freely among the ratifying states in the interests of trade promotion.
The promotion of trade with our European colleagues is, of course, an objective of the single market within the European Union. By 1990, some, but not all, of our

437
EU partners had introduced data protection laws. With the impending introduction of the single market the European Commission decided that a Union-wide approach was essential and introduced a draft data protection directive. Its purpose was to establish common standards of data protection, first, to enhance individuals' personal information privacy and, secondly, to provide a sound basis to permit the free flow of personal data within the single market.
The directive was adopted on 24th October 1995. Member states were given three years from that date to bring it into national law. The pressing purpose of this Bill is to fulfil our obligations by October of this year.
Some organisations using personal data have expressed concerns about the consequences of the directive. They believe that there will be increased costs and therefore adverse effects on viability. Equally, those organisations which cherish and represent individuals' interests welcome the directive since its aim is to establish appropriate levels of protection for individuals' information. In drawing up the Bill we have to give effect and balanced consideration to those two aspects. We want to give proper effect to the directive while recognising the necessity for organisations to hold information about individuals and, equally, individuals' entitlement to have information about them—their information—handled properly. The Bill therefore includes additional protection for individuals. But we wish to ensure as far as humanly possible that the methods of regulation are truly proportionate to the appropriate circumstances and attend to real protection rather than procedure for its own sake.
It is probably asking too much to expect a Bill of this size to be wholly uncontroversial. To a large extent this is a technical measure, but that is our work. The subject matter is particularly intricate. We may not always have got things absolutely right. Within the constraints imposed by the directive and the general approach that we suggest, we wish to be as open-minded as we can to any suggestions to improve the Bill. The brief discussions that I have had with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, indicate that he also intends to follow that course. There are difficult technical intricacies and a co-operative effort is likely to produce a better-finished Bill in your Lordships' House.
Like the Data Protection Act 1984, the principles of data protection comprise a central element of the regime that we suggest. They provide a kind of statutory code of practice relating to good data protection handling with which all personal information users—known in the Bill as data controllers—will have to comply. They are to be found in Schedule 1. The Bill contains eight principles relating to matters such as the need to process personal data fairly and lawfully; for data to be processed for specified purposes; for them to be accurate; and for there to be proper security arrangements. All of the 1984 Act principles are broadly reproduced, although not in precisely the same phraseology, and we have added a further one to deal with the transfer of data to third countries.
438
There are two other key concepts. The Bill is built around the concept of processing personal data. Essentially, "personal data" means information from which a living person can be identified and "processing" means doing anything at all with such data, from collecting them, right through to destroying them. including merely the holding of the data whether or not anything active is done with them. I single out these expressions from the list of definitions in Clause 1 because they are fundamental to the working of the Bill. One further relevant definition is "relevant filing system". Unlike the 1984 Act, the directive requires the application of data protection law to certain categories of manual record, not simply computer, and this is the definition of the records covered.
This is a difficult area. Some take the strong view. which I recognise and respect, that the Bill should spell out clearly which categories of record are caught. We are presently unable to find a satisfactory way of doing that. It would have been possible had we been able to limit it to manual records in highly structured systems such as card indexes, but that would not have properly met the requirements of the directive. At the other end of the scale, we could have extended the scope to cover all paper records. I do not believe that that would have been generally welcomed or that it would necessarily have achieved a proper balance between the protection of the individual and the imposition of burdens on information users. In the event, we have followed the approach adopted by the directive. The criteria are: that the records must be in a structured set; that the structure must be by reference to individuals; and that particular data relating to particular individuals must be easy of access. We believe that this brings in highly structured sets such as card index systems and excludes collections of papers which only incidentally contain information about individuals. Whether or not other collections are caught will depend upon whether they meet the criteria, and in the first instance it will be for data controllers themselves to decide.
I have seen the Data Protection Registrar's briefing note on manual records. As I understand it, she believes that the Bill catches a very wide range of manual records. This is not the place to enter into a detailed debate about the construction of words in the Bill, but it is not our intention that the Bill should have the wide effect that she suggests. We do not intend that it should catch files about named individuals where a variety of different kinds of documents is stored by date order. We want to focus on much more highly structured files.
I welcome the registrar's note however. The Government are not wedded to the approach that I have outlined. We are perfectly open to all reasonable proposals to improve the Bill. If the view of the House is that the Bill does not go far enough that is a matter that the Government will consider. But such an extension of the coverage of the Bill would not be without cost and that cost could be quite considerable.
Clause 2 defines "sensitive personal data". These relate to such matters as race, ethnic origin, political or religious views, health and so forth. Schedule 3 contains restrictions on the circumstances in which such data may be processed. I mention this because special restrictions

439
on such data are new to our law. Clause 3 defines "special purposes," which are journalistic, artistic and literary purposes. The Bill provides a special regime for those purposes because they are special activities, to which I shall return in a moment when I deal with Clause 31.
Clause 4 introduces the data protection principles in Schedule 1 and the associated provisions in Schedules 2 and 3. It places on data controllers the duty to comply with them. The purpose of the directive is to provide a common level of data protection within the Union and other member states of the European Economic Area which will also be bound by it. The directive contains rules which determine which members state's law applies to particular processing. The purpose of Clause 5 is to do precisely that. Its principal effect is that United Kingdom law applies to any processing done in the context of the establishment of an organisation in the United Kingdom. That applies whether or not the processing is actually done in the United Kingdom. another EU member state or elsewhere. Other member states' laws should be making similar provision.
Finally in Part I. Clause 6 introduces two data protection institutions: the data protection commissioner, which is the new name for the Data Protection Registrar, and the Data Protection Tribunal, which is also preserved from the 1984 Act. I should like to pay tribute to the previous Data Protection Registrar, Mr. Eric Howe, the present registrar, Mrs. Elizabeth France, and her staff, and the chairman and members of the Data Protection Tribunal for the invaluable public work that they have done under the 1984 Act.
I have spent a moment or two longer than I would have wished on the early stages of the Bill because they are critical to its structure. I shall try to traverse the remaining ground a little more quickly. Part II deals with individuals' rights, which are strengthened by the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 replicate with some amendments the existing right of subject access. They deal with our obligation following the judgment of the ECHR in Gaskin to provide an independent review mechanism for refusal of subject access in certain cases. There is nothing in the Bill yet to meet our undertaking to outlaw the practice of enforced subject access, but we certainly intend to deal with it in the context of the Bill.
Clause 9 provides a new right for individuals to prevent processing which is likely to cause them substantial damage or substantial distress.
Clause 10 provides an express new power for individuals to object to their personal data being used for direct marketing. That is something which will find general approval not just in your Lordships' House but with an increasingly irritated section of the general public. The expression of the right in the body of the statute is new and broadly similar to that already achieved by the application of the data protection principles.
Clause 11 broadens the existing right for individuals to seek compensation. Under the 1984 Act, the right is available only where individuals have suffered damage because of the inaccuracy, loss or unauthorised
440
disclosure of their data. The Bill allows them to seek compensation for damage caused by contravention of any of the provisions of the Bill.
Clause 12 replicates a broadly familiar right for individuals to seek the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of inaccurate data.
Clause 13 is new. It relates to decision-making which is carried out solely by automatic means, as, for example, the practice of credit-scoring. Where such decision-taking significantly affects an individual, if the decision goes against the individual, the clause requires there to be safeguards for his or her interests. This might be provision for review of the decision by an individual person. That is again something that causes great public concern to individuals who feel that their cases in respect of credit provision have been inappropriately or thoughtlessly considered. Clause 14 is a procedural provision relating to courts' jurisdiction.
Part III of the Bill deals with the requirement for data controllers to notify the commissioner of the processing which they do. Registration is linked closely to the enforcement of the data protection principles. Notification under the Bill has been wholly decoupled from enforcement. It is solely about transparency and 1 believe that it represents a significant step forward.
Under the 1984 Act, the obligation to comply with the data protection principles applies only when a data user has registered. Those who do not register may only be prosecuted for non-registration; the registrar has no power to compel compliance with the principles. Under the Bill compliance with the principles will be an obligation on all data controllers, whether or not they have complied with the notification requirements.
Subject to some exemptions, we provide for all data controllers to notify the commissioner before processing personal data. An exemption on the face of the Bill is for manual records. Others can be provided by notification regulations. Such regulations may also make other provision relating to notification, including the form in which notifications must be made. Having consulted considerably with the Data Protection Registrar we hope to make the notification arrangements as simple and little burdensome as possible.
A novelty in the Bill is Clause 21 which provides that processing prescribed by order shall be checked by the commissioner before it shall begin. The normal rule is that processing may begin as soon as it is notified. But certain particularly sensitive processing must be checked in advance. The Government believe that the amount of processing needing "prior checking" is likely to be very small. I should also make clear that this is not a requirement for each individual processing operation to be checked on a case-by-case basis. The prior check is carried out at the time of notification and applies to all processing covered by the notification.
Another new provision is the power in Clause 22 for the Secretary of State to set arrangements for organisations to appoint their own data protection supervisors, following the German model. Such appointees monitor the controller's compliance with the law, thereby removing some of the burden from the supervisory authority. Setting up arrangements under

441
this provision will not be a priority since the Government's immediate priority must be to ensure that the core regime is properly in place and working well.
Finally in this part, Clause 23 provides a requirement on data controllers who do not notify to provide, to anybody who requests it, information about the processing which they do.
Part IV and Schedule 7 deal with exemptions. Many of these are familiar from the 1984 Act, but there are some changes. Clause 27 provides an exemption from, in effect, the whole of the Bill where the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. This is broadly familiar from the 1984 provision, but it contains two important changes. First, it allows a certificate confirming the need for the exemption to be expressed in general terms and to be prospective; and, secondly, it allows a limited right of appeal to the Data Protection Tribunal for individuals who are directly affected by such a certificate.
Clause 28(4) has been the subject of some media speculation and critical comment. It allows the making of orders exempting from the subject access and non-disclosure provisions in the Bill information which would assist in the fight against crime and the prevention of tax evasion and fraud. On tax, there are serious Inland Revenue concerns to be addressed: first, protecting the disclosure to the Inland Revenue of bulk, potentially tax relevant, information provided by third parties, which may be used to help identify people cheating on their taxes, and therefore robbing the general body of citizens whose taxes go to pay for essential services; and, secondly, maintaining the confidentiality of systems designed to identify incorrect tax declarations. I know that the Data Protection Registrar has concerns about this clause. I have discussed this with her. We have made no firm decisions about its use. But I believe that there will be general public support for the principle that we need to safeguard existing initiatives to act against the small minority who, alas, cause significant loss to the public purse through tax evasion and tax fraud. We are interested to see what your Lordships may have to say about the principle and detail as the Bill travels through this House.
I pause on one exemption which is of great importance. It is to be found in Clause 31, to which I promised to return. It relates to processing for the special purposes; namely, journalistic, literary and artistic purposes. The media have been concerned about the implications for their work of the EC Data Protection Directive. I am happy to repeat again publicly that the Government recognise the central importance of the work of a free press in a free society. With its broad definition of "processing", not to mention the inclusion of manual records and the range of rights for individuals, the directive, and therefore the Bill, goes considerably further in protecting individuals' personal information than does the present Act of 1984. It therefore inevitably has greater potential to put at risk the media's legitimate use of such personal information.
442
I am happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in his place. He and I and others from the BBC. Channel 4 and the independent television companies, as well as newspapers and newspaper lawyers generally, had discussions throughout the summer and autumn of last year. We have provided for exemptions for the media. We have done that as deliberate policy, not by way of Christmas accident, where they are necessary to reconcile privacy with freedom of expression.
Following the meetings to which I referred, we have included in the Bill an exemption which I believe meets the legitimate expectations and requirements of those engaged in journalism, artistic and literary activity. The key provision is Clause 31. This ensures that provided that certain criteria are met, before publication—I stress "before"—there can be no challenge on data protection grounds to the processing of personal data for the special purposes. The criteria are broadly that the processing is done solely for the special purposes; and that it is done with a view to the publication of unpublished material. Thereafter, there is provision for exemption from the key provisions where the media can show that publication was intended; and that they reasonably believe both that publication would be in the public interest and that compliance with the Bill would have been incompatible with the special purposes.
We have specifically written into the Bill reference to compliance with a code of conduct which is capable of being approved by the Secretary of State. We have deliberately placed upon the face of the Bill. I believe for the first time in an Act of Parliament in this country, that the public interest is not the narrow question of whether this is a public interest story in itself but that it relates to the wider public interest, which is an infinitely subtle and more complicated concept. That is expressed elegantly in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the transmission of views and opinions by the press and the necessary co-related right on behalf of the public to receive those expressions of views and opinions.
As a safeguard for individuals, the commission has a special power in Clause 42 to seek information from the data controller, pre-publication, to check whether the key criteria are satisfied. There is provision in Clause 43 for her to make a determination where she believes they are not; and Clause 44 provides a limited power for her to take enforcement action against the media where she has made a determination—before or after publication.
The Bill puts the onus for taking enforcement action on the individuals concerned rather than the commissioner; but in Clause 50, it gives the commissioner a power to assist individuals in going to court, but only in cases involving matters of substantial public importance. I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have achieved the right balance in that regard.
We do not wish, and would not want, to inhibit the freedom of expression which is a fundamental and continuing part of the British way of life and which British broadcasters have enjoyed up to now in making programmes in a generally responsible way. It is clearly part of that tradition of information, the dissemination

443
of views and discussion of ideas; for example, historical programmes dealing with analysis of the past. It is not the intention of the Government in implementing the directive that the making of these programmes should be inhibited or prevented by individuals attempting to use its provisions to re-write history or prevent the responsible discussion of historical subjects and documentaries which are an important part of the media's role in informing, educating and stimulating public discussion.
Equally, it is part of the British tradition of freedom of expression that entertainment programmes, such as arts programmes, comedy, satire or dramas, can refer to real events and people. It is not the intention of the Government for the directive to be used to inhibit programme-makers from making programmes as they have up to now. The Government believe that both privacy and freedom of expression are important rights and that the directive is not intended to alter the balance, which is a fine one and always should be, that currently exists between these rights and responsibilities. I believe that the Bill does strike the right note in that respect. It was not until after a good deal of consultation and discussion, and perhaps cross-fertilisation of ideas, that we came to our conclusion. However, I repeat that if there is reasonable room for improvement, our minds are not closed.
Part V of the Bill deals with enforcement. First, the Bill creates a twin-track approach for individuals seeking a remedy for alleged breaches of the law. In the same way as they may now go to the registrar, under Clause 40 they will be able to seek the help of the commissioner. They will also be able to go direct to court where they believe that any of their rights under the Bill have been contravened. This is an important strengthening of individuals' rights. The 1984 Act provides only a very limited right to go direct to court: where subject access has been refused or to seek the correction of inaccurate data.
The enforcement notice, which is the main instrument for enforcing the data protection principles under the 1984 Act, is retained in Clause 38. But because of the restructuring of the data protection principles, it has wider scope under this Bill.
Clause 41 entitles the commissioner to issue information notices seeking the information she may need to carry out her functions. The commissioner takes the view that, in its present draft form, the power is not as useful as it might be. I have discussed it with her, and I will consider whether there is any way in which it could be improved fairly to meet her concerns.
Part VI deals with miscellaneous matters. Clause 49 gives the commissioner a broader duty than now to promote good practice. It includes a strengthened role in relation to the issuing and consideration of codes of practice; and a new power to make assessments of individual data controllers' personal data handling practices, with their consent.
In the context of Clause 49 I might also explain briefly the arrangements for dealing with transfers of data to third countries. The eighth data protection principle in the schedule prohibits the transfer of
444
personal data to countries outside the EEA which do not have an adequate level of data protection. Schedule 4 provides some exemptions. Data controllers will make the initial decisions about adequacy. The commissioner will be able to issue an enforcement notice where she disagrees. Decisions about inadequacy have to be shared with the European Commission and other member states; and there is a mechanism for reaching a common view.
There is concern on the part of some of the EU's major trading partners, particularly the USA, about the implications for trade of these arrangements. I believe that the arrangements made in the Bill provide the maximum flexibility for data controllers, consistent with ensuring proper data protection and meeting the requirements of the directive. I know that this is a matter which is being treated very seriously by colleagues in Brussels and I am confident that a satisfactory way forward can be found.
Clause 51 establishes certain further functions for the commissioner in relation to overseas transfers and other international matters.
Clause 52 creates an offence of unlawful obtaining, disclosure and subsequent sale of personal data without the consent of the data controller. The intention is to re-create and replicate the similar offence in the 1984 Act.
Clause 54 puts a duty of confidentiality, subject to a criminal sanction, on the data protection commissioner and her staff. I know that the registrar is uneasy about attaching a criminal sanction to the duty of confidentiality. Again, this is a matter which I have discussed with her and I have told her that it is a matter on which I am prepared to consider suggestions for alternative approaches.
Finally, I must mention one omission from the Bill. The Bill does not yet make any provision for the transition from the existing data protection regime under the 1984 Act to the new one under the Bill. I recognise, and I am happy to say it now, that those affected by the Bill will need to know as soon as possible what are the Government's intentions. We shall certainly bring forward necessary amendments as soon as we can.
This has been a rather brief overview of what is a long and complex piece of legislation. I have deliberately omitted what I might have covered. I know that noble Lords have particular interests in some of the areas which I have omitted. My noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General will deal with the points which noble Lords raise in the debate.
I am pleased that we have agreement through the usual channels for the Bill to be considered by a Grand Committee in the Moses Room. This seems to be, almost quintessentially, the sort of legislation which needs that calm, informed scrutiny. I repeat that we want the best possible assistance by way of scrutiny by your Lordships who are informed about those matters. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Williams of Mostvn.)
3.49 pm.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I am afraid that at this stage we can only give it a rather guarded welcome. The main reason for that is because we are concerned about the effects of the Bill; that it might become too great a burden for some of those who may be affected—businesses, data providers, parts of the media and perhaps journalists. It may be more of a burden than is necessary to implement the EU directive designed to protect the rights of individuals. We shall concentrate on that during the Bill's passage through this House.
I realise that the Minister does not speak for other European governments. However, the Bill which implements the directive is designed to improve the free movement of personal data throughout the Community. Therefore, I hope that the Government will ensure that work has started in other EU countries. It would be disappointing if we, like good Europeans, implemented the directive only to find ourselves one of the few to do so. That has happened in the past.
We are anxious about the costs of the Bill. The Government admit that the start-up costs for industry will he £836 million, with annual costs of £630 million. The start-up costs for the voluntary sector is £120 million, with annual costs of £37 million. That will be a great burden, particularly on the voluntary sector.
We support the necessary protection for the rights of the individual. After all, it was the Conservative government which introduced the Data Protection Act 1984. That Act gave individuals rights to access data stored about them; to demand disclosure of that data; and in some circumstances, to demand cessation, rectification and compensation. Therefore, the rights in the Bill are not new, but they have been strengthened. One must ask whether there is any evidence that the current Act is not working. Which parts of the current Act do not comply with the directive? How much further have the Government gone? Have they gone further than necessary to comply with the directive? It is a question of balance and we shall be examining that to see whether the Government have it right.
We need to protect the rights of individuals to privacy, but we do not want a back door privacy law. We are also concerned with the practical needs of business to process information in a cost effective manner for the benefit of consumers. There are two areas in which important changes appear to have been made. Manual records are now included by Clause 1 if those records at some time in the future might be transferred to a processing system. When the Data Protection Registrar examined that issue, she stated:
"These include whether it is possible to provide a clearer definition of those manual records that will be covered by the new Act".
That is a valid point and I hope that we shall re-examine it during our debates on the Bill.
The Data Protection Registrar was also concerned about Clause 28(4), providing an order-making power which allows the Secretary of State to exempt personal data of a specified description not only from subject access but also from the requirement to process personal
446
data fairly and lawfully. The registrar stated that she saw no justification for making that blanket exception. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will comment further on that subject.
Another important change is the switch from registration to notification. I acknowledge that there is a gap in the system. At present, someone who is not registered can be prosecuted only for non-registration, but the principles of registration cannot be enforced. Under the Bill, the new system of notification will allow data protection rules to be enforced even if the subject is not registered. That must be an improvement.
The Bill defines the principal terms used in relation to processing information. It is a concern of the CBI that the definition of "processing" will catch any automated processing of personal data even if it is not directly concerned with an individual. An example may be an order or an invoice between two companies which may have a contact name and may be included as part of personal data. We wish to know why the phrase used in the 1984 Act—that is, "by reference to the data subject"—is not used in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 7 is widely drawn. In its attempt to give the right of access to personal data, it allows access to intellectual property rights and confidential business records which may not relate directly to the individual. There is a danger that such rights of access could be abused by the unscrupulous and perhaps for fraudulent purposes. We do not want to give criminals the right to collect information which they can then use to commit further crimes. I am sure that the Minister has considered that and perhaps he will comment further.
I welcome the introduction of the rights of the individual in Clause 10 with regard to direct marketing and I concur with what the Minister said. How much that will stem the flow of useless junk mail which pours through our letterboxes is not clear, but at least it is a valid attempt to try.
Schedule 3 sets out conditions for the processing of sensitive data. Employers are worried that the Bill does not make adequate provision for them to keep certain employment records which is required of them by certain codes of practice. In our view, and in the view of the CBI, the circumstances in which criminal records can be held are not sufficiently extensive. Businesses which have a duty to protect the public and property, or to protect the public from fraud or theft, should be allowed to hold the data that is necessary for that protection.
The role of the data protection commissioner and his or her powers are crucial for the proposed system to work. We will examine those powers closely, including the right to appeal and the right to issue information notices. I note that under the 1984 Act we have a data protection registrar. Now that the Government have gone "Euro", we are to have a commissioner.
The storage and use of data is a technology which is constantly changing. Those who provide on-line services will be affected by the Bill. I believe that there is a problem for them. How can they control what their users do with the data, or what data their users transmit when it is contained within their service? Fundamentally, we are

447
talking about how to control the Internet. Is it possible? It is difficult to see whether the provisions apply to the Internet and to on-line service providers. Will an on-line service provider be responsible, for example, if he offers simple services such as magazine archives which may contain personal data? There is a danger in saying where the line will be drawn. I hope that there will be flexibility within the system so that the new data protection commissioner will be allowed to make sensible judgments.
I note, too, that there is a provision for the data protection commissioner to grant a special form of legal aid to those seeking compensation from the media. How will that be funded? Will there be any cap on the costs? It is a new phenomenon; it was not covered in the 1984 Act. I also understand that every freelance journalist might have to register with the data protection commissioner and that it will be an offence not to do so. At first glance, the consequence of a government body holding a list of all freelance journalists in this country is somewhat Orwellian. Is my interpretation correct? If so—and many journalists have said that they believe they will have to register—how are we to define a journalist? Will one become a journalist if one writes a book review for a magazine? If one of your Lordships writes for the House Magazine will registration be required'? Will he have to register what is in his personal computer, even if it does not contain information about the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, or any of the other Ministers on the Front Bench?
Clause 31 is crucial as regards the press. I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Wakeham will speak today. The whole House will he interested in his views, particularly in his role with the Press Complaints Commission. Although Clause 31(3) refers to "any code of practice". I believe it to refer to that of the commission. Will the Government confirm that? Paragraph (b) of Clause 31(3) also refers to,
"[anything]… designated by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this subsection",
which I believe must mean that perhaps other codes could be used. If he is not able to do so today, perhaps the Minister will be able to respond to that point by correspondence.
As the Minister said, the Bill also provides new rules for the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU. I am concerned to know how British companies, which currently send raw data to be processed in other countries, will be affected. Will that process be illegal if it contains personal data?
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, there is a large and growing worldwide business where data is often processed in third world countries. India, for example, has software skills that are cheaper, and sometimes better, than our own. Will that trade cease? If a bank or insurance company sends its files to be processed in some way to a third world country so that they can then be returned and put, in a different way, on to a system using the latest software, how will that situation be covered? It would be a great pity if that trade were to cease as it provides business for those countries and, indeed, is very cost-effective for the companies which use it.
448
I wonder whether the Government have studied data protection laws in other countries? For example, America is, I suppose, the country whose technology in this respect has led the world. Do the Government have any plans to introduce similar rights and protections? Will the EU be in step or out of step with the rest of the world?
We have before us a complex Bill. It is a simple subject, but a complex one because the devil is in the detail. We will all have to brace ourselves as we attempt to get to grips with technology, and learn how the rights of the individual can be protected in a reasonable way at a reasonable cost. I worry that the Bill is perhaps more prescriptive than it has to be. In some ways, I should like a shorter Bill which is strong on principle but one which allowed flexibility so as to enable the new commissioner to act in a way that is sensible for both individuals and business.
Of course, I recognise that governments like to dot every "i" and cross every "t" and, therefore, that makes Bills much longer than we would all wish. However, because it is such a long and detailed Bill, I fear that, despite careful scrutiny, we may miss something in it which will manifest itself to the detriment of those affected by the Bill.
As the Minister reminded us, the Government announced that they will include measures relating to the "transitional arrangements" in the Bill by way of amendment as the Bill passes through Parliament. The noble Lord kindly informed the House that those amendments will be offered, "as soon as we can". Perhaps the noble Lord could be a little more specific in that respect. Does that mean during the Committee or Report stages or. indeed, while the Bill is actually passing through this House? That is of particular importance because, in a statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in December, I noted that the Government announced that they would introduce a freedom of information and data protection Bill and that both would be processed hand in hand. Perhaps I may quote the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said:
"Any freedom of information Act must provide adequate protection for an individual from any unwarranted invasion of personal privacy caused by an application from a third party. In practice, for the Freedom of Information Act in the United Kingdom, the new Data Protection Act will provide the basis for this protection".
Therefore, transitional arrangements will be most important. I have one question upon which I should really like to hear the Minister's view. Can we actually have a data protection Act in place without a freedom of information Act? In other words, do they go hand in hand? For example, will the transitional arrangements not allow it to come into force until the Government have come forward with a freedom of information Act? Perhaps the Minister could address that point in his response.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will be open-minded about the Bill. Indeed, we shall be critical where necessary but I hope that we shall also be constructive. I am delighted to know that the Minister will listen carefully. I trust that he will be prepared to accept amendments which will improve the Bill.
4.5 pm.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to be speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats who welcome the Bill. We thank the Minister for his overview and for telling us a little about the genesis of the directive, because it is within the context of the manifesto statement to "bring rights home". There are two other parts of this tripartite mission—the Human Rights Bill and the proposed freedom of information legislation. It is rather nice to think that we will be discussing the detail of the Bill in the Moses Room, as we are not talking about matters on tablets of stone.
There is much work ahead of us. As the Minister said, there are general themes which arise from the directive which are reflected in the Bill. They are social, practical themes such as privacy and personal information; the impact on society of this novel legislation; the legislative changes that will flow; and the detailed points of overlap and possible conflict and possible inexactitudes with the other two parts of this tripartite effort.
There are some people who should be thanked in the context of the Bill. I refer first to Geoffrey Hoon, the Minister, who was rapporteur in Brussels in the European Parliament. When the government here were hostile—indeed, fully and totally hostile—to this legislation, we had a British voice who spoke up most clearly and who was also the rapporteur. Secondly, I refer to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill with his human rights legislation and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
There were also people who blocked the Bill, both in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House, on the government side. That was perhaps partly due to ignorance of the development of information technology, partly due to an inborn desire in terms of historical British governmental attitudes to control information on British citizens and partly due to a desire not to share that knowledge for mistaken reasons of freedom of trading. I should also mention the very early support for this frame of thinking by Lord Kilmuir, who, in the philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, took a "one nation" view; in other words, a respect for each other's views, which inevitably leads to respect for personal privacy data.
The kernel of the legislation—that is, the meat of the Bill—seems to me a fresh attempt to create an oasis of individual privacy for each European Union citizen or resident in face of the octopus of largely electronic knowledge which so many others from so many walks of life now have on each and every one of us, while not lessening the flow of knowledge, one of our essential European Union freedoms.
The Minister mentioned the fact that many people have knowledge about us; indeed, all of us are on at least 137 different computer systems. There is also the difficulty and expense of accessing that information. But the knowledge that someone has such information about you is possibly the most difficult thing to accept. So this is an important piece of legislation.
450
On the down side, there is our obligation as a European Union member state within the Treaty of Rome and the single market Act not to inhibit the free flow of knowledge. That is just as important—or is it?—as privacy of the individual. I shall return to the fact that it is a difficult balance to strike, but perhaps I may just congratulate the Government on their efforts as regards human rights, freedom of information and data protection.
The latter is, of course, an inherited piece of legislation. It emerged in October 1990 when it was clearly stated why it was being created. The European Parliament was consulted by the Council on whether or not there should be a directive on the protection of individuals in relation to the processing of personal data. The mission statement was endorsed by the European Parliament in 1992 when it said that it would adopt a directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data. How does the much modified directive look today, eight years on from 1990? That is not eight years old in computer terms but octogenarian because the free flow of information technology has outstripped all of the initial proposals.
Indeed the 1984 convention, stemming as it rightly did from the Council of Europe convention of 1981, has stood the test of time remarkably well. However, we look at it differently now in the light of the Government's new efforts to take Europe seriously and to bring rights home. I suggest that privacy is a novelty for United Kingdom citizens. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech on Bringing Rights Home stated:
"The Government is not introducing a privacy statute".
He went on to say, with regard to the media, that,
"strong and effective self-regulation is the best way forward in the interests of the press and the public. Lord Wakeham has begun the task of strengthening self-regulation".
On the Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill on 3rd November the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, commented that that Bill,
"nevertheless introduces into English law for the first time a right to privacy-.—[Official Report, 3/I 1/97: col. 1259.]
With his great knowledge the noble and learned Lord added—I do not suppose that he could resist it—that in 1351 it was an offence to eavesdrop and that,
"listening under the eaves of your neighbour's house was considered an infringement of his privacy".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, perhaps summed up the matter when he commented in the same Second Reading debate on the Human Rights Bill, in the context of privacy versus public interest, that,
"the right to free speech, like the right to respect for one's private life, is not absolute".
He went on to say that the,
"European Court has also emphasised the importance of ensuring respect for the personal privacy of oneself and one's home".—[Official Report, 3/11/97: col. 1241.]
As a result of incorporation, the noble Lord said, the UK has a positive obligation under the convention to secure the right to privacy in domestic law. Our courts are likely to create it if we do not in Parliament. In other

451
words, a common law of privacy will be developed if we do not do so in Parliament ourselves. I wish to set a marker here that we must consider which concept we put first in the United Kingdom. As I understand it, under our European Union obligation we must put personal privacy first. That point was clearly stated in one of the debates in the European Parliament which I can quote if necessary.
Be that as it may, the Data Protection Registrar sees the Bill as a partial privacy law. I suggest that as such it is a new initiative. I repeat that it was strongly opposed and with great hostility by the previous government. Why is a partial privacy law, or something stronger, needed? I refer again to the Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who stated that he thought that as a free born citizen, if his home were invaded by a public authority without just cause, he had a remedy but that his rights would be weakened under the new convention where he might be told it was allowed to happen for the economic well-being of the country or for the protection of his own or someone else's health. However, it is curious to note that those considerations already apply and have nothing to do with a new European convention.
In a few moments I shall mention health records. This country, with its National Health Service, has a unique stance on health. In my view it is all too unique in the sense that the Secretary of State for Health owns the health records of all those who use the National Health Service, presumably 99 per cent. of the whole population. That is a distinctive position indeed in the context of European Union citizenry legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in talking about the balance of the right to privacy versus freedom of expression, asked, at col. 1247, why,
"this country—alone among European nations—should fail to reconcile these competing principles in an acceptable manner?".
I suggest that it is because our situation in law is historically different. We have no written constitution and our citizens have not had the right to privacy that perhaps they assumed they had. Common law gave no right to protect one's reputation. Even the Swiss constitution of the 1720s gave the citizen a right to protect his or her reputation. Virtually all the developed economies including the US—I emphasise that to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—have a right to privacy. The United Kingdom has stood alone in that we have not developed that right to privacy, possibly because of the lack of a written constitution.
I seek to prove my point further. Let us consider what happened during the early days of the directive. It was considered by Standing Committee B in the House of Commons. I was a Member at the time and I believe that the government were either ignorant or misleading on the material they put before the committee. The directive was considered again by Standing Committee B in the House of Commons in 1994 when again the government deliberately misled the committee, or had a lack of understanding of what the directive sought to achieve. As I understand the position, the Minister at that time talked about the free movement of all data. We are discussing only the free movement of personal data
452
in this case. It is not a matter of hampering the free market by preventing the movement of all data; this is purely a question of the privacy of individuals and their personal data. The directive was considered twice in the European Parliament in 1992 and 1995. 1 am sorry to say that the United Kingdom abstained in 1995. The Times said that we opposed the directive. That was not the case; we abstained. I refer to related legislation, the Human Rights Bill and the Data Protection Act 1984.
During that period, some of us in the United Kingdom worked to construct a mosaic of personal privacy legislation without the relevant legislative underpinning. A little of that was included in the copyright Act. I created the computer hacking legislation and co-sponsored the access to medical records Bill. I submitted an access to employee records Bill. Others submitted similar material in both Houses of Parliament. However, those attempts were not successful because there was no underpinning of a right to privacy on the part of the British Parliament. Why is privacy now needed? I shall take a moment to consider that. If we have left it aside since 1351. why do we need to return to it in 1998? We are now all members of the global village. As I see it, homo habilis turned rapidly into homo mobilis. With the development of speech it is tempting to suggest that he turned into "homo chatterbox" and even "homo eavesdropper" and "homo gossiper". It is almost as if the need to know about each other's lives and actions in the finest detail forms an essential part of human understanding. Perhaps it reinforces our identities. Or, in the pre-paper, pre-radio and pre-electronics era, perhaps it was virtually the only realistic way of gathering immediate topical knowledge rapidly.
For whatever reason, today the global village mimics the pre-industrial era way of life so closely that we now know all, or nearly all, there is to know about each other. Remorseless electronic scrutiny by government, the media, security, or insecurity, forces, expose our every facet of behaviour. The difference lies not in what is known about us but by whom. Today it is not the neighbours, the schoolmistress, the doctor, the vicar, the postman, the milklady or the village shopkeeper who collect and store knowledge on us and share it with others. It is strangers, even potential enemies such as blackmailers, thieves, murderers, paedophiles or rapists. Potential threats also come from government and government servants.
I return to health and social services records. The data collection in which government and government agents now indulge is dramatic and far-reaching, and is unknown to most citizens. A free society owes its citizens a duty to try to stem that invasion of the privacy that we in the United Kingdom have effectively never had.
When one talks about data collection, one is immediately challenged that one is trying to protect politicians. I am not interested in privacy for public figures. My interest lies in privacy for ordinary citizens. A public figure is not a private person. One sacrifices privacy for a cause when one chooses to take up the banner of politics, religion, and so on. Questions may still arise regarding the treatment of public figures; however, I suggest that they do not relate to the public

453
figures themselves. I ask whether or not a person's family should not be sacrosanct, particularly the children.
What about accuracy? All those of us who have been used to media coverage, in this Chamber and elsewhere, know full well how many times we get close to a story and find out how inaccurate it is. I speak particularly of the print media, not of radio and television. Radio and television came later into our world and have light legislative straitjackets. They have a duty of accuracy inbuilt. The print media do not—I wish that they did.
And what about the right to reply? It is supposed to be there. It is mostly not exercised. The privacy of private citizens concerns me deeply. Their privacy can be destroyed regularly. and is, by the intervention of the media or from outside sources, even from government.
How has the European Union protected its citizens? There, again, lies a point of difficulty between ourselves and other European Union states. There are extreme variations between the national laws of member states on data protection. Greece is still shaking from the aftermath of the use of military files on its citizens. It has no legislation at all. Denmark has a fully thought-through system and has had a register for a long time. Germany has a federal spread of difference. Indeed, I believe that the current directive stems from Stuttgart—and Stuttgart is a city whose citizens really like to be private. Perhaps too much flexibility, rather than too little, has been put in place to allow the directive to function. However, European Union fundamental principles are at stake.
Then, of course, there is the great spread of knowledge. To take the example of surveillance, of those who can watch us, there are advertisements for equipment that is freely available. It can be purchased with no legal hampering at all. It calls itself "equipment to end uncertainty". It may end the uncertainty of the person who listens; it creates multiple uncertainty for those who are listened to. There are room and telephone transmitters; body wires; wire taps; radio and computer controlled systems; specialist receivers and recorders; recording and transmitting equipment; and counter-surveillance equipment. Those examples represent a very small fraction of the material that is on offer. Is there a means to protect yourself if your opponent is extremely complex and sophisticated? What about encryption? The US is indeed a superpower in that field with its investment in global permanent listening and recording sweeps of telephone calls, faxes and E-mails permanently and internationally. Is privacy possible at all today?
Realistically, the answer is no—not with the big brotherhood of global satellites in operation. But practically, on the ground and in most circumstances, the answer is yes—if we can work at it, as a determined element of a nation's culture. We cannot look to the IT industry, for example, to protect us. Staff loyalty is not there. In the computer field there is negligible loyalty to the employer; and negligible loyalty, therefore, to employer records, because 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of employees in the computer industry move every year. There are 50,000 vacancies which are very highly priced. The rapidly growing demand in quickly outdated skills means that computer people are
454
highly skilled, always restless, always looking for something new, some way in which to exercise their skills more efficiently, and therefore they do better to move on. There is no practical reason for them not to do so. Let us think of that for a moment in terms of government, particularly in relation to health and social security records. UK citizens have enjoyed no similar privacy rights to those of other citizens. That is the novelty of this legislation.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to public access to personal files. Access has been offered to us as a palliative instead of privacy. It is not a nirvana; it is a second best. If we look at access to personal files in Russia and East Germany, we look at people going to see their KGB and Stasi-held files. There is a Pandora's Box of suspicion.
However, I do not believe that such horror stories strengthen the case for government secrecy. They demolish it. Trust is the basis of civil and family life, as are openness and transparency. The informer society destroys the bond on which society is built.
So there are some areas of conflict in this piece of legislation. I turn to data-matching. We may feel that our records are safe within individual public service sector departments. We are wrong on two counts. First, matching takes place interdepartmentally; and secondly. there is inadequacy of control against invaders from outside. All are against incompetencies within the system, where the duty of accuracy may not be understood and there are insufficient funds in government to put the matter right.
In relation to data-matching, we should possibly talk about database linkage. We held a statutory instrument debate on that subject on 18th December. There may be a need for government departments to put together a working group. An example is DTI work on British standards. The Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and other departments all have IT work flowing through which will be impacted by current legislation.
The best defender of the individual's interest is the individual. The problem is that, against government, the individual has no weapons at all. Ownership should be the key. Perhaps Britain could take a leadership role and explore the possibility of European Union citizens having ownership of records that government hold on them—except, of course, in cases of security, such as the United Kingdom police computer, and, in cases of tax-gathering; namely, the Inland Revenue. In that way we could give back to the citizen that which the Government have on him or her. That would fit very well indeed in terms of health records with the smart-card genesis.
I suggest that we examine ownership of records. that we explore with the media codes of conduct—which are no substitute for legislation. If media intrusion on the lives of private citizens is to be allowed by means of an exemption from the Government, I suggest that we put those codes of conduct before this House in order to examine them. I suggest also that exemptions in secondary legislation should be examined closely, since semi-governmental bodies are also affected.

455
The Government have talked about bringing rights home. But they have not yet answered the question, "To whom?". I suggest that within this Bill we can explore the possibility of those rights coming home to the individual citizen.

Iraq
4.28 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a Private Notice Question asked in another place on Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"On Saturday, I held a two-hour meeting with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss how best to deal with Iraq's continuing refusal to grant full and unrestricted access to UNSCOM teams. This meeting formed part of our intensive efforts to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis. I am also in regular contact with P5 colleagues. I met Russian Foreign Minister Primakov on 26th January and spoke to French Minister Vedrine on 29th January. Our P5 partners are also active: President Chirac has sent an envoy to Iraq and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Posavalyuk is returning there after his talks with Tariq Aziz ended inconclusively last week. We support these latest efforts to try to end the deadlock.
"The UK is now taking the lead in the Security Council. We have prepared a draft Security Council resolution which we will be discussing with our Security Council partners. The SCR makes clear once more that Saddam Hussein must obey the will of the international community. He must allow full and unrestricted access to all UNSCOM teams and reveal all details of his past WMD programmes.
"Saddam Hussein is persisting with his attempts to thwart UNSCOM's vital task of destroying and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM cannot carry out its duties properly while Saddam continues to deny access to presidential sites. Nor can there be any deadlines for UNSCOM to complete its work. The Security Council must be assured that all of Iraq's WMD and related facilities have been destroyed. Even then UNSCOM will have to go on working perhaps for many years to ensure that they are not rebuilt.
"Saddam must be left in no doubt of our determination to secure his compliance with Security Council resolutions. Although we are pursuing a diplomatic solution, we have not, nor will we, rule out the use of force. The best way for us to achieve a diplomatic solution is to prove to Saddam that we are prepared to use all means necessary to ensure that he complies.
456
"As a precautionary measure, HMS 'Invincible' has been deployed to the Gulf and is engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces in the northern Gulf waters. It will be replaced by HMS 'Illustrious' in due course.
"The United Kingdom Government are very aware of the sufferings of the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. The difficulties and the hardships that they face result from Saddam's failure to meet his international obligations. Even when offered a chance to provide for his people through oil-for-food arrangements, he repeatedly refused to avail himself of the opportunity. Since the scheme's introduction. he has cynically obstructed its implementation on several occasions.
"The United Kingdom has repeatedly taken the lead in proposing and steering through the Council resolutions on oil-for-food. We are especially pleased that the Secretary-General will be reporting to the Security Council later today with recommendations to improve and enhance the programme. For the sake of the Iraqi people, we shall give his proposals our strong support.
"Iraq's WMD capability remains a serious threat. Iraq has developed the knowledge, the know-how and the equipment to produce biological and chemical weapons on a horrifying scale. Despite all that UNSCOM has achieved, we cannot he certain that important parts of that capability are not being retained. Without fully effective UNSCOM monitoring Iraq could produce enough anthrax every week to fill two missile warheads and could within weeks be producing a range of other deadly chemical and biological weapons. It is vital for regional and international peace and security that Saddam Hussein is stopped."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.33 pm.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Statement. The Opposition remain resolutely supportive of the Government's objective to explore every possible diplomatic initiative available to resolve the current crisis. We continue to deplore Saddam Hussein's open flouting of the will of the international community through his now protracted refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions. One can only be suspicious that his prevarication masks his determination to move his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to new sites, linked directly to impede the monitoring progress.
Our position remains as set out in your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion. If Saddam Hussein wants sanctions to be lifted, the key to achieving this lies in his own hands: full compliance with Security Council resolutions, including as a first step unrestricted and unconditional access for UNSCOM inspectors and an acceptance that it is for the chairman of UNSCOM to determine the composition of inspection teams, and not Saddam Hussein.
Equally, we on these Benches remain supportive of the Government's decision to keep open the military option should all these diplomatic efforts fail. We fully

457
endorse the Government's decision not to speculate at this time of painstaking negotiation on the manifold military options available. If, however, force proves necessary, can the Minister give an assurance that clear objectives will be set and announced to the House at the appropriate time so that the many questions put to the Minister from noble Lords on all sides of this House are answered in full?
Can the Minister also inform the House about Britain's decision to draw up a new Security Council resolution to canvass support for the course of action being pursued by the United States and Britain? I was sorry to learn that this most important initiative was first announced to The Times and not to Parliament but, be that as it may, what are the objectives of this resolution? Will it focus exclusively on unrestricted access or will it be drafted wider to cover Saddam Hussein's breach of his international obligations?
Finally, given the terrible suffering imposed on the people of Iraq by Saddam Hussein, we welcome the proposal to improve and enhance the oil-for-food programme, because this can directly benefit the people and not the Government of Iraq. Can the Minister kindly enlarge on the details of these proposals, especially since the Government have announced today their support for them in this House? I reiterate our support for the Government in standing firm against the forces of tyranny and aggression. On behalf of the Opposition, I assure the Government of our continuing support for the actions they are taking to ensure that Iraq co-operates fully with the United Nations.
4.37 pm.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is the second Statement on Iraq within the past few days and I suspect it will not be the last. We welcome the Government's willingness to keep both Houses informed of progress and to insist that diplomatic objectives and resources must be explored fully first but that force cannot be entirely ruled out and that all necessary measures have therefore to be pursued. We all accept that the problem of dealing with the Government of Iraq and the personality of Saddam Hussein, dominating as it is, is a very serious one.
We also accept that what is now taking place with the UNSCOM teams provides a precedent for what undoubtedly will be other inspections for biological and chemical weapons with particularly appalling international regimes. May I ask the Government to clarify a little more what the objectives of any limited use of force would be? I was rather concerned to see the American Secretary for Defence, Mr. Cohen, quoted in this morning's newspaper as saying that military action can provide no adequate substitute for having UN inspections scrutinising sites on the ground. The question of what the purposes of limited military force in Iraq might therefore be, how far that takes us and what potential escalation might be involved does therefore seem to be a very serious one.
Secondly, stressing that we are acting on behalf of the international community, may we be assured by the Government that our allies in the United Nations and
458
particularly our allies in the European Union are being actively consulted as this progress goes on? Can the Minister also assure us that the UNSCOM teams which, as the Government have informed the House, have been rather overstaffed with British and American participants, will be clearly representative of that full international community?
Lastly, as Mrs. Albright herself recognised this weekend that actions by the United Nations towards Iraq and actions towards Israel are closely linked, and that indeed the threat which Iraq provides is also a threat to Israel, can we be assured that the British Government in these consultations are concerned to make sure that UN policy towards the Arab/Israeli dispute also leads to acceptance of UN resolutions as well as in the case of Iraq? Opinion in the Arab world is being exploited by Saddam Hussein. The perception within the Arab world that the Israeli Government are able to get away with not accepting UN resolutions whereas the Iraqi Government are expected to accept them all in full is one of the problems with which we have to deal. Diplomacy has to be concerned with restoring peace to the whole of the Middle East as well as to Iraq.
4.40 pm.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their resolute support at this time. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked for assurances that there are clear objectives and that these will be set and announced in due course. The clear objective is the implementation of the Security Council resolutions and in that respect untrammelled access of UNSCOM teams to sites in Iraq whenever and wherever they judge these to be right and not at the direction of Saddam Hussein.
The noble Lord raised the question of a Statement to the House in due course about military objectives. I am happy to assure the House that I shall make a Statement when I am able to do so, provided it is consistent with ensuring the security of British forces in the area, something that I am sure the House would wish me to stress.
The noble Lord also asked about the statement to be made by the Secretary-General expanding the oil-for-food provisions. At the moment those provisions extend to 2 billion dollars a year. As I understand it, the Secretary-General will suggest that they be expanded to 5.2 billion dollars. That will be a very considerable expansion, which will enjoy the support of the United Kingdom Government. We wait to see how other colleagues in the Security Council react. I believe that that illustrates very clearly the point I made: our quarrel is with Saddam and not with the people of Iraq. Our commitment to humanitarian aid for the people of Iraq is, I hope, amply demonstrated by the fact that we shall support the Secretary-General in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked very reasonable questions about the military forces in the area and the military objectives. However, I believe the House will agree with me that it would not be

459
reasonable for me to answer those questions at the moment. They are being addressed and are under constant review.
The noble Lord also asked about the involvement of the European Union. It is always important to ensure that one's allies are moving in the same direction, but I remind the noble Lord that this is essentially a question for the United Nations. It is the breaking of United Nations resolutions with which we quarrel and it is through the United Nations that we shall seek to ensure that we reach a united decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what the resolution was likely to contain. It is at the moment still under discussion. I hope that we shall be able to reveal whatever comes out of the negotiations with our allies, but at the moment the contents are a matter for discussion and negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about the composition of the inspection teams. The UNSCOM teams undertaking the latest rounds of inspections comprise 44 personnel drawn from 17 different nationalities. I hope the House will agree with me that that represents not a complete domination of the teams by any single national group but the will of the United Nations as a whole.
4.44 pm.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we have not yet exhausted all diplomatic means of persuading Saddam to comply with the Security Council resolutions, which is, as she said, the fundamental objective at which we are all aiming? While Mr. Primakov and M. Vedrine are still engaged in their shuttle diplomacy, we must allow them every opportunity to persuade Saddam to draw back from the brink.
Does the Minister also agree that Resolution 687 providing for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction does not itself authorise military action against Saddam in the event of his failure to comply and that it is therefore obvious that the new Security Council resolution about which she spoke will have to contain the authorisation for military action and will therefore have to have the support of France and Russia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that every effort must be made to pursue the diplomatic channels. We wish every good fortune to Mr. Primakov and M. Vedrine in their efforts to secure that.
The noble Lord also asked about Resolution 687. I believe that that resolution and its successor resolutions give plenty of authority to the UN to move forward on this issue. It is because we recognise the importance of pursuing every diplomatic channel that the United Kingdom Government are seeking a further resolution, not only to give further opportunity for Saddam to think again—we are attempting to give him every opportunity so to do—but also to demonstrate that this is not a question just for the United States, nor a question just for the United States and the United
460
Kingdom nor indeed for the P5 countries but an opportunity for the whole of the Security Council to demonstrate a unity of purpose. We shall be looking for that unity of purpose to come from the whole of the Security Council.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that for the first time since this whole fiasco started in 1991 I am today encouraged by the heavy emphasis which is being placed on diplomatic efforts to solve this problem? Will my noble friend also accept that I am even more encouraged by the very substantial proposed increase in the oil-for-food provisions to be put to the Security Council today? Finally, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to bear in mind in relation to her comment that our quarrel is with Saddam and not with the people of Iraq—something which I have always accepted—that when governments wage war it is the people who die.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his welcome to the Statement and the emphasis which it places upon the importance of diplomacy and humanitarian aid to Iraq. The suffering of people when military action becomes necessary is well understood, but I hope that your Lordships' House will not be in two minds over this issue. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that. if military action becomes necessary, the cause of that military action will be the intransigence of Saddam Hussein and his failure to comply with Security Council resolutions and the agreements made at the end of the Gulf War as part of the price for ending that war. He has chosen to break those agreements. I am afraid that, if he continues in his intransigence, the difficulties that will flow from that can be laid only at his door.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the drainage of the marshlands of southern Iraq has given Saddam unparalleled access to two of his close neighbours with tanks and ground-to-ground missiles, which, despite being classified as conventional weapons, can traverse an area the size of Wales? With that in mind, will she suggest to her colleagues that, if there is to be bombing of Iraq—and we hope that there will not be—bombing of the dams in the marshlands of Iraq would restrain Saddam's military output and also restore the marshlands for the marsh people of Iraq, who badly need them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is aware of the dreadful suffering inflicted by Saddam upon the marshland Arabs. The noble Baroness makes suggestions about the way in which any form of military engagement might be taken forward. I thank her for her thoughts on the subject, but I am sure that she would not expect me to respond in detail to the suggestion she puts forward. An important point is involved here. The fact is that during its period of inspection UNSCOM inspectors unearthed enormous quantities of weaponry in Iraq, many more weapons than were used during the course of the Gulf War. They found 48 Scud missiles together with a large quantity of missile components; 38,000 tonnes of chemical weapons

461
munitions; 38 chemical missile warheads; 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents and 3,000 tonnes of chemical weapon precursors. In addition, they found a large biological weapons manufacturing plant dedicated to the production of anthrax and botulinum toxin. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that they have not yet found all the weapons. Knowing of that belief and of what has already been discovered, I hope the House is not in any doubt about the importance of UNSCOM continuing its vital work in Iraq.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we all share the horror at what UNSCOM discovered and the way Saddam Hussein is prepared to continue with the development of such terrible weapons? Nevertheless, many of us feel a real anxiety about his willingness also to use his own people as human shields in any military conflict. We feel that there may be a dreadful slaughter of ordinary, innocent people in Iraq with whom, as the noble Baroness said, we have no quarrel. In the long term that can only do immense damage both to this country and to the United States in our relationships with the whole Arab world.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I share the anxieties of the noble Baroness. Indeed, I do not know a single individual to whom I have spoken about the serious position evolving in Iraq at the moment who has not voiced exactly the fears put so eloquently by the noble Baroness. As a result of that, any action must be placed under constant review. I can assure the House that the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness will be taken fully into account.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, bearing in mind the possibility that military action may be used, can the Minister say whether she envisages such action being intended to destroy the weapons to which we take exception or whether the aim will be to force or persuade the Government of Iraq to take that action themselves?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, any military action will be taken in the light of circumstances and developments at the time. It would be injudicious and wrong for me to go any further in making statements about military objectives when the United Kingdom has servicemen in the area. I hope noble Lords will bear with me in the assurance I gave earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that, as and when I am able to make statements to the House about military objectives, always ensuring that such statements in no way jeopardise the security of British servicemen, I shall make such statements and render myself accountable to the House.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of the chemical weapons found by inspectors have been destroyed? It was part of the deal that not only should United Nations inspectors be allowed to inspect, but that, having been found, Saddam was under an obligation to destroy. How many weapons in fact have been destroyed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, the UN inspectors uncovered and eliminated the full list of weapons I gave to your Lordships' House a short time ago.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.54 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I rise as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission and it is right therefore that I declare an interest. I wish to speak to this Bill as it affects the privacy of individuals and the freedom of the press.
At the heart of the directive which this Bill implements is the protection of an individual's right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data. The challenge for the Government has been to construct a Bill which produces safeguards for ordinary citizens, but does so with appropriate exemptions for journalism that will ensure that the right of those same ordinary citizens to know what is going on in the world is not undermined. In other words, they want to achieve that difficult balancing act of safeguarding both personal privacy and freedom of expression.
In doing that the Government have had to face up to two difficulties. The first is that the directive's definition of "personal data" is extremely wide, covering virtually any information relating to an individual, including details of political opinion, trade union membership, racial or ethnic origin and philosophical beliefs. The second is that the definition of processing specifically includes, for the first time, the use of material for journalistic purposes; and in turn journalism, of course, relies on the use of all the information covered by the directive.
The very real danger in the combination of those two points is that the directive could be used to introduce a regime that would gravely damage the freedom of the press, undermine investigative journalism and wound the system of effective self-regulation that we have built up—and that is the point with which I am principally concerned.
The directive recognises that such problems might occur, and allows for member states to grant exemptions from its terms for journalistic purposes or for the purpose of artistic or literary expression. There are some minor points of detail in the Bill which perhaps need ironing out. That said, I have to say that in my view the Bill steers a sensible path which avoids the perils of a privacy law and achieves the crucial balancing act—of privacy and freedom of expression—in a clever and constructive way. There are two points I would commend in particular.
First, in relation to the question of pre-publication injunctions, there was always a danger that the Bill might produce new powers for the rich and the corrupt to take out gagging orders against newspapers preventing publication of material which is true but uncomfortable. That would have been deeply damaging

463
to investigative journalism. The Government dealt with that in an astute way. Clause 31 of the Bill ensures that the powers available in the legislation only bite after the publication of a story, not before. The Government therefore looked at the possibility that the Bill might be used to introduce injunctive powers relating to privacy and rejected the idea.
Secondly, I commend the way in which the Bill deals with the public interest defence, and in particular the way in which it enshrines the pre-eminence of freedom of expression. The exemption in Clause 31(1) specifically points to the special importance of freedom of expression. Again, the Government clearly looked at the dangers inherent in a Bill which might introduce a back-door privacy regime and rejected the idea because of the dangers posed by such a regime to freedom of expression.
If I may, I should like to make one point specifically relating to the Press Complaints Commission. There was always a danger that the implementation of the directive without suitable exemptions would undermine self-regulation, because privacy laws, whether grown here or in Brussels, do not mix with self-regulation. But that has not happened. The Bill itself strengthens individuals' rights. but it does so in a way which complements rather than undermines the dispute resolution service offered to ordinary people by the Press Complaints Commission.
The Bill is therefore a sound one—thanks in no small part to the constructive and thorough consultation process undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in advance. It protects the privacy of individuals—which we all believe is vitally important and is indeed an important part of the commission's work—but does so in a way which does not diminish the freedom of the press to report and investigate in the public interest. And it strengthens the rights of ordinary people, but does so in a way which does not undermine press self-regulation. For those reasons alone, it will have my support.
However. I have to say to your Lordships that one thing greatly puzzles me and it should give us all cause for concern. The thing that puzzles me is that the Data Protection Bill and the Human Rights Bill, which this House has been considering, seem to exist almost in different worlds, for the truth is that they present two entirely contradictory sets of policies. The Data Protection Bill does not introduce new powers for the rich and the crooked to gag the press. The Human Rights Bill does the opposite. The Data Protection Bill does not introduce a back-door privacy regime. The Human Rights Bill does. The Data Protection Bill safeguards the position of effective self-regulation. The Human Rights Bill may end up undermining it.
The Government consulted on the Data Protection Bill, listened to the potential problems, analysed them and then produced an excellent piece of legislation which avoids all the perils of a privacy law. It is entirely in line with the Government's stated commitment to self-regulation and their opposition to a privacy law.
The contrast with the Human Rights Bill is dramatic. There was no true consultation or dialogue before the Bill was published, or even since then, while the Bill, at
464
every turn, seems to present new and ever more serious problems, not just for the press but for many other organisations which are involved in some form or other with self regulation.
I think that this piece of legislation is right and the Human Rights Bill is wrong in its consequences. It is my hope that the Government will now reflect on the lessons learnt during the consultation on the data protection directive.
5.1 pm.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I play a small part in the world of insurance and loss adjusting. I have received a brief from the ABI and heard representations from the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, although most of what I have to say comes from my own observations.
I welcome this Bill in today's massive data processing world. A Bill that strengthens the rights of individuals against such power is to be welcomed. It incorporates Article 1 of the European directive, which states:
"Protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their rights to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data".
As the Data Protection Registrar states, the new law,
"is a partial privacy law".
It seems to me that one of the main methods of ensuring such freedoms is to give the subject greater access to the information; and this the current Bill certainly does. But there is another side to data protection, and that is to protect companies and businesses from false information that individuals can present which then results in a fraud.
Current fraud in this country is estimated to be running at £16 billion a year. A timely headline in today's Independent states:
"Nigerian Crime Wave Sweeps through Britain".
The article goes on to state that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are involved, but so are banks, building societies and insurance companies; in fact, the whole of the financial sector. Commerce does not have such powerful resources and so has to co-operate to fight such activity, for it is a fact that the serious fraudster in one sector is frequently involved in many other sectors—be it university applications for grants by fictitious identities or local authority, bank or insurance fraud. In the detection of fraud co-operation between parties is essential and has huge data protection ramifications. In such situations the companies are at the frontiers of the individual's privacy.
Unfortunately, the fighting of fraud cannot be left to the police. They do not have the resources and see such activity as being in the realms of the commercial world to sort out. When the assistance of the police is required there is a current ACPO policy to the effect that insurance companies should receive information only in appropriate cases. The definition of what constitutes an appropriate case is far from clear and frequently results in no co-operation. I have witnessed a case in which the only piece of information required to satisfy the insurance company was the verification of the date that an individual reported a theft of a £5,000 motorcycle; data

465
that was not covered by the Data Protection Act. Nonetheless, the reason for non-disclosure was quoted as being the Data Protection Act. Such lack of co-operation is surprising, given the role that insurance companies play in educating the public on such issues as neighbourhood watch, domestic security and a host of other crime prevention activities. It is my understanding that the police, in the form of the ACPO crime committee, will be reviewing this policy in March.
The Data Protection Act is frequently misunderstood and misquoted by the police. It is therefore important that everyone, including the police, fully understands the provisions of this Bill. For as late as last September the deputy data protection officer from the data protection office of a prominent provincial police force wrote, and I quote:
"Simply put, the Section"—
he was referring to Section 28 of the 1984 Act—
"permits prosecuting authorities to obtain data from users for the prevention and detection of crime and not for organisations to require the police to disclose".
The officer was quite wrong. It is an enabling provision which allows the exchange of information in defined circumstances to anyone, including the police. The same issue is dealt with in Clause 28 of the Bill. I should like to return to that part of the Bill in a moment.
The first point I should like to make about the Bill is that, because it incorporates the European directive, it has found itself written in legalese. This is a Bill that is concerned with individual rights and freedoms and as such it should be capable, as far as possible, of being read by such people. By contrast the 1984 Act was brilliant for its simple and concise English.
In Schedule 1, principle 1—the paragraph dealing with the fair and lawful processing of information—makes for difficult reading when compared with the 1984 Act. In order to process data two new conditions have to be met—the legitimacy tests in Schedule 2 and the sensitive data test in Schedule 3. The judgment can be a complex matter. What is meant, for instance, by the "vital interests" of the data subject mentioned in Schedule 2? It could be that the whole processing process depended on such interpretation. Many people would say that getting their insurance claim paid in full or their loan agreement granted was a vital matter, but I doubt whether that is the correct interpretation. The interpretation of the first principle, dealing with the fair processing of data, in the 1984 Act took up 15 lines of legislation; in the Bill there are 60. The insurance industry has a concept of fair processing, as understood by the 1984 Act. This concept has not caused the industry problems on claims' handling. Does the Bill alter this concept of fairness?
Under Clause 7 the data user has, for a prescribed fee, the chance to access personal data on a register. At present the fee charged, usually £10, is on the basis of each entry for which the data is used for a different purpose. Thus, if an individual wishes to find out all the information that police files hold on him, it is likely to cost in the region of £220. I am glad to see, reading this Bill, that this will no longer be the case.
466
Under the same section the subject has access to the logic involved in automated decision-making. I can see this causing difficulties. For instance, does it include weighting or scoring factors? What is meant by the logic involved?
I now return to Clause 28, which is the clause which possibly holds the greatest threat to the individual's privacy and yet it provides the essential mechanism that allows commerce to fight crime—for, in the case where data are being processed for the prevention and detection of crime, it allows the collection of data to be exempt from the first principle and to be exempt from the non-disclosure provisions. But the first principle now includes the lawful processing of information. Does the clause, as drafted, now allow the unlawful processing of information? That cannot be right.
Finally, I would like to mention enforced subject access. That is something that the Data Protection Registrar wishes to outlaw and it is not mentioned in the Bill. The only comment that I would make is that at present it is the only available method of obtaining certain personal data legally, although it is fair to say that it is onerous on the individual. I am glad that the Minister is going to include this in the Bill so that each party is aware of its rights.
5.11 pm.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, we should not be under any illusions as to the need for data protection legislation. As Simon Davies, director of the Washington-based watchdog group, Privacy International, has observed,
"Surveillance technology has become more powerful and wider ranging than ever. Personal information has come increasingly to cross national boundaries, sidestepping national privacy laws. And the emergence of the Internet has brought with it a whole new dimension for potential intrusion into privacy. Meanwhile, the rules that protect us all from snooping by state and private interests become more meaningless by the day".
At the outset, like my noble friend Lord Wakeham. I should put on record that the Minister deserves much credit. His introduction revealed a most generous approach to the technical aspects of the Bill, which will be enormously beneficial. And, as a recent The Times leader commented, he
"has shown political courage in framing a broad exemption for journalism, research and literary material, without which this legislation could have introduced a privacy law by a side entrance. At worst, it could have imposed a blanket law of press censorship".
That the Government, in the form of the noble Lord, has sought to reconcile the competing interests of the right of free expression and the freedom of the press, as against an individual's right to privacy, is to be applauded. My noble friend Lord Wakeham has already covered the greater part of this ground much more authoritatively than I can and so I do not wish to dwell on it. Suffice to say that my own impression is that the balance has been struck about right.

467
Lest the Minister feels that I am being unduly deferential, I am bound to say that, in other respects, I have serious reservations about the Bill. Speaking in December 1994 the then commissioner responsible for the single market, Mr. Raniero Vanni D'Archirafi, stated that efforts to create an information society in Europe,
"will be in jeopardy if there is no co-ordination of rules for the exchange of data".
This concept is enshrined in the directive itself. While acceding to the different approaches that member states may have towards the right of privacy and data processing, it states that these may,
"constitute an obstacle to the pursuit of a number of economic activities at Community level, distort competition and impede authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities under Community law".
Clearly, an underlying purpose of the directive is to facilitate data transfer within the European Community to the benefit of commercial, governmental and other interests. It is ironic, therefore, that the Bill carries with it a heavy burden in terms of the costs of compliance. As Ruth Lea of the IoD has stated,
"However laudable the aims of the legislation, extra costs will be piled on firms".
And from the Local Government Management Board:
"While we support the aims of this Bill, finding the money to implement it will be yet another burden on authorities whose backs arc already up against the budgetary wall".
I acknowledge that these costs are, in the words of the Minister, "guesstimates", but, especially in the light of current misgivings about the likely financial impact of resolving the millennium bug, my suspicion is that they could well be an under-estimate.
Financial considerations aside, the Bill's apparent lack of acknowledgement of technological advances is disturbing. Simon Davies has commented that:
"The current British law was already a decade out of date when it was enacted in 1984".
I share that view. The Bill before us today is essentially little more than a re-casting of that legislation with the additional, and more rigorous, requirements of the EU directive thrown in for good measure. In effect, it is almost a quarter of a century past its sell-by date. For example, it makes no attempt to regulate either data-matching or the use of data from public or private CCTV systems. As the Home Office itself has admitted, "The Directive"—and thereby the Bill—
"does not specifically address new technology. It sets a general framework which will apply irrespective of the technology used".
With this in mind, and at what may be a slightly facetious level, I presume that Rory Bremner's "virtual" Minister without Portfolio is an instance where Clause 31 would apply. There is a serious point here. In so far as it may have administrative or commercial applications, the Bill is singularly lacking in any definition of how the technologies of "morphing" and/or "virtuality" are to be treated.
At a more pressing level, your Lordships will be aware that last year's Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act sanctioned data-matching between
468
government departments for the first time. I note that, during Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, stated that,
"We shall want assurance that the Bill provides adequate safeguards for data protection. We believe that that may be best achieved, as the data protection registrar says, through a statutory code of practice".—[O1ficialReport. 17/2/97; col. 465.]
The Bill is an opportunity to enact such a code, but it is curiously silent on the matter.
Of course, the underlying purpose of the measure was the rooting out of fraud. I also acknowledge that, as a generality, data-matching can be interpreted as being at variance with a number of the data principles. It could therefore be argued that the Bill does provide the means to control its use and application, particularly in the light of the prior-checking provisions in Clause 21. But this represents a far from adequate safeguard against such a powerful and potentially misleading analytical tool. This is especially so because,
"A disturbing aspect of the Bill as a whole is that in no less than seven instances the Secretary of State will be able to introduce additional exemptions from the Act by statutory instrument".
Justice, in my view, quite rightly, has described it as "unprecedentedly wide".
More than this, a conspicuous feature of the Bill is the extent to which processes within central government are in any event exempted from its provisions. Little wonder that the cost of compliance for Government is comparatively small. On the surface there may be little cause for complaint for the reasons for the exemptions "safeguarding national security", and so on. But as the Data Protection Registrar has commented there is,
"no justification for making provision for the blanket exemption for certain types of data for law enforcement and tax raising purposes".
While accepting that it is a difficult balance to strike, people nonetheless fear the innate capacity of the state to overreach itself in data terms; a capacity which is perhaps best encapsulated in Clause 28(4). By way of example, the DfEE's recent proposals for a national computer record of every pupil's social, economic and ethnic background, as well as academic results and special educational needs, was quite rightly criticised by the Data Protection Registrar.
Like my noble friend Lord Astor, I am also concerned about how the Bill will interact with the Internet. While it could be argued that the composition of their content is a word-processing function, e-mail programs automatically generate a series of personalised database fields in their headers. By any measure these accord with all three definitions of "data" and with that of "processing" in Clause 1. Accordingly, except in so far as they may be subject to the various exemptions in Part IV, all e-mails could be interpreted as being subject to Clause 16. In effect, individuals—perhaps those of your Lordships who use the Internet services of the PDVN-could be required to notify their data processing activities. This is of a piece with the concern expressed by the CBI, as my noble friend Lord Astor explained. I wonder how proportionate the apparent inclusion of those classes of processing is.
In this context, it is worth considering the provisions relating to the eighth data principle in Schedule 1. To all intents and purposes, the Bill is structured so as to

469
prevent data transfer to third-party countries where the level of data protection is deemed to be inadequate. Quite apart from the difficulties that this creates with respect to transfer by means of home pages on the world wide web, this has very serious implications with respect to e-mail. Notwithstanding Schedule 4, it is entirely possible that the Bill, as drafted, could have the inadvertent effect of blocking the access of UK citizens and businesses to entirely legitimate e-mail communication to certain areas of the world.
Of course, notwithstanding their "public" nature, the same elements of processing apply to Usenet and the world wide web. Specifically, the composition of home pages and newsgroup postings, particularly those that contain statistical information or references to individuals other than the compiler, are almost certain to fall within the remit of the Bill. In this context, it is worth noting that the recent difficulties of the President of the United States owe much to the way in which the Internet currently operates. It was an Internet scandal sheet, the Drudge Report, which broke the story. The content of these web sites—they are frequently referred to as "junk media"—represents neither journalism nor artistic expression in the accepted sense and thereby would lie outside the scope of Clause 31.
Equally, it is "personal data" which are being processed in ways that are inconsistent with the data protection principles. Is it intended that such sites, if they originate within the UK and have UK-based content, should be subject to the Bill? Would they be classified as "in the public interest"? At a more general level, how will the concept of "publication" be interpreted in relation to postings to the Internet? To what extent will Clause 52 be applicable to individuals who innocently download postings on the "net" to their own computers? How is it intended that the Bill will treat closed and/or secure systems, for example, credit card facilities on the net or even the PDVN?
In conclusion, I do not dispute the Data Protection Registrar's description of the Bill as being both "timely" and an "excellent framework", but it is not without its faults. The BMA's eloquent description of previous data protection law as being
"a load of holes joined together"
comes to mind. Such leaky sieves assist no one. As the Bill continues its passage we shall need to guard against perpetuating that sort of regime. The generous approach of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will make our task very much easier.
5.24 pm.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and thank my noble friend the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to it. There are, however, one or two points that I should like to raise and I should be grateful for the Government's response.
I recently introduced a debate in this House about abuses by the press. I said at that time that I was in favour of an independent ombudsman since I objected to journalism which was invasive of personal privacy, and that although I did not advocate a privacy law, as
470
some have done, I thought that there should be some form of redress for injured citizens. Replying to that d0ebate, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. appeared to indicate that this Bill would give the opportunity for further debate on those issues—and so it does.
It is widely recognised that there is a need to reconcile two apparently conflicting rights: the right to personal privacy and the right to freedom of expression. A number of noble Lords have referred to that this afternoon. Broadly speaking, journalists tend to give greater emphasis to the latter freedom whereas those who have been damaged tend to stress the former, the right to privacy. The point that I should like to raise is whether the Bill gives greater weight to the freedom of information and expression to the disadvantage of the right to personal privacy.
Clause 2 sets out what are regarded as sensitive personal data—and I think that most people would agree with them. They include data about racial or ethnic origin; political opinions; religious or other beliefs; trade union membership; physical health and, importantly, sexual life, as well as commission or alleged commission of offences. On the other hand, as we have heard, Clause 31 appears to provide for some exemption for journalists and literature and art where so-called "public interest" is involved. But what constitutes "public interest"? It surely should not be interpreted as public curiosity.
Article 17 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1996, requires that,
"No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy. family, home and correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation".
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while upholding the right to freedom of expression, states that that freedom may be subject to other conditions and restrictions relating particularly to the interest of national security, the prevention of disorder or crime and for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.
Article 9 of the directive, on which I think that the Bill is based, says that derogations and exemptions cannot be granted to journalists as such but only to anybody processing data for journalistic purposes. That is what I thought that most journalists did anyway. There would appear to be a let-out under Clause 31 in the event of public interest, but individuals are, so it is said, entitled to adequate forms of redress in the case of violation of their rights.
It seems to me that the key question of "public interest" is now widely interpreted by the media as giving them the right to say what they like and to invade the privacy of anyone who is even slightly "in the public eye". Most people have never heard of some of the Back-Bench parliamentarians about whom stories have been written, but presumably a "public interest" defence would be mounted by the press if taken to task, even if there had been breaches of the press code.

471
It is sometimes suggested that a distinction might be made between ordinary individuals and those who have placed themselves in the public domain, such as politicians. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, made a similar point earlier. I do not see it in that way. I do not believe that people sacrifice their human rights simply because they have opted to play some role, at whatever level, in public life. As I said in the debate that I introduced on 14th January, libel action is only a possibility for the very wealthy. The forms of redress open to others are not, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, completely adequate. They do not include compensation. Does the Bill as drafted raise the possibility that compensation will be available? If so, I would be grateful to hear about it.
The intense competitiveness of the media industry and the growth of the use of the Internet (where anything can be made available immediately) mean that the kind of media frenzy that we have seen in the past week or so in the USA is equally possible here. The safeguards against it are not adequate, and although I do not want to see interference with the right to freedom of expression or with genuine investigative journalism, I believe that individuals could still be left dangerously exposed to malice and hurt. I noticed with interest that the highly respected organisation, Justice, makes a similar point in its briefing, which I received today.
My second point may at first glance seem to run counter to what I have just said—and yet it does not. I make a sharp distinction between what most people would regard as genuinely personal, family and sexual matters, and possible fraud or crime.
Your Lordships may be aware that for a long time I have maintained an interest in the financial services industry. I was once employed in insurance, and the union of which I was a senior official has many members employed in the financial services industries. I should like to follow up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in that connection. One of the major problems in the industry is insurance fraud. It is amazing what some people will do to claim on the insurance. According to an article in Post Magazine this week, motor insurance fraud alone accounts for everyone having to pay an additional 3.9 per cent. on premia to cover the cost. Arson cases have more than doubled in the past 10 years. There are now over 80,0(X) cases resulting in £500 million of insurance claims. All of us have to pay for it. It is as anti-social in its way as social security fraud, about which the Government are quite rightly concerned.
Much of the investigation into possible insurance fraud is conducted by people known as loss adjusters. They have their own institute, with whose representatives I recently had discussions. They are concerned about certain clauses of the Bill because they believe that they will make their jobs much more difficult, possibly resulting in even greater losses for which policyholders will ultimately find themselves picking up the tab in increased premia. For example, they say:
"The Bill states that the data subject … must have freely given agreement to the investigation of himself/herself'.
472
They believe that this could result in a suspect fraudster preventing an investigation which would validate the fraud. They go on to make the cogent point:
"Unless the initial contract of insurance is accepted as permission by the policyholder to any subsequent investigation, in the event of a claim, the process of fraudulent claims investigation will be thwarted".
The Bill also requires information to he held no longer than is necessary for the purpose for which it is collected. Accordingly, tiles on fraudulent claims, once concluded, must be destroyed. This does not assist the industry in protecting against future fraudulent claims by the same individuals. Apparently some people have a habit of making dubious insurance claims. They go on to say:
"The data subject will be entitled to request details gathered upon him/her. This must he complied with within 40 days. This will not assist the investigation of fraudulent claims … Personal information/data obtained, for instance, in the investigation of a fraudulent claim, cannot, under the Bill, be sent from any European member state to a country that does not have a Data Protection Act or something similar. In the current world of global insurance and hence fraud, reports cannot therefore be sent to insurance clients in numerous countries, including the USA. Many US insurers operate within the UK with reports on major claims above a certain reserve having to revert hack to the US for instruction. This will be prevented by the Bill".
They also question whether investigators of insurance claims will in future need some form of licence to operate.
I believe that those are legitimate concerns to raise, and I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend would respond to them.
5.33 pm.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I am director of the parliamentary group EURIM, which has been closely involved in data protection for some time. EURIM exists to put corporate and not for profit associations together with MPs and MEPs to debate policy issues arising out of information and communication technology and to lobby Brussels and, if necessary, Whitehall. The very first project in which EURIM was involved in 1994 concerned the second draft of the European Data Protection Directive. We recognised then that the simplicity of the 1981 Council of Europe Convention had been lost in the directive. I believe that others have made that point. We were concerned about bureaucratic rigidity and automated decision-making. We recognised that the second draft allowed cash dispensers to be used satisfactorily but we still had a query about automatic profiling for marketing.
At that time the British Bankers Association was concerned about trans-border data flow. It felt that if that were restricted it would restrict the association in preventing or limiting fraud. We had a query about the interpretation of manual data and worries about the term "consent", express or implied. A year later the Council of Ministers made significant changes to the directive. We looked at it again. It was then that we made our first call for UK primary legislation to implement the directive. We also recommended that the UK made maximum use of the new and significant EU derogations to minimise the adverse effects on us in the UK relative to our 1984 Act.

473
We recognised that "express consent" had been altered: it was now called "explicit consent", but our doubt about the scope or meaning of the word remained. We also looked, as indeed is the Minister today, for a balance between the reasonable needs of corporates for marketing opportunities and the reasonable needs of individuals to avoid unwanted mail. We still asked what was "manual data". We suggested that structured files only should represent the manual data brought into the Act, and only such structured files as were set up after the implementation of the directive by the Act.
A year later, in July 1986, we, like many others, responded to the Home Office consultation. We were still concerned about bureaucratic rigidity. We then called for the function of the registrar to be more like that of a parliamentary commissioner and, perhaps because of the knowledge of my fellow director MPs, we recognised that anyway the registrar reported to Parliament, not the Home Office. We were perhaps the first to make that call which the directive will now establish.
We called for the registrar's advisory role to be enhanced and for fees to be delinked from registration and to be variable and work-related—all things that are beginning to happen under the new Bill. We still believed that primary legislation was highly desirable and that attempts to simplify the directive must continue. Our concern about cross-border exchange of data had changed to a concern that the protection arrangements for certain countries would be deemed inadequate.
I believe that the Bill offers four out of the seven changes that we put to the Home Office in July 1996. The areas that still remain open on EURIM's agenda are: bureaucratic rigidity, the fact that the Bill adds complexity rather than simplification, the problem of cross-border data exchange and, from the early EURIM briefings, the question of what is manual data and what is consent.
Before I deal with the detail, I was the third member of the team involved in the briefing by loss adjusters, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, have already mentioned. I should like to deal with these matters from a slightly different angle from previous speakers. I begin with personal data which is defined as data whether it is gathered with or without the consent of the data subject. Clearly, investigators will be gathering data without such consent. Can they comply with Schedule 2? Is investigation a legitimate interest of a data controller?
Let us take two examples, the first of which is insurance claims. We have already heard about a proposal form with a box that may be inserted. One may have to put an "X" in the box if one is not prepared to have the insurer investigate the claim. If one puts an "X" in the box perhaps one does not get insurance. Is this a legitimate form of consent under the Bill?
Let us take the divorce courts. Instead of corporates doing the investigation, now it is very likely that individuals will make checks on potentially errant spouses. Are they legal? Clause 28(1) exempts the
474
prevention of the detection of crime, but what happens if there is not a crime in the first place? It is a civil action. What is the position of the police if they investigate a possible crime and find that there is not one? Have they then collected data illegally? If investigators fail under Schedule 2—exemption six—is all investigation short of a crime now illegal? Even if exemption applies and an investigation is lawful, is it ever fair?
How does one define "fair"? Under the 1984 Act which referred to data, manual data or data where equipment is operating automatically, investigators stayed as manual as possible and thought that they had avoided the problem. I support the registrar's determination to have a clearer definition of the manual records covered by the Act. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is open to suggestions. I hope that the insurance and investigative industries will return to us with some thoughts on that. We need the long transition period that has been talked about.
I turn to consent: explicit or implicit? Schedules 2 and 4 require the data subject's consent, but Schedule 3 requires explicit consent. That implies a lower level of consent needed for Schedules 2 and 4. Is the box on the proposal form a consent to investigate claims? Is that a fair consent? Is that consent acceptable?
Let me turn to another example. One of EURIM's members is busy trying to put an electronic directory around the globe. There is concern as to whether it has the right to put up the personal data represented by employees: names, jobs, telephone numbers, fax numbers and E-mail numbers. If that becomes part of the standard employment contract will that be an acceptable form of consent under the Bill? If it were limited, for example, to the fact that anyone becoming an employee agreed that they should put their business details out to countries which otherwise would be excluded by the eighth protection principle, would that be acceptable? Will implied consent in a standard employment contract satisfy the consent required in Schedule 4?
I turn now to data principle five. If UK law requires that insurance liability files are held for 10 years for court purposes, presumably that is a period which is necessary under the terms of the Data Protection Act. Let us go further and look at advice coming out of the USA in respect of US court judgments on liability claims where files are held by UK insurance brokers, which may possibly include personal data about people in the UK. They need not necessarily be UK people but people within the UK. Is that acceptable in terms of the period for which files may legitimately be held? One can be even more extreme and talk about a EU regulator—perhaps a French regulator—requiring files to be held in case they have to return to a French court. What is accepted with regard to explicit or implicit consent? Will the commissioner have the power to decide, in a pragmatic and practical way, when files are no longer needed for the purposes for which data are gathered?
I shall deal finally with complexity and bureaucratic rigidity. The Bill is made complex by its many objectives. Bureaucratic? I have been impressed by the

475
registrar's efforts to implement the 1984 Act through common sense. Agreement to her few remaining points may help to reduce the bureaucracy further and add to the practical simplicity of the Bill.
The Bill is of course just one of three legs, as we have already heard: freedom of information, human rights and data protection. The balance, as the Government have said, is complex. The good news is that it outlaws major injustice; equally, the bad news is that most of us have never been involved in major injustice, and we are all constrained. Costs have been added all around, as other noble Lords have said. I have a Library document which suggests that set-up costs for compliance alone will total £279 million. "Set-up" worries me because it suggests that computers may need altering. EURIM, under a different set of briefs, has been busy advising Ministers to he careful about new legislation which requires computer change. There are insufficient computer skills to handle the year 2000 and changes to EMU at this time, let alone to handle further major legislative changes which require massive computer change.
I have a long-held theory—I do not necessarily expect others to agree with it—that the collapse of civilisation will not occur because of the nuclear bomb, nerve gas or a meteorite striking from space. It is much more likely to occur because of the ever-increasing costs of trying to obtain fairness. Where is the 80/20 rule today? Where is it in our legislation? The theory behind the three Bills is great, but we survived without them. Can we afford their cost? I hope that the Minister will he able to answer some of the points that I have made.
5.45 pm.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, this has been an interesting and exceptionally well-informed debate, given the complex nature of the subject that we have been debating. I pay a special tribute to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, which showed her long experience of the matter in issue. The Government genuinely welcome all the contributions that have been made, and the spirit in which they have been made.
As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in his introductory remarks, the Government are open to suggestions for improving the Bill. We shall look carefully at the suggestions that have been made today to see whether any amendments need to be made to deal with the concerns that have been expressed. Any amendments must, of course, be consistent with the directive's requirements and reflect the Government's general approach to proportionate regulation.
In his introductory remarks my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn referred to the Human Rights Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, also referred to it. My noble friend saw this measure as a sister measure to the Bill. Another related measure, as has been pointed out, which the Government intend to bring forward before too long will be the legislation on freedom of information.
Data protection and freedom of information may not be sisters, but they are at least kissing cousins. In providing for access to government information, we
476
must be careful to ensure that proper regard is paid to the need to protect individuals' personal data. That will be an important consideration as we develop our proposals on freedom of information.
The Bill has received a broad welcome, in principle, from your Lordships. No one has questioned the principle behind the Bill. That principle, which underlay the Data Protection Act 1984, is that proper rules should he laid down for the processing of personal data, and that people should generally know what information is being processed.
When processing information, data processors should be obliged to comply with the data processing principles set out in the Bill. Those principles include processing personal data fairly and lawfully. Those are worthwhile aims to which everyone would subscribe. The difficulties involved in a measure such as this, which have in effect been identified by everyone, relate to trying to find a balance between, for example, what burden should be placed on corporate, charitable and government compliance; a balance as to what exemptions to provide from the scheme; and a balance on how to preserve the freedom of the press. The fulcrum of the debate has revolved around those three matters today.
I shall deal with some of the points that have been raised. I shall not go in detail through all the points that have been mentioned. That is a pleasure in store for us when we reach the Moses Room, I hope. I shall deal with the important principles that have been raised. The first relates to cost. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that one of the themes that he would be pursuing throughout the debate on this matter on behalf of his party would be the burden to be placed upon industry in complying with the Bill. We have seen the estimated costs for start up and compliance with the Bill's provisions. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said, they are no more than guesstimates.
A balance must be struck between the size of the burden that is put on industry and the right of people to know what is happening in relation to the processing of personal data. Where the balance is struck depends largely on the extent to which one imposes burdens in respect of personal manual files. Reference was made to the fact that the Data Protection Registrar wonders about the extent to which unstructured files will be exempt from the Act. We must debate that issue further at a later stage. However, the less structured the files which are covered by the provisions of the Bill the greater the cost to industry to comply. That balance must be struck and the Government will listen with interest to all comments made during the debate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, went on to ask why the definition of data processing is so wide. He asked why it is not defined by reference to the data subject, as in the 1984 Act. The answer is that according to the directive to which we are giving effect it cannot be so limited. The noble Viscount raised concerns about insufficient protection for intellectual property. He will see that under Clause 8(5) trade secrets are a reason for refusing to give the information to which he referred.

477
The noble Viscount was also anxious about whether the provision could be used as a base to obtain information which would enable the commission of crime such as fraud. Clause 28(4) gives the Secretary of State the power to grant exemptions in order to avoid the commission of crime and to assist in its detection. That provision could be used if such a problem arose.
The noble Viscount described the Bill as being too prescriptive. In order to avoid a proper debate, he sensibly gave no examples. Unlike the Human Rights Bill, the Data Protection Bill tries to lay down a detailed code. It must do so under the terms of the directive. That is an appropriate and sensible way of dealing with the Bill without saying that it cannot be improved without sensible amendments. On the other hand, the Human Rights Bill intends to lay down general principles. It is more sensible that that aim is achieved in a shorter, less detailed Bill. It attempts to inform the whole of our law with a series of principles rather than seeking to lay down a code which particular individuals can use in order to protect themselves in relation to personal data and its use.
Perhaps I may move from the, "it's too heavy" line, used by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to the, "there are too many exemptions" line, adopted by a number of other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, eloquently expressed the "sensibleness" of press exemption. No one could have expressed the arguments in favour more eloquently. The only criticism that has been made during the debate came from my noble friend Lady Turner who expressed concern about the public interest exemption. Without wearying your Lordships with reference to detail, perhaps I may indicate the requirements of the clause before the exemption applies. Three rules must be complied with. First, the processing must be undertaken for journalistic, literary or artistic material. Secondly, the person undertaking the processing must reasonably believe, having regard in particular to the special importance of freedom of expression. that publication would be in the public interest. Thirdly. he must reasonably believe that in all the circumstances compliance with the provision in question is incompatible with journalism. I draw attention to the phrase "reasonably believe, having regard to the special importance of freedom of expression". In my view, in such circumstances "public interest" does not mean that the public are interested. It means something wider than that; namely, that there is a public interest having regard to the special importance of freedom of expression, but in relation to a particular story the press should be free to express it. I hope that that explanation goes some way to allay my noble friend's fears.
Three other issues were referred to. First, enforced subject access means someone compelling someone else to use his rights in order to obtain information pursuant to his rights under the data protection provisions. The Data Protection Registrar has indicated that she believes such an activity to be extremely bad. The Government, in their White Paper, stated that they would do something about that because they, too, believed it to be
478
bad. Provision is not yet in the Bill, but we have indicated that we will bring forward amendments to do so.
Secondly, there is nothing in the Bill to deal with data matching. I emphasise that the first data protection principle provided in the Bill is that data should be used fairly and lawfully. We believe that that will deal with data matching to a large extent. Moreover, whenever data matching has been permitted it has been explicitly by statute. Although we shall give anxious consideration as to whether anything else needs to be done in relation to data matching, we believe that to a large extent the matter is dealt with under the existing Act.
Finally, it was said that close circuit TV was not dealt with in the Bill. We do not believe that it is necessary to do so. It is a form of data processing which in certain circumstances will contain personal data on individuals. In those circumstances, it is covered by the Bill.
Important points that we must consider were made about the insurance industry and the extent to which the Bill could be used to deal with or perpetuate insurance fraud. It is difficult to believe that anyone would regard it as possible or sensible to enter into an insurance policy as the insured, but at the same time refuse consent in any meaningful way to the investigation of an insurance claim. I believe that everyone will agree that if a claim is made under a policy the insurer is entitled to investigate it. Moreover, such a requirement is on the face of most insurance policies. No sensible person would regard that as an unfair or unreasonable consent to give. However, the appropriate course to take in relation to those questions about insurance is that we shall consider them and write to noble Lords.
There is a difference in relation to employees who give consent to their details being given to countries which do not have the same data protection rules as we do. That will require further consideration, but one can see that in those circumstances one would more readily give an unreal consent than one would in relation to an insurance policy. However, perhaps I may make arrangements for a letter to be written to deal with that point.
I hope that I have dealt with the main and important points in relation to the Bill. The introduction to Parliament of the Data Protection Bill can be regarded as the beginning of the end of a very long process. That process started as long ago as 1990 when the Data Protection Directive was first brought forward by the European Commission. There followed a long period of negotiations leading to the adoption of the directive by the member states of the European Parliament on 24th October 1995. The subsequent period has been taken up by consultation about the implementation of the directive within the United Kingdom and preparation, in the light of responses to that consultation, of the Bill which your Lordships have before you.
Although this whole process may be drawing to an end, we have a long way to go yet. In some senses, getting the Bill through Parliament is only the first stage. Even when the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, much will remain to be done. It has been pointed out that the Bill provides a large number of powers to be made in

479
subordinate legislation. Much of that will need to be in place before we have a new coherent data protection regime.
We also need to ensure that all those affected by the Bill understand its effects for them. Data subjects will need to know what are their new rights and data controllers will need to know what are their new responsibilities. That suggests the need for guidance of some kind.
Each year in her annual report the Data Protection Registrar includes some information about awareness of the Data Protection Act 1984 by data users and subjects. Her most recent report for 1997 stated, if I have read it properly, that awareness of the legislation increased to its highest level in the period covered by the report. That is a very welcome finding. We must ensure that when the Bill becomes law, we build on the already high awareness of the 1984 Act and make sure that all those affected become aware of their new responsibilities and rights under the Bill. In that way, we shall have taken an important step towards ensuring that as we venture further into the information age, we do so within an effective legislative framework for the protection of information about you and me and all our citizens which will last well into the 21st century.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gulf War: Illnesses
6.5 pm.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve provision for ex-service men and women with Gulf War illnesses.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As anxiety grows hourly about the prospect of a second conflict in the Gulf, this debate is about the men and women who sacrificed their health in the service of this country in the first. Their claim to the attention of your Lordships' House is one of compelling priority. Having been fit and well when, in Kipling's words, the band began to play, many are now very seriously ill. Others have already gone to their graves with a deep sense of injustice, leaving behind aggrieved dependants, some of them wives who were widowed when young and fear poverty when they are old.
The Gulf War ended almost seven years ago and the debate provides an opportunity for Whitehall and Westminster to address with a new sense of urgency the problems and needs of those afflicted and bereaved. I am in no doubt that is how my noble friend the Minister will see this debate. Nor can anyone doubt the depth of commitment my honourable friend, Dr. John Reid, the Armed Forces Minister, brings to his responsibilities for
480
those with Gulf War illnesses and their dependants. As I said publicly on 17th January, when a number of veterans returned their campaign medals to the Ministry of Defence, 1 am sure John Reid will come to be acknowledged as the best friend they ever had in Whitehall. No one knows better than my honourable friend that, fully to understand the sense of anguish and at times anger felt by veterans with unexplained and undiagnosed illnesses, you have to be one of them. But he is demonstrably on their side.
I have an interest to declare in the debate, but not a financial one, as The Royal British Legion's honorary parliamentary adviser for many years and a founder member of its Gulf War Group. The group was set up in 1993 to press for urgency in providing medical help and in dealing with war pensions and other forms of compensation. Since then its range of activity has grown to include every issue of interest and concern to the afflicted and bereaved.
Selected group members visited the United States to compare provision for veterans with Gulf War illnesses there and in the UK. They then wrote papers for the Commons Defence Committee that were included in its report to government. Other members were appointed to all of the epidemiological study teams investigating veterans' illnesses and are making a major contribution to the progress of research into their causes. Again, partly due to the Gulf War Group's pressure, the MoD's Medical Assessment Team was strengthened and work on encouraging veterans to come forward for medical assessment was given a higher profile.
Ably chaired by Colonel Terry English of the Legion, the group includes parliamentarians from both Houses of Parliament; representatives of the ex-service charities; Major Ian Hill and Flight Lieutenant John Nichol from the veterans' associations; and both senior doctors and members of the legal profession. Among the group's parliamentarians, no one has contributed more to its work than the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. Edwina Currie has also given long and distinguished service, while the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has made a strong and valued contribution on the use of organophosphates. Paul Tyler MP, a newer member, adds to the impact of an initiative that accords with the highest traditions of the RBL.
Yet while the group's work has been reassuring and of much practical help to veterans, many strongly insist that more urgency is needed to save lives. They are deeply concerned by Group Captain Coker's departure from the Medical Assessment Programme (MAP); and some complain not only about discontinuity in senior staffing but also of a lack of sympathy with their condition. It will thus be helpful to know what further action is being taken to restore the veterans' confidence in MAP.
There is concern also about serious delays in processing war pensions and preventable hardship among veterans in urgent need. One example is the case of Gunner Tom Ford, late of the 2nd Field Regiment Royal Artillery. He first applied for a war pension in 1996 but his case has yet to be fully addressed. Having fought Saddam Hussein and then struggled to cope with

481
his Gulf War illness, Tom Ford now has to fight for his pension too. And, of course, even if and when he succeeds it will be no passport to la deice vita. Far from it: indeed to have to live on a war pension alone is to recall a moving further passage from Kipling:
"Think what 'e's been,
Think what 'e's seen,
Think of his pension an.—
GAWD SAVE THE QUEEN".
But week by week, month by month, year by year, Gunner Ford has to wait and wait and wait again even for his war pension.
I know my noble friend will want to have the processing of war pensions and war widows' pensions for Gulf War veterans and their widows urgently reviewed in the light of this disturbing case.
Meanwhile I shall be grateful for any information he has on when Group Captain Coker's long-awaited report on the findings of his initial review of the patients he has assessed will be published. Veterans hold Group Captain Coker in very high regard. They will be glad if he can be reinstated as Controller of MAP, and perhaps my noble friend could let us know if and when this might be possible when he replies to the debate.
Anything he can say about new initiatives to deal with shortcomings in the medical administrative system, of which many Gulf War veterans complain, will also be helpful. What is being done to ensure, for example, better maintenance of medical records for serving personnel and an efficient transition from medical services in the Armed Forces to the NHS when their engagements end? Again, can my noble friend say whether there is any likelihood in the near future of a veterans' register being established for men and women leaving the services?
My noble friend is aware that I first raised in 1996 in another place, with the then Armed Forces Minister, a possible link between the undiagnosed illnesses of some Gulf War veterans and the destruction by US troops in March 1991 of ammunition bunkers at Khamisiyah in Southern Iraq. UNSCOM inspectors later identified the site as an Iraqi chemical weapon storage plant and found there munitions containing chemical agent, a sombre reminder today of the awesome threat to human life of the sort of weaponry available to Saddam Hussein as he demonstrates yet again his absolute contempt for UN Security Council Resolution 687.
The Minister's reply to my question was that only one British serviceman was deployed in the area of the fall-out plume when the bunkers at Khamisiyah were destroyed. I understand that this must now be drastically revised upwards and I shall be grateful for any more precise details my noble friend has of the numbers of British service personnel who could have been contaminated by fall-out at Khamisiyah.
There's a further issue that threatens to become of increasing concern and is worthy of mention in this debate. I refer to the report of increasing birth abnormalities identified in Kuwaiti children. Not unnaturally, that is very disturbing to veterans of the Gulf War who want to see all available information on
482
the nature and scale of what has been happening in Kuwait. After a recent visit there, when I talked at length with Ministers, including the Minister of Health—a doctor—I was convinced that much might be gained from increasing our knowledge of the very serious effects of the Gulf War on the health of the civilian population of Kuwait. That also is something on which my noble friend may wish to comment.
I come now to my concluding point. Governments are fond of saying—I speak as a former Minister—that with individual rights go responsibilities. That must ever be so and it is clearly true also that power, not least that of governments, carries with it heavy responsibilities. After all, what governments do conveys a more eloquent and enduring message than what they say. The relevance of all this is that the MoD is the biggest employer in western Europe: and thus how those who serve it and their dependants feel about its employment policies is highly important to the moral authority of government as a whole. As I said at the outset, I am totally sure that Ministers are deeply aware of this and I know that my noble friend, my parliamentary colleague for more than three decades, will respond to the debate both positively and with his customary humanity.
The vast majority of the British people want the most generous possible treatment for those afflicted and bereaved in their service. Our debt to them cannot be measured in money terms: but lack of money inflicts hurtful indignities. Let us, therefore, resolve today that the best way of demonstrating our regard and admiration for those who served us with such distinction and gallantry in the Gulf is to meet in full what I am sure your Lordships' House sees as an undoubted debt of honour.
6.14 pm.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for initiating this important debate. As the Minister will know, I tabled a Written Question to his colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, in July of last year asking whether the findings of Group Captain Coker, submitted to the Gulf War inquiry when he was posted to the US in 1996, had been or were to be published. In reply, I was told that the first draft of a paper concerning the results for some 500 patients under the medical assessment programme had never been completed but that a total of 1,435 patients had now been seen by MAP and the consolidated results would be published later in the year.
I was also pleased to learn that Group Captain Coker would be closely concerned with the work, which would supersede his original draft. Indeed, I was favourably impressed by the energy and the resources put into addressing the question of Gulf War illness and the Gulf War veterans by Ministers. I read the paper,Gulf Veterans Illnesses, a new beginning, published by the MoD as evidence of the new approach on 14th July 1997. I wonder whether any of this would have happened without the long struggle conducted by my noble friend Lady Mar in this House and by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and others, in the other place.

483
The MoD paper refers to the reports of dead animals, to scout tents and to the concerns expressed by the Department of Health in late 1990 about pertussis vaccine. It is no thanks to the MoD, I fear, that any of those issues have been identified and acted upon. On the contrary, questions on the first two were regularly rebutted, as were the concerns about the use of organophosphates by our own people. It is one of the saddest ironies that we are dealing with friendly, not enemy, action and its consequences and with a culture within the ministry which was, rightly I fear, characterised by the Defence Committee as, "instinctive defensiveness and insularity", and insensitivity of a high order. It is deeply unfortunate that most of the new research programmes set in train by Ministers will not be reporting until 1999 and 2000 respectively. Meanwhile, the clock ticks on for the veterans. Where is the review that was promised for the end of 1997, and is Group Captain Coker, who I understand is no longer working with the group, in agreement with the findings?
The MoD paper that I mentioned referred to the treatment of veterans still serving and said that they will be treated by the Defence Medical Services. If that refers to treatment in this country, I should be very interested to know how many are receiving such treatment and where. In December of last year it was still the case that virtually all the beds in at least one of the MDHUs were occupied by non-service geriatrics. When Group Captain Coker did his initial work, I believe that he was grossly overworked because, clearly, the Defence Medical Services had been cut to the bone under Front Line First, that splendid Treasury exercise in short-term economy and long-term disaster.
Were money and lack of staff the reasons why, although the Defence Committee recommended a full-scale epidemiological study as long ago as 1995, no real effort was made until July 1997? Equally, one of the constant themes of the veterans—and the issue is often raised in this House—has been the difficulty of access to medical records and, indeed, the loss or destruction of relevant medical events. The Defence Committee was told that 15,000 such events had been lost. Both my noble friend Lady Mar and I had quoted a figure of 10,000 (not all related, of course, to the Gulf War).
In the MoD paper we are told that,
"what can be found will be made public in due course",
and that the Government intend,
"that veterans should have access to whatever information the MoD possesses which might he relevant to their illnesses and is determined that what can be found will be made public".
All that is very reassuring. I recognise that Ministers meant what they said and that both money and effort are being put into changing things for the better. But there is a very great burden of distrust which must be shifted. No amount of research, to be available two-and-a-half years hence, will help veterans who have been kept waiting for six years, who are ill and who may well wonder what their claims will be worth when the seven years, when the presumption for each claim is in the claimant's favour, run out.
484
The immediate question is: why is Group Captain Coker, the man who originally recognised that there was a case to answer but whose report was not published and the man who Ministers brought back and in doing so reassured many, no longer apparently involved? Why is there such a disastrous lack of continuity in the staff of MAP? Where are the detailed results that were to have been published at the end of 1997, once the new database had been created?
The Government must not lose the momentum of the actions that they have taken since July of last year. It is essential to establish a veterans' register, to reinstate Group Captain Coker and to ensure that the Defence Medical Services and MAP in particular have the staff to deal promptly and sensitively with the urgent needs of veterans who have had too little attention and have been up against a faceless bureaucracy when they needed prompt answers.
In another debate on organophosphates in June of last year, I urged that the research that was being funded jointly by the MoD, MAFF and the Health and Safety Agency should have an independent co-ordinator, with no ministry connections, free to take evidence under privilege, and someone who could not be required to delay or even suppress evidence on the grounds of some greater good. We, and the veterans above all, need to know that there are no more time bombs of undisclosed knowledge ticking away. In the context of the Statement we heard earlier today it is perhaps even more important than before for servicemen to be given cause to trust the Government and to feel that the services look after their interests. I know that the Minister has given proofs, as have his colleagues, of real concern, but this is a crisis of confidence. The veterans have rights and those rights have been ignored.
This is a moment when we must not wait for reviews and research groups and above all we must not allow the Treasury termites to eat away the serviceman's trust in his service. There can be nothing more important than that.
6.20 pm.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for introducing this important subject in your Lordships' Chamber.
I must declare an interest. I work for The Royal British Legion, the country's leading ex-service charity, which receives no financial help from the Government and can only provide benevolent assistance and advice through donations to the Poppy Appeal. It is significant that the Legion's pensions department now handles over 90 per cent. of all claims going to appeals tribunals, of which there are some 10,000 annually.
The early announcement by the Minister for the Armed Forces, Dr. John Reid, of, Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning, the commissioning of new research and the more open approach to the disclosure of information have all been widely welcomed by veterans and the Legion alike. Nevertheless progress is inevitably slow and there is no immediate relief. The Legion continues to monitor the situation on behalf of the inter-parliamentary group and the veterans and to

485
advise those who are suffering from possible Gulf-related conditions to ensure that they receive treatment and, where appropriate, apply for a war pension and/or compensation.
Since returning from the Gulf War in 1991, some British veterans have become ill. Many believe that this ill-health is unusual and directly related to their participation in Operation Granby. Ministers have stated that a fresh start has been made in dealing with this difficult and complex subject and have adopted three guiding principles: that all Gulf veterans will have prompt access to medical advice; that appropriate research will be carried out into veterans' illnesses and the associated factors: and that the Ministry of Defence will make available to the public any information it possesses.
A wide variety of explanations have been suggested for the illnesses reported by Gulf veterans. These include physical factors related to service in the Gulf, such as the effects of multiple vaccinations, taking NAPS tablets or exposure to pesticides; stress related and other psychological factors; as well as the possibility that there is no unusual pattern. What is not in dispute, however, is that many Gulf veterans are unwell and are concerned that their health may have suffered.
I would now like to address three special cases: first—the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has already mentioned him—Tom Ford of the 2nd Field Regiment Royal Artillery. His claim for a war pension was made in July 1996 and the conditions for which he claimed were post traumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue and chronic arthritis. He still has not heard whether he will receive a pension. As a result he is unable to meet financial demands regarding his house, and the housing association, which now owns it, has rented it back to him. He is a disillusioned man and believes he has been let down by the system. It is 18 months since his application was made and in the meantime the Legion has provided support to get him through the uncertain period. Can the Minister assure the House that the award of an interim payment will be considered, prior to a final decision by the War Pension Agency?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that a statement he is reported to have made to Gulf War veterans last July to the effect that the seven-year rule for claiming war disablement pensions would not apply in their cases is causing confusion and is in need of clarification? The veterans claim that they were told that the rule requiring the War Pensions Agency to disprove all claims by ex-service people within the first seven years of leaving the forces would be waived. Will the Minister also confirm that the period for claims against the Ministry of Defence for compensation has been extended from three to six years?
Thirdly, many reservists and Territorial Army personnel—over 600 people in all—deployed to Operation Granby in 1991-92 are being denied access to the attributable benefits for reservists scheme, or ABRS, on the basis that they were not medically discharged from Gulf War service. However, although
486
approximately 420 of these people are in receipt of a war disability pension as a direct result of their Gulf War service, these same service men and women were not informed that they could have asked for a medical discharge. These veterans feel that they are being treated differently to regular soldiers and thereby discriminated against. This would appear to be a breach of the outline Ministry of Defence instructions, detailing allocation of volunteers, that they would not suffer financially as a result of the deployment but would be treated exactly the same as regular soldiers similarly deployed in terms of pension entitlements.
Now that the ABRS is fully effective, as from September 1996, what steps have the Government taken to correct the technical deficiency in the regulations to ensure retrospectively that those reservists in receipt of a war disability pension, as a direct result of their Gulf War service, receive their full pension entitlement?
A Ministry of Defence letter was sent to Mr. G. A. Parker, in April 1997 regarding his claim for a pension under the ABRS. It stated that in order to qualify for a pension he would have had to have been discharged from the Territorial Army as unfit for further military service. However, his record of service showed that he was discharged at his own request. On this basis therefore he did not qualify for a pension under the scheme. He was nonetheless advised to resign from the Territorial Army and not to apply for a medical discharge, although ill health was adversely affecting his ability to meet the required standards.
Finally, Territorial Army and regular reserve personnel who volunteered for Gulf War service were told by the Ministry of Defence that in the event that they should become a casualty they or their spouse would receive the same benefits as a member of the regular forces under the provisions of the ABRS. This advice was factually incorrect, I believe, and due to an anomaly in the regulations those who became ill and injured on embodied service would not qualify. Two Territorial Army soldiers, Messrs. Bristow and Rusling, brought this to the attention of the Ministry of Defence as early as 1991-92. To date only three reviews and subsequent awards of a pension under the ABRS have been made.
These veterans have been waiting for years to have their cases reviewed. Her Majesty's Government claim we owe them a debt. Has this debt been paid?
6.29 pm.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I also am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for his Question about provision for Gulf War illnesses. I have, as your Lordships will know well, an interest to declare as president of the War Widows Association. I reiterate the question we raised with the Minister, Mr. John Spellar, when we met him last June. It is that whatever decisions are made about a change of medical opinion on Gulf War illnesses, if anyone has since died as a result of these illnesses, his widow should be treated as a war widow and consequently receive a war widow's pension.

487
According to the figures issued by the Ministry of Defence to the Gulf Veterans Association last July—the last figures it received—since the Gulf War seven naval personnel, 65 from the Army, 56 from the RAF and four civilians have died. Causes of death have been stated as suicide, cancer, heart disease, or resulting from road accidents. The last may sound accidental, but such accidents could have been caused by nerve failure. As a result, several people who served in the Gulf now do not drive cars.
To my knowledge there are six widows who could be in a position to claim a war widow's pension. One, who lives at Portsmouth, is the widow of a petty officer who was responsible for opening up the air vents on his ship after a chemical attack. Another, whose husband died of bronchial carcinoma, is only 25 and has two young children. Her husband was a bandsman in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, playing several brass instruments; so he must have had good lungs. As a bandsman he would have played outside in the Gulf area. Another is the widow of a lieutenant-colonel who served in tented accommodation in Blackadder Camp in the Gulf and who died of ischaemic heart disease, the surgeons at the autopsy saying that his heart was in much worse shape than that of a centenarian who had died just before. Another, whose husband died just before Christmas of brain tumours, has two young children, both with an identical rare heart disease. We would like to welcome those ladies into our association as war widows and give them what love and comfort we can. I urge the Minister to persuade the Government to show the same compassion for them.
6.31 pm.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for asking this Question and I echo his sentiments. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, also made some very telling comments. I was extremely moved by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange.
I wish to declare an interest. I am patron of the Gulf Veterans Association. I have a great deal of personal contact with members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who served in Operation Granby and now find themselves unexpectedly suffering from a wide range of illnesses which they attribute to their service.
I am deeply impressed by the integrity of those men and women, many of them from the Territorial Army and reserve forces. They were called up for service and went to the Gulf in the knowledge that they might be exposed to any of the chemical or biological weapons that were known to be in the Iraqi arsenal. They understood that the British Government would take measures to protect them from death or illness resulting from enemy action. What they did not expect was that they would die or become ill from the effects of what might be best described as an "own goal".
It is significant that this Question should be asked just a few days before the expiry of the seven-year period
488
under Article 4 of the Service Pensions Order, and perhaps fortuitous that this morning I received a copy of the update to the Government's report, Gulf Veterans Illness: a New Beginning. It may be helpful to the Minister if I go through this in sequential order.
The Government state that the new targets for handling patients at the medical assessment programme (MAP) are now being met. If the number of adverse comments I have received about the way in which Gulf veterans are treated by the MAP doctors are any indication, I am not surprised that they are able to reach their targets, for their examinations are often cursory. Many of the Gulf veterans say that they will never attend the MAP again. I have never heard any criticism of the time when the programme was run by Group Captain Coker and Colonel Melia, despite the fact that they were working under the appalling conditions described by the reports of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. Since the departure of those two doctors, it would appear that the MAP has developed an agenda which does not include medical diagnosis and treatment for the illnesses from which the veterans are suffering.
It may help if I give two examples from letters I have received from veterans. One attended the MAP on 8th November 1997 and was seen by Dr. Hall. The veteran had left his home in Scotland at 5.30 a.m. on the day of his appointment to be at St Thomas's Hospital on time. The doctor asked his name. When he replied, Dr. Hall told him there was nothing wrong with his memory in a tone which the veteran described as "sarcastic". The doctor then told the patient that he must stop smoking and drinking 18 pints of beer at the weekends. He simply would not listen when told that the veteran did not drink at all as he had only half a kidney—he merely repeated his statement over and over again.
The veteran also had a problem with his knee and, while under general anaesthetic, had experienced muscle twitching which his orthopaedic surgeon thought should be further investigated. Dr. Hall's response was to look into the man's eyes and tell him that he had no nervous damage whatever. Asked how he sustained the knee injury, the veteran explained that he had been filling the central heating boiler with coal for his parents. Dr. Hall's response was to ask why his parents had not filled their own boiler. The veteran goes on to say in his letter:
"At this time I was feeling very confused and becoming more and more distressed and was quite literally in tears. I could not understand his logic. He totally ignored my distressed condition and then asked me why I was there and what I wanted. I explained that I wanted treatment for my symptoms, to which he replied, there is no treatment. He then went on to tell me that he had been in the Vietnam War and proceeded to point out his medals which were hanging on the wall. He said he had come back from Vietnam with no problems whatsoever … Dr. Hall then went on to say that there was nothing wrong with me and that I should learn how to get on with people better and get on with my life".
He later says:
"I left there in a state of confusion and distress and felt absolutely suicidal".

489
In a covering letter he says:
"My main concern now is that anyone else who has to attend this programme should not only be prepared but that they should not go alone".
and, as a demonstration of British troops' universal stoicism,
"My immediate reaction to all this is to throw the towel in, which is of course exactly what the MoD would wish and is perhaps their intention. I am gradually getting over it and no doubt will be able to laugh about it later".
Another veteran was seen by Dr. Spicer on 22nd December 1997. He has well documented exposure to organophosphate insecticides, initially diagnosed by Group Captain Coker. He had been told that he should ask for a follow-up appointment as his condition had deteriorated. This man has been diagnosed as suffering asthma and rhinitis, chronic fatigue and food intolerances as a result of his exposure to OPs. He had also suffered autonomic and peripheral nerve damage. He was told by Dr. Spicer that asthma was a common ailment; that chronic fatigue was a psychological problem in the heads of many Gulf veterans and was not due to Gulf service; that his deficiency in essential vitamins and minerals, a result of the food intolerances, could be cured if he purchased a box of multivitamins from a chemist; and that he did not believe the neurologist's findings of nerve damage as farmers had been using OP insecticides for years without ill effect and he had been using such insecticides in his garden without ill effect. The veteran's illness was not due to Gulf War service. My Lords, where has this man been?
In view of the veteran's deteriorating condition, Dr. Spicer was asked to read his Fmed 4, his medical records. He was also asked whether he would conduct a medical examination. He indicated that he was not interested in the veteran's case notes and that no medical examination would be undertaken. The notes were returned unopened. While he was in front of the doctor this veteran noticed a letter from D Med Health to the effect that no treatment should be offered as it would set a precedent for other Gulf veterans. When he asked to see his notes, permission was refused.
These are only two examples of the way in which attenders of the MAP are handled. I have reports of veterans' doctors being told there is nothing wrong with their patients when they have cancer or serious heart conditions, and I know that a number of these complaints have been sent to the Minister's honourable friend, the Minister for the Armed Forces. May I ask the Minister whether he believes that this treatment is in accordance with the objectives of the Government's papers on this subject? Will he also ask his honourable friend to instigate a full audit of the MAP, not some time this year, but as a matter of urgency? Does he accept that, even if these cases are a few out of many and others are treated properly, this is no way for doctors to treat patients; and what does he propose to do to rectify the situation immediately?
I look forward to the results of the research programmes, although it is a pity that they have taken nearly seven years to be arranged—not the fault of this Government, I hasten to add. May I ask the noble Lord
490
why so many British troops were inoculated against smallpox when this disease was eradicated in 1980 and only the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and China are permitted to hold small quantities of the virus for experimental purposes? The World Health Organisation specifically advises against vaccination except for workers in experimental laboratories. So what were the risks that were considered to be a danger to our troops? May I also ask the noble Lord what research has been carried out into the actual vaccine which was used? There have been a number of reports from American Gulf veterans of the adjuvant squalene and of a specific mycoplasma being detected in their blood. May I ask whether these will be looked for in British veterans?
Noble Lords will be aware of my interest in the health effects of exposure to organophosphates. The similarity of symptoms between farmers occupationally exposed to OPs and the Gulf veterans exposed to insecticides during their service in the Gulf was what drew my attention at the time of the first reports of unusual illness among the veterans. The OP investigation team appear to have made a thorough assessment of the use of insecticides during Operation Granby, but there are some very noticeable omissions which I intend to take up with the Armed Forces Minister at a later date. However, there are numerous reports from the veterans of spraying activities by people other than members of the environmental health units deployed in the Gulf. No mention is made in the OPITT reports of spraying by local Saudi labour or of evening spraying from a propeller-type aeroplane. May I ask the noble Lord why these reports have not been followed up to ascertain the pesticides used and the degree to which British troops were exposed? The reports are many and consistent, and relate particularly to Black Adder Camp.
As to the tents, I still find it difficult to accept that the tent in which a small quantity of the OP fenitrothion was detected in 1997, after it had been exposed to the elements, would not have had enough of the pesticide in its fabric to have affected the scoutmaster who purchased it in 1993, but that is a matter for debate. I also look forward to seeing the reports into CBW incidents, the anti-BW vaccination programme and the reports of dead animals.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, both spoke at length about pensions and compensation. In the general context of financial provision, may I tell the noble Lord the Minister that I have been told repeatedly by Gulf veterans that the last thing they want is litigation. They simply want an acknowledgment that they are ill; they want treatment for their illnesses—though many recognise that their quality of life and level of fitness will never be what it was before they went to the Gulf—and they want pensions for which they do not have to fight every inch of the way. Many have only turned to the law because they are angry and frustrated. To a lay person like myself, it seems madness that veterans who have had conditions diagnosed by medical consultants in NHS hospitals should have to submit to further medical examinations by, as the Department of Social Security admits, generalists with no specific training in the

491
illnesses reported by the veterans. There is no consultant on the Benefits Agency medical service lists. Do war pension agencies not trust the NHS?
I see that I have come to the end of my time. There is more that I should like to have said but I will now sit down.
6.45 pm.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we have heard a number of very powerful speeches and, being less of an expert, it is not my intention to detain the House for long. I should like to touch on just two points, leaving aside the question of pensions, which was raised among others by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. The first point I wish to raise is the question of openness and transparency; and the other is the lessons we have learnt for future conflicts from this experience.
We discussed earlier today a Statement on Iraq, which raised the question of chemical and biological weapons. It is clear that this conflict is unlikely to be the last in which British troops are engaged in which these risks will be suffered. Clearly, therefore, we must consider what we have learnt and what procedures are now in place. We must consider the international co-operation in which we are now engaged with our NATO allies, and perhaps others, to investigate the diseases and problems that have been encountered and the precautions that one should take against chemical and biological warfare. Those are questions which I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to answer.
I return to the question of openness and transparency. The comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, expressed exactly my own feelings as regards the need to be reassured that there are no more time bombs of undiscovered knowledge to come. The slow trickle of information from research publications within the United Kingdom and the United States worries those who have been through this experience. I refer to the incomplete information, incomplete records, and stories not yet fully confirmed, as to whether chemical weapons were released, and, if so, in what areas, and exactly which pesticides were used when.
I have consulted some of my colleagues on this subject. My noble friend Lord Falkland told me that his son served in the Gulf as an officer; and that the cocktail of chemicals which were given to him rapidly as he went out there caused him considerable problems in terms of lowering his level of immunity. It was not until he had left the Army and was in the United States that he realised that he was suffering from some long-term debilitation. He then went through a series of tests. The first assumption was that he suffered from the same Gulf War syndrome as did the Americans. It was not until some time had passed that the idea that British troops and American troops often had different experiences and had taken a different cocktail was understood. My noble friend Lord Winchilsea tells me that during his visit to Iraq in 1996 he was shown round a children's hospital in Baghdad which had a number of wards each containing 20 children from southern Iraq. They were all suffering from leukaemias and cancers. The doctors there were convinced that they had been exposed to chemical weapon fallout.
492
One learns a lot from these and other examples. Some of the reports have come from the "learned" press—from the Economist and others. They state that there has been a range of experiences not fully explained and not put together. I should like to hear from the noble Lord how far the United Kingdom and the United States are now working together to make sure that all information is collated and can be made available to those who have suffered.
6.47 pm.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in common with other noble Lords, I must express my great thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for putting down this Question. The noble Lord has been kind enough to refer to me. He told me earlier that he would do so and I remonstrated with him then because I have in fact done very little, and I am not being modest about that. He himself has been one of the stars of The Royal British Legion Committee under the chairmanship of the Director of Welfare, Colonel Terry English, to whom I and several other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate are much indebted for his help.
I believe it to be unfair to say that the services or the Ministry of Defence have ever ignored the problems which have arisen as a result of Gulf service. This has been a very, very complicated issue, and a developing one, getting steadily worse over the years. Much of the misconception surrounding it has been caused by the use of the word "syndrome". The noble Lord. Lord Morris, has been careful to avoid this, and talks instead of "illnesses"—a word which does not imply that there is any one single reason for what has happened. We must stop looking for a "syndrome".
An enormous amount of work has been done both in this country and in the United States, but there are still very few who understand the problem, and the MAPS programme does not really seem to be working. Almost every one of your Lordships who has spoken has referred to Group Captain Coker and I must add myself to this number. It is most important that the ministry should get him back into full harness. He is, as I understand it, at present on secondment in the United States, although he does spend some time here. It cannot be a very pleasant assignment for him to have, but he is without doubt the one man the sufferers trust and whom they feel understands their problems. If and when he does come back he must be given fair and unlimited access to allow him to investigate, without any comeback on him or his career if he does find anything.
One of the main difficulties is that we do not know the size of the problem. Having seen a report in a newspaper that 6,000 people were suffering from Gulf illness in this country, I recently asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to find out how many there were. In a complete and helpful reply I was told that 219 pensions had been granted out of 425 claims and that only a very small number had been turned down. Incidentally, I understand that that figure is almost exactly the same as the figure given in reply to a Question to the Minister in the previous government. However, a solicitor who specialises in these claims tells me that no cases have been settled. Perhaps the Minister

493
can give us some clarification on this point. I am told that 1,000 have applied for war pensions and 2,000 for compensation. Noble Lords will see that there is an enormous variation in the figures: from 6,000 to 425 to 219.
We need a veterans' register. The total numbers were being recorded by the solicitor to whom I referred. However, many sufferers were encouraged to register directly with the Ministry of Defence and the solicitor has therefore lost count of the numbers. Establishing the numbers is vital, although I admit that it is difficult because of the different criteria used. In addition, in many cases it is by no means certain whether the illness derives from Gulf service. The Americans are trying to establish the degree of Gulf illness by comparing peer groups of servicemen who did not serve there and those who did to find out how their states of health compare. I understand that as yet there is no result which has any statistical validity.
I was rather alarmed by the reference by my noble friend Lady Strange to a petty officer who is suffering as a result of a chemical attack on the frigate on which he was serving. I am not aware that any chemical attacks took place during the Gulf conflict. My noble friend also mentioned a number of other alarming cases. They may or may not be the result of Gulf service, and that is one of the things that we have to establish.
There are so many oddities involved in this problem. It seems that no Frenchmen are suffering: could it be that French troops who served in the Gulf all came from the Foreign Legion and were used to serving in those areas? The same might apply to Iraqis and others working and living permanently on the ground. Most of the Americans who are suffering seem to come from their reserve forces and not from the regular army, so training may be of some account. Very little of the trouble is found among those who served in the front lines. Why did the Czechs find evidence of chemical weapons when no one else did? And so on. There is an endless number of variations.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has evidence, as she told the House recently, of malformed children whose illnesses seem to be derived from depleted uranium. I recently asked the Minister a Question regarding the toxicity of depleted uranium. I am grateful to him for his letter of explanation; all I can say with reference to that letter is that it serves me right for asking the Question. From a report which he enclosed with that letter, it seems that depleted uranium is unlikely to have any effect on servicemen. I note the noble Countess's reference to malformed children. It may be that depleted uranium is not a factor in Gulf illness among former servicemen, but we do not know.
Perhaps the Minister can help with the numbers. At the same time I must remind him, with the very greatest respect, that he is replying for the Government and not for his department. So much of this is a matter for the Ministry of Health and not for the Ministry of Defence. I hope that he will nevertheless be able to help us. I let him get away with it with reference to Northern Ireland and the case of the two imprisoned guardsmen, but I think that in this case he can probably give us what we
494
want. The answers seem to lie squarely between the two departments. I suggest, with respect, that that provides further evidence of the need for a sub-Department of State to deal with service and post-service affairs.
This aspect of the problem arises again with the question of after-service care. I should not like to comment on the sad cases quoted by the noble Countess, but when a man suspects that he is suffering from a disease as a result of his Gulf service, has been seen by the appropriate authority and discharged into the hands of his GP, the GP is given his records. But have GPs any idea what to look for or how to treat that patient? I hope that GPs are now alerted to the existence of something that they may not know how to handle. With the disappearance of almost all service hospitals, GPs are the only immediate source of help and they will have to be trained. Very few will see a case of suspected Gulf illness, but it is vital that, if they do, they should know what steps to take.
As we speak, the problem is becoming increasingly important—not for the current sufferers, though their problems are great, but for those who may become sufferers in the future. Even more than with the current cases, the United States is concerned for its troops in the future if the Gulf crisis deepens and men are sent into Iraq on the ground. What are they likely to suffer from next time? What cocktail of injections have they been given?
Do those for whom it went wrong in 1990 and 1991 suffer from chemicals spread by the enemy or from what they were given to prevent them from so suffering? Undoubtedly there was a justified fear that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to employ chemical weapons and might use them. It would have been criminal to let the allied forces go into Iraq without protection. Exactly the same applies today. Let us pray that, if the worst happens and ground combat ensues, enough is known to get it right this time. Undoubtedly something—we do not know what—went wrong in 1991. Let us hope that it will not happen again and that the work that the Government are doing will be enough both to cure those who are ill now and to prevent others from becoming ill in the future.
6.58 pm.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, it is a melancholy duty to have to reply to a debate of this nature. As so often, I am forced to stand here agreeing with many of the questions raised but helpless to give answers to them, as I would normally have hoped to be able to do.
I echo the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Morris on raising this important subject. As I am sure he and other noble Lords agree, it is impossible not to understand the sadness, the anger and the sense of injustice on the part of many Gulf veterans at the way they believe they have been treated by successive governments. As your Lordships will know, a few short weeks ago I had the sad duty of having to receive back the medals from a dozen or so Gulf veterans who felt that returning them was the only way in which they could make their protest about what they saw as the

495
unsatisfactory way in which they had been treated. I do not conceal from myself that the fact that only a dozen or so handed back their medals does not mean that there were not many more who felt just as strongly as did those who were present on that sad Saturday.
Before I address many of the remarks made in the debate, I should like to thank those noble Lords who paid tribute to the diligence of my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces who brought a new urgency to the matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, we must not lose the momentum of the steps taken last year, that momentum being due almost entirely to my honourable friend.
It may be helpful to the House for me to deal with the various points raised, though not necessarily in the sequence of the speeches. One of the first points on which I should like to touch is the position of Dr. Coker. As has rightly been said, it is a matter of considerable concern to many veterans. He is the one man in whom they had confidence. Anxiety was expressed today that he has been shunted off to Washington and is out of the mainstream of MoD activity with respect to Gulf War illness.
Dr. Coker is closely involved in preparing a detailed report on the first 1,000 patients, to which reference was made this evening by many noble Lords. That paper is in its final stages of preparation and will shortly be submitted for review and publication. I repeat, Dr. Coker is closely involved in its publication. As to whether or not it is appropriate for the doctor to work in Washington, all I can say is that he has been back to this country. He had a meeting with my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. In addition, in July last year, he was asked whether or not he would prefer to return to the United Kingdom and replied at that time in the negative for both personal and professional reasons. At the moment he is doing sterling work in association with the medical services of the United States. I hope that not only your Lordships but also the veterans will be comforted by the news of his continuing involvement in the MAP review.
My noble friend Lord Morris said that there was a feeling of a lack of sympathy at some of the interviews when individuals were being assessed. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, repeated that point. It is not within my power to comment on what happened at individual interviews. All I can say is that if there have been such cases—I in no way impugn the noble Countess—they are to be deplored. I shall certainly bring her comments to the attention of my honourable friend.
I noted what was said again by my noble friend regarding the case of Gunner Ford, repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. Gunner Ford is apparently suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue and chronic arthritis. Apparently he applied for a war pension as long ago as 1996. I shall certainly look into the question of whether or not interim payments would be appropriate or possible, but I cannot answer yea or nay from the Dispatch Box this evening. I shall obtain an answer for the noble Earl as soon as I can. The same applies in respect of the case of Mr. Parker, who was discharged in April 1997 and I shall also look
496
into the question of whether or not correct advice was given to members of the TA as to the eligibility of their spouses to receive the same benefits as regular servicemen.
My noble friend Lord Morris called for a veterans' register. The call was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and others. That is a matter already being looked at within the MoD and I hope to be able to reply one way or another before too long. I am sure that my noble friend will recognise that the issue has wider implications. There are difficulties in ascertaining exactly where veterans are; many may be abroad. There are also implications for the organisation of government in that respect.
With respect to the Khamisiyah—another question raised by my noble friend and others—we have been trying to identify exactly which units of Her Majesty's forces may have been under the plume of the explosion at the time. It is proving extremely difficult, though the evidence I have seen shows that few British personnel were likely to have been exposed to any toxic materials in those circumstances and, if there were any, those who were would have been exposed for an extremely brief period of time. Exposure for such a period would not normally be expected to affect them medically.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I was a little surprised to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, reports of a chemical attack on a Royal Naval warship. I heard of no such incident during the course of the Gulf War. However, I shall be happy to look into the question of the six widows if she will let me have details of those to whom she referred.
The question of tented accommodation was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I have already given the House as detailed an explanation as I possibly can with respect to the contamination of some tents. We are not likely to be able to obtain further information on that subject in the future.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked questions about confusion with the seven-year rule and the claim period being extended from three to six years. He believes that some clarification is necessary and that there are technical deficiencies in the regulations. I hold a detailed brief which I could read out, but it may detain your Lordships too long. I shall be happy to place on the record the answers to noble Lords' questions, but I ought to touch on other matters before I bring the debate to an end.
I was particularly struck by the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, regarding lessons for future conflict. However sad the events of the past seven years, they are matters to which we need seriously to address ourselves. What lessons have been learnt from the past? What are we doing about the future? What precautions should we take and what procedures are now in place?
The first thing which must be said with respect to any possible future conflict in the Gulf is that Ministers today, like previous Ministers, will be bound to take the

497
best medical advice available to them. They have a responsibility to see that British forces are protected, in so far as is humanly possible, against chemical and biological weapons. The advice will relate both to what is known about the weapons available to a hostile power and the degree, given military deployments and what has happened under the UNSCOM regime, which has been very helpful, of the threat.
The United Kingdom and the United States are co-operating closely with respect to research programmes but we do not necessarily accept that the procedures the United States is putting in place are appropriate for this country. For example, I think I am right in saying that the United States recently decided that it would embark upon a programme of compulsory vaccination, if that is the right word, against anthrax for every single member of its forces. British Ministers at the moment have no plans for compulsory medical treatment for anyone. This is a matter which, quite properly, has to be reviewed from time to time. The question is whether or not we have a moral right to require a member of one of our services to accept medical treatment in advance—for prophylactic purposes—if that service man or woman is reluctant to accept that treatment. There is also the question of whether or not in the judgment of senior officers the fighting capability of that man or woman might be impaired were they not to accept the treatment that is considered appropriate.
One of the difficulties we have in facing any future conflict is that we cannot know as of now the full range of the diabolical agents at the disposal of Mr. Saddam Hussein. Others may come to light at any moment which will produce new problems and will need new types of protective treatment. There is full co-operation between this country and the United States. The United States is funding two important research programmes in this country. As far as I know, we have full access to all their research. They are in a position to spend far more money than we are in these matters. We have at least one official over there in constant liaison with the work that the Americans are doing in their research programmes.
I understand full well what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, meant when she said that veterans do not want litigation; they want recognition of their illness, they want treatment for it and they want pensions for which they do not have to fight. That is a menu of requirements with which few of us would quarrel. The only problem is that we have not yet been able to get medical diagnosis of the causes of some of these symptoms. Recognition of the illness is easier said than done. If you cannot diagnose the illness, you have a problem with the treatment for it. With respect to fighting for pensions, I accept entirely that we need to look again at the interface between the Ministry of Defence and the War Pensions Agency. I shall certainly draw the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to the many remarks that have been made in this respect in today's debate.
498
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, raised many questions which highlighted the complexities of this matter. He asked a question which I asked myself almost as soon as I arrived at the MoD this time. He asked why the French did not have any units that suffered from Gulf-related symptoms. This could be a matter of where the French forces were deployed during the Gulf War. I suspect that that may well be an answer to the noble Lord's question. I had not realised until he raised the point that most of the American forces who suffered were reservists and not front line forces. There may well be some significance in that which I am sure the Americans will be looking at diligently.
The noble Lord said that GPs need training. I do not know whether they need training. I certainly think there is a case for advisory circulars going out—I am sure that some already have gone out—but the numbers involved do not justify further training.
A point has not been made this evening but I think I should mention it. I am aware that certain of the veterans think that they should go to various institutions that could care for them but that their local health authorities do not think that the money would be properly or best invested in sending them to those institutions. All I can say is that at the end of the day that has to be a matter of judgment for the local health authority. I can only hope that the number of cases where veterans are dissatisfied with that aspect of these matters is greatly diminished over time.
It is a sad occasion to have to stand at the Dispatch Box to discuss these matters. I am immensely grateful for the moderate way your Lordships have put their points to me this evening. I undertake to study the debate again in tranquillity. If there are any points that I have failed to touch on while I have been on my feet I will of course, as is my practice, write to noble Lords about them.
In conclusion, I should like to say that with the arrival of my honourable friend in the post of Minister for the Armed Forces—this point has been widely recognised in the House—the Government have increased dramatically the funds available for trying to get to the bottom of these matters, have accelerated the procedures of the MAP so that the waiting lists are much reduced and have greatly enhanced consultation with the veterans and their organisations and individual Members of this House. We are in no sense complacent. I shall certainly take away the messages that were left with me by noble Lords on both sides of the House. I can assure your Lordships that we have no intention of letting slip the momentum which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, was kind enough to acknowledge, we started last year.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for his comments. Perhaps I may ask him to pay particular attention in the replies that he will give to the numbers involved. I believe that to be very confused.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to do so.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): European Convention Rights
  Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): European Convention Rights
  Public Record Office Charges
  Public Record Office Charges
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Asthma
  Asthma
  Tobacco Advertising Draft Directive
  Tobacco Advertising Draft Directive
  COT: Advice
  COT: Advice
  COT: Vitamin B6
  COT: Vitamin B6
  V&A: Attendance Figures
  V&A: Attendance Figures
  National Museum Attendances
  National Museum Attendances
  European Union Regions
  European Union Regions
  Childcare Facilities: Westminster
  Childcare Facilities: Westminster
  Non-OP Sheep Dips: VPC Report
  Non-OP Sheep Dips: VPC Report
  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Group
  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Group
  BSE Inquiry: Members
  BSE Inquiry: Members
  Chocolate Products: Directive
  Chocolate Products: Directive
  ESRC: Research into Informal Economic Activities
  ESRC: Research into Informal Economic Activities
  Renewable Technologies
  Renewable Technologies
  New Deal Regulations
  New Deal Regulations
  Palace of Westminster: Childcare Facilities
  Palace of Westminster: Childcare Facilities
  Palace of Westminster: Childcare Vouchers
  Palace of Westminster: Childcare Vouchers
  Childcare Facilities in the House of Lords
  Childcare Facilities in the House of Lords
  General Affairs Council, 26–27 January
  General Affairs Council, 26–27 January
  European Union: Business and Events
  European Union: Business and Events
  BBC Monitoring Service: Funding
  BBC Monitoring Service: Funding
  Thameslink 2000 Project
  Thameslink 2000 Project
  Housing Provision
  Housing Provision
  Elderly: Housing Needs
  Elderly: Housing Needs
  Vacant Dwellings
  Vacant Dwellings
  "Combating Drink Driving—Next Steps"
  "Combating Drink Driving—Next Steps"
  Attack Helicopter: Training
  Attack Helicopter: Training
  Air Collision Study: Report
  Air Collision Study: Report
  Cultural Projects: EU Funding
  Cultural Projects: EU Funding
  Police Grant Allocations
  Police Grant Allocations