Sitting of 10 February 1998

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

  LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 17 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Europe-Asia Conference
  Mr. Hill: If he will make a statement on the agenda for discussion at the Europe-Asia (ASEM2) Conference to be held in London in April. [26427]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We look forward to holding the ASEM2 summit in London on 3 and 4 April, the first of its kind in Europe. The summit will give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a unique opportunity for wide-ranging, informal and productive discussions with 25 world leaders, representing countries that account for half the economy of the globe. We expect ASEM2 to discuss the financial turbulence in the region, measures to improve business and trade links and co-operation in response to environmental threats such as forest fires.
  Mr. Hill: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. As he has remarked, south-east Asia has gone through great political and economic turbulence in recent times, and he will be aware how important a growing and dynamic Pacific rim is for British exports. What steps is the Foreign Office taking to promote British exports to the region?
  Mr. Cook: I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that, when I was in the region last autumn, I lobbied successfully on behalf of British companies. We have ensured that a third of staff at our embassies in those posts are dedicated to commercial promotion work. As a result, they are winning orders for Britain.
  My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the financial turbulence in the area. We will undoubtedly discuss that issue at ASEM2, because we are well aware that that financial turbulence can have an impact on us.
  126
  That is precisely why Europe is one of the leading contributors of funds to ensure that we quell that turbulence and enable those countries to resume their growth trend.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Berry: What measures are included in the United Kingdom proposals for an EU code of conduct on arms sales to close loopholes on brokering and licensed production. [26428]
  Mr. Cohen: What measures are included in the United Kingdom proposals for an EU code of conduct on arms sales to close loopholes on brokering and licensed production. [26437]
  Mr. Robin Cook: The Government are currently considering the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Trafficking in Arms. We will announce our conclusions during this Session and will have particular regard to the legal loophole that permitted a UK company to broker the supply of small arms to Hutu extremists.
  The proposals for an EU code of conduct, which we have tabled jointly with France, deal with the export of arms produced domestically and therefore do not deal directly with the brokering of arms that are produced by a third country. I am pleased to tell the House that our proposed code of conduct has been well received throughout Europe and will ensure that all member states apply the same tough standards against the supply of small arms to countries that might use them to repress freedom.
  Mr. Berry: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he share the concerns of many people who responded to the Department of Trade and Industry consultation on the Scott report—which is two years old on Sunday—that UK export controls do not cover brokering and licensing arrangements? Will he confirm that some European countries have introduced controls that cover brokering: Germany, Netherlands and soon Belgium? Will he give further consideration to the inclusion of such controls in the UK's proposals for an EU code of conduct on arms exports?
  Mr. Cook: I would be very reluctant at this stage to go back to square one on the code of conduct. We have achieved agreement with the other major arms exporter in Europe—France. Those proposals have been circulated to all EU partners and have been overwhelmingly well received by them. I would therefore be reluctant to introduce new matter into the proposals, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are vigorously examining how we might respond nationally to the issue that he highlights. In the meantime, as he reminds me that we are approaching the second anniversary of the Scott report, may I say that we are determined to avoid the previous regime's experience in supplying export cover for arms and other equipment to the tune of £800 million, which is still unpaid by Saddam Hussein and has become a charge on the taxpayer.
  Mr. Cohen: Will my right hon. Friend take action to stop licensed production becoming a major loophole in

  127
  the European Union code of conduct on arms sales? Has he seen reports that the Nottingham-based company, Heckler and Koch, won a technology transfer contract to produce the latest assault rifles in Turkey, and similar rifles then found their way to Iran and the Sudan under the licensed production procedures? Is it not essential that licensed production is covered by an arms control export system that applies to both the United Kingdom and the European Union?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue, but in practical terms it is extremely complex and difficult to control the transfer of technology in the same way that we can license the physical export of weapons. Where licensed production takes place, we try to encourage an arrangement by which we have control over future exports and their end use.
  Mr. Wells: Would the proposed EU code of conduct prevent France from exporting arms to Iraq?
  Mr. Cook: The code of conduct that we are proposing is based on the rules that Britain adopted last summer. Under those rules, we could not export arms to Iraq. It is one of the great regrets of our history that the previous Government exported machine tools to Iraqi armaments manufacturers.
  Mr. Streeter: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the point about France. If, for example, under the code of conduct, a British company is refused a licence to supply a certain order for arms and a notice to that effect is circulated to all European partners as proposed by the code, what is to prevent the Government of another member state from interpreting the code of conduct in a different way and permitting a company in that member state to meet the order? Is not that precisely what happens in the real world, and what do the Government intend to do about it?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman rightly describes exactly what happened throughout the past 18 years under the previous Government, who made no attempt to establish a binding code of conduct. The code of conduct provides that any country contemplating taking up an order that another member state has refused must first notify that member state and then enter into dialogue with it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if any country proposed to take up a contract that we had denied, we would pursue the matter through all 14 member states.

  Algeria
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: What steps his Department has taken to reduce conflict and human rights abuses in Algeria. [26429]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We believe that in order to achieve progress in Algeria, we must keep the Algerians engaged in political dialogue, express our points of view to them and discuss their concerns and requirements. I led a European Union troika mission on 19 and 20 January 1998. The mission's report led to the conclusions that my
  128
  right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary announced after the General Affairs Council on 26 January. They have given us a sound base on which to build.
  Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that when the United Nations Commission on Human Rights meets in Geneva next month, human rights abuses in Algeria will be fully debated?
  Mr. Fatchett: It is important that there is a full debate on human rights in Algeria. During the troika mission we took the opportunity time and again to say to the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Algeria that we wished for greater openness and transparency on those issues. We urged the Algerians to invite the United Nations special rapporteurs, but unfortunately they declined to do so. We continue to maintain pressure in that direction. We believe that it is important that Algeria invites the special rapporteurs.
  Mr. Faber: In view of the Government's ethical foreign policy, has the Minister had a chance to reconsider his views of 19 November, when he said that the situation in Algeria was an internal problem? Is he aware that Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed exactly the opposite view, saying that human rights had no international borders and that the international community should seek to end such violence? Does he now share her views, and if he does, should not the Government propose more concrete action during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union?
  Mr. Fatchett: It is difficult to understand where the hon. Gentleman has been over the past month. The simple fact is that, under Britain's presidency, the European Union has taken action. We sent a troika mission to Algeria. The United Kingdom is the first country to have taken such an initiative. Rather than complaining, it is about time that the hon. Gentleman applauded the Government for the action that they have taken.
  Ann Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is overwhelming evidence from human rights organisations that Algerian generals use torture as an instrument of rule, and that no one believes that the 80,000 victims of the war have been killed by only one side?
  Mr. Fatchett: That is why we urge the Algerian Government to be more open and transparent, and therefore to be more accountable, on human rights issues. That is also why we urge them to invite United Nations special rapporteurs. We think that that is the right way of dealing with all the fears and innuendos that there may be about Algeria's record. We will continue to make that argument to them.

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth: What assessment he has made of progress of negotiations in Sudan. [26432]
  Mr. Fatchett: The resumption of peace negotiations—on 30 October, in Kenya—between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army under the

  129
  sponsorship of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development is a significant step forward in the search for peace in Sudan and an end to the suffering of the Sudanese people. We understand that the negotiations focused on the two central issues of self-determination and the relationship between state and religion. Unfortunately, the talks were suspended on 11 November and are due to resume in April.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's response. With him, I welcome movement in the negotiations but regret their suspension. Does he agree that there is also need for the Government to try to develop Sudan's infrastructure—particularly in the southern, western and northern parts of Sudan—and to ensure that aid sent by aid organisations outwith the country get to the places for which it was designed?
  Mr. Fatchett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for that infrastructure development and a need to ensure that aid reaches those who are desperately in need. The best circumstances in which we can achieve those objectives will be achieved by ensuring that there is a peace settlement between the warring parties, which is why we have supported and will continue to support the IGAD initiatives.
  Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister seen today's report by the charity Christian Solidarity International stating that tens of thousands of Christian children are held as slaves in northern Sudan? Is it not in itself a tragedy that the wars in that country, which have killed more people than have died in Rwanda, are unknown because they have not been observed by television cameras? Is it not time that we acted, in so far as we can, to use our influence in the area to establish peace and elementary standards of human rights?
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the events which he describes and which have been described by various organisations are a tragedy. The holding of young children by forces in the north of Sudan is more than a tragedy—it is an evil practice which I am sure that every hon. Member will condemn. I assure him that, through IGAD, we will do all that we can to help the peace negotiation process, which is crucial for everyone living in Sudan.

  Citizenship
  Dr. Tonge: If he will make a statement on the review his Department is currently undertaking into British citizenship for the people of British dependencies. [26433]
  Mr. Robin Cook: Last week, I announced the progress on our review of the dependent territories. We propose to improve their administration through a single specialist department, to require of them the highest standards of financial regulations and observance of international obligations on human rights, and to rename them UK overseas territories. We have also announced that the Government are exploring the possibility of granting British citizenship to all the citizens of those overseas territories who do not already have it. We are examining
  130
  the matter sympathetically and urgently. We are currently in discussion on all elements of that package with the Governments of the overseas territories.
  Dr. Tonge: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government are doing everything possible to persuade the dependent territories to amend their laws against homosexuality? Is he aware that, in October, a written answer from the Foreign Office assured me that the Governments of the dependent territories had received an instruction to review their laws on homosexuality, yet in January the Office of the Governor of the Cayman Islands said that it had heard about the communique but not received anything officially? Have the Government contacted the dependent territories on the issue or not?
  Mr. Cook: First, I encourage the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to use the new term of overseas territories. The term dependent territories does not do justice to the territories' very strong economies and self-government. That is why we propose to rename them.
  On the particular human rights point, I singled out the issue of corporal and capital punishment in my speech to the Dependent Territories Association, which we shall be consulting. I also stressed the need to ensure that the territories' laws fully conform with international obligations, which will require some—not all—to address their statute on homosexuality.
  Ms Abbott: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that his speech at the dependent territories conference last week was widely appreciated by representatives of the territories that attended. On the question of nationality, does he agree that we are talking only about 180,000 people? The largest single territory, Bermuda, has only 60,000 people, none of whom are likely to want to leave their very high standard of living to come here. Overseas territories simply want help with access to education and an end to the humiliation of black politicians and white politicians having to go through different channels at Heathrow airport. Does he recognise that it would be widely appreciated outside the House, as a graceful gesture as we approach the millennium, if citizenship were granted to overseas territories citizens?
  Mr. Cook: I think that I would be wise to welcome my hon. Friend's appreciation while it is available. I fully agree with what she has just said. She slightly overstates the number of people concerned, because citizenship is already available to the citizens of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. That of course gives rise to some sensitivity in other territories of a different racial mix. She also rightly identified two points of great irritation to the citizens of dependent territories: when they come to Britain they have to go through the "other nationality" channel, and if they go to Europe, they need a visa. I hope that it will be possible for us to remove those irritations.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In the light of the Foreign Secretary's answer, what assurance can he give that such treatment will be consistent with the handling of the people of Hong Kong?
  Mr. Cook: Our proposal is to improve the consistency of treatment of citizens of overseas territories. At present,

  131
  two territories have citizenship and the rest do not. Our proposal provides even-handed and consistent treatment for all our remaining overseas territories. Those who still represent or live in our overseas territories find it hard to be told that they cannot have citizenship because of what were the rules for Hong Kong, but now it is no longer a dependent territory.

  Middle East
  Mr. Jim Marshall: if he will make a statement on his Department' s assessment of likely progress on the middle east peace process. [26435]
  Mr. Robin Cook: We believe strongly that the best hope for progress towards a lasting peace in the middle east is through the current process, based on the Oslo agreements and the principle of land for peace. In particular, we believe that significant and credible Israeli troop redeployments from the west bank and an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank are essential to restore confidence. We shall continue to work for an outcome that offers peace with security to the Israeli people and peace with justice to the Palestinian people.
  Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I push him a little further? Does he agree that Israel should comply fully with international agreements, into which it freely entered some years ago, and with successive United Nations resolutions on the middle east? Does he further agree that, if Israel were to do that, it would not only progress the middle east peace process but make it easy for Arab states which wish to support further action against Saddam Hussein to do so?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the read-across in the minds of the population of many Arab countries between the current confrontation in Iraq and the stalemate in the middle east peace process. To ensure that we are not vulnerable to any charge of double standards, and for the sake of peace in the middle east, it is important that we are robust in insisting that the terms of the Oslo accords are carried out. I therefore assure him that we shall continue to condemn any breach of the Oslo accords. In particular, we call on the Government of Israel to honour the agreement entered into by the previous Israeli Government, which, because it has the force of a treaty, is binding on successor Governments.
  Mr. Flight: What information, if any, does the Foreign Secretary have on the production of biological and chemical weapons in other parts of the near east? I am thinking in particular of Syria and Libya, which are a factor in the stability of the area and the peace treaty.
  Mr. Cook: I am not aware of such production in Syria. Libya, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is also subject to very tight sanctions, one of the aims of which is to ensure that there is no possibility of that country developing any chemical or biological weapons.
  Mr. Wyatt: Can my right hon. Friend say what new European initiatives to push forward the middle east peace process will be made during Britain's presidency of the European Union?
  Mr. Cook: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the European Union is the major provider of funds to the
  132
  peace process. During Britain's presidency, we shall consider how we roll forward that budget to ensure that we continue to support the peace process practically. In particular, we shall look for initiatives to boost confidence in the middle east and address the economic problems of the Palestinian authority, perhaps through supporting the Gaza sea port and airport. I shall visit the middle east next month to take forward those initiatives.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it not clear that an overwhelming obstacle to the peace process—indeed, one that causes the most offence to the Palestinian people—is the Israeli Government's persistent breaches of international law on settlements? If the Government, and those of us who support them in their attitude to Saddam Hussein and his breaches of international law, are to carry any credibility, must not we be even-handed in our condemnation of other countries in the middle east that so obviously breach the principles of international law?
  Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. We have done precisely what he says—only last week in the middle east, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), condemned the settlement programme and the expansion of the settlements. The Israeli Government should be under no illusion: whatever they gain in domestic opinion, they lose in international opinion by jeopardising the peace process.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Palestinian demonstrations in support of Saddam Hussein that took place over the weekend will not help the cause of peace, as they intensify the anxieties about security of those Israelis who genuinely want peace for land? Given that the memory of the 39 Iraqi Scud missiles that landed on Israeli towns is still uppermost in Israeli citizens' minds, will my right hon. Friend call on the Palestine National Authority to act responsibly, just as he rightly calls on the Israeli Government to act responsibly?
  Mr. Cook: We would welcome support for our position on Iraq from any quarter, including the Palestinian authority. I agree that the Israeli people are fully entitled to be secure and to feel that their safety is catered for in any peace settlement. It is also important that we remember that those who voted for the current Israeli Government did not vote for a suspension of the peace process; they voted for peace with security. Unless the Palestinian people are offered peace with justice, there can be no peace with security.
  Mr. Howard: The Foreign Secretary has not told us what action he has taken under Britain's presidency to help break the logjam. Will his third planned visit to the middle east, which is due to take place next month, be cancelled as the other two were? Does he accept, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggested, that the logjam in the peace process is hindering and complicating any action to solve the situation in Iraq? Will he impress that on the Government of Israel, with all the status of his presidency of the European Union Council of Foreign Ministers?
  Mr. Cook: Just for the record, one of those visits was cancelled because of religious holidays in the middle east

  133
  and the other because of the previous Iraqi crisis. To respond to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points about the presidency—[Interruption.] If the House will allow me to deal with the question, I can tell him that we had a discussion on the middle east peace process at the last meeting of the General Affairs Council and as a result I have been in close contact with Madeleine Albright. We anticipate that we may have a freer and closer access to the American-brokered initiatives on the peace process. As part of that, we are producing our own complementary measures on the Gaza sea port and airport, to which I referred.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust comments about Prime Minister Netanyahu at the weekend? There is a problem as far as the Netanyahu Government are concerned. On the one hand, the Ministry of the Interior is allowing 132 housing units to be built in Ras al-Amud and on the other, the security service is trying to suggest that the Palestinians will complain about that simply to cause problems in the area. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn any attempts to build on the Ras al-Amud area of Jerusalem?
  Mr. Cook: I am very happy to condemn that, and to repeat the statement made by the Minister of State, who did exactly that in the middle east. The Government of Israel are in no doubt as to our views and the overwhelming views of the international community. If they want to return to the peace process, they have to abide by the interim agreements, which means ending the expansion of the settlements and the closure programme, which interrupts the free passage of the Palestinian people.

  Recruitment Policies
  Mr. Hawkins: What plans he has to change the recruitment policies of his Department. [26436]
  Mr. Ruffley: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the appointment of non-career civil servants. [26448]
  Mr. Fatchett: Recruitment to civil service appointments must follow the civil service commissioners' recruitment code. We are working to make the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a more open and diverse organisation representative of modern Britain. We have appointed Mr. Linbert Spencer as an adviser on minority ethnic issues to help promote the FCO as an attractive career opportunity for members of minority ethnic groups. Separately, we have established a short-term business attachment scheme to strengthen our export promotion efforts by placing secondees from business into posts overseas.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister and various other Labour Front-Bench spokesmen both before and after the election were fond of making portentous statements about the rights of women in the work force. In the light of those, will the Foreign Office now release the ban on Anne Bullen responding to the outrageous attacks on her by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and their spin doctors?
  134
  In the light of the Foreign Secretary's recent answer, is not it clear that to avoid religious holidays in the middle east, he probably needs yet another diary secretary?
  Mr. Fatchett: Given what I have read in the newspapers, I am not sure that there is any ban on Anne Bullen—she seems to have been quite vocal. If anyone had been watching the response to my earlier answer, they would have seen one of the reasons why the modern Conservative party is unelectable. As soon as I mentioned the needs of the ethnic minority communities, all that Conservative Members could do was to find it amusing. It is a serious issue, and I do not treat that section of our community with contempt.
  Mr. Ruffley: Does the Minister now accept that, if an individual from outside the civil service is being considered for a post within his Department, any personal involvement with any Minister should be declared at the first opportunity? If he accepts that principle, can he explain why the Foreign Secretary did not follow it in the case of Mrs. Gaynor Regan.
  Mr. Fatchett: All those issues were explained in full last week. I find it wholly depressing that a modern opposition party—I understand why it is in opposition—cannot deal with important issues of state. Opposition Members stay in the gutter and they have got even lower than the gutter in some of their questions. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues were special advisers to previous Conservative Governments—I wonder how they were appointed.
  Mr. Gerrard: Does my hon. Friend accept that, to those of us who represent constituencies with significant numbers of ethnic minority constituents, it is no laughing matter that people from those communities have been shut off for so long from jobs in the civil service, especially jobs at its higher levels? Will he tell us what his Department is doing to put that right and to ensure that at the top level, including that of ambassadors, we have people who are representative of the communities that we represent?
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend asks a valid question. One of our reasons for appointing Linbert Spencer is so that we have help and advice on those issues. I look forward to the day when British ambassadors throughout the world truly reflect the multiracial and multi-ethnic nature of modern Britain.
  Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on broadening the scope of recruitment, and especially on the temporary secondments from business. However, will he do more in terms of getting business acumen around the world to open up our embassies and make them more approachable and accessible? Will he also expand the policy to bring in senior local authority officers and academics, as adding such people to our permanent foreign service could bring nothing but gain?
  Mr. Fatchett: The short-term business attachment scheme is working well. There has been substantial private sector interest, which shows the extent and depth of the partnership between private industry and the new Labour Government. We shall continue to develop the

  135
  scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend that bringing in expertise and experience is extremely useful to the Foreign Office.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: When I was a very young man, Anthony Eden said to me that he thought that attacks ad hominem in the House were nearly always a mistake. Would not the institution that we are proud to serve do itself far more credit if hon. Members on both sides of the House abandoned them?
  Mr. Fatchett: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point remarkably well. I suspect that he read the Hansard report of last Wednesday's Adjournment debate and realised that his party had shot itself in the foot on that occasion.

  Brazil (State Visit)
  Mr. Blizzard: If he will make a statement on the recent state visit of the President of Brazil. [26438]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): The state visit by the President of Brazil was a significant milestone in the steady strengthening of UK-Brazil relations in recent years. The clear, highest-level commitment to the further development of our relations was demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Cardoso in signing a joint action plan identifying key areas for future co-operation.
  Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply; it is clear that relations between Brazil and Britain are the best they have been for many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a reflection of the consolidation of democracy in Brazil, where the President was freely elected with more than 50 per cent. of the vote, and of the tremendous trading opportunities between our two countries, with each seeing the other as the gateway to a larger market—the European Union in Europe and Mercosur in south America? In view of that and of the fact that Brazil's is the seventh largest economy in the world, would my hon. Friend consider making an official visit to Brazil in the near future? Would he also be willing to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a bilateral official visit to that country, the first bilateral official visit to Brazil ever made by a British Prime Minister?
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is important steadily to build relations with Brazil, because it is a large country with a huge potential export market for our manufacturers. As part of our export forum programme, an export forum will be established in Brazil to try to boost that trade.
  The question of a prime ministerial visit is a matter for the Prime Minister, and he no doubt discussed that with the President of Brazil. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who normally deals with such matters, has already been to Brazil and visited his counterpart. He has also received his counterpart here, as the beginning of the process of building relationships.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Following the most successful and welcome visit by His Excellency the President of Brazil

  136
  to this country, will the present Government continue the "link up with Latin America" programme of the Department of Trade and Industry, sponsored by the previous Administration, with particular emphasis on the Mercosur countries of Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil—of course—and, last but not least, Chile, which is associated with Mercosur? All those countries have economies that have greatly reformed and offer remarkable opportunities for British business.
  Mr. Henderson: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we build trade links throughout south America. Huge and increasing markets are potentially available to our manufacturers, and democracy is increasingly becoming established in those countries. I met the Foreign Ministers of Mercosur in New York in September and many of those issues were under discussion. I hope that we will continue to press them.
  Mr. Corbyn: During the meetings with the representatives of Brazil, did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss the rapid deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest and the problems that that poses for the world's climate and environment? Did he also have an opportunity to discuss the denial of human rights to many of the indigenous people of the Amazonian rain forest, who have seen their land and rivers polluted by illegal mining activities, often conducted with western finance and by western companies?
  Mr. Henderson: Those matters were discussed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he visited Brazil and when he received the Foreign Minister here. My hon. Friend took up the question as part of the dialogue. The need to help the Brazilian Government to realign their agricultural industry was also part of those discussions and we are currently involved in a bilateral agreement with the Brazilians to the sum of £16 million. We have given them £6.5 million in aid to help the diversification process, and we hope that that will benefit the environment.

  Geneva Conventions
  Ms Ryan: If he will make a statement on the ratification of the additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva conventions. [26441]
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I am pleased to say that we have ratified the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), announced that to the House in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on 28 January.
  Ms Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What measures will the Government take to ensure that that ratification is genuinely meaningful in practice?
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Foreign Office will of course undertake continual monitoring of those matters. On the same day the protocols were signed, the Government announced a £5.8 million aid scheme to the International Red Cross, and part of its endeavours include ensuring that those protocols are adhered to.

  Diary Secretary
  Dr. Julian Lewis: If he informed his officials of his relationship with his nominee for the post of diary secretary when he proposed her for that post. [26442]
  Mr. Robin Cook: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I think I know which question the hon. Gentleman is asking.
  As I have already told the House on 29 January, no. I myself concluded that, in view of my relationship with Ms Regan, it would not be right to appoint her as my diary secretary. The nominee for the post was then chosen by officials from career civil servants through normal routine procedures. What has happened in this case is that a personal appointment under the previous Government has been replaced by a public appointment under this Government.
  Dr. Lewis: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. On reflection, does he realise that, if he had chosen to confide in his officials, it would not have taken him nine days to come to the blindingly obvious conclusion that what he was proposing was an unethical policy for someone in his position in the Foreign Office?
  Mr. Cook: During those nine days, I attended the intergovernmental conference in Noordwijk, I attended the formation of the NATO-Russia Joint Permanent Council in Paris and I attended the Sintra meeting on Bosnia. I know that the hon. Member and some of his colleagues have spent the past 19 days doing nothing but think about my diary secretary, but I have to say that Foreign Secretaries often find other things to work on in nine days as well.
  Mr. Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position of diary secretary in any organisation, especially in government, is an extremely important political position, the occupant of which must have the total confidence of the person for whom they are working? In those circumstances, does he agree that it would be very unusual, if not ridiculous, to have an active Conservative, appointed by a political appointee of a previous Government, continuing and working for a Labour Foreign Secretary of an incoming Government?
  Mr. Cook: Miss Bullen was recruited by the previous Foreign Secretary, from a post where she was working as personal assistant to a Tory peer who had been formerly a Minister in a Tory Government. She was appointed by a totally exceptional method, by Order in Council. What is especially regrettable is that she was appointed in preference to three career civil servants who had applied for the job.
  Mr. Howard: Was anything said to the right hon. Gentleman between 21 and 30 May that had any bearing on the decision not to appoint Gaynor Regan as his diary secretary?
  Mr. Cook: Absolutely nothing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman persists under the fantasy that MI5, the permanent secretary or the Prime Minister were involved. Nothing was said to me that altered my own personal judgment. If I may say to the right hon. and
  138
  learned Gentleman, as he is notorious for having dismissed Derek Lewis, the Director General of the Prison Service, at a cost to the taxpayer of £300,000, in view of his expensive track record a period of silence from him would be welcome.

  Iraq
  Mr. Viggers: If he will list the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to support the effectiveness of UN weapon inspection teams in Iraq. [26443]
  Mr. Robin Cook: The UK is one of the main providers of specialist personnel to the United Nations Special Commission. We have been at the forefront of measures both in New York and in the Gulf to press Saddam to grant UNSCOM the full access required by Security Council resolutions, which is essential if UNSCOM is to carry out its work effectively. Later today, I shall make a further statement on Iraq.
  Mr. Viggers: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, whereas everyone understands that high-technology nuclear weapons pose a threat to the world population, many may find it difficult to realise that a small jar of biological agent can similarly kill millions of people? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the possession of chemical and biological weapons by Saddam Hussein, and his continued flouting of Security Council resolution 687, poses a threat to world stability, and will he use all diplomatic channels to seek to ensure that we now have full support for taking any measures necessary to ensure that resolution 687 is accepted?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Member is correct in everything that he says. Saddam Hussein has the capacity to produce 200 tonnes of the VX nerve agent. If he had the means to deliver it, that would be sufficient to wipe out human life from the planet. It is very important for us, therefore—not only for the countries immediately adjacent to Iraq—that every possible diplomatic pressure, and the clear resolve to use military force if necessary, is applied to ensure that he is not left in possession of such an arsenal of tenor. After all, he has already used nerve gas against his own people, in Halabja 10 years ago. He is perfectly capable of using it against the people of other countries.
  Ms Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what are at stake are not only the policy objectives of the United Kingdom and the United States but the authority of the United Nations? We have a stark choice: either we agree to face up to evil dictatorship and support the United Nations or we turn our back on ever trying to achieve human rights and world peace.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct. This is not a confrontation between the UK and the US and Iraq; this is a confrontation between the United Nations and Iraq—and if Iraq were to win in this confrontation, the UN and the Security Council would have no authority in any future confrontation against any future dictator.
  Mr. Amess: What recent representations he has received on the position of Kuwaiti nationals held in Iraq. [26444]
  Mr. Fatchett: We take a keen interest in the issue of Kuwaiti detainees and play an active role in the tripartite

  139
  commission. We continue to insist that Iraq provide full information on the whereabouts of the detainees. We assume that Saddam Hussein's recent offer to release Arab prisoners will include the more than 600 Kuwaiti detainees held in Iraq since the Gulf war. That would at last mean the end of their seven-year ordeal.
  Mr. Amess: Notwithstanding his comments and in light of the Government's professed ethical foreign policy, does the Minister agree that the release of 600 Kuwaiti civilians—many of whom are women and children—held as prisoners of war in Iraq should be made a condition of removing sanctions, in addition to allowing the United Nations Special Commission's work of examining and destroying chemical and biological weapons?
  Mr. Fatchett: The detainees' fate underlines the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others during the exchange on the previous question. We know the record of Saddam Hussein as a dictator and the threat that he represents to others. We shall certainly continue to work through the tripartite commission to make the return of the Kuwaiti detainees to their families in Kuwait a priority. There is no question of that not being in line with an ethical foreign policy: there is nothing more ethical than ensuring that those detainees are returned to their families. We shall work towards that objective, which I am sure everyone shares.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Martlew: What assessment he has made of the impact of the current financial turbulence in Asia on his Department's export promotion work; and if he will make a statement. [26445]
  Mr. Fatchett: It is too early to say what the full impact of the current financial turbulence in Asia will be on British companies doing business in the region. We shall continue to provide the full range of overseas trade services. We are confident that, with full implementation of the necessary policy reforms, Asia's impressive growth performance will continue over the medium term and that there will be excellent opportunities for British companies.
  Mr. Martlew: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that this is a glitch in the Asian countries and that there will be continued growth in the region? What efforts have the British Government made to ensure that British exporters can take advantage of the situation in those Asian countries when their economies improve?
  Mr. Fatchett: We have urged the Asian countries that have been affected by the financial turbulence to take the measures urged on them by the International Monetary Fund. We feel that there is a need for greater transparency, accountability and openness in financial markets, and those countries are now taking heed of the programmes. We have worked hard alongside other countries to assist the IMF efforts.
  As to the long-term future of British exports, we continue to see the Asian market as viable and vibrant and, through our overseas trade services, we shall certainly assist all British companies.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: As one of those recovering from a hard night at the Brit awards, I urge the Minister to continue to work with the music industry to ensure that its exports to Asia remain as buoyant as they have been in recent years. Will he work with his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and at the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that intellectual property is protected? One of the greatest threats to our music industry exports is the thieving of intellectual property, which is still carried out by one or two leading Asian countries.
  Mr. Fatchett: It is good to see that the hon. Gentleman is dry after his night out at the Brit awards—I understand that, in terms of his politics, he is not always held in that regard by his colleagues.
  We recognise the important role that the music industry plays in British exports, and we have talked on many occasions about the successes of British groups around the world. Britain's cultural exports now account for about £10 billion a year. We shall certainly continue to promote them, as they are important to the image and the long-term success of the British economy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we understand the importance of British intellectual property rights and we shall continue to work hard to ensure that those rights are guaranteed.

  Foreign and Security Issues
  Mr. Coaker: When he last met his European Union counterparts to discuss common foreign and security issues. [26446]
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I met my counterparts at the General Affairs Council on 26 January.
  Mr. Coaker: Will my hon. Friend outline the progress that has been made by the EU Foreign Ministers in achieving a peace agreement in Bosnia? The area has gone out of the news recently, with attention understandably focused on Iraq, but the situation in Bosnia is none the less serious, and we must do all we can to bring about a speedy resolution.
  Mr. Henderson: I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything that we can to continue to press for settlement of the various issues in Bosnia. At the General Affairs Council on 26 January we took an initiative two weeks after President Dodic's new Government was elected in the Republika Srpska to give the country some assistance from council funds to enable it to reinforce its democracy. Specifically, we gave it 6 million ecu to help the payment of public servants, which is essential if a civic society is to be established.
  Mr. Colvin: Does the Minister agree that membership of the European Union carries with it a mutual security obligation, although no guarantee? Does he therefore agree that, for the countries of central and eastern Europe, enlargement of the EU is as important to their security as enlargement of NATO?
  Mr. Henderson: I think the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of economic and social links. Regardless of any arrangements that they may make through NATO or any other organisation for their security, many of the

  141
  countries in central and eastern Europe recognise that full membership of the European Union brings economic and social stability, which provides security for their nations.

  Israel
  Mr. Eric Clarke: If he will make a statement on Israeli settlement expansion in the west bank. [26447]
  Mr. Robin Cook: The EU position on settlement building in the occupied territories is clear. It is both illegal under international law, and damaging to the peace process. The building of settlements pre-empts final status talks and destroys hard-won trust between Israelis and Palestinians.
  Mr. Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation there is critical and is inhibiting a peaceful settlement? I was delighted to hear this afternoon your previous statement on the matter, and I give you full support—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak through the Chair. I think the Foreign Secretary has got the question—a very complimentary one, which I am sure he can answer.
  Mr. Cook: As I understand it, I have my hon. Friend's support, as well as his question. I fully share his concern on the matter.
  Two issues of great concern to the Palestinian people arise from the Ras al-Amud development—first, the illegal continuing occupation and building of settlements on territory occupied by military force; and, secondly, the longer-term implications for Jerusalem, as it appears to be part of a strategy to make sure that Jerusalem does not continue to be a mixed city with a division between the two peoples there. For those reasons it is very important, if Israel wants the peace process to proceed, that it halts that particular expansion and refrains from all further settlement development.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: There is no doubt that the expansion of Israeli settlements on the west bank and elsewhere is impeding the peace process in the middle east. Bearing in mind the exceptional relationship that exists between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States, and the fact that, through its funding of Israel, the United States is undoubtedly contributing to the expansion of the settlements, what action is the Foreign Secretary prepared to take to bring pressure on the Government of the United States to influence what is going on in Israel?
  Mr. Cook: I discuss the middle east peace process at least every second day with my opposite number in the
  142
  United States, the Secretary of State. I entirely and thoroughly endorse her call on the Government of Israel to take time out from settlement building. During Mr. Netanyahu's recent visit to the United States, President Clinton made perfectly clear the impatience of the United States at gestures that make it more difficult to take forward the peace process.
  The hon. Gentleman raises the very real financial and economic consequences of doing that. Israel has prospered well from the peace process and the extra investment that peace and stability attracted. Israel has more to lose than anyone else if that peace and stability now appear to be at risk.

  Iraq
  Mr. Savidge: What assessment he has made of the welfare of children in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [26449]
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: What assessment he has made of the welfare of children in Iraq, and if he will make a statement. [26455]
  Mr. Fatchett: The children of Iraq have suffered enormously at the hands of a ruthless dictator who cares nothing for their welfare. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we are concerned for their plight. We have provided £94 million in aid to the people of Iraq since 1991, much of which has been specifically targeted towards projects for children. Our co-sponsorship of oil-for-food resolutions has ensured that food and medical supplies reach all Iraqi people. We welcome the recent recommendations of the Secretary-General that the oil-for-food programme be expanded. That will also help to improve the situation for all vulnerable groups in Iraq.
  Mr. Savidge: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the estimate that some 1 million under-fives are underfed, it is obscene that Saddam Hussein should have squandered some $1,000 million on building luxury palaces for himself, and it is dishonest that he should have sought to put the blame on United Nations sanctions?
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes a strong and valid point. In many of the comments that we hear about the current crisis, one of the grotesque ironies is the fact that Saddam Hussein has argued about access to what may be 40 presidential palaces. At a time when, because of his own actions, his own people have been suffering, a dictator has no moral right to indulge in luxury for himself and to build palaces in those numbers. Saddam Hussein's record speaks for itself. Again, my hon. Friend makes the point on why we have to ensure total access to the United Nations inspectors.

Iraq
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Madam Speaker, at the end of last week I visited the Gulf and held meetings with leading figures in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. With your permission, I should like to share with the House the three key points that they made. First, they have real fears about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to their region. Secondly, like ourselves, they would prefer a diplomatic solution. But lastly, if Saddam does not accept the diplomatic initiatives that have been offered to him, as Prince Saud said, it is the Iraqi regime that will bear responsibility for the consequences. I agree with them on all three counts.
On the first point, there is no room for doubt over the scale of Saddam's chemical or biological capability, nor over his repeated attempts to conceal it. Last week, I published a paper setting out the statistics of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and documenting his persistent deception.
Saddam claimed that he had only 650 litres of anthrax. The figure turned out to be 8,400 litres. He continues to have the capability to manufacture enough extra anthrax to fill two more warheads every week. One such warhead could depopulate an entire city. Saddam also has programmes to produce at least three other germ agents.
Saddam claimed that his VX nerve gas programme had ended in failure. The truth turned out to be that he has the capability to produce 200 tonnes of the VX agent. One drop of it is enough to kill. Ten years ago next month, Saddam used chemical weapons to kill 5,000 Iraqi citizens at Halabja. He also used them against fellow Muslims in his war with Iran. He will not scruple to use them again.
As Richard Butler, the executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission has noted, Saddam
"avoids answering questions and prevents UNSCOM from finding the answers."
In the past nine months he has delayed or denied access to four out of five sites where UNSCOM believed concealment was taking place.
The UN inspectors are our only guarantee that Saddam will not fulfil his ambition to acquire the weapons that could wipe out whole cities. However, that guarantee is of little value if they are not allowed to carry out effective inspections of the sites where they suspect chemical or biological weapons, or vital information on them, are concealed.
We also agree with our allies in the Gulf that it would be better if we could resolve this confrontation by diplomatic means. That is why Britain took the lead in proposing to the Security Council and our partners a new resolution condemning Saddam' s repeated obstruction of UNSCOM' s work. That approach has received widespread support among Council members. Japan has offered to co-sponsor the resolution.
We are also in close touch with the attempts at diplomatic mediation by Russia, France and the Arab League. Saddam has a history of backing down under pressure, and we welcome the recent signs that Iraq is ready to consider a diplomatic solution. However, I have to say to the House that, as yet, the proposals coming out of Baghdad fall well short of our requirement that any
144
agreement should be convincing and should enable UNSCOM to resume its work without restrictions, without deadlines and without any no-go sites. While we want a peaceful solution, an outcome that left him able to develop chemical and biological weapons would make it only too likely that the peace of the region would be broken again by Saddam himself.
Our quarrel is with Saddam Hussein, not with the Iraqi people. We support the territorial integrity of Iraq and would like to see it rejoin the international community. Meanwhile, we are at the forefront of the diplomatic efforts to bring relief to the Iraqi people. We have led the negotiations at the UN to more than double the oil-for-food programme. We are the second largest donor of humanitarian aid to Iraq. There are no sanctions against food or medicine. It is Saddam, not the UN, who has decided to use his resources to construct presidential palaces for himself and to create weapons of mass destruction for his regional ambitions, rather than to purchase food and medicine for his people.
Finally, we agree with our major Gulf allies that, if diplomacy fails, the responsibility for the consequences will rest solely on Saddam. The best prospect for a diplomatic solution is to leave Saddam in no doubt of our resolve that, if he persists in his ambition to develop chemical and biological arsenals, we will not allow him to continue. He would be making a major miscalculation if he mistook our reluctance to use force for a lack of determination to use it if necessary. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support that clear and firm message to Saddam.
Mr. Michael Howard: The House will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the situation in Iraq in full in the near future. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I have consistently made clear, we support the Government in their efforts to ensure that Saddam Hussein respects the will of the UN and the world community. We agree that he cannot be allowed to flout Security Council resolutions—to which he himself agreed—with impunity. We agree that every diplomatic avenue must be pursued, but that if diplomacy fails, it would be right to contemplate military action.
We have also said consistently that the military action must have a clear objective. Last Monday in this House—and again on the radio this morning—the Foreign Secretary said that the objective of any military action was to ensure that the UNSCOM inspectors could complete their task. Last Friday in Washington—with the Prime Minister beside him—President Clinton said that the objective was to reduce Saddam's ability to use weapons of mass destruction against his neighbours. On Sunday, the Secretary of State for Defence was talking about the risks to the survival of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Is there not a danger that those different descriptions of the objectives will lead to uncertainty and confusion? Do we not owe it to the British service men and women whose lives may be put at risk to spell out a clear objective and to stick to it?
On the Security Council resolution to which the Foreign Secretary referred, could he tell us a little more about what it is intended to achieve? Is it the Government's position that resolution 687 provides

145
sufficient authority for military action? What would be the effect on any such military action of the presence of Turkish troops in Iraq?
Finally, could the Foreign Secretary tell us a little more about the attempts that he has made, as President of the European Union Council of Foreign Ministers, to secure a consensus in the European Union on this question? Does not the complete absence of any such consensus illustrate yet again the emptiness of ambitions to develop a common foreign and defence policy in Europe?
Mr. Cook: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, we are well aware of the acute interest in this matter in the House and of the importance of ensuring that the House has adequate opportunities to debate these issues. I am consulting the Leader of the House and the usual channels about what might be an appropriate day for such a debate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly correct to draw attention to the fact that Saddam Hussein agreed to the UNSCOM regime, and accepted the inspection provided for in those resolutions. It was part of the ceasefire agreement to which he signed up. To take one of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's later points, there is therefore adequate authority already in that ceasefire agreement and in those resolutions.
It is nevertheless very important that we demonstrate that it is the international community that condemns Saddam Hussein's repeated violation of those resolutions. It is therefore important that the Security Council, on behalf of the international community, registers its criticism and rejection of Saddam Hussein's behaviour, and calls on him to abandon his plans to develop chemical and biological arsenals.
I see no conflict between what I have said and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman quotes from the Prime Minister. The objective is, indeed, to achieve compliance with the Security Council resolutions and to deny Saddam Hussein his ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction. Much the most effective way of doing that would be for the UNSCOM regime to be allowed to return to work. To increase the pressure for that to happen, we have made it perfectly plain that we have the resolve, if necessary, to use military force. If we cannot achieve an agreement by which UNSCOM can effectively hinder Saddam from developing chemical and biological weapons, military force will be applied to ensure that what UNSCOM inspectors cannot achieve can be achieved by direct action, so that Saddam is not left with arsenals of terror with which he could then seek to bully his neighbours.
I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, at a time of immense international crisis, chose to make his own point about European policy. For the record, I have to say that he is behind the times. We are in close and continuous contact with the Government of France, and only this weekend Chancellor Kohl made it perfectly clear that he is willing to back and support us.
Mr. Donald Anderson: May I avoid the textual analysis and the anti-European swipe by the right hon. Learned Member for Folkestone Hythe (Mr. Howard) and deal with the question of weapons inspectors? Clearly, the only real guarantee of the implementation of Security Council resolution 687 is
146
effective and competent weapons inspectors. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to pack the jury by picking and choosing whom he wants in that team. Nevertheless, is it not important to show our reasonableness by responding to the appeals of many other countries and trying to ensure a greater spread of nationalities among those inspectors?
Mr. Cook: The present teams cover a large number of countries. Indeed, the last team to which Saddam Hussein took particular exception consisted of 44 inspectors from 17 different countries. It is wrong to suggest that a team containing members from 17 UN countries is dominated by one or two countries. We would welcome additional inspectors from other countries if they chose to take part in the exercise, if only because Britain pays for its own inspectors and therefore carries a share of the direct financial burden of the exercise. Inspectors must be effective, knowledgeable and capable of communicating in the common language of UNSCOM, which is English. We have no difficulty constructing an UNSCOM-plus, but we shall not settle for any outcome that gives us an UNSCOM-minus.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I commend the terms of the Secretary of State's statement, which was balanced, firm and inherently logical. When he was making it, did it occur to him that it is symptomatic of Saddam Hussein's deception and obstructionism that, seven years after the end of the Gulf war, he has not yet fulfilled the terms and conditions of the peace settlement that he undertook? Had he done so, the condition of the children in his country might have been much improved. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, says that the parties must not be purist in their attitude, and must be willing to be flexible. Could that approach be adopted, so long as it was applied to the practicalities of the implementation of the resolutions, and not to the principle?
Mr. Cook: I wholly agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is remarkable, and entirely down to Saddam' s behaviour, that, seven years after the ceasefire, we are still debating whether he will comply with the terms of the ceasefire. Nobody at the time when the sanctions were first imposed foresaw that we would still be here seven years later. The only reason why we are here seven years later is that Saddam persistently attempts to obstruct, to conceal and to prevent the UNSCOM inspectors from going about their job.
It is important that we make it plain to the world and to the Iraqi people that, if Saddam Hussein complies with the terms of the ceasefire, and if he abandons his plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, sanctions can be lifted and the people of Iraq can return to their normal life.
As to flexibility, of course we are willing to consider any creative proposal that would help us to achieve a diplomatic solution. But we are absolutely resolute in our belief that there is no point in accepting flexibility if it means that UNSCOM cannot carry out effective inspections. The objective of the exercise is to ensure that we find and dismantle those weapons. Any flexibility that prevents us from doing that leaves us with an agreement that is not worth having.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the most obvious gap in his strategy is that no diplomatic efforts have been made by the United States

147
Government or the British Government to send Ministers to Baghdad, as many other countries have done? The impression is created that they are only playing for time to build up the military force for the strike that has already been decided.
Is the Secretary of State further aware that articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations charter make it clear that military action may be authorised only by the Security Council? If action were taken by Britain and America, it would be illegal in international law, and would undermine the authority of the United Nations. The moral responsibility for the deaths of civilians that could follow would rest with those who took that decision. For that reason, it would not be possible for those who believe in the rule of law and in the United Nations to support the military action that, in the view of the House, the Secretary of State clearly intends to take.
Mr. Cook: There is no question of our merely playing for time, nor has any decision been taken that force will be used or will be used on any specific date. It is not a play: we are trying very hard to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein to ensure that he responds to the many diplomatic overtures that are being made, perhaps by people who are more likely to be heard in Baghdad than me or my United States counterpart.
It is a bit rich to complain that the United States and the United Kingdom are undermining the authority of the United Nations. Saddam Hussein plainly demonstrates daily his contempt for the United Nations, for the resolutions that it has passed and for the agreement that he entered into with the UN. Britain is in the lead in New York in trying to obtain agreement on a text that makes that quite clear. If my right hon. Friend wishes to follow through the logic of his position, he should condemn Saddam Hussein, not the British or American Governments.
Mr. Tom King: If the increased obstruction by Saddam Hussein in recent months may owe something to his perception of divisions within the Security Council, a lack of resolution there and, perhaps, divided views among our Arab friends, will the Foreign Secretary accept that I consider his efforts in the Arab countries to be commendable, and believe that they need to be reinforced? Does he also accept that, if we are to ensure that Saddam Hussein understands that the United Nations is determined in its position, it is essential for other members of the Security Council—senior and permanent members—to give clear backing to the position of the United States and the United Kingdom? The Foreign Secretary will recall that, on the earlier occasion, France was somewhat slow in reaching that position. I hope that he will succeed in his efforts to ensure that it speaks very clearly on this occasion, and that the Security Council has a united voice.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observation about our efforts in the Gulf.
The Governments of the Gulf countries fully understand the nature of Saddam Hussein. Riyadh, after all, had Scud missiles delivered on it during the Gulf war. Had those missiles contained anthrax, Riyadh would be uninhabitable to this day. Kuwait suffered
148
invasion and looting, and 600 of its citizens were taken away by Saddam Hussein with his retreating army. To this day, seven years later, we have knowledge of only three of those 600; none has returned to Kuwait. The Governments of those countries therefore fully understand the importance of not leaving Saddam in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
I agree that it is desirable for us to demonstrate unity among the permanent members of the Security Council. Unfortunately, it was the appearance of disunity in October that sparked off the present confrontation, because it encouraged Saddam Hussein to be bolder. I hope that the Security Council resolution will give the clear message that members of the Security Council are unanimous in condemning Saddam' s activities.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the military action taken in 1991 to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions was authorised not only by the Security Council, but—in relation to British participation—by an overwhelming vote in the House of Commons? Is he further aware that, if another such vote took place in the House, the result would be at least as overwhelming as it was then?
May I take up the question put by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)? Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, in 1991, military action was brought to an end on the basis of an undertaking by the Government of Iraq to comply fully with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council? From that day to this, Iraq has not complied fully, or anywhere near fully, with those resolutions.
Although it is welcome that the League of Arab States, along with Russia and other countries, is attempting to facilitate a settlement by diplomatic means and not by force, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there can be no acceptance of attempts to broker a deal based on concessions by the Security Council, or on the lifting of Security Council resolutions? Will he reaffirm that total compliance by Iraq with Security Council resolutions is not negotiable?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. The way in which Saddam and the Iraqi Government can obtain the lifting of the sanctions imposed by the resolutions is very simple: it is to comply with those resolutions, and to abandon their weapons of mass destruction. That is something that Saddam could have done at any time in the past seven years.
Nor can we accept the current demand by the Iraqi regime for eight presidential sites to be designated no-go areas for the inspectors. It is important for the House to understand that we are not simply talking about some kind of historical heritage palace; one of the sites is understood to be as big as Paris. We cannot allow such major loopholes in the inspection regime.
Mr. John Major: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, in dealing with Saddam Hussein, he is dealing with a psychopath without conscience, who has repeatedly pushed the international community to the limits of its tolerance? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, although diplomacy must be given the chance of success, there must be no concessions to this man and

149
that, if it is necessary to use military action, first, the right hon. Gentleman will deserve the support of Opposition Members—and I hope that he will get it—and, secondly, he needs to take action that will not just be successful in the short term, but limit Saddam' s ability to play these games with the international community again in future? If that required the difficult decision to target specifically the Republican Guard, which sustains his evil regime in his own country and which has been his shield thus far against the rest of the world, that would again deserve the support of the House.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with experience, and I am grateful for his support. I wish that the nature of the regime with which we are dealing were better understood. It might be helpful to mention that, in the past two months, Iraq has cleansed its prisons by executing every prisoner who had been sentenced to more than 15 years: in that time, 1,200 prisoners have been shot in prison courtyards in Iraq. That is the nature of the regime with which we are dealing.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not respond on any specific targeting plans, but Saddam does keep himself in power through fear and force. He should be under no illusion that, if military force is required on this occasion, the military power that keeps him in power will be hit hard.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the House have the clear, unambiguous undertaking that, before military action is taken, we will return to the Security Council of the United Nations for its clear, unambiguous endorsement of that military action?
Mr. Cook: A large number of diplomats in the Foreign Office have been working towards precisely that objective for several days. We hope to table the resolution in New York this week and I hope that the resolution will gain the support of the Security Council, so I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Mr. Michael Colvin: During the visits to the Gulf by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), was any contact made with the Gulf Co-operation Council to find out whether economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein could be strengthened, and whether greater unity among Arab states could be achieved, which is always difficult to do?
Mr. Cook: We have explored the possibility of having a meeting with the Gulf Co-operation Council, to be attended by myself and Madeleine Albright. In practice, there have been difficulties in getting such a meeting together. However, by the end of this week, every member state in the Gulf will have been visited by myself or by a Minister of State from the Foreign Office or from the Ministry of Defence. We are rightly making a sustained effort to ensure that those Governments understand our position and support it.
Mr. George Galloway: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that far more weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed by UNSCOM inspectors over the past seven years in Iraq than were destroyed in the pulverising of Iraq by air power and land forces in the
150
last Gulf war? Will he say how unleashing another Gulf war, and dropping tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosives on the Iraqis, is likely to convince them to allow those UNSCOM inspectors back in, to continue their important work?
Does the Foreign Secretary realise that many Labour Members are extremely uncomfortable at some of the militarist rhetoric that we hear from the Treasury Bench, outstormin' Norman Schwarzkopf and General Sir Peter de la Billiere, both of whom have expressed extreme scepticism about military action? Has the Foreign Secretary had time to read the letter in The Times this morning from Field Marshal Sir John Stanier, who says:
"Perhaps if we attempted to improve the lot of Saddam Hussein's people by offering a reduction in sanctions in exchange for evidence of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction, a more realistic result might be achieved"?
Madam Speaker: Order. This is still Question Time, when we do not have quotations. I remind the House that, although this is a serious matter, these questions are much too long. Hon. Members are standing to be called, and I hope that they will come to the point. Will the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) not quote because it is Question Time and we do not have quotations, but we have paraphrases?
Mr. Galloway: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You have my sincere apologies. The field marshal knows much more about military affairs than some of the green-room generals who have been commenting in the media during the past few days. His words should be given appropriate weight, and I wonder what my right hon. Friend has to say about them.
Mr. Cook: I have sought throughout my statement to maintain a calm and measured tone. I do not think that anyone could fairly accuse it of being militarist rhetoric. We wish, if possible, to resolve the matter through diplomatic means. If we cannot, the obstacle is Saddam himself and not anyone at the Dispatch Box. On my hon. Friend's concluding point, I agree up to a point with the letter from which he quoted, although I have not had the opportunity to read it all. We want sanctions to be lifted from the Iraqi people and for them to be able to resume normal life.
The way to achieve that is perfectly plain. It is for Saddam Hussein to comply with what he himself agreed to at the time of the ceasefire. At present, an exercise is being conducted between international experts and representatives of the Iraqi Government on the technical evaluation of what has been achieved so far by UNSCOM and what has yet to be done before we can say that all the programmes have been dismantled. That was offered to the Iraqi regime as a means of meeting its desire to understand what it needs to do to have the sanctions lifted. The Iraqis now understand that, and I hope that they will comply with it.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence told me that the political objectives for any possible military action would be the enforcement of the UN resolutions. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, short of a land invasion of Iraq, it is frankly impossible to enforce the resolutions, and that, if we are forced into military action, political targets such as the

151
destruction of the Republican Guard and the sites to which the inspectors have been denied access are the proper political objectives, which will command political support in the country and enable military success to be identified?
Mr. Cook: Again, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to specify which sites we might be considering targeting. However, much can be achieved that does not involve military action on the ground. We shall continue to make sure that, given that Saddam understands that there is the possibility of military force and the real probability that, if used, military force would be of a substantial character, under that pressure, he may yet respond to the deadline and back down, as he has in the past. We are quite clear that the world cannot back down in the face of Saddam Hussein's threat.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If, after the military strike has taken place, the evil dictator Saddam is still in situ, will it be regarded as a victory?
Mr. Cook: The objective of any military strike would be to ensure compliance with the Security Council resolutions or, in default of that compliance, through military action the reduction of the chemical and biological weapons that Saddam is preventing the UNSCOM inspectors from achieving. If we succeeded in removing a large part of those arsenals and the equipment and capabilities that produce them, I would regard that as having secured an objective of military action. However, it is not an issue in which anyone is looking for victory. Everyone is looking to make sure that the will of the international community is enforced, because, if that will is broken by Saddam Hussein, it will be of no value in any future confrontation with any future dictator.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Foreign Secretary agree, nevertheless, that the response of the European Union has been disappointingly incoherent and ineffective? Does he further agree that, at the very least, the Foreign Affairs Council should reach a unanimous conclusion that Saddam Hussein must be obliged to honour his obligations to the UN resolutions?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, even while wholly agreeing with the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that, before a single missile or bomb is launched against Iraq, he will go to Iraq as head of the Foreign Affairs Council to tell the Iraqi regime the views of 15 countries and 370 million people, all of whom demand that Saddam Hussein be obliged to honour his obligations?
Mr. Cook: I would have no difficulty in obtaining agreement from all my Foreign Affairs Council counterparts that Saddam Hussein must comply with the UN resolutions. However, I counsel the hon. Gentleman not to go too far down the road of turning this into a European Union issue. We act at the UN not as the President of the European Union but as the representative of Britain. In case of any military action, we act on our own national initiative under UN authority. We would not welcome—as I doubt many Conservative Members would welcome—an explicit European Union involvement in any decision on such military action.
152
Currently, I am not encouraged to believe that any useful purpose would be served by my visiting Baghdad. Should circumstances change, we can examine the matter then.
Mr. David Winnick: I am sure that there is not a single Member in the House who does not hope, at least, that diplomacy will triumph in the end. However, has my right hon. Friend seen the latest survey of public opinion, published today, showing that a clear, substantial majority in Britain support military action if it is required? It is the same type of support that was demonstrated when we had to fight past wars of aggression.
In view of the propaganda not only in the United Kingdom but particularly abroad, will the British and American Governments and the allies do their utmost to nail the malicious, poisonous lie—which it is—that Britain and the United States and other countries are engaged in warmongering? The full responsibility for the crisis lies with the criminal regime in Iraq: it lies with Saddam Hussein. Those who put responsibility for war and loss of lives on the allies are telling a lie, and they should be told so, whether they are in the House of Commons or outside.
Mr. Cook: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I also took encouragement from the results of that opinion poll. It is very important that we take every opportunity to get it across to our public why it is so important that Saddam is stripped of those weapons. That is why, last week, we put into the public domain a document that made a considerable impact on public opinion, listing the weapons that he possesses and the number of times that he has denied UNSCOM the right to inspect, to find those weapons. I am pleased to tell the House that a number of other countries are now considering producing a similar document of their own for their own domestic audience.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Chemical, biological and nerve agents are not targeted weapons of war, but weapons of mass terror. As such, they do not require missiles to be delivered; a garage full of trucks will do equally as well. That being the case, and because an air war is unlikely to take out either the means of delivery or all those weapons of mass terror, should not the twin objectives be, first, to get rid of as many of the weapons as possible, and, secondly, to encourage the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Cook: In the event of military force, we would of course seek to destroy as much of his capability in developing chemical or biological weapons as it was possible to do in such a strike. As for Saddam' s own future, it is important that we keep ourselves very clearly fixed on the objective, which is to ensure that we degrade his capacity to retain those weapons of terror. If in the course of that strike his own military power was badly hit, his own capacity to remain in office might well be undermined. I hope that that is an issue on which he will reflect carefully in the days ahead, and that he will realise that it is in his interests as much as anyone else's that he should come to a diplomatic solution.
Mr. Bernie Grant: May I say to my right hon. Friend that the question is not whether Saddam

153
Hussein is an evil dictator—that has been proven—but how we shall deal with him? My right hon. Friend must have heard that King Hussein of Jordan, Kofi Annan—the Secretary-General of the United Nations—and, recently, Nelson Mandela himself have said that there should be a diplomatic and not a military solution. President Mandela said that America should not be involved in regional conflicts, and that America is not the policeman of the world.
If my right hon. Friend is—as, today, he again claimed in the House—speaking on behalf of the world community, will he put the question of military action to the General Assembly of the United Nations, which is a much more representative body than the Security Council? I assure him that, if he were to do so, he would find that he does not have a majority, and is therefore not speaking for the world community. I wish that he would say that he is speaking for certain vested interests and not for the world community.
Mr. Cook: I robustly resist the idea that I am speaking for any vested interest in this matter. Britain has an interest in ensuring that the world regime of international law and international resolution of disputes is upheld. In pursuing that interest, we are acting not in any particular British vested interest but as a responsible and leading member of the world community.
Yes, the Security Council contains five permanent members; it also contains 10 non-permanent members that are elected by the General Assembly of the United Nations. They are deliberately and quite properly balanced by the General Assembly. They include countries from the third world and from each hemisphere. In our consultation with those 10 non-permanent members, we are getting overwhelming support for our resolution.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Should not Saddam Hussein be fully aware of the awesome, coercive power of allied air power? Could not at least his generals comprehend its potential? At the start of the Gulf war, whole Iraqi formations were obliterated by the allied air forces, but since then, they have acquired further precision munitions and sea-borne cruise missiles of great accuracy. If the UK were to back down, would not American opinion take an extremely jaundiced view of our reliability as a security partner in Bosnia and other areas of mutual security interest?
Mr. Cook: In response to the hon. Gentleman's last point, we have come to the view that we have and are pursuing the policy that we are, first, because we wish to ensure stability in the Gulf and that that is not undermined by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass terror, and, secondly, because as a permanent member of the UN we have a particular responsibility to uphold such stability. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, at present, we are seeing an excellent example of close co-operation between the two Atlantic powers, but that is not why we are taking this action. We have come to the conclusion for our own reasons and on the balance of policy that, on this, we are right to ensure a resolute stand against Saddam Hussein.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's point that weapons have moved on since the Gulf war. Saddam Hussein should not be under any illusion about what might happen if military
154
force were used. That is why, when I was in Kuwait, I took the opportunity extensively to make statements on television stations that we know are beamed into Iraq and received in Baghdad.
Mr. Terry Davis: Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility that both Saddam Hussein and President Clinton, for different reasons, need a war?
Mr. Cook: It is not the case that anybody needs a war. Saddam would be badly wounded, hurt and undermined in his power base if there were a military strike. Madeleine Albright and I have repeatedly explored all possible ways in which we can achieve a diplomatic solution. I understand the deep concern of hon. Members who are reluctant to see military action. However, if they want to avoid military action, it would be helpful if they outlined the alternative course of action that would be open to us if Saddam failed to respond to diplomatic initiatives.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The question of sanctions has been raised constantly, yet we all know that they have not worked in the past and cannot work at present. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the greatest help that Saddam has been getting is prevarication among international spokesmen, who give him credibility when he is acting incredibly? If people criticise the United States of America and the United Kingdom for their roles in the UN, they should stop asking us to bear the other burdens of the world. Will I cause consternation in the House if I suggest that those who have been holding back from supporting the concept of pressure on Saddam should be reminded that they, with Saddam, will share the guilt when innocent lives are lost?
Mr. Cook: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members have genuine concerns. One of our strengths is that, unlike Iraq, we have a constitution that allows those concerns to be expressed. If Saddam had allowed 1 per cent. of the freedom that we claim for ourselves in Britain, he might well have been flung out of power by the Iraqi people.
In the meantime, the Government will continue to be resolute. I hope that Saddam Hussein will by now have grasped the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom are resolute in seeing this through, and that we have very wide backing throughout the international community. Countries that may not necessarily join us in military action will most certainly join us in exerting diplomatic pressure and in condemning Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend rule out the possibility of a nuclear attack on Iraq?
Mr. Cook: Yes, I can rule that out straight away.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Foreign Secretary said that our quarrel is with Saddam Hussein and not the people of Iraq. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that we are about to punish the people of Iraq for the transgressions of the dictator. Seven years after the end of the Gulf war, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there can be no lasting peace in the middle east while Saddam Hussein remains in power? In preparing for

155
military action, which I fully support, will he take steps to drive a wedge between the people of Iraq and the dictator by indicting him through the Security Council for crimes against humanity?
Mr. Cook: The Government strongly support the case for an international criminal court. One of the reasons why, since the general election, we have come out robustly in support of such a court is precisely that it could provide an international legal framework before which a person such as Saddam Hussein could be arraigned. Regrettably, the court does not exist at present and will not exist in the time scale of the current confrontation. However, the confrontation reminds us why we need to strengthen the international law regime.
Ann Clwyd: Everyone must hope that the outcome of the present situation, whatever it is, will arise through diplomacy. May I support the call of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—I have made it myself many times in the Chamber—for indicting Saddam Hussein before an international criminal court? Such a court is, by all accounts, likely to be set up by the United Nations after its conference in Rome in June. Can we then call for his indictment, as he will remain a problem, whatever the outcome of the present situation? Indeed, he and his closest associates are the problem, and they should be brought before the court on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of genocide.
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that we support Indict's campaign. As I said, if there was an international court before which we could bring Saddam Hussein, we would certainly now be trying to do so. My hon. Friend has a deep knowledge of the Iraqi situation; she is well aware of the immense suffering that has been imposed on the Iraqi people not by the international community, but by the direct oppression of Saddam. One of the reasons why he maintains his military force is that he has been known to amputate the hands of anyone who deserts his army. This is the behaviour of someone who has created immense suffering, hardship and grief for his own people, not to mention the other countries of the region.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We must now move on.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I asked about the possibility of a debate. Time is passing and we are approaching the moment when the option of military force may be taken. Neither the Government nor the Opposition have chosen to table a motion that would allow the House to debate the matter and, if necessary, vote on it. I wonder whether you could use your good offices to ensure that the House is a place not just for discussion, but where real decisions may be made.
Madam Speaker: I recollect that the Foreign Secretary, in answering a question today, informed the House that he was in negotiations with the Leader of the House about a debate on this matter. I shall certainly keep that, and the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, in mind.

War Memorials Preservation
4.19 pm
Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the preservation of war memorials; to ensure their proper transfer to a suitable location if their present site is redeveloped; to amend the War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act 1923; and for connected purposes.
The immortal words of Laurence Binyon stir most of us:

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them."

Yes, we will remember them and, for the most part, we do. There is a new interest in remembrance. The undoubted success of the Royal British Legion's 11.11.11 campaign shows that people of all ages appreciate how important it is never to forget. Young people too, who could never be accused of wanting to glorify war, realise that remembrance of past suffering is the prerequisite to the avoidance of future conflict.
At remembrance services, we not only honour the dead who made the supreme sacrifice, but renew our determination never to let it happen again if at all possible. Those services take place at thousands of well-kept memorials up and down this land. One might be forgiven for concluding that there is no problem, but there is indeed a problem or, more correctly, a few problems.
First, we do not know exactly how many war memorials we have in the United Kingdom or where they all are. The charity Friends of War Memorials estimates that there are at least 50,000 and possibly up to 70,000. The national inventory of war memorials, started by Alan Borg, director general of the imperial war museum, is doing excellent work, but has recorded only about 26,000 of them so far. That inventory is vital. We cannot ultimately prevent a memorial from being lost, if we do not know of its existence in the first place.
For the most part, the vast majority of our war memorials are in good repair, well tended and not vandalised, and the names of those honoured are legible. However, not all are thus. Friends of War Memorials has disturbing documented evidence that hundreds of war memorials are in a state of disrepair or neglect. I have a file of photographs here, taken across the country, showing memorials broken, damaged or so eroded that the names have disappeared, while others tucked away at the back of a municipal park or garden are so overgrown with weeds that they are practically invisible.
However, there is an even worse problem. Some memorials no longer exist at all. When we see the awe-inspiring solidity of the Cenotaph, or the other great memorials to the Royal Navy, the Army and the Air Force around the country, or the marble, stone and bronze monuments commemorating the fallen in all our towns, villages and parishes, it is difficult to accept that some memorials are disappearing for ever, or are being disposed of inappropriately.
The problem is not those on public land or in civic ownership, but largely those in churches that have become redundant. In the past few years, hundreds of churches

157
have closed down and in many cases, the war memorials, rolls of honour and commemorative plaques have ended up in scrap yards or architectural salvage shops. In October last year, Mr. Ian Davidson, the founder of Friends of War Memorials, purchased for £35 from an antique dealer in Surrey a wooden memorial roll of honour containing the names of 109 war dead. That is just £3 per name. That memorial came from a redundant church, and he is searching for a suitable site for its rededication.
How has that appalling state of affairs come about? As a result of the sheer scale of losses in the first world war, every community was affected and wanted to build a war memorial. Of course, there was no legislation to control the construction and as a result, Britain now has a great wealth of memorials, some of outstanding architectural design and others much more plain, but all worth preserving. Thus we have memorials in churches, outside churches, in public parks, private gardens and cemeteries, in village halls, town halls and community centres, police headquarters and scout huts, hospitals, railway stations and private company offices, in small Government buildings in the provinces and great Departments of state in Whitehall and, of course, here in the royal palace of Westminster itself.
In most cases, no arrangements were made for future maintenance or upkeep when the memorials were built. It was just assumed that they would be maintained and there was no question of them being disposed of, just as no one thought in the 1920s that churches would become redundant one day. The first legislation to be passed was the War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act 1923, which gave power to local authorities, including parish councils, to spend reasonable sums on
"the maintenance, repair and protection of any war memorial within their district".
However, it is a power, not a duty.
There is also legislation relating to the disposal of memorials in disused churches, but that is primarily concerned with burial grounds, the proper reinterment of human remains and the appropriate disposal of any accompanying monuments or memorials. The legislation is weak on memorials to people who are not buried in church grounds and, of course, it does not apply to all those buildings which do not have burial grounds attached. That is why so many memorials are being destroyed or sold off, or turning up in scrap yards. The legislation even states that memorials shall be broken or defaced before being otherwise disposed of. It is obvious to me that the legislation is intended to deal with individual tombstones in old cemeteries and that it was never envisaged that war memorials should be disposed of in that way.
The House will agree that there are loopholes in our existing law and that there is a problem that is growing daily. I am not asking the Government to take responsibility and therefore pay for any action, because that would be wrong in principle. The Government should be responsible only for national war memorials and those on Crown land; it cannot be right to make them responsible for memorials in churches, village halls, community centres and the thousands of private buildings and places that currently house war memorials. Nor should we make local authorities automatically responsible, as that might impose a large new financial
158
burden. It is only where there are no alternative carers for memorials that local authorities might be given a duty to be the carer of last resort. However, I can envisage some possible solutions, which I want to examine carefully with some Government assistance. My only request to the Minister today is that she permits me to seek advice from the relevant officials in the Home Office who are knowledgeable on these matters.
The suggestion has already been made that all war memorials should be treated as listed monuments and so be made subject to the same planning controls as apply to all listed buildings and ancient monuments. That was the subject of an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), which attracted support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. That idea has considerable merit and we need to explore what changes to the legislation would be necessary and to consider whether there might be unforeseen consequences. There are many memorials that are lovingly tended by veterans associations, regimental trusts and existing military units. Any solution to protect the vulnerable or neglected war memorials should not impinge on the excellent work being done by those who already care for so many of our memorials.
We also need to explore new ways in which to raise finance to ensure that all war memorials are maintained in pristine condition, irrespective of who owns them. Memorials must be maintained, not only because to do otherwise is grossly offensive to the memories of those who made the supreme sacrifice so that we could live in freedom and because the memorials are a precious part of our national heritage, but because destruction and neglect of memorials sends the wrong signal to our younger generations—that war and the death it brings are of little importance.
When the veterans form up in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday, television usually shows us scenes from impeccably kept Commonwealth war graves from around the world: mile upon mile of white crosses or simple stones bearing the names of the fallen, which are as carefully tended today as they were 50 or 70 years ago. When we see that stark picture of the destruction that war brings, do we not strengthen our resolve to prevent that in future?
I have with me here another stark picture, of a large brass plate containing the names of 35 men from the Southampton area who died in the great war. It is boldly inscribed:
"Their name liveth for evermore",
but it was found a few months ago lying tarnished and rusty in a scrap yard. It has been restored, and the finder is now searching for a suitable home for it.
If we can so easily betray the memory of past generations by throwing their memorial into a scrap yard, why should today's generation have any confidence that they too would not be betrayed? As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wrote in the Royal British Legion's "Golden Book of Remembrance":
"As those who are left grow old, it falls to those who have derived the great benefits of peace and freedom in succeeding generations to say of the fallen, 'We will remember them'."
My Bill is a step towards ensuring that in all cases, their names will live for ever more.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Maclean, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Frank Cook, Sir Peter Emery, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Barry Jones, Sir Peter Lloyd, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Nicholas Soames and Mr. Peter Viggers.

WAR MEMORIALS PRESERVATION
Mr. David Maclean accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the preservation of war memorials; to ensure their proper transfer to a suitable location if their present site is redeveloped; to amend the War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act 1923; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed [Bill 120].

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the further Report [9th February] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Allen. ]
Question agreed to.
Report considered accordingly.
Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. Allen. ]
Following is the report of the Business Committee [9 February]:
That it had come to a further Resolution in respect of the Scotland Bill, which it had directed him to report to the House:
That the Resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 22nd January be varied so that—

(a) the third to eighth days allotted under the Order [13th January] to proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below, and

(b) each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in the third column of the Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings in Committee

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Third day

Clause 41

6.00 p.m.

Clauses 42 to 47

7.00 p.m.

Clauses 48 to 53

8.30 p.m.

Clauses 54 to 60

10.00 p.m.

Fourth day

Clause 61 (up to and including the word "determine" in subsection (2))

7.00 p.m.

Clause 61 (remaining proceedings)

Clause 62

8.45 p.m.

Clauses 63 to 68

10.00 p.m.

Fifth to eighth days

Remaining proceedings (according to time limits to be determined by a further report or further reports of the Business Committee)

10.00 p.m. on the eighth day

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 29 January].
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Scotland Bill
    Clause 41

      THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
      4.31 Pm
      Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 18, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert—
      '(1A) Any devolved Law Officer shall not be a member of the Scottish Executive'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 274, in page 18, line 10, at end add—
      '(3) The Solicitor General for Scotland shall be the law officer to the Scottish Executive'.
      No. 10, in clause 45, page 19, line 24, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland shall be qualified as either

      (i) an advocate, or

      (ii) a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.'.

      No. 314, in page 19, line 25, after 'Advocate', insert
      `or by an official or agent appointed by and responsible to him'.
      Clause 45 stand part.
      Government amendment No. 321.
      No. 289, in clause 59, page 25, line 6, after `Ministers', insert
      `or the Scottish Law Officers'.
      No. 290, in page 25, line 9, after 'Ministers', insert
      `or the Scottish Law Officers'.
      No. 11, in clause 82, page 37, line 40, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Advocate General for Scotland shall be qualified as either

      (i) an advocate, or

      (ii) a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.'.

      No. 12, in page 38, line 5, after 'writing', add
      ',provided that the office shall not be vacant for a period of more than one month.'.
      Mr. Ancram: Amendment No. 303 is an important amendment which we are debating with several other amendments. Amendments Nos. 289 and 290 do not relate to the main purpose of my argument and I shall deal with them briefly by saying that they seek to ensure that provision for the transfer of functions, which we shall debate later in Committee, should apply to the Law Officers as much as to other Ministers of the Scottish Executive if the other amendments in my name fail. That would make sense in those circumstances.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Ministers of the Scottish Executive.

      161
      Does he include junior Ministers, because there is some confusion over whether they are included in the term "Ministers of the Scottish Executive"? That may be a pedantic point, but it arises from the Bill.
      Mr. Ancram: It is a good point and it will be relevant when we consider the functions of Ministers in other groups of amendments that we will discuss later today. The hon. Gentleman will have gathered from our amendments that we think that it is highly questionable whether there should be a plethora of Ministers in Scotland to do the job that is now being done by the Secretary of State for Scotland, two Ministers of State and three junior colleagues. However, I do not wish to steal the thunder of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who will move those amendments in due course. I merely wished to take amendments Nos. 289 and 290 out of the argument that I am making now, because it is right to concentrate on the matter in hand.
      Amendments Nos. 303 and 274 would mean that neither the Lord Advocate nor the Solicitor-General would be members of the Scottish Executive, and also that only the Solicitor General would be a Law Officer to the Executive. This is a matter of substantial importance to us. It has a legal aspect as well as a constitutional aspect, and it is important that we consider it carefully.
      In paragraph 4.8, the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament" accepted that there was something different about Law Officers and the Lord Advocate in particular, and said:
      "The traditional independence of the Lord Advocate as public prosecutor will be maintained."
      That independence really causes us concern in relation to the amendments before us and the Bill as it stands.
      The amendments seek to do two things. The first is to try to achieve a situation where the Law Officers are not part of the Scottish Executive. We believe especially that it is wrong in principle to devolve the office of Lord Advocate, because he is, as the White Paper says, an independent public prosecutor, and as such he must act at all times in the public interest of the whole United Kingdom, not the Scottish public interest alone.
      It is important to realise that the Lord Advocate, in whatever guise, will continue to be responsible for the prosecution of offences enacted by both Parliaments. Many crimes—such as those involving drugs, firearms and Customs and Excise matters—will be reserved matters on which the Lord Advocate will prosecute, and do not fall solely within the matters that will be in the control of the Scottish Parliament.
      Therefore, we believe that the role that the Lord Advocate will perform, having a United Kingdom dimension, is not recognised in the legislation as it stands and, indeed, would be precluded by clause 41(1)(c), which we seek to remove from the Bill, which states that the Scottish Executive shall also have as its members
      "the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland."
      Interestingly, in 1978, the importance of the United Kingdom dimension was recognised, and the position of Lord Advocate was not devolved for very much those reasons. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) remembers some of the debates that took place at that time.
      162
      It may be useful to illustrate the point with hypothetical examples. There could be a case where a Westminster Member of Parliament from a Scottish constituency was to be prosecuted for electoral improprieties after devolution. [Interruption.] The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office smiles and laughs, as though he believes that it could never happen. I suspect that he might like to reconsider whether he is wise to so mock that example.
      Let us say that a procedural blunder occurs, the prosecution founders and the Member of Parliament is acquitted on a technicality. In those circumstances, no Member of Parliament or peer at Westminster would be able to call any Minister to account for that, although it would affect the membership of the House, because there remains no ministerial responsibility at Westminster for the Scottish prosecution service. We need to think very carefully about that.
      We might also consider the case of the Lockerbie bombing. The United Kingdom public interest would loom large in any prosecution that might take place in Scotland. If the case were ever to come to trial, evidence would be given by members of United Kingdom agencies such as the intelligence services and the forensic science services. I pose the question to the Minister: would it not be wrong in principle for a situation to be created whereby no accountability would be reserved to Westminster for the conduct of what might be one of the most prominent trials of all time?
      Mr. Dalyell: The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office knows—because he had to answer one of them—that I have initiated 14 Adjournment debates on Lockerbie. This is a very difficult hybrid question, and I hope that, when the Minister speaks, he will cast some reflection, in the light of his experience of answering one of the debates on Lockerbie, on how the problem is to be resolved. It is a very real one.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because it is a good example, which he calls a hybrid situation. Such a situation could occur in other eventualities and, with all respect to the Minister, I do not think that the Bill covers these points sufficiently, so I hope that he will consider our amendments carefully.
      The reverse situation might occur also. Let us take the hypothetical case of an English citizen charged with putting drugs on board a train in London that is bound for Glasgow as part of a drugs cartel to supply drugs to Scotland. The Englishman could be arrested by the Scottish police and prosecuted in Scotland although he might, in the commission of the crime, never have set foot in Scotland. Those of us who have practised at the criminal Bar know that such situations can arise. His Member of Parliament, who would be an English Member of Parliament, would have no opportunity to question in the United Kingdom Parliament the Minister with responsibility for the case in which his constituent was involved. Once again, lack of accountability could create great unfairness in terms of the representation available to citizens. I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
      Dr. Lynda Clark: I would have more sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's argument if he could say when the Lord Advocate was last a Member of the House of Commons.
      Mr. Ancram: At present, no Law Officer answers for the Scottish Law Officers in this place. However,

      163
      during my time in government, the Solicitor-General for Scotland was a Member of the House of Commons. Lord Fraser of Carmyllie was Solicitor-General in this place before he became Lord Advocate. Law Officer questions were separate from questions to the Scottish Office, which underlines the importance of making that distinction. I give way again to the hon. and learned Lady—I apologise for not remembering her full title.
      Dr. Clark: I am much obliged. It may be a figment of my imagination, but I think that a Law Officer was last a Member of the House of Commons in 1983.
      Mr. Ancram: I think that it was 1987. The hon. and learned Lady makes an important point. When considering our amendments to the Bill, we pondered whether it was right to insist that Law Officers be Members of the Scottish Parliament for those reasons. However, we resisted putting down such an amendment, as we thought that it might preclude those who might hold that office with distinction from being able to do so.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: In the 10 years between 1987 and 1997 when the Solicitor-General was not a Member of the House of Commons, did the right hon. Gentleman make any representations to his party or argue in this place that that was an unacceptable situation that should be changed?
      Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman misses my point. There was an acceptance that the Lord Advocate had a United Kingdom role. This part of the Bill categorises the Lord Advocate as a member of the Scottish Executive, who is therefore responsible within that Executive and not on a wider basis. I am making a serious point. If we are not careful, we shall create a situation whereby the necessary role of the Lord Advocate in terms of United Kingdom prosecutions could be compromised by the fact that he is a member of the Scottish Executive. I am surprised that hon. Members have difficulty with that. I believe that it is part of the tradition of the office of Lord Advocate that it should not only relate to Scotland, but have a wider perspective, which is important to Scottish law as well as to the office of Lord Advocate.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The last time that we debated the matter in this place, we had a long and heated discussion about clause 23. In the debate, it became quite clear that we could require anyone to appear before Parliament and give evidence. That did not necessarily please several hon. Members, but it was stated that that would continue to be the case. Does that not cover the point about which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed concern?
      Mr. Ancram: With respect, I do not think that it covers the point—otherwise I would not have moved the amendment. We must ensure that the independence of the Lord Advocate is sustained as far as possible. I must concede that the Bill tries to do that; many clauses in the Bill seek to achieve that aim, but I do not think that there are enough.
      164
      The Lord Advocate's ability to act in a role that is beyond the powers that will not be reserved to this Parliament and therefore available to a Scottish Parliament is a second important point. There is a third key point to which I shall turn in a moment. However, I do not think that the Bill, as it stands, resolves the question.
      The Opposition question the need to have two Law Officers in the Scottish Parliament—whether they are members of the Executive or not. Therefore, our amendment seeks to ensure that the office of the Lord Advocate is not devolved, which would allow him to retain a wider role. The Solicitor-General for Scotland could be devolved and made answerable to the Scottish Parliament, which would have the added advantage of eliminating the so-called "Harry Lime" position, whereby a third man is suddenly introduced by the Bill.
      that third Law Officer would be a new animal—no one is quite certain what the Advocate General for Scotland will do. I believe that the simple procedure whereby the Lord Advocate is answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament and the Solicitor-General is answerable to the Scottish Parliament would resolve the issue without getting into the technicalities of creating a new position.
      Mr. James Wallace: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see a difficulty with the proposal, in that, if a Member of the Scottish Parliament wished to raise a question about a Scottish prosecution, he would not be able to tackle the person who was ultimately responsible—the Lord Advocate? The buck would stop with the Lord Advocate who would not be answerable to the Scottish Parliament regarding the overwhelming number of prosecutions compared with the one or two hypothetical exceptions that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I appreciate that it would be nice for the Scottish Parliament to be able to call to account the person who is in charge of all prosecutions. However, it could call to account the Solicitor-General—that is nothing new. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member of Parliament when the Solicitor-General for Scotland used to sit in this place. I do not think that we argued then that that was second best. I make the point with some seriousness, as I know that it concerns members of the legal profession in Scotland. The matter was considered carefully in 1978, and the then Labour Government decided not to go down that path.
      Another effect of the amendment is to ensure something rather different: the devolved Law Officers will remain distinct from the Scottish Executive. That is not clear in clause 41(1)(c), which states that they would be members of that Executive. We are trying to create a situation that mirrors the current position, whereby the Crown Office and the Scottish Office are strictly separate entities—and are so described in any Government lists. They are not in the Cabinet and they are not Ministers outside the Cabinet; they are always declared separately. That is right and proper. This position is significant.

      165
      Clause 48(3) of the Bill states:
      "Statutory functions of the Scottish Ministers shall be exercisable by any member"—
      I stress that point—
      "of the Scottish Executive."
      If the Bill is left unamended, Scottish Law Officers will be included in the definition of Scottish Ministers. If Law Officers could exercise the functions of other Ministers—according to my reading of the Bill, it could not happen the other way around—it would create an extraordinary anomaly that could lead to conflicts of interest. On my reading of the Bill—I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments—the Lord Advocate could grant planning permission, because that is a function of a member of the Executive. Therefore, the Lord Advocate would not be precluded from doing that.
      Through these amendments, we are trying to protect the position of Lord Advocate, which is not only historic, but extremely valuable in terms of the constitution of this country and the Scottish legal system. We believe that it is not sufficiently protected at present, either in terms of independence or in terms of distinction from the Executive. On that basis, we hope that the Government will consider our arguments seriously.
      Mr. Dalyell: Hon. Members have been asked to be succinct, so I shall limit my speech to two points. First, clause 41 defines the Scottish Executive. It is a matter of some importance to return to the question of junior Scottish Office Ministers. Will they be construed as being members of the Scottish Executive? What is their status? I do not think that the Bill makes that clear.
      Secondly, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) raised the example of Lockerbie. Surely it is where the criminal act has its effect that the courts and prosecution system would have jurisdiction. If that is a correct understanding of the Scottish Parliament's responsibility for a hybrid situation such as that, I should be grateful if it could be confirmed.
      Mr. Wallace: Before I speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, may I respond to some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who tried to address the issues and made some reasonable points.
      I pointed out in an intervention that the overwhelming majority—99 per cent. or more—of cases in respect of which the Lord Advocate will ultimately have the responsibility for bringing the prosecution will be matters that affect the constituents of those who will be in the Scottish Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman's reply was that, for a long time, we accepted a Solicitor-General coming to the House and answering questions, and that did not work too badly. Let us be honest: it was better than nothing, and nothing is what we have had since 1987.
      Although the right hon. Gentleman was not in Parliament at the time, it was a Conservative Government who took away the 10 or 15 minutes allocated at Question Time to the Law Officers' responsibilities. Several of us raised the matter on several occasions, and the balance was only latterly redressed in a small way by the provision that allowed the Lord Advocate, because he happens to be a Member of another place, to appear before the
      166
      Scottish Grand Committee. As I understand it, that is done only with his permission, because he is a Member of another place.
      In the case of the Scottish Parliament, the amendment that the Conservatives considered but decided not to table is not necessary, because under clause 26, if the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General is not a Member of the Parliament, he may still participate in the proceedings of the Parliament to the extent permitted by the Standing Orders. It will not be a question of whether the Lord Advocate deigns to appear; the standing orders will make the Law Officers part and parcel of the proceedings.
      Moreover, I understand that, in Standing Committees of this House, it is possible to require a Law Officer to be present, not necessarily when the Committee is dealing with criminal matters, but when advice on points of law on other matters is needed. That has not been possible in Scottish legislation since 1987, when Mr. Peter Fraser—now Lord Fraser—lost his seat. There has been no Scottish Law Officer in the House of Commons. The scheme for which the Bill provides offers considerable advantages.
      The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair and valid point—which those of us who have been brought up and trained in the Scottish legal tradition readily recognise and support—about the rigorous independence of the Lord Advocate when he fulfils his duties as the person who prosecutes in the Queen's name in Scotland. Specific provision is made for that in the Bill, which states:
      "Any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person."
      That is set out in statutory form, and I support it.
      Amendment No. 314 expands that and makes it clear that any official or agent appointed by and responsible to the Lord Advocate—in the Crown Office, advocate-deputes and procurators fiscal—will also have that independence guaranteed to them by the provisions of the Bill. The Minister may respond that that is already implied. The Government have not been over-generous in accepting amendments. Perhaps they will accept this one, which sets out the position. It would guarantee that independence and put it on a statutory basis and beyond question at any future date.
      The Lord Advocate must be answerable to the Scottish Parliament, and he would not be answerable if he remained a Member of this place or the other place and a member of the United Kingdom Government.
      Let us forget all the fancy stuff about the Law Officers being totally independent. Although they are independent, and rightly so, and any Lord Advocate whom I have known has jealously guarded his independence with regard to the prosecution, nevertheless they have not been above partisanship in their other activities, and I make no complaint about that. They are there to help the Government to implement their policies and to give legal advice, and one would expect that they would generally be in step with the Government; but the idea that recent Lords Advocate have been above the political battle does not stand up. I do not criticise them for that. They have made no secret of it in some cases, and it is part of their job.
      If the Law Officers did not sit in the Scottish Parliament—if they were the creatures of Westminster—the Solicitor-General could answer questions, but there

      167
      would be no right of the Scottish Parliament to question the Lord Advocate. Although there has been no Law Officer in the House of Commons, the Law Officers are still ultimately responsible to the House of Commons and to another place. Technically, the Secretary of State answers questions on their behalf.
      As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) knows, if we had a Law Officer in this place, some of his Adjournment debates on Lockerbie would have been answered by a Law Officer, but they have had to be answered by a Minister—indeed, the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office has had to answer them—as a stand-in for the Law Officers. That would not be the case if the Lord Advocate was not a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
      The hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) rightly pointed out in the battles that we had over clause 23 that it would be possible for the House of Commons to call the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General if it was felt that he was not executing his duties or there were questions to be answered.
      Amendment No. 10 would require that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General should be members of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. That would ensure that those who hold such high office were suitably qualified.
      I am grateful to Mr. Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland for giving me some of the historical background. The Lord Advocate has always been an advocate, as far back as anyone can trace. With regard to the Solicitor-General, the first appointment of a King's Solicitor dates to 1587, when a commission was granted to William McCartney,
      "one of the King's Clerks, writer and special agent".
      That might suggest that he was a solicitor rather than an advocate, but during the 17th century the office became the preserve of members of the Faculty of Advocates. In 1684 the King's Solicitor was authorised to prosecute with similar jurisdiction to that of the King's Advocate.
      In more recent times, during the first Labour Government, the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, attempted to have a Glasgow solicitor, Rosslyn Mitchell, appointed Lord Advocate, but after an encounter with the Lord President of the Court of Session, Ramsay MacDonald thought again and Mr. Mitchell was not appointed, as he had no rights of audience in the Court of Session.
      The position has been different since the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.
      Mr. Dalyell: If the Mitchell case, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly refers, were repeated today, would he agree to a solicitor of the distinction of Rosslyn Mitchell being appointed? Personally, I would.
      Mr. Wallace: Subject to what I am about to say, yes. My amendment would make provision for a solicitor to become Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General for Scotland—a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. Of course it is now possible for solicitors to have rights of audience in the High Court, the Court of Session, the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
      168
      I hope that the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment, which would build in a guarantee that whoever holds those high offices will be suitably legally qualified.
      Amendment No. 11 contains a similar requirement in relation to the Advocate General for Scotland and clause 82. It is perhaps even more important that the qualification be included here. One wonders whether, in times to come, a short cut might be taken and it might be thought a good idea to let the Attorney-General for England and Wales also be the Advocate General for Scotland.
      5 pm
      Clause 82(3) states:
      "If that office is vacant or the Advocate General is for any reason unable to act, his functions shall be exercisable by such other Minister of the Crown as the Prime Minister may determine in writing."
      That suggests that someone, somewhere along the line, has thought that the Advocate General's functions might be carried out by, for example, the Lord Chancellor's Department, or possibly the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The field is wide open.
      Amendment No. 12 would allow the vacancy to exist for only one month. Important Scottish legal considerations would come to bear on matters which are still the reserved powers of Westminster. It is important that advice on the Scottish dimension is given by someone suitably qualified in Scots law.
      Mr. Ancram: As a Scottish lawyer, I have some sympathy with the idea of creating more jobs for Scottish lawyers. But does not the hon. Gentleman's point on the Advocate General substantiate something that I was trying to say, which is that the safest form of Advocate General within the United Kingdom is the Lord Advocate? It is clear that he is qualified as a Scottish lawyer but can also bring to that role the influence and weight of the office. To create this new third man, Harry Lime-type creature will not do anything for the law of Scotland or the advice given to the Government here.
      Mr. Wallace: I do not agree, because one cannot serve two masters. As I have already said, we are not talking about the prosecution function, which I think we are all agreed should be separate. If one had a Government of a particular complexion in Edinburgh and one of a different complexion in London, one could not honestly expect the Lord Advocate to deliver legal advice to both. The right hon. Gentleman says that that problem would not arise because the Lord Advocate would not be involved in the Scottish Parliament, and I have given the reasons why that would not be appropriate.
      It is important to have someone available in Westminster to give advice on Scottish legal matters and, by the very character of the being, it must be someone in step and in political sympathy with the Government of the day.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: As a non-Scottish lawyer, I seek a piece of information. If a constituent of mine from Kent crosses the border into Scotland and falls foul of the procurator fiscal service in circumstances that I regard as oppressive and improper, with whom can I take up my anxieties?
      Mr. Wallace: It would not be the Advocate General, because he would not have responsibility. The practical

      169
      answer is that the hon. Gentleman could take the matter up with the Lord Advocate. I would fully expect the Lord Advocate of the day to treat seriously any such letter from an hon. Member of this House. We write to European Commissioners who are not answerable to us, but we expect and hope to have our letters treated seriously, which, for the most part, we do.
      In terms of theoretical accountability, as I have already said, at the end of the day, because of the clause that we have already debated, it would be possible for the Lord Advocate to appear before a Select Committee of this House and, in that way, there may be some indirect accountability. The practical point is that, if the hon. Gentleman had an aggrieved constituent, he would take it up with the Lord Advocate and I would fully expect any Lord Advocate worth his or her salt to give a decent and considered reply, in the same way as a Member of the Scottish Parliament would get such a reply if he wrote. In practical terms, that is not a problem.
      The balance struck by the Government of the two Law Officers being part of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive shows the seriousness of our intent with regard to the creation of the Parliament. If, somehow or other, the Lord Advocate were thought to be too grand a person for the Scottish Parliament, it might lead to questions as to what kind of Parliament we are creating in the first place. The Government have struck the right balance, but my amendments would secure the position and the independence of the procurator fiscal service and the advocate-deputes in terms of prosecution.
      Mr. Salmond: I can help with the reason why the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) keeps referring to the third man and Harry Lime. As I remember the plot of the film, Orson Welles kept disappearing down the drains of Vienna. Given the state of the Tory party, that seems an apt analogy.
      I come now to the humbug behind the right hon. Gentleman's formulation. The current system of Law Officers' accountability to this place is clearly unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made the point. His 14 Adjournment debates had all been answered by proxy because it is 10 years since a Law Officer sat in this place who could answer the hon. Gentleman directly. Perhaps it was because the Law Officers were facing the hon. Gentleman that they decided no longer to be in this place, but that is an unsatisfactory position that the right hon. Member for Devizes was perfectly happy to allow for 10 years.
      Clearly, under the Bill, Members of the Scottish Parliament will be able to make the Law Officer directly accountable by questioning, by proper democratic process. That must be an enhancement of the current position. It may be an incentive for the hon. Member for Linlithgow to stand for the Scottish Parliament so that he can pursue the Lockerbie debate directly with the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate—who knows? But whoever does it, whether it be the hon. Member for Linlithgow or his Scottish National party replacement, the provision will enhance the democratic process.
      The right hon. Member for Devizes is perfectly happy in his amendments to remove the Lord Advocate from the provenance of the Scottish Parliament so that the senior Law Officer in Parliament will not be available directly
      170
      to the Members of the Scottish Parliament, despite the fact that the vast majority of the issues will fall under the matters devolved to that Parliament. In place of that, he brings forward a few exceptions in terms of the reserved matters.
      In one of our debates two weeks ago, it became clear that, against my wishes and those of many other hon. Members, it would not be within the ability of the Scottish Parliament to summon UK Ministers. It could invite UK Ministers in much the same way as we can invite the Lord Advocate to the Scottish Grand Committee at the moment. But it would still be within the rights of this Parliament's Select Committees to summon Scottish Ministers before them, as they summon other people, if so required.
      The Opposition—in their amendments and in the position celebrated by Conservative Members when they congratulated the Government on the question of witnesses only two weeks ago—are perfectly happy to allow a democratic vacuum, whereby the senior Law Officer is not available to Members of the Scottish Parliament for questioning, in pursuit of a few isolated cases in which they think Westminster's responsibility should prevail. It is that attitude of trying to limit the Scottish Parliament's powers—
      Mr. Ancram: If the Lord Advocate, although still remaining the adviser to the United Kingdom Government, could give answers to the Scottish Parliament, would the hon. Gentleman withdraw his objection?
      Mr. Salmond: Of course not. I argue that the Law Officer should be directly accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has to account for the situation that he is prepared to allow which would mean that the Scottish Parliament did not have the ability to hold the senior Law Officer in Scotland directly accountable. That attitude towards the legislation—trying to draw back whatever can be saved for this place and the other place at Westminster—is the real reason for the miserable, down the drain, 9 per cent. that the Conservative party faces in the elections to the Scottish Parliament in a year's time.
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I wish to start by referring to the initial comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the many Adjournment debates he has had on Lockerbie. As a newly appointed Minister about to face the 14th debate, I sat with some trepidation. As it was an Adjournment debate, however, I thought that I could relax until 10 o'clock. This historic moment was the evening before the publication of the White Paper and, at 6.10 pm, the business in the House collapsed.
      My hon. Friend was on stage at that point. Remarkably, after an hour, he started to read from his notes—after speaking for one hour without any. We finished at 8.50 pm, and it was an important occasion for me in dealing with Lockerbie. My hon. Friend answered the question on prosecution—it is about the jurisdiction in which prosecution takes place. I shall deal with some of the points made about the Lord Advocate in a moment, but that is an important point.

      171
      We have had a useful debate on the role of the Law Officers and the way in which they will be dealt with under devolution. Before dealing in detail with the amendments. It may help if I clarify first what is proposed for the Law Officers in the Bill.
      The policy that the Bill reflects was summarised briefly in the White Paper, which recognised that the Scottish Executive would require the services of Law Officers to provide them with advice on legal matters and to represent their interests in the courts. In addition, the role and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate as prosecutor were to be devolved, with his traditional independence maintained. The Bill delivers that policy and safeguards the Lord Advocate's independence in a number of its provisions.
      At present, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland are the Scottish Law Officers to the United Kingdom Government. The Bill provides for them to cease to be members of the UK Government and to become members of the Scottish Executive. They, along with the other Ministers, will be known as the Scottish Ministers. The effect of clause 45(3) is that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will cease to be Ministers in the UK Government and will cease to be the UK Government's Scottish Law Officers. Clause 45(1) provides for the appointment and the removal from office of the Law Officers, and makes this subject to the agreement of the Scottish Parliament.
      All the functions conferred on the Scottish Ministers will be capable of being exercised by any of them. It will be for the First Minister to determine the portfolios of individual Scottish Ministers. However, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland are to be the Law Officers to the Scottish Executive, and the intention of the Bill is that their functions as Law Officers should not be exercisable by any other Scottish Minister—a point alluded to by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
      The Bill ensures that these Law Officer functions are retained by the Law Officers in their own names. The functions of the Law Officers principally involve their being the main legal advisers to the Government in matters of Scots law, and representing the Crown and the Government in civil and criminal proceedings. While the term "Law Officer" in itself does not, as a matter of law, confer any particular function or status, certain specific functions are conferred upon the Lord Advocate in his capacity as Law Officer.
      Retained functions include the functions of the Lord Advocate as Her Majesty's Advocate—as the head of the systems of criminal prosecution and the investigation of deaths in Scotland. The Lord Advocate will be entrenched in that role by clause 28(2)(e), and clause 45(2) confirms the continued independence of the decisions of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as the head of the systems of criminal prosecution and the investigation of deaths in Scotland. These provisions secure the protection that the Lord Advocate requires to fulfil those responsibilities in a way which will uphold his traditional independence.
      All the other functions currently exercisable by the Lord Advocate that do not relate to his Law Officer functions—whether they concern devolved or reserved matters—will require to be transferred from him before
      172
      he ceases to be a Minister of the Crown or becomes a member of the Scottish Executive. Transfer of function orders will need to be made to effect this and, for the information of the House, I have today laid three working drafts of the orders in the Library.
      Mr. Ancram: We understand that, under the Bill, the legal functions of the Law Officers are protected from being exercised by anyone else. However, I am interested in where the reverse could be the case. Under clause 48(3), a Law Officer might find himself exercising the statutory functions of another Minister of the Executive, and I gave planning as an example. Am I right in thinking that, under that provision, that is possible? If it is, does the Minister think that it is desirable?
      Mr. McLeish: It would be possible, but it would be ridiculous and certainly would not reflect any precedent in the current distribution of functions within a ministerial team. The right hon. Gentleman once again picks an extreme example on which to base his case. That will not happen. We want to ensure that the ministerial functions are capable of being exercised by Ministers of the Executive. There is nothing surprising about that, and it is a reasonable step forward.
      Mr. Ancram: If the Minister is right to say that that position will never arise, and that there is no possibility of a Law Officer exercising the functions of another member of the Executive, what is the point of having them as members of the Executive? The purpose of our amendment is not to prevent them from advising the Scottish Parliament, but to remove them from the Executive. We cannot see the purpose or benefit of the Law Officers being members of the Executive, but we can see a lot of dangers in blurring the distinction between their office and the offices of other members of the Executive.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I do not see the danger. At present, I am the Minister responsible for home affairs, devolution and transport, but there may be occasions within my ministerial work when I am working on health or education matters. It is common sense to allow members of the Executive to carry out these functions.
      Mr. Ancram: The Minister has missed the point.
      Mr. McLeish: No, I have not. We are suggesting that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will be Ministers and part of the Scottish Executive. There is nothing remarkable in that proposal, and I hope to explain why it makes so much sense.
      I referred to the fact that a draft transfer of functions order had been placed in the Library, and I hope that hon. Members will avail themselves of the opportunity to look at it. There will also be another order to transfer certain functions from the Lord Advocate to a new UK Minister called the Advocate General for Scotland, who will become the Scottish Law Officer to the UK Government. His office is provided for in clause 82.
      Before the Lord Advocate becomes a member of the Scottish Executive, certain of his functions that relate to reserved matters will be transferred to the Advocate General by the order. Apart from the functions that the Lord Advocate is retaining, the functions he currently exercises in relation to devolved matters will be

      173
      transferred first to the Secretary of State under one of the transfer orders. They will then be transferred to the Scottish Ministers under clause 49, when they will become exercisable by any of the Scottish Ministers as determined by the First Minister.
      The reason why these functions have to be transferred first to the Secretary of State is that they have to be transferred from the Lord Advocate to another UK Minister of the Crown before the two Scottish Law Officers cease to be part of the UK Government. This allows the functions then to be transferred to the Scottish Ministers under clause 49. Functions currently exercisable by the Lord Advocate in relation to reserved matters will be transferred by the draft orders to UK Ministers of the Crown. Most will subsequently be transferred to the Scottish Ministers by the draft Transfer of Functions (Scottish Ministers) Order, which will be made under clause 59. I have made available to the House a draft of that order.
      In light of that background, I wish to address myself to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would require the Law Officers to the Scottish Executive—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland—and the new Scottish Law Officer to the UK Government, the Advocate General for Scotland, to be legally qualified in Scotland, either as an advocate or as a solicitor.
      As the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be aware, the offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General are, by custom, held by distinguished members of the Scottish Bar. It has not been felt necessary in the past to prescribe the qualifications for office of the Scottish Law Officers, and it is not clear why this should be necessary now. To do so would be inconsistent with the Government's intention to legislate for a responsible Parliament and Executive, which can be expected to ensure that holders of these vital offices of state are qualified for them.
      Some reference was made to the history of the offices. I referred to the holders of the offices as being distinguished members of the Scottish Bar. That has been the case for the Lord Advocate's office for some 400 years and, for the Solicitor-General's office, for some 300 years. Custom has served us well in Scotland, and there is no reason why that should change.
      Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that it could be possible for a solicitor, particularly one who holds rights of audience in the Supreme Court, to become Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General? In the case of the Advocate General for Scotland, which is a new appointment, there might be a temptation for the Government to cut corners and double up on a salary, possibly with the Attorney-General. In that case, would it not be worth while spelling out the qualifications required?
      Mr. McLeish: The question of the possible appointment of a solicitor to one of those offices is not an appropriate one for the Bill. The advent of rights of audience for solicitors and of solicitor-advocates may well give rise to the question whether it is strictly necessary for the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General to be drawn only from the Faculty of Advocates. There are a number of interests which it would be appropriate to consult before proceeding with any change on that matter.
      174
      In view of the wide range of the Lord Advocate's responsibilities, both formal and informal, it is essential that he or she should command the full confidence of the courts. That may be an issue which, in the fulness of time, the Scottish Parliament will wish to consider, but it is not an appropriate subject for the Bill.
      Similar considerations apply to the appointment of Advocate General. Clearly, the UK Government would wish to appoint only an eminent Scottish lawyer to a ministerial office of that nature, but there is no need to specify those qualifications in legislation. This is an area in which we can rely on long-established custom and practice, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment No. 12 provides that the functions of the Advocate General may be exercisable by another Minister of the Crown in the event of a vacancy or the incapacity of the Advocate General, provided that a vacancy lasts for no more than a month. The effect is to make it impossible for there to be a vacancy for longer than a month. Although I appreciate that the amendment is intended to ensure that the office of Advocate General for Scotland is not left vacant for too long, the matter can safely be left to the good sense of all concerned, as it might have other consequences.
      Clause 82(3) provides for the Prime Minister to determine that another Minister of the Crown should carry out the Advocate General's functions if the office is vacant, or if the Advocate General cannot act, for example, because of illness. I fully accept that it would be in no one's interest for the office to be left vacant for long and, except for circumstances beyond anyone's control, I cannot envisage the office being left vacant for longer than a month.
      I cannot agree that it is necessary to prescribe time limits to the provisions in clause 82. In any circumstances in which there was a vacancy or incapacity, whoever was appointed by the Prime Minister to hold the fort would be advised by the Scottish legal experts in the Advocate General's Department. There would be no question, therefore, of the UK Government taking decisions without regard to Scottish law.
      Mr. Salmond: May I press the Minister on his opinion on Law Officers' independence? We have had Law Officers who have been anything but politically independent—Lord Mackay of Clashfern kept making interventions in the constitutional debate; each was described as "unprecedented". The last Solicitor-General stood for a seat unsuccessfully in the general election. I am genuinely interested to know what the Minister thinks the question of Law Officers' independence means, because there has been no tradition of political independence.
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question. We should look at the totality of the Lord Advocate's functions and responsibilities in the new Scottish Parliament. He will be a member of the Scottish Executive and would therefore advise on legal aspects of political policy as it unfolds, but in relation to the prosecution function and overseeing investigations into

      175
      deaths, his independence is absolutely vital. As in any democracy, an important balance must be struck. The proposals before us contain the right balance.
      Mr. Dalyell: It may be unlikely, and it would not happen often, but in the event of a difference of opinion between the Advocate General and the Lord Advocate, who would resolve it?
      Mr. McLeish: Such points were raised at previous Committee sittings. We assume that the balance of common sense will prevail in many of the issues that will be dealt with between Westminster and the new Parliament at Holyrood. If we reach the point where matters must be resolved, the systems of debate and dialogue must come into play. When we have discussed such matters, we have always considered the most pessimistic scenario. That is understandable, but I would hope that, especially in this area, which is absolutely vital to the freedom of individuals and to the public interest, those matters will be fully resolved.
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for saying why he considers amendment No. 274 to be desirable. The amendment is both unnecessary and, I am afraid to say, would run counter to what is envisaged by the Bill.
      As I explained, the Bill provides that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland should be members of the Scottish Executive. It does not, however, need to provide expressly that they will become the Law Officers of the Scottish Executive. The Solicitor-General will continue to be able to carry out the functions of the Lord Advocate in terms of the Law Officers Act 1944.
      The amendment describes the Solicitor-General as the Law Officer to the Scottish Executive. I am left wondering where the amendment would leave the Lord Advocate. The right hon. Member for Devizes said that Scotland could deal with one Law Officer, not two. The amendment would, by implication, deprive the Lord Advocate of his intended role as principal Law Officer to the Scottish Executive.
      The Government believe that both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General should be the Law Officers to the Scottish Executive, and that the two offices should continue to have the sort of relationship that has existed for more than three centuries. The amendment would destroy that.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I also ask about the back-up to the Advocate General? Clearly, the civil servants and the Crown agent are responsible to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, but what about the civil servants responsible to the Advocate General? Will they be UK civil servants, or responsible to the Scottish Parliament?
      Mr. McLeish: It is a UK appointment and they will be UK civil servants. The Government will deal in due course with the details and procedures behind setting up the office and the specific functions.
      Amendments Nos. 289 and 290 allow the subordinate legislation under which functions may be executively devolved to determine whether the functions should be exercised by the Scottish Law Officers rather than by
      176
      Scottish Ministers generally. The purpose appears to be to try to allow particular functions to be assigned specifically to the Scottish Law Officers rather than to the Scottish Ministers.
      That goes against the general approach in the Bill, which is to make fully and executively devolved functions exercisable by any Scottish Minister. In legal terms, they will be equally capable of exercising those functions. In practice, that will leave the First Minister with the proper degree of discretion to decide which of his Ministers should exercise particular functions. Only in respect of the Lord Advocate's retained functions, which are his Law Officer functions and his functions as head of the systems of prosecution and deaths investigation service, will the Law Officers exercise functions that cannot be exercised by another Scottish Minster.
      I expect that the First Minister will wish to allocate functions in accordance with the Scottish Ministers' portfolios. In practice, it is likely that certain policy functions that relate to the Scottish judicial system will be exercised by the Scottish Law Officers.
      In line with the devolution of responsibility for the judicial system in Scotland, the draft Executive devolution order lists a number of functions currently exercised by the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State in relation to tribunals concerned with reserved matters. Those functions involve making or being consulted about appointments, and procedural rules and other procedural matters. Executive devolution will enable the functions to be exercised by the Scottish Minister. We expect the First Minister to allocate the functions in question to the Scottish Minister responsible for civil justice matters, whether he be the Lord Advocate or some other Scottish Minister. In exercising those functions, the role of the relevant Scottish Minister would relate to his involvement in the civil justice system rather than to any other policy interest of the Scottish Executive in the matter concerned.
      However, there would be no justification for fettering the discretion of the Scottish Ministers as the amendment proposes. The Committee has to make up its mind whether it wants power and responsibility to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Executive that can stand on their own feet and be responsible for their own decisions. There is no need for the type of provision proposed in the amendments.
      I ask the Committee to resist amendment No. 303, which appears to be intended to prevent the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland from being members of the Scottish Executive. That would be quite inappropriate. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will be the Law Officers to the Scottish Executive. That means that they will be expected to provide advice from a legal perspective on the formulation and implementation of policy. They can only properly do that if they are members of the Scottish Executive.
      Amendment No. 303 would therefore severely restrict the role of the Law Officers, which I am sure is not what the right hon. Member for Devizes intends. It is vital to the Scottish Executive that the Law Officers should play a full and effective part in it. The devolution of the Law Officers and their responsibilities is one of the key respects in which the Bill improves on the 1978 Act. The amendment would be a significant weakening of the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 303.

      177
      Amendment No. 314 would extend the provision on the independence of the Lord Advocate to officials and agents appointed by and responsible to the Lord Advocate, such as Crown Office staff, procurators fiscal and Crown counsel.
      The amendment is defective because clause 45(2) protects any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. It does not make any sense to refer, as the amendment does, to any decision by such an official or agent taken in that capacity because the official or agent is not the head of those systems. Furthermore, the amendment could be taken to mean that any decision of an official or agent of the Lord Advocate is required to be taken independently of the Lord Advocate.
      5.30 pm
      The amendment is unnecessary. It presumably seeks to protect any decision for which formal responsibility rests with the Lord Advocate but which in practice is taken by one of his officials for whom he is responsible. Any such decision is regarded as the decision of the Lord Advocate. It is important to underline that point. The reference to the Lord Advocate will therefore include any such official. Accordingly, the guarantee of independence of the Lord Advocate should be sufficient to protect officials from outside pressures without express mention.
      I should also point out that clause 28(2)(e), which entrenches the position of Lord Advocate as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths, will also have the effect of ensuring that any officials and agents who are appointed by the Lord Advocate in connection with those functions will remain answerable to him. That reinforces the guarantee of independence.
      In the light of that explanation, I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.
      Government amendment No. 321 is a drafting amendment that is intended to clarify clause 48(6) by making it clear that what the Bill refers to as the Lord Advocate's "retained functions"—those functions that are exercisable by him alone—include any functions that may be conferred on him alone in future legislation.
      It is not intended to refer to any statutory functions that are at present conferred on him because, to the extent that he retains them, they will be caught by the reference in clause 48(6)(a) to
      "any functions exercisable by him immediately before he ceases to be a Minister of the Crown".
      The amendment refers to any functions that the Scottish Parliament may confer on the Lord Advocate in connection with the criminal prosecution or deaths investigation systems. It is simply a clarificatory point.
      Mr. Ancram: A familiar and depressing atmosphere surrounded the Minister's reply. His standpoint is that his legislation is unamendable. I hope that he will consider that point carefully. Several amendments were tabled in good faith, including those of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), yet we were told that they were not necessary. That attitude comes from a mind-set that assumes that legislation is
      178
      perfect. As a lawyer, I can tell the Minister that, if legislation had ever been perfect, there would not be much work for lawyers. It is because legislation is so often imperfect that many of us manage to earn a living as lawyers.
      I was slightly surprised to be lectured about the fact that the Conservative Government did not have a Law Officer in this House.
      Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ancram: Not necessarily by the Minister, but by others.
      It is obvious that the Government do not believe that a Law Officer should sit on the Treasury Bench to deal with legal matters in Scotland. They do not have the excuse that they have no one who is appropriately qualified. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) is perfectly qualified to hold that position, but for reasons best known to themselves the Government decided that the Law Officer should speak in the other place. There is a question mark over the sincerity of their view of the importance of having the Lord Advocate in the Scottish Parliament to answer questions, because they have not adopted that position for this House.
      The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland tabled some good amendments that we would have supported, but we were told by the Minister that they were not acceptable. I am now used to the interventions of the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Is he right honourable?
      Mr. Salmond: No.
      Mr. Ancram: Honourable but not right yet—that clarifies matters.
      The hon. Gentleman seems to regard everything that is proposed, certainly by Conservatives, as part of a conspiracy to destroy the Scottish Parliament. I do not think for a moment that he believes that, because he has no interest in making the Scottish Parliament work. He wants it to fail so that we move towards independence. I suspect that he criticises our proposals because he believes that they give the Scottish Parliament a better chance of sustaining itself within a devolved system, which will ensure that it does not go down the slippery slope towards independence.
      Mr. Salmond: It is early days, but it seems that my point of view on the Scottish Parliament elections is doing rather better than that of the right hon. Gentleman. Does he not think that, if the Scottish Parliament works, and if people have confidence in that new institution, it will lead to a move towards independence?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman wants conflict and dispute between this House and a Scottish Parliament, because he believes that that will operate in favour of his ambitions and objectives. Throughout the referendum campaign, we argued that the creation of a Scottish Parliament would not diminish nationalism but would create a focus for it, and that nationalism would increase. If anything, the opinion polls show that our fears were right. The urbane reassurances that we were given by Labour Members are now seen for what they are.

      179
      The Minister gave us some interesting information about the clause. I thank him for that, because we learned much about the intentions behind the clause. However, he did not answer our questions on the amendments. On one amendment, he said that the matter could safely be left to the good sense of all concerned. It is not an answer to say that a provision need not be in the legislation because we can rely on the good sense of all concerned. I do not share his touching faith in human nature. People who want the Scottish Parliament to work would be wise not to rely on faith in human nature: they should ensure that the right statutory provisions are in place.
      The Minister gave no reason why the Law Officers should be members of the Executive. He said that it was so that they could give legal advice on political events as they unfolded. Why can they not do that from outside the Executive, as do other legal advisers? They do not have to be part of what they are legally advising: in fact, their advice is often better for their not being part of it.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made two important points about the Advocate General. He asked what would happen if there were a dispute between the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General. We received a wittering answer that did not tell us whether there was a mechanism to resolve such a dispute, which would be very serious for the law of Scotland.
      in answer to the question who would service the Advocate General's Department, we were told that civil servants would be made available. Where will they come from? The Crown Office? Will they be trained in Scottish law? Will they be seconded from among the civil servants who would otherwise look after the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General? We have no answers to those questions. Yet again, we are told that we must leave it to the good sense of all concerned. We are not prepared to leave such matters to the good sense of all concerned. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: To whom will the civil servants who work for the Advocate General be responsible? Are they part of the home civil service and ultimately responsible to its head, who is currently Sir Richard Wilson, or to the permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, or will they be responsible to the Scottish Parliament? That is an important question. Before we reach the later stages of the Bill, something more must be said about the possibility of a difference of opinion between the Advocate General and the Lord Advocate, because such a dispute is not so arcane, esoteric or hypothetical as we may suppose.
      Mr. Wallace: I want to take up some of the points raised by the Minister in response to amendments that I tabled. First, however, let me take up what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said when he was engaging in his bit of banter with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
      I think that there will be a penalty to be paid by any party that tries to wreck the Scottish Parliament, and I do not think that it is in any party's interest to do so. That is why I want the Scottish Parliament to be as fully fledged as possible. I think that a measure that took away a wing of it by refusing to allow the principal Law Officer of
      180
      Scotland to be accountable to, or to be a Member of, the Scottish Parliament would give rise to conflict and frustration. I am not saying that that was the motive behind amendment No. 303, but I believe that it could be the consequence of it. If the right hon. Member for Devizes wants to know how the wrecking would happen, let me tell him that I think it would result from not having the Lord Advocate as a Minister in any Scottish Executive.
      I was disappointed by the Minister's reply, which was traditionally conservative with a small "c": "It has happened for years, and therefore it will go on happening." I take the Minister's point that we do not want to circumscribe the Scottish Parliament in too many ways, but he ought to accept that, far from circumscribing the Parliament by tradition—which, I think, is what he was trying to do—my amendments would open it up, making the pool from which the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General might be chosen somewhat wider than tradition would allow it to be. I do not intend to press the matter to the vote on this occasion, but I think that what was said will be noted.
      I want to reserve our position on amendment No. 11, which relates to clause 82 and requires the Advocate General to be properly qualified in the law of Scotland. The right hon. Member for Devizes referred to the "good sense" of all concerned. When the Conservatives were in government, I used to apply what I have always considered to be a very good test: "How would you like the powers to be in the hands of the Opposition?" Does the Minister really think that the good sense of all concerned would necessarily be exercised in the right way if, as may happen, the Conservatives returned to office? After all, they have been in office before, and they may be again. Does the Minister trust the Conservatives to exercise good sense, or does he think that they may try to take a short cut?
      In the case of the Advocate General, I do not think that we can rely on centuries of tradition, because there is no tradition. We are creating a new post. It will be an important post, because large areas of responsibility affecting Scotland will remain with the House of Commons, and we hope that the advice on Scottish law that the Government of the day are given will be of the best quality. I do not think that we can leave the matter to chance, good sense, good luck and good will.
      Especially with regard to the Advocate General, we should not leave things to tradition. There is an old story about someone saying, "As from tomorrow, this college will have a new tradition." I think that the Minister was saying, "As from the time when the Bill is enacted and a Scottish Parliament is established, there will be the tradition of the Advocate General."
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman speaks of changes in traditions. Is he aware that recently, when it came to breaking traditions in regard to legal matters, the Government decided to introduce special legislation so that, for the first time, a non-lawyer could become permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department? Is it not consistent with the hon. Gentleman's argument, rather than with the Government's argument, that in certain circumstances—

      181
      when it suits them—the Government are prepared to depart from legal tradition, while on this occasion they are not?
      Mr. Wallace: I was not aware of that. I have not been paying close attention to the machinations of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Perhaps I have read more in the press about the Lord Chancellor's wallpaper than about his permanent secretary. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however: traditions can be overturned. One of my amendments would allow for the development of a tradition, but in the context that we are discussing there is no tradition, and I think that there ought to be rules. As I have said, we shall reserve our position in respect of clause 82.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I find it remarkable that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is always so keen to reinvent the wheel. At present, the Lord Advocate is a member of the Government, and I submit that in past Conservative Administrations the position was probably the same. What is the great remarkable discovery about the Lord Advocate in the Scottish Parliament being a member of the Scottish Executive? I think that the point is bogus. We are seeking to strengthen the legal advice on policy within the Scottish Executive, while ensuring that the independence that the Lord Advocate requires to exercise his function is there in a real sense. We have presented a clear and coherent package in terms of that accountability, which should be commended.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the discussions between the Advocate General and the Lord Advocate. As I have said, Labour Members feel no malice in regard to what may happen between a Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. That said, two parts of the Bill refer to policy resolution and the question of vires. My hon. Friend was right to stress the fact that, ultimately, there will be ways of resolving disputes, and one way will be through the courts.
      My hon. Friend asked about the Advocate General's staff. They will of course be United Kingdom civil servants, responsible to the Advocate General at Westminster rather than to the Scottish Parliament.
      The practical strength of our proposals lies in the attempt to provide a coherent package for the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. I take on board my hon. Friend's comments, because he has taken a passionate interest in ensuring that we get the balance right, but we believe that the right balance has been struck. I therefore urge the right hon. Member for Devizes to withdraw his amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 352.

      Division No. 159]

      [5.46 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bercow, John

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Arbuthnot, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Baldry, Tony

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      182

      Brady, Graham

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Lidington, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Loughton, Tim

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Luff, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Butterfill, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      MacKay, Andrew

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Madel, Sir David

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maples, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Mates, Michael

      (Rushclifte)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Colvin, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cran, James

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Norman, Archie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Paice, James

      Duncan, Alan

      Paterson, Owen

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Prior, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Randall, John

      Faber, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Flight, Howard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Ruffley, David

      Fox, Dr Liam

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fraser, Christopher

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gale, Roger

      Shepherd, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gibb, Nick

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Spring, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gray, James

      Streeter, Gary

      Swayne, Desmond

      Green, Damian

      Syms, Robert

      Greenway, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Grieve, Dominic

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Townend, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Tredinnick, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Trend, Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Hayes, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Walter, Robert

      Horam, John

      Wardle, Charles

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wells, Bowen

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Johnson Smith,

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Key, Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Yeo, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Leigh, Edward

      Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. John Whittingdale.

      Letwin, Oliver

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Anger, Nick

      Austin, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Baker, Norman

      Alan, Richard

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Barnes, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Barron, Kevin

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Battle, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Bayley, Hugh

      183

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Dismore, Andrew

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobbin, Jim

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Doran, Frank

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Drew, David

      Benton, Joe

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Best, Harold

      Edwards, Huw

      Betts, Clive

      Efford, Clive

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff

      Borrow, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brake, Tom

      Held, Rt Hon Frank

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      Breed, Colin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Follett, Barbara

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Galbraith, Sam

      Byers, Stephen

      Galloway, George

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gapes, Mike

      Caborn, Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Godsiff, Roger

      Canavan, Dennis

      Goggins, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Caton, Martin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gorrie, Donald

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chidgey, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Gunnell, John

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Harvey, Nick

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Heppell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hill, Keith

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Hoey, Kate

      Crausby, David

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hope, Phil

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      (Perth)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hutton, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Ingram, Adam

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Denham, John

      Jamieson, David

      184

      Jenkins, Brian

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Mudie, George

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Norris, Dan

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pearson, Ian

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pendry, Tom

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Pike, Peter L

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pond, Chris

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Pound, Stephen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lepper, David

      Primarob, Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Linton, Martin

      Rammell, Bill

      Livsey, Richard

      Rapson, Syd

      Lock, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      McAllion, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooker, Jeff

      McCabe, Steve

      Rooney, Terry

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Rowlands, Ted

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Roy, Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruane, Chris

      McFall, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Salmond, Alex

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      McLeish, Henry

      Sanders, Adrian

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McWalter, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Meale, Alan

      Spellar, John

      Michael, Alun

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Stevenson, George

      Milburn, Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moore, Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Swinney, John

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      (Dewsbury)

      185

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Watts, David

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      White, Brian

      Timms, Stephen

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Todd, Mark

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      (Swansea W)

      Touhig, Don

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Trickett, Jon

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Truswell, Paul

      Willis, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wise, Audrey

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Wood, Mike

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Woolas, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tyler, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Vaz, Keith

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Greg Pope.

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being Six o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [9 February] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 42

      THE FIRST MINISTER
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 18, line 11, leave out from `be' to end of line 13 and insert
      `elected by the members of the Parliament'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 254, in page 18, leave out lines 19 to 27.
      No. 313, in clause 43, page 18, line 36, leave out 'or'.
      No. 275, in page 18, line 38, at end insert
      'or—

      (e) the First Minister being admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, becoming subject to a guardianship order or having a curator bonis appointed on his estate'.

      No. 76, in clause 44, page 19, line 9, leave out
      `with the approval of Her Majesty'.
      No. 276, in page 19, line 10, after 'appoint', insert
      `up to a total of ten'.
      No. 277, in page 19, leave out lines 11 and 12.
      No. 87, in page 19, line 11, leave out
      `seek Her Majesty's approval for'
      and insert 'make'.
      No. 88, in page 19, leave out line 14.
      No. 89, in clause 46, page 19, line 32, leave out
      `with the approval of Her Majesty'.
      No. 75, in page 19, line 35, at end insert—
      '(2A) The First Minister shall not make any appointment under this section without the agreement of the Parliament.'.
      186
      No. 90, in page 19, leave out line 37.
      Mr. Canavan: I shall speak to amendment No. 44 and the other amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 75 are substantive and the others are consequential.
      Amendment No. 44 proposes that the First Minister should be elected by Members of the Scottish Parliament rather than being appointed by the Queen and holding office at Her Majesty's pleasure. As the First Minister will be primus in paribus, or first among equals, it is more appropriate that he or she is elected by his or her parliamentary colleagues than appointed by the Crown.
      In the early stages of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, members of the convention signed a document referring to the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. It seems to me that the concepts of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and of the sovereignty of a monarch are mutually exclusive. The amendments propose that, if the First Minister is not directly elected by the people of Scotland, he or she should be elected by the people's representatives in the Scottish Parliament.
      I dare say that Opposition Members, and perhaps the Minister, will argue that the role of the monarchy is a mere formality in respect of the governance of the country or the countries that used to be part of the British empire. However, not all that long ago a Labour Prime Minister was ousted from his job in Australia because of the interference of the Governor-General, the Queen's representative.
      In 1974, there were two general elections, and the first resulted in a hung parliament. No party had an overall majority in Parliament, and Harold Wilson was the leader of the party with the largest number of Members. However, the Queen did not call Harold Wilson to the palace. In fact, she called the defeated Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), to the palace and asked him to cobble up some kind of coalition agreement with Jeremy Thorpe, the then leader of the Liberal party. There was a long hiatus in which, in effect, there was no Government. Harold Wilson, who was the leader of the biggest party, had to wait in the wings until he was called to the palace to form a Government.
      Mr. Wallace: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument and I am sure that he would not want there to be any inaccuracy. He will also agree that Jeremy Thorpe and his Liberal colleagues showed good sense by not supporting Edward Heath. Is not the point that Edward Heath had the advantage of incumbency—
      The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is referring to a right hon. Member.
      Mr. Wallace: I apologise, Sir Alan. I was speaking from a sense of history, as I was just a boy at the time. It was actually my first vote.
      The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was the incumbent Prime Minister at the time, so it was not a matter of the Queen sending for him. He had to tender his resignation. I am sure that even the

      187
      hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) would have thought it an abuse if the sovereign had summoned the Prime Minister and demanded his resignation.
      Mr. Canavan: That is exactly what the Queen should have done after the February 1974 general election. Whatever the will of the British people, as expressed at the ballot box, it was quite clear that they no longer wanted the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to be their Prime Minister. The Queen should have summoned him to the palace and sacked him and then called Harold Wilson, but for reasons best known to herself, she did not do that. Sometimes I wonder about the so-called neutral role of the monarchy in respect of politics.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am very much in favour of reducing the work load of the monarch—preferably to zero. I was interested to hear the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I do not know whether he knows what happened in Australia, but in contradiction to his point about 1974—which may be true, but I do not know as I was not here at the time—when the Australian Labour Government were sacked and a general election was called, the Liberals, or the Tories, were appointed in the interim and therefore were in government throughout the election. That is an interesting point as it illustrates the other side of the coin from that referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the monarch's neutrality, which remains to be proved.
      Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention as it shows the inconsistency of the monarchy or its representatives when they take a role in the running of Governments or Parliaments.
      We have to bear in mind too that, if the political pundits are correct, there will be a much greater probability of a hung Parliament in the Scottish Parliament because of the system of proportional representation. The amendments would minimise—in fact remove—the possibility of any interference by the monarchy as to who should be the First Minister and form the Government.
      My amendments Nos. 76 and 75 propose that Parliament's agreement should be required in appointing not only the First Minister but other Ministers and that there should be no role for the monarchy in appointing other Ministers or junior Ministers.
      Another anomaly in the Bill is that, under clause 46, the First Minister would require Parliament's agreement before seeking the Crown's approval of the appointment of a Minister, whereas the First Minister could appoint junior Ministers without seeking Parliament's approval. I think that that would be a bad thing and that all ministerial appointments should be subject to Parliament's approval. A Scottish Parliament should not simply ape the patronage system of this place, where the power of patronage is widely open to abuse. As I had started to say, the Crown is the very pinnacle of the patronage system, although in practice the Prime Minister exercises many of those powers.
      We have witnessed many examples—and are perhaps witnessing current examples—of appointments that are made without any reference to Parliament or much democratic accountability. We must remember that the
      188
      First Minister of Scotland will have tremendous patronage powers, because, presumably, he or she will inherit all the patronage powers currently held by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for hundreds of public appointments across Scotland. We are talking not about the appointment of a mere coterie of Scottish Cabinet members and junior Ministers but about patronage over hundreds of public positions across Scotland.
      We should make the First Minister and the First Minister's ministerial colleagues as accountable as possible to the people of Scotland through elected representatives.
      Mr. Salmond: I am very sympathetic to many of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, it seems that clause 43 is something of an advance on the current situation at Westminster, where someone is to be called to the palace—presumably the head of the leading party in the general election. The clause states that the Scottish Parliament will
      "nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister."
      That seems to go part of the way towards achieving the more satisfactory situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, and away from the process of mystification that we could have in this place if there were a hung Parliament.
      Mr. Canavan: I agree that the Bill proposes a ministerial appointment system that is better than our current system at Westminster, where Ministers can be appointed without any reference to Parliament. We once had a rule in the parliamentary Labour party that, if someone was an elected member of the shadow Cabinet, he or she would automatically become a Cabinet member when Labour was elected to government. In at least two cases that I know of, that did not happen after 1 May. Furthermore, I know of at least one Minister whose appointment might not have been accepted had it required parliamentary approval. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I forget his constituency, but I believe that he has something to do with the millennium dome. [Interruption.] Yes, he is the Minister for the dome.
      Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman's bleeper going off?
      Mr. Canavan: I have it switched off.
      As I said, the two concepts of sovereignty of the people and sovereignty of the monarch are mutually exclusive. If we really believe in sovereignty of the people, Members of the Scottish Parliament should—as proposed—be elected by the people and accountable to the people. Similarly, Ministers should be elected by the elected representatives of the people. In that way, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Executive would be more accountable to the people of Scotland.
      6.15 pm
      Dr. Liam Fox: I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—who said that Labour Members are clones—was not in the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). It is nice to know that he still shops for his speeches at Republicans—'R—Us, adding a bit of colour to the Labour Benches.

      189
      I shall speak to amendment No. 275, which deals with the important issue of the mental health of Members of Parliament, which is not a laughing matter but a serious issue that is important both for Members of Parliament and for the protection of their electorate—to ensure that representation of the electorate is maintained.
      Mr. McLeish: Just for the record, is present company excepted from the deliberations?
      Dr. Fox: The Minister is asking me to give a professional opinion, which I do not think I want to stray into right now.
      I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the Mental Health Act 1983 has special provisions for section orders for Members of Parliament. Should, for example, an hon. Member fall ill with a mental health problem, a complex procedure will come into play. First, the doctor signing a section order or the person who is in charge of the hospital where the Member is detained will notify the Speaker. Secondly, the Speaker will appoint someone from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to look after the Member. If that Member is still detained under a section order after six months, the seat will become vacant.
      I do not know why there should be such a provision for hon. Members in this place, but not for those in the Scottish Parliament. I think that Ministers have simply overlooked the matter, and I look forward to the Minister bringing the Scottish Parliament into line on that point. It is quite a serious and important matter, which should not be belittled.
      Dr. Lynda Clark: Could the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee of the number of occasions when that provision has been used?
      Dr. Fox: I do not think that it matters whether it has been used: the provision is there to protect the electorate should a Member of Parliament be absent for six months and unable to represent his or her constituents. One would hope that the provision would never have to be used and that hon. Members do not suffer in that way, but it is there to protect the electorate. It is, therefore, important.
      In tabling amendment No. 276, we wanted to examine a different aspect of the Bill. Our amendment would limit the size of the Scottish Executive. "Erskine May", for example, limits the Prime Minister's freedom of manoeuvre in establishing the number of places in his Cabinet, yet this Bill places no limitation on the size of the Scottish Executive. The Bill provides for an unspecified number of Ministers plus an unspecified number of junior Ministers. The Scottish Office is currently run by the Secretary of State and five Ministers. One would not wish a situation to arise—which has occurred elsewhere—in which the number of Ministers was increased simply to keep Members quiet, by appointing more of them as Ministers. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West dealt with the matter of patronage in his speech.
      When I was at the Foreign Office—although I do not suggest that it might happen in the Scottish Parliament—one of the Governments whom I dealt with was the Government of Nepal. As the coalition Government started to crumble, one side of the Parliament consisted of 130 Members, of whom 85 were Ministers. I see the hon. Member for Falkirk, West smiling—perhaps because
      190
      he foresees the possible bonanza. However, it will happen only at the taxpayers' expense. If we are to avoid "jobs for the boys" gibes, we shall have to ensure that we are not writing a blank cheque for Members of the Scottish Parliament or giving unlimited powers of patronage to the First Minister.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: Not content with limiting the powers of a Scottish Parliament, the Tories want to limit the number of Scottish Ministers to fewer than those in a football team—and for ever more. Surely the size and shape of the Scottish Cabinet is up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. It is again clear that the Tories have no trust or faith in the Scottish people or their democracy.
      Dr. Fox: Quite the reverse—the issue is about having less faith in politicians than in the people. We are concerned with the ability of politicians to rein themselves in when offered a blank cheque. We have tabled the amendments from the point of view of protecting the electorate from politicians. When the people of Scotland voted in large numbers in favour of the proposals in the referendum, I do not think that they ever wanted to give such a blank cheque to the Parliament or for there to be an unspecified number of Ministers.
      Given that in this House Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister, and that the First Minister will have to have the Scottish Parliament's approval, it would be excessive to stipulate that all Ministers had to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. To introduce an American style of approval of Ministers, such as that welcomed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, would be excessive control over the First Minister's freedom. Such control does not apply in Westminster, and the case has not been made for it to apply in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
      Mr. John McAllion: I shall speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The amendments would delete the following phrases:
      "appointed by Her Majesty from among the members of the Parliament and shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure",
      "with the approval of Her Majesty"—
      in clauses 44 and 46—
      "seek Her Majesty's approval",
      and
      "shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure".
      in clauses 44 and 46.
      I would not want the group of amendments to be represented as an attack on either Her Majesty or the monarchy. That would be a misreading of the intent behind them. It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and I hold certain views about the legitimacy of an hereditary institution exercising what should be democratic power in a democratic society. I for one have never understood those who argue for modernising the British constitution and who speak about sweeping away powers of hereditary peers, while at the same time talking about entrenching the powers of an hereditary monarch.

      191
      I very much take to heart my hon. Friend's arguments, particularly those on the 1974 election and what happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia. The future role of the monarchy is not at the heart of the amendments. The amendments focus on the Scottish Parliament's right democratically to elect Ministers who will hold office in the Scottish Government after 1999.
      The Bill technically says that the First Minister shall be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at Her Majesty's approval. We know that that is a constitutional fiction. We know that the Queen will not in fact appoint anybody in the Scottish Parliament. She will do so only on the advice of the British Prime Minister and the British Cabinet of the day. We are really talking about the right of the United Kingdom Government and Cabinet to appoint the First Minister, other Ministers and junior Ministers in a Scottish Parliament. Without the approval of the UK Cabinet, that could not go ahead—otherwise, the provision would not be in the Bill. Even the right to hold office is contingent on the continuing approval of the British Government and Cabinet.
      There is danger in such a system. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said in an earlier debate that we cannot always assume that the British Cabinet will be in sympathy with the Scottish Parliament and necessarily want it to stand on its own feet, as the Minister would like.
      Mr. Tim Collins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument most closely. He seems to be making a case for a separate Scottish Head of State. If that is so, why is he sitting on the Government Benches and not with the Scottish nationalists?
      Mr. McAllion: I do not think that I have referred to the Head of State. My opinion on the Head of State—which I presume the hon. Gentleman seriously wants to hear, or he would not have asked—is that the Queen could do a lot worse than put herself forward for a referendum to endorse whether she should be the Head of State. The legitimacy of the Queen's role will always be questioned as long as she does not subject herself to the consent of the people.
      If I were a monarchist—which I am not—I would be arguing for the Queen to call a referendum on her role in the British constitution. If, in such a referendum, she received the endorsement of a huge majority, as everybody says she would, I am sure that that would improve her situation. Others of us would also like a referendum so that we could vote for the kind of Head of State we wanted. It is not a matter of treason to want a democratically elected Head of State—although, judging from the Tories' comments, it would sometimes seem so.
      The heart of the problem is the relationship between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. All the phrases—which the amendments would delete—mean this: the Scottish Parliament would be allowed to appoint its own Ministers only so long as they met with the approval of the Westminster Parliament and Government. That lies at the heart of my objections.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I think that the clauses about which the hon. Gentleman is complaining mean the complete opposite of what he is saying. The very reason why it is stipulated that the Scottish First
      192
      Minister will hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure is that that asserts absolutely and categorically that he has a direct link with the sovereign, which cannot be overridden by the United Kingdom Prime Minister in devolved matters. That is an essential protection under our present constitutional arrangements.
      Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is arguing as if the Queen had real constitutional powers. We have always been told that, of course, she does not have any real powers, because all constitutional power is exercised on the advice of the British Prime Minister. She would not dare to do anything on her own that a British Prime Minister would not allow her to do. Now, all of a sudden, the argument is very different. The hon. Gentleman is saying, "Yes, the Queen does have constitutional powers." He is agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, who is concerned about the powers that an unelected monarchy exercises in the British constitution. I am increasingly concerned about the hon. Gentleman's tone and the way in which the argument is developing.
      Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman needs to consider the implications of what he is saying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested, it matters not whether in practical terms the Head of State uses the power, but it matters from where the power is derived. The practical exercise of power and the source of power are two quite different things. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the clauses.
      Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman, who goes to Scotland on holiday only occasionally, also totally misunderstands the situation. I will tell him where the source of the power of appointment in a Scottish Parliament is. It is the people who elect that Scottish Parliament. There is no need for any reference to the United Kingdom Government, Cabinet or heir to the Head of State. A Scottish Parliament will be democratically legitimate because it will be elected by the Scottish people; it should be allowed freely to appoint its Ministers. That is the bottom line for those of us who agree with the Claim of Right and who believe that sovereignty rests with the people and not with the institution in Westminster.
      Worse than that, throughout the debates, there has been a tension between the UK Parliament wanting to keep control and a leash on what the Scottish Parliament might do, and those of us who want the Scottish Parliament to get on with the job of governing Scotland's domestic affairs free from interference, control and any dependence on the British Parliament.
      Dr. Fox: But the logic of that position is to move to independence, not devolution. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for a separate Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. McAllion: The Tories have a blanket approach to this debate. They envisage only two possibilities: either there is a toy town Parliament that is under the control of the British Parliament, or there is independence. They say that time and again, but they are wrong. There is a middle position, in which sovereignty is shared between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament does not need to seek anyone's approval for

      193
      the appointment of Ministers—it has the approval of the Scottish people, which is all the sovereignty that is required. That is not to argue for independence.
      Earlier, we debated whether, if the Scottish Parliament broke down and did not work, that would lead to independence or whether it would benefit the Tories and lead us back to a United Kingdom unitary state. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond): if the Scottish Parliament is a success, it will greatly increase the confidence among the Scottish people. Yes, the Scottish Parliament will argue for more and more powers to be devolved to it—there is nothing wrong with that. The real wreckers of the Scottish Parliament, who are sitting on the official Opposition Benches, do not want the Scottish Parliament to work, so they want the Bill to contain all these various control mechanisms.
      6.30 pm
      I have great sympathy with the idea that the number of Ministers should be restricted, not only in the Scottish Parliament but in this Parliament. The example of Nepal was cited, where of 130 Members 85 are Ministers. Everyone who is not a Minister wants to be one, so the Executive have complete control over the legislature, much as they have in this Parliament. As a point of principle, I want the Executive to be limited, but not to 10. I want a series of Departments to be set up under the Scottish Parliament, each with its own Minister, so that there are separate Departments for housing, health and local government. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on the number of Ministers and whether that number should be limited.
      There is much to be said for Bank Benchers having the power to hold the Executive to account. Any Parliament that is worth its salt has to have a number of independent Back Benchers. The trouble with the Westminster Parliament is that there are not enough independent Back Benchers—the Executive tightly control the Back Benchers, which is the wrong way round. We could easily ensure that the Scottish Parliament gets things the right way round, but that will not happen if we check and limit its powers to get on with its own business.
      The aim of the amendments is simple. It is for the Scottish Parliament—not for Westminster, the monarch of the United Kingdom state or anyone else—to decide who the Ministers are in the Government of the day in Scotland, as the Scottish Parliament alone will be elected by the Scottish people to fulfil that task.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: There is only one Liberal Democrat amendment in this group. It is a tidying-up amendment that relates to amendment No. 275, which was tabled by the Conservatives. We fully support that amendment, as it deals with the important issue of the mental health of the First Minister. There is a risk that the First Minister will suffer from megalomania. We already have a Secretary of State who single-handedly decides where the Parliament should be, so there is no knowing what may happen when power goes to people's heads in the Scottish Parliament and they are corrupted, as all people in power always are. By the law of averages, Conservative Members must sometimes be right—on this occasion, we believe that they have a good point.
      We do not agree with the two other points that Conservative Members have made. First, we do not see why there should be a limit on the number of Ministers
      194
      in the Scottish Cabinet. The Scottish Parliament may decide to operate totally differently from Westminster—for example, there may be a flat structure rather than one that includes Secretaries of State and junior Ministers. It should have the scope to approach matters in a modern way and to organise its affairs as it wishes. The electorate will soon respond if there are jobs for the boys and girls, and will punish those responsible. Things can be left to the good sense not of the politicians, but of the electorate.
      Secondly, the Conservatives have moved against what we believe is one of the Bill's best proposals—the introduction of the concept, which is new to Britain, that Parliament must approve all the Ministers. That is a great step towards democracy, and it is a pity that the Conservatives want to remove it.
      I shall now deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Falkirk and for Dundee, East and West respectively, I think, although I never remember—
      Mr. John Home Robertson: There is a subtle difference.
      Mr. Gorrie: The difference is not so subtle.
      The hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) are two of the most refreshing hon. Members, and we have the greatest sympathy with the angle from which they are coming. On this occasion, however, although we understand their argument, we do not agree with it. We believe that the matter is covered in clause 43(1), which states:
      "the Parliament shall within the period allowed nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister".
      That makes it clear that the Parliament chooses the First Minister. As I said, it also has the power to approve the Ministers.
      There is a good argument for continuing to mention the Queen in this context. People may feel that there should be a different constitutional structure, but that is a debate for another day. Under the existing structure, the fact that the Queen has the same relationship to the Scottish premier as she does to the British premier gives legitimacy and status to the Scottish Parliament. It demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament is not a toy town Parliament, a parish council, a regional council or a city chambers—it is a Parliament with a direct relationship to the Queen.
      The language may be archaic, but the point at issue is sound—the Scottish Parliament should choose the First Minister. The Parliament will meet to elect the First Minister; he or she will not have to drive in a horse and carriage across the road to Holyrood palace, although the Queen will do whatever she usually does and bless the premier, perhaps—I do not know, as I have never been present at such an occasion.
      Clause 47 deals with civil servants. Liberal Democrats strongly believe that a new atmosphere should be created, in which the civil servants are responsible to the Parliament and do not work for the Government only. This is not the appropriate time to ensure that that happens, but when the Parliament's methods of operation and Standing Orders are considered, we shall push strongly in that direction. Civil servants should continue

      195
      to advise Ministers, but they should also give information to and have much more open discussions with Members from all parties in the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Dalyell: Given the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), I have a sneaking suspicion that he has read the first leader in this morning's The Scotsman.
      I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question. If there is a conflict of opinion over a United Kingdom reserved matter, whose advice will the Queen take? Will she take the advice of the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament or that of the Prime Minister of the UK? If the matter is a devolved one, will the Queen take the advice of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? Furthermore, if the matter is devolved but the UK Parliament is legislating under clause 27(7), whose advice will the Queen take—that of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister?
      Mr. Grieve: I broadly welcome clause 42. Its purpose is to emphasise the importance of the First Minister's role and his direct relationship with the sovereign. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) does not like the principles underlying that but, as has properly been said, unless there is a change in our constitutional arrangements, it will be wise to observe constitutional conventions, so as to ensure a good working relationship between Westminster and Edinburgh and to secure the status of the Edinburgh Parliament. The First Minister should be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at her pleasure; that will be an important constitutional safeguard, which will be to the advantage of the Scots.
      In tabling amendment No. 254, my concern was that, although clause 42 (1) to (3) properly sets out the First Minister's role, subsections (4) and (5) go off the boil and refer to a curious hybrid entity. Subsection (4) mentions
      "a person designated by the Presiding Officer"
      in circumstances where, I infer, the Parliament has not nominated someone for appointment. I do not want to get involved in an exercise in semantics, but as the Secretary of State and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution are here, I ask them to consider carefully whether clause 42 is properly drafted. The references in it to the designation "by the Presiding Officer" of a First Minister ad interim, while Parliament makes up its mind, would be better transferred to clause 43.
      Clause 42 should define simply and neatly what the First Minister is supposed to do. Some other part of the Bill should emphasise what the designated First Minister is supposed to be. I assume that he or she is to be the person appointed to stand in for the First Minister if the office is vacant, and so is supposed to have all the powers, rights and obligations that the First Minister has. If that is the case, it would be sensible not to leave the wording in this hybrid condition. The legislation should make it clear that we are talking about a First Minister ad interim, who holds office at Her Majesty's pleasure exactly as any other Minister would do. As that is a non-party political issue, will the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution look into it?
      In conclusion, there has been some discussion of the role of the advice given by the First Minister and by the Prime Minister in the event of conflict—a matter
      196
      raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is obvious that that is a real live issue. In defining the role of the First Minister, it is important that his status should be emphasised and that his direct position as the adviser of the Queen on matters relating to devolved issues should be at the forefront. In so far as clause 42 does not do so, I ask the Minister to look at it again and consider whether there should be some rejigging along the lines I have suggested in amendment No. 254 and the associated amendment, No. 255, which has not been selected because it relates to clause 43.
      Mr. Salmond: I am surprised that there was not more enthusiasm from the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for limiting the number of Ministers. If the Minister of the dome has any say in the appointments, I suspect that neither of those hon. Gentlemen is knocking at the door of ministerial office at present. Indeed, if the Minister of the dome has anything to do with it, the public gallery is the nearest that they may get to the Scottish Parliament. We all hope that that will not be the case and that more democratic processes will be allowed to be carried forward. However, we should be grateful to those two hon. Gentlemen for enabling us to have an important debate.
      Tory Members should not misunderstand the position that has been put forward in the amendments. It is not an attack on the monarchy, or the Queen as Head of State, but an attack on one aspect of the royal prerogative, particularly as it applies to the choice of Ministers. That is a legitimate argument. If the amendments were successful, the Queen would remain Head of State, but one aspect of the royal prerogative as regards the appointment of Ministers in a Scottish Parliament would have been removed.
      Certainly, it is difficult to argue with the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West that the position of the First Minister, and indeed other Ministers, should depend on the approval and appointment of the Scottish Parliament as opposed to an aspect of the royal prerogative.
      6.45 pm
      We heard a fascinating interchange between the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Dundee, East. The latter argued that because the Queen normally takes advice from her first Minister, the Prime Minister, and therefore exercises the functions of the royal prerogative on the advice of that person, it could be a dangerous intervention in the ability of a Scottish Parliament to choose its own Ministers. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield says that the clause is some form of entrenchment because it would give the First Minister of a Scottish Parliament a direct line to the head of state and therefore would put that person as a Prime Minister inter pares with the United Kingdom Prime Minister in terms of the relationship with their Head of State.
      The interchange was fascinating and not one to which I had paid close attention before this debate. The question has to be resolved one way or the other and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution would do the Committee a service if he could adjudicate and tell us whether the interpretation of the hon. Member for

      197
      Beaconsfield or that of the hon. Member for Dundee, East was correct. The logic of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is impeccable in the amendments and I am sympathetic to them, but that issue, which determines in practical terms the position of the Scottish Parliament and its standing with regard to the sovereign and her advisers, needs to be clarified.
      Finally and briefly, Conservative Members seemed concerned about protecting the people from the Scottish Parliament, but many people in Scotland voted for that Parliament to protect them from the Conservative party. The need to box in the Scottish Parliament's powers, as opposed to leaving them for the Standing Orders of a Scottish Parliament, betrays an underlying attitude that is not reconciled to the reality of that Scottish Parliament. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, although perhaps not some of the Back Benchers, are still in a process of denial as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned. They may not like hearing this, but the Conservative recovery will not start until that process of denial in Westminster comes to an end.
      Mr. McLeish: First, on the point made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about mental health issues, I have consulted the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who is a neuro-surgeon, but he did not want to offer any suggestions to the Committee at this point. However, he suggested that the Scots are slightly better at differentiating between those who have a mental health problem and those who do not. I shall leave that as a question for the Committee. Interestingly, paragraph 9 of schedule 7 amends the Mental Health Act 1983, so the procedures to which the hon. Member for Woodspring referred will apply in a modified way to the Scottish Parliament. I will touch on some of the more serious issues when I refer to the amendments.
      To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who made a point about this—I do not know whether it was a slip—the Bill provides no role for the United Kingdom Government in the selection of the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and junior Ministers, so there is no locus for this Parliament or this Government in that regard. I do not know whether that was his point.
      Mr. McAllion: Can my hon. Friend make clear the distinction to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred? If the Scottish Parliament chooses a First Minister and proffers that choice to the Queen for appointment, but the advice of the British Prime Minister is not to accept the choice, whose advice would the Queen follow?
      Mr. McLeish: The British Prime Minister would have no locus in that appointment.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is clearly stating that the Queen would take the side of the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the Bill, against the British Prime Minister. Therefore, the British Prime Minister does not exercise sovereign control over the affairs of this country.
      Mr. McLeish: The Scottish Parliament would approve the appointment of the First Minister. The Presiding Officer would submit that appointment to the Queen and that would be it. We are talking about a substantial
      198
      devolution of power and responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. Devolution means devolution. It will be up to the Scottish Parliament to approve the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and the junior Ministers. Of course, those appointments will then be approved by the Queen. It is straightforward and there are no complications.
      Mr. Dalyell: I will not ask my hon. Friend for an answer off the top of his head, but will he write to me, because this question is not as simple as he makes out? Clause 27(7) states:
      "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
      In the light of that, I think that my hon. Friend should give me a considered answer in a letter.
      Mr. McLeish: I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend, but we should make it clear that clause 27(7), and the debate on it, is about sovereignty and the ability of the Westminster Parliament to make laws in any area, devolved or reserved. This evening, we are talking about the First Minister, and I repeat that he or she will be selected by the Parliament after the election and the choice will be passed to the Queen by the Presiding Officer. That is the process.
      Mr. Salmond: The point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is wrong, because it relates to legislation, not to appointments. However, is it not correct that, under clause 27(7), the UK Parliament could legislate to change the method of appointing the Scottish First Minister?
      Mr. McLeish: We have debated the issue and points have been exchanged across the Committee; the view taken depends on one's political perspective. We have made the point that this measure devolves substantial powers to Scotland—it is about devolution, not separation or independence.
      The Government cannot agree to amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 87 to 90, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East. The amendments would remove the involvement of Her Majesty in the appointment of the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers appointed under clause 44 and junior Ministers appointed under clause 46.
      The Scottish Ministers, headed by the First Minister and assisted by the junior Scottish Ministers, will exercise, on behalf of Her Majesty, her prerogative and other executive functions in relation to devolved matters. They will, in effect, be Her Majesty's Government in Scotland in relation to devolved matters. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the Queen should appoint the First Minister; that she should approve the appointment of other Ministers and junior Ministers to the Scottish administration; and that each of those appointees should hold office at her pleasure.
      The involvement of Her Majesty does not, of course, exclude the involvement of the Parliament. On the contrary, in line with the White Paper, the Bill provides a significant role for the Scottish Parliament in the appointment of the Scottish Executive. It is a point worth making that in this place, Ministers are not approved or, selected by the House, but the Scottish First Minister and the other Scottish Ministers will be approved and voted on by the Scottish Parliament.

      199
      That is a significant step forward in the scrutiny of the Executive. It starts at the foundation: the people will have spoken in electing Members of the Scottish Parliament who then, for the first time and unlike here, will have the ability to influence who represents the people of Scotland in ministerial posts. The significance of that step should not be lost on the Committee this evening. We see no need to amend the Bill in the way proposed, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West withdraw the amendment.
      I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West and for Dundee, East in support of amendment No. 75. The nature of the post of junior Scottish Minister will differ from that of a member of the Scottish Executive. The nature of their task will be to assist the Scottish Ministers in the exercise of their functions. With that in mind, the Bill proposes a simpler mechanism for their appointment. Nevertheless, I am also aware that the Scottish Constitutional Convention recommended that all Ministers should require to be confirmed by simple majority of the full Parliament.
      I am therefore happy to accept the intention behind amendment No. 75 that the Parliament should be involved in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers. I therefore undertake to bring forward an appropriate Government amendment on Report. With that undertaking, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West not to press the amendment.
      The Government cannot agree to amendment No. 254. The provisions in the Bill are intended to ensure that there is always someone able to perform the functions of the First Minister and act as head of the Scottish Administration. In practice, it is expected that each First Minister will hold office until replaced by his or her successor. However, circumstances could arise where the post falls vacant, for example on the death of the First Minister or if the First Minister is temporarily unable to act—that may fall partly into the definition proposed by the hon. Member for Woodspring. In such an event, a caretaker can be appointed to fulfil the role, pending the nomination and appointment of a new First Minister.
      Mr. Grieve: I understand that point, but the clause as it stands conveys the impression—it may be no more than an impression—that the person who is acting is somehow a different animal from the First Minister, whereas my understanding is that an acting First Minister would still hold office at the Queen's pleasure and have all the First Minister's powers. That is the point that is opaque in the clause as it stands.
      Mr. McLeish: That is a reasonable reflection, but I must get on and cover some more of the points raised in the debate.
      The mechanism for appointment of such a caretaker reflects the exceptional and transitory nature of the appointment. It lacks the formalities of the appointment of the First Minister precisely so as to avoid conveying the impression that the person is the First Minister rather than a temporary incumbent. On balance, the Government believe that the arrangements should be kept as simple as possible. The Presiding Officer is well placed to be able
      200
      to judge which Member of the Scottish Parliament has the capacity and political credibility to fulfil that important role and I believe that it should be left to the Presiding Officer's discretion.
      The Government do not accept amendments Nos. 276 and 277. Amendment No. 276 would restrict the number of Scottish Ministers whom the First Minister can appoint. It would be inappropriate to do that, for a variety of reasons. The First Minister will have to seek the agreement of the Scottish Parliament; therefore, within the group of 129 MSPs, there is accountability and a chance to make a judgment on the number of Scottish Ministers. The Parliament will be able to withhold its approval if it thinks that there are too many nominations. In addition, through its control of salaries and allowances, the Parliament will be able to limit to a reasonable sum the expenditure on ministerial salaries.
      There is a feeling on both sides of the Committee that the matter should be left to the Parliament. It is a question of maturity and of adopting a sensible perspective. Ultimately, the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament will be accountable to the people of Scotland for their actions. That will, in our view, provide the proper means of ensuring that the size of the membership of the Scottish Executive is truly appropriate.
      Dr. Fox: We are missing a great opportunity. Such a self-denying ordinance would have sent a signal to the Scottish electorate that a blank cheque is not being handed over. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment, but we shall press it to a Division.
      Mr. McLeish: The Committee is not offering a blank cheque to anyone. We are setting up a mature, serious and responsible Parliament, and it will be up to the Members of that Parliament to decide what Ministers are required to carry out the functions and represent the interests of the Scottish people. That is appropriate and proper. We do not share the Opposition's concerns, and I hope that they will not press the amendment.
      The Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 275 and 313, which are both unnecessary and inappropriate. The circumstances described are unlikely to arise in practice, and if they did, there are mechanisms in the Bill to deal with the problem. If at any time it appeared to the Presiding Officer that the First Minister was unable to act for whatever reason, including mental illness, it would be open to him or her under clause 42(4) to designate an MSP to exercise the functions of the First Minister.
      Should it become clear that the First Minister's inability to carry out his functions was not going to be merely temporary, he would be expected to resign. In the unlikely event of his being unwilling to resign, the Scottish Parliament could effectively remove him and his Executive through a vote of no confidence. That would require the First Minister to resign and would, in turn, lead to the appointment of a new First Minister. That may seem a drastic course of action, but the likely political reality is that there would be a general recognition of the need to address the problem and the Parliament could act to ensure that the matter was resolved without delay. In any case, I submit that clauses 42(4) and 43 provide a serious process to deal with a potential problem. First, there is a temporary acceptance and accommodation of the fact that the First Minister is unable to do the job; then there is a proper procedure to repair the situation.

      201
      The Government cannot accept amendment No. 278, which would remove from the First Minister some valuable flexibility to tailor the structure of the Scottish Administration to the demands upon it. In view of the time, I shall now sit down.
      Mr. Canavan: This is a somewhat historic occasion, as it has been many years since I last tabled an amendment that was accepted in principle by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that. I am pleased that the appointment of all Scottish Ministers, whether the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers or junior Ministers, will be subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced of the arguments for the role of the monarchy in the appointment of Ministers, but I shall not press that point. I shall seek to withdraw amendment No. 44 at the end of the debate and I look forward to the Government tabling an amendment similar to my amendment No. 75 on Report.
      Mr. Wallace: Junior Ministers will not be members of the Scottish Executive under the terms of clause 41. Will the Minister explain why?
      Mr. McLeish: The simple answer is that we shall have the First Minister and the Scottish Ministers, and we hope that the junior Ministers will have a supportive role in the work carried out by the other Ministers.
      Mr. Canavan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 44

      MINISTERS
      Amendment proposed: No. 276, in page 19, line 10, after 'appoint', insert
      'up to a total of ten'.—[Dr. Fox.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 131, Noes 365.

      Division No. 160]

      [6.59 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Amess, David

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Baldry, Tony

      Collins, Tim

      Bercow, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Boswell, Tim

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Duncan, Alan

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brady, Graham

      Evans, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Faber, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Flight, Howard

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Butterfill, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      202

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fraser, Christopher

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Norman, Archie

      Garnier, Edward

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gibb, Nick

      Page, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paice, James

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Paterson, Owen

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Prior, David

      Gray, James

      Randall, John

      Green, Damian

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Ruffley, David

      Hammond, Philip

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hayes, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Horam, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Syms, Robert

      Johnson Smith,

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Townend, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tredinnick, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Trend, Michael

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Letwin, Oliver

      Viggers, Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Walter, Robert

      Lidington, David

      Wardle, Charles

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Loughton, Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Luff, Peter

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Woodward, Shaun

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Yeo, Tim

      Madel, Sir David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Maples, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Mr. James Cran and Mr. John Whittingdale.

      May, Mrs Theresa

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Berry, Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Best, Harold

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Betts, Clive

      Allan, Richard

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Allen, Graham

      Blizzard, Bob

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Boateng, Paul

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Borrow, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brake, Tom

      Austin, John

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Baker, Norman

      Breed, Colin

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Barnes, Harry

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Battle, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burden, Richard

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Burgon, Colin

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Byers, Stephen

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Caborn, Richard

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      203

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gapes, Mike

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gardiner, Barry

      Casale, Roger

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Caton, Martin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gerard, Neil

      Chaytor, David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chidgey, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Goggins, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Gorrie, Donald

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clelland, David

      Grogan, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Gunnell, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hain, Peter

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Colman, Tony

      Hanson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Harvey, Nick

      Cooper, Yvette

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Healey, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Cotter, Brian

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Crausby, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Heppell, John

      Cummings, John

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      (Copeland)

      Hill, Keith

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Hinchliffe, David

      (Perth)

      Home Robertson, John

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hope, Phil

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Darvill, Keith

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hurst, Alan

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Hutton, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Ingram, Adam

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Doran, Frank

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Drew, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Ennis, Jeff

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Flynn, Paul

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Follett, Barbara

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Galbraith, Sam

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      204

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Pond, Chris

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Laxton, Bob

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lepper, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom

      Purchase, Ken

      Linton, Martin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rammell, Bill

      Livsey, Richard

      Rapson, Syd

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lock, David

      Rendel, David

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      McAllion, John

      (Hamilton S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McCabe, Steve

      Rogers, Allan

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Rooker, Jeff

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Rooney, Terry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Rowlands, Ted

      McFall, John

      Roy, Frank

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruane, Chris

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McLeish, Henry

      Salmond, Alex

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Salter, Martin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sanders, Adrian

      McNulty, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacShane, Denis

      Sawford, Phil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mandelson, Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Snape, Peter

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Meale, Alan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Michael, Alun

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Stevenson, George

      Milburn, Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stringer, Graham

      Moore, Michael

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Swinney, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Moms, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mudie, George

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Timms, Stephen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Tipping, Paddy

      Norris, Dan

      Todd, Mark

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      OHara, Eddie

      Touhig, Don

      Olner, Bill

      Trickett, Jon

      Öpik, Lembit

      Truswell, Paul

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pearson, Ian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pendry, Tom

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tyler, Paul

      Pike, Peter L

      Vaz, Keith

      Plaskitt, James

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      205

      Wallace, James

      Winnick, David

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wise, Audrey

      Watts, David

      Wood, Mike

      Welsh, Andrew

      Woolas, Phil

      Wray, James

      White, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Greg Pope.

      Willis, Phil

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [9 February] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 45 to 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 48

      EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 321, in page 21, line 14, at end add
      `after he ceases to be a Minister of the Crown'. —[Mr. McLeish.]
      Mr. Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 279, in page 21, line 14, at end add —
      `(7) Nothing in this Act shall permit Scottish Ministers to exercise any function or to enjoy any power in any part of England, Wales or Northern Ireland.'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 310, in clause 51, page 22, line 10, leave out from 'enactment' to end of line 12.
      No. 305, in clause 52, page 22, line 13, at beginning insert '(1)'.
      Government amendment No. 322.
      No. 280, in page 22, line 29, at end add —
      '(2) Any dispute which arises between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Ministers as regards the exercise of powers in subsection (1) shall be resolved as a devolution issue in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 6.'.
      No. 286, in clause 59, page 25, line 2, after '(1),'insert
      `Subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament,'.
      Government amendment No. 323.
      No. 287, in page 25, leave out line 5.
      No. 288, in page 25, line 9, at end insert —
      '(1A) The provisions in subsection (1) above shall also apply to statutory functions exercisable by Scottish Ministers'.
      Government amendments Nos. 324 to 329, 306 and 330.
      No. 307, in clause 101, page 45, line 11, leave out `58 to 60' and insert '58 and 60'.
      Government amendments Nos. 331, 308 and 332.
      Mr. Heald: Before I discuss amendment No. 279, I should say that I have similar feelings to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), but in this case
      206
      about the Government's reaction to a substantial number of Conservative amendments in this group. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said: we have not seen much of this, but it is good that the Government have considered and accepted the arguments for many of our amendments in this group.
      Amendment No. 286, which requires an affirmative resolution of both Houses in order to transfer additional functions from United Kingdom Ministers to Scottish Ministers, has been accepted in Government amendments Nos. 323 to 329 and Government amendment No. 306. I welcome the sight, on pages 1726 and 1728 of the Amendment Paper today, of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, me and other colleagues, to which the Secretary of State has added his name, in a constructive spirit. He has also tabled Government amendment No. 331, which is identical to our amendment No. 307. It is good to see that he has accepted the argument that the functions of the House should not be transferred to the Scottish Parliament without adequate scrutiny and debate in this place. We are glad that we have been able to help him to improve the Bill, and we should now like him to go a little further.
      7.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said earlier that, in this Committee, the Conservatives have not been trying to bring about an effective, workable Scottish Parliament; the amendment gives the lie to that claim, because it shows that the Conservative party has tabled amendments that even the present Government—not a Government who are very often minded to accept amendments—have accepted, and the Minister has had to accept the logic of our arguments in substantial measure in this group of amendments.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: A weakness.
      Mr. Heald: I would not accept that for a minute, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
      The purpose of amendment No. 279 is to ensure that Scottish Ministers are not permitted to exercise functions or enjoy power in any way in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It is obvious why that should be the case. Scottish Ministers are not directly accountable to this place. If they exercise functions in England or the other countries, it is impossible for constituency Members to challenge them or in any way to bring them to account. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give an assurance tonight that Scottish Ministers will be unable to exercise functions or enjoy powers in England. Wales or Northern Ireland as a result of clause 48 or as a result of the Bill as a whole. If he wants to give me that assurance now, I should be happy to give way.
      Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
      Mr. Heald: It looks as though he is saving that for later.
      Amendment No. 310 is designed to remove the exception that at present would require the UK Government to consent to the designation of an enterprise zone by Scottish Ministers, in clause 51(2). The amendment would stop the Government centralising

      207
      power over inward investment and important decisions about enterprise in the Department of Trade and Industry in London, and so the amendment would protect and enhance Scotland's ability to succeed in that area of enterprise.
      It is worth highlighting the success of recent years. One of the healthiest aspects of the Scottish economy has been the record levels of inward investment. The year 1995–96 was another record year for inward investment in Scotland. Inward investment has been a vital component in transforming the Scottish economy from being reliant on the old primary industries supported by taxpayers' subsidy to being very much at the cutting edge of the new and expanding high-tech silicon industry. In the year to March 1996, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department were able to attract to Scotland 84 inward investment projects involving planned investment of nearly £1 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of more than 12,500 jobs.
      Although Scotland accounts for about 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, figures published by the Invest in Britain Bureau show that, in the past few years, more than 18 per cent. of all inward investment projects attracted to the United Kingdom and about a quarter of the new jobs associated with such projects have gone to Scotland. Britain receives more foreign investment from outside Europe than all the other European Union countries combined. In 1995–96, inward investment in Scotland created 1,000 jobs on average per month. In the five years to March 1996, Locate in Scotland recorded 400 inward investment projects involving planned investment of almost £3.5 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of about 50,000 jobs.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: It will do as well under the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman claims that a Scottish Parliament will be able to build on that success. That is what this amendment is about.
      Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that one spurious reason for trying to impose on the south-east of England an entirely artificial creation called the regional development agency is that that will somehow help us to vie with Scotland and acquire silicon implants of our own?
      Mr. Heald: The regionalism argument is designed to defuse the West Lothian question. Opposition Members are concerned that the idea of regionalism is offered as some sort of solution to the West Lothian question. I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) believes that there is no such thing as the West Lothian question, but most senior Labour figures have acknowledged that such a question exists and needs to be addressed. It is wrong to implant in England a form of regionalism that is alien to it and to ignore the fact that England is a country like Scotland or Wales. As to my hon. Friend's point, I see no reason why a regional development agency should be imposed on Kent when the county may not want it.
      There has been inward investment success in Scotland. It has been linked to enterprise zones, which is the burden of this amendment. It would be wrong to sell the Scottish
      208
      people a false prospectus. The White Paper gave the impression that all enterprise would be devolved. It now seems from the Bill that the dead hand of Whitehall in the form of the Department of Trade and Industry will co-ordinate enterprise zones and may well act against Scotland's interest. We have moved the amendment in that spirit: it asks the Minister to provide assurances that enterprise in Scotland will be safe.
      Government amendment No. 332 seeks, at a very late stage in the proceedings, to reserve to the United Kingdom Parliament the Industrial Development Advisory Board for Scotland. Is that part of the DTI agenda to retain control over enterprise policies in Scotland? Does it fit with the policy approach that is set out and that the amendment seeks to defeat? I ask the Minister to provide those assurances. Will the co-ordination of enterprise zones in Scotland require the consent of the United Kingdom? Will the DTI retain control over inward investment packages and enterprise zones in Scotland? Does Government amendment No. 332 have the same intention, reserving the Industrial Development Advisory Board for Scotland to the United Kingdom Parliament? What are the Minister's intentions in that regard? I seek his assurances that Scotland will not be short-changed.
      Amendment No. 280—upon which amendment No. 305 is consequential—ensures that, when any disputes arise in respect of shared powers in clause 52 as to the prime responsibility for a particular issue, they will be resolved using the judicial procedures for devolution issues that are set out in schedule 6 to the Bill. A mechanism is clearly needed, and there seems to be no reason why the procedure in schedule 6 should not apply. What is the Minister's thinking on that important issue? Will he concede the logic of our argument in this area and agree to our amendments?
      The Government have already agreed to amendment No. 286—the first in the group—which would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses for subordinate legislation to transfer additional functions from United Kingdom Ministers to Scottish Ministers. Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 go a little further than that. Amendment No. 287 would permit the transfer of additional functions only on the basis of concurrent or shared powers with United Kingdom Ministers. There would be no further transfers solely to Scottish Ministers.
      That would provide some clarity. Throughout consideration of the Bill, Opposition Members have expressed concern that this is a slippery slope: it could lead to the transfer of function after function from the United Kingdom Parliament to the Scottish Parliament, and that ratchet effect would slowly drive the Scottish Parliament from being devolved to being independent.
      The Minister says that the Government are totally in favour of a devolved Parliament and that they have made it clear that they do not want separatism or independence. That is what he said in the previous debate. if that is so, it is surely right to provide some clarity about what functions may be devolved and how far the process can go. That would disabuse the Scottish Parliament from the outset of the notion that the process could lead to independence. I await the Minister's answer on amendment No. 287. That would provide clarity and ensure that the Scottish Parliament would devolve future powers only on a concurrent or a shared basis.

      209
      Amendment No. 288 follows the same theme. It says that it would be possible to transfer the sole statutory functions of Scottish Ministers so that they are concurrent powers shared with United Kingdom Ministers. In other words, there would not be a ratchet effect: we should move from a one-way street to a situation of allowing some interplay between the two Parliaments. That could occur if it is found that shared or concurrent powers would be helpful in areas where the Scottish Parliament has sole statutory functions at present.
      I ask the Minister: what is wrong with that? Why is it not possible to say now, with some certainty, that those are the limits within which functions will be transferred? There should be an element of flexibility, if necessary, to transfer powers that are solely Scottish to a joint and shared arrangement. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that subject.
      I have already mentioned Government amendment No. 332, which seeks to reserve the Industrial Development Advisory Board to the Westminster Parliament. We are concerned that that may interfere with Scotland's ability to continue its inward investment success. Therefore, we ask the Minister to explain why the measure is proposed at this late stage.
      Mr. Dalyell: Of course there will be a ratchet effect, and it will be a faster ratchet than most people imagine. Incidentally, I think that the first reference to the ratchet effect was by the late Enoch Powell, who died on Sunday. He spoke at great length in 1977–78 on precisely that mechanism.
      It is sheer pretence to think that a ratchet effect will not occur, and it will be helped greatly not only by Scottish National party Members of the Parliament, but by Labour Members, Liberal Members and indeed Conservative Members of the Parliament, because they will have to explain the inadequacies in the perceptions of their constituents and how those can be met, and they cannot be met with insufficient resources. The entire scenario for the ratchet effect is there.
      Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman see some hope in the fact that we have already been able to move the Minister from a position where additional functions could be transferred to Scottish Ministers simply by subordinate legislation of the Scottish Parliament, to a position where he has accepted the logic of our amendments, which require a resolution of the House of Commons, and that that should be by Order in Council?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to be rude or curt, but I see no hope at all. That is the blunt answer to the question. However, we must stick to clause 48. Subsection (2) omits any reference to the Solicitor-General or the junior Ministers. The reason for that, according to the Law Society, is unclear. The phrase "Scottish Minister" is used, and in terms of clause 41 that would include the First Minister, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. Can my hon. Friend clarify the situation in regard to clause 48(2)?
      My next question relates to the position of the civil service. Is the civil service to remain a Westminster function? Would it be possible for a UK Minister to give a direction to a civil servant in Scotland, which that civil servant would be obliged to follow, or would the
      210
      civil servant be answerable only to his own Scottish Ministers? Clause 47(1) appears to provide that Scottish Ministers can also appoint non-civil servants—that is, advisers.
      What happens when a UK Minister gives a direction to a Scottish civil servant that is contradictory to a direction given by a Scottish Minister? That is by no means a fanciful state of affairs. For example, let us take railway services, which are a UK matter. Suppose there was an environmental impact assessment of the extension of the west coast line. It may be the view of the Department of Transport that the entire scheme could be jeopardised if the information were made public—for instance, by a Scottish Minister under pressure from environmental groups to publish. That situation is quite likely, in one form or another.
      The question is who rules in that case—the UK Minister or the Scottish Minister? To whom does the civil servant give her or his loyalty? That is a important and practical question. Where a subordinate Parliament is created, and it is supposed that, above all, the kingdom should be kept united, it is impossible that the civil service should serve two organisations, which may have significantly different opinions. That subject must be addressed.
      Mr. Rowe: I share the gloom of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I have no doubt that the measure represents the beginning of a ratchet that will eventually divide the United Kingdom. The Government have made considerable efforts to deceive themselves that that will not happen, but their efforts are set at naught by the schizophrenia demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).
      One minute, my hon. Friend is desperately concerned to define and limit the powers of a Scottish Parliament by moving amendments to the Bill, and the next minute he is desperately concerned to give to Scotland unequivocally powers that the Government seem to wish to retain in Westminster. If such ambivalence is apparent on the Conservative Front Bench, the ambivalence among the other parties will be more extreme.
      Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, as the White Paper sets out a prospectus—which has been voted on—for devolution of the whole area of enterprise, it is right at least to probe the Government when they seem to be resiling from that?
      Mr. Rowe: I could not support my hon. Friend more in his desire to find out what the Government are playing at. The Bill gives the appearance of having been carefully thought through, whereas the consequences of many decisions that have already been taken have not been addressed.
      I entirely support the aim of limiting the power of Scottish Ministers so that they will have no power or function in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is a great pity that we cannot do the same for Scottish Members of Parliament. I believe passionately that one of the great underlying weaknesses of the Bill is the prospect of Scottish Members of Parliament being debarred from examining, speaking on or voting on the matters that are closest to the everyday lives of their constituents in Scotland, but being free to roam carte blanche over constituencies in England, debating and voting on corresponding issues.

      211
      That matters not a fig in a Parliament where the majority is as large as it is now, but if the next general election results in a majority of, say, 16 or 30, and decisions about English health, education and so on are taken by Scottish Members of Parliament who have no accountability whatever south of the border, that will lead to enormous instability. We should define not only for Ministers but for Members what they are entitled to do.
      I am gloomy about the prospect. I have no doubt, and never have had, that Scotland is capable of running its own affairs effectively. I spent several years in the Scottish Office and was deeply impressed by the quality of my colleagues and of the institutions in Scotland. It is sad that, on a pretence that we are somehow preventing—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to return precisely to the amendment. He is going rather wide of the mark, and there will be opportunities to discuss those matters on later amendments and new clauses.
      Mr. Rowe: I apologise, Mr. Lord, if I was wandering more widely. I support the proposition that the exact limits of the powers of a Minister of the Scottish Parliament should be defined unequivocally.
      Mr. Collins: I shall confine my remarks principally to amendment No. 279. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) famously placed on the table the West Lothian question, which highlighted the difficulties that would arise if Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom Parliament had responsibilities for matters relating to England, even though they were not sent there by their constituents in Scotland for that purpose. Amendment No. 279 deals with the difficulties that would arise in relation to Ministers. If there are difficulties in England about the role of MSPs, surely they would be even greater if there were any risk, however theoretical, that a Scottish Minister, accountable to an entirely different Parliament, could take decisions in England affecting English citizens.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Can the hon. Gentleman give me an example of the difficulty that he foresees? I fail to see anything in the Bill that would allow a Scottish Minister to exercise any powers south of the border.
      Mr. Collins: If the hon. Gentleman is right in his assumption, he must, by definition, be in favour of amendment No. 279, because that merely seeks to include in the Bill the position that he understands to be the case and that we all hope to be the case. However, with legislation of this constitutional sensitivity, significance and importance, it is important to include in the Bill the exact understanding at the time that it is debated.
      Dr. Lynda Clark: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the legal process here. The Bill gives Ministers certain powers, but no powers whatever in relation to English matters. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment.
      Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for saying what she says, but if that is her understanding
      212
      of the Bill, she and her hon. Friends on the Front Bench should have no objection in principle or in practice to amendment No. 279. It is important that her understanding and mine of the intention of the legislation should be stated clearly and without any ambiguity in the Bill.
      We have no doubt that the Bill will be enacted and that it will set in place a constitutional settlement for Scotland and its relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, which is likely to endure for decades. Therefore, it is important at the start of this constitutional experiment, this immense voyage, that there be clarity.
      My understanding of the hon. and learned Lady's point is not that she objects to amendment No. 279, merely that she thinks that it is inherent in the Bill. If so, simply to clear up any misunderstanding, to avoid any difficulty, legal challenges or political confusion in future, those provisions should be stated clearly as amendment No. 279 sets out.
      Dr. Clark: My point is that there is no need for the amendment, because there is no possibility of any misunderstanding in a court of law or elsewhere. The Bill is perfectly plain. The powers derive entirely from the Bill. If no powers are given, no powers can exist, so the amendment is unnecessary. It would be equally daft having an amendment saying that no powers exist all over the place. No powers have been given in the Bill to Scottish Ministers in relation to English affairs. That must be the end of the matter.
      Mr. Collins: Again, I hear what the hon. and learned Lady says. The amendment seeks to amend clause 48, and clause 48(1) states:
      "Statutory functions may be conferred on the Scottish Ministers"
      The hon. and learned Lady is right to say that, elsewhere in the Bill, there is an interpretation of those powers, but nothing in clause 48 limits the powers that are granted in the way that she says. Therefore, our case is that clause 48 should state clearly that no functions can be exercised in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow talked about the possible confusion relating to civil servants. They will be in the difficult position of being accountable to Ministers in two separate Governments. That is the nature of this part of the Bill. It concerns not just the establishment of a separate Parliament, which is the way in which public debate has hitherto always been conducted, but the establishment of an entirely separate Government. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow rightly pointed out, if there are two separate Governments, there is inherent in that situation the possibility of confusion and difficulty for civil servants.
      I give an example that builds on one given by the hon. Gentleman. What will happen where a document involves civil servants from several different Departments? In an attempt to achieve a coherent, common UK Government position, many issues cross departmental boundaries which affect civil servants working in the Scottish Office and in other UK Departments such as the Department of the Environment and the Department for Education and Employment. At the moment, civil servants know where they stand in the preparation and dissemination of such documents. They know that they are accountable, through

      213
      Ministers, ultimately to a United Kingdom Cabinet headed by a UK Prime Minister appointed by a UK Head of State and answerable to this UK Parliament.
      What will happen in future when there is a wish to have a common UK position? There must be many instances when, even after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, it will be for the convenience of the Scottish people, as for those in the rest of the UK, that there should be commonality. We can all imagine the issues. There will be issues relating to, for example, the environment, transport links and exam procedures when some commonality will be convenient. There will be plenty of issues where there will be a common UK position.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman refers to the need for commonality in exams. Scotland has a separate education system. It is time served. It has been around for a long time. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept, with a bit of humility, that this is a complex subject. We are talking about the administrative devolution of reserved powers. There are three types. First, Westminster and Holyrood can agree that certain functions will be completely devolved to the Scottish Executive. Secondly, some responsibilities and functions can be carried out concurrently. Other powers will be carried out in consultation between Westminster and Holyrood. The Bill contains the comfortable and attractive proposition that Westminster's legislative competence can be handed to Scotland by way of Executive devolution. What is the problem?
      Mr. Collins: I hear what the Minister says, and he is right to point out—I was not remotely seeking to pretend otherwise—that Scotland has and has had for a long time a separate examination system. However, I am sure that he will acknowledge that it remains the case, and will remain the case after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, that there will be movement at primary and secondary levels, and particularly at higher and further levels, from one side of the border to the other, and there will continue to be points and purposes Where it will be sensible for there to be some co-ordination on education matters, as on others. I do not limit my point to education matters. I am talking about a range of other matters where common discussion is needed.
      My point was simply that discussion and the circulation of papers will happen not as it does now, within a UK civil service, accountable to a UK Government, but between two separate Governments. The issue that then arises, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, is what will happen when a Minister in one Government takes a different view from a Minister in another about the dissemination, provenance and contents of a paper, assembled jointly by civil servants from two different Governments. There is a real possibility of civil servants being given conflicting advice.
      Mr. Heald: As my hon. Friend will know, clauses 83 and 84 make provision for cross-border public bodies. Clause 84(1) states:
      "Subordinate legislation may make provision in relation to a cross-border public body …enabling powers to be exercised or requiring duties to be performed by the Scottish Ministers instead of by a Minister of the Crown, or by the one or by the other, or by both jointly or by either with the agreement of or after consultation with the other".
      214
      That is the point that the Minister was making.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that, in that context, if powers may be exercised by Scottish Ministers, instead of by a Minister of the Crown, it is only right that there should be an assurance that nothing can be done by Scottish Ministers—no function performed, no power given—in respect of England, Wales or Northern Ireland? There is no accountability in the Scottish Parliament for what occurs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the matter. The issue at stake is whether there are any circumstances in which a Minister accountable to the Scottish Parliament can take decisions that affect citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom who have no say in, or influence over, his election to that Parliament, or over the actions, identity or philosophy of Scottish Ministers. It is an important philosophical question, and it is not an artificial question for my constituents in Cumbria.
      When I am at home in Kendal, we watch Border Television and we have access to a range of services. Sometimes, we are very conscious of the fact that we are a great deal closer to Edinburgh than to London. We are conscious that there will be occasions when people might well say that Cumbria should be governed by one of the cross-border public bodies, as it is already for the purposes of the ITV network. Amendment No. 279 is important because it would alleviate, or even remove, our worries that decisions affecting English citizens could be taken by Ministers who have no accountability to the people of England through the United Kingdom Parliament. That is a serious question, which I hope the Minister will seriously consider. He must not dismiss it lightly.
      If people felt that they had no control over those taking decisions affecting their lives, there would be a serious question of democracy in this country which could only cause great tension between Scotland and England, something that all Opposition Members are striving hard to minimise, rather than maximise.
      Mr. Gorrie: Three issues have emerged in the debate. First, there is the question of the amendments affecting industrial development powers, about which the Conservatives may have a point. We should like the Minister to make things clearer, as he seems to be reducing the power of the Scottish Parliament.
      Secondly, there is the question of the dual loyalty of civil servants—a point that I fail to grasp. It seems straightforward that civil servants who work for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Office will meet their Westminster counterparts about joint enterprises. They will then report back to their bosses in Holyrood or St. Andrew's house. The issue is clear cut; people will be serving two different Governments, working jointly, reporting back and doing what their political masters tell them. I see no problem in that.
      The third issue about which there has been much sound and fury is mentioned in the amendment. I do not enjoy any power, but I do enjoy Tory terminology. The amendment states:
      "Nothing in this Act shall permit Scottish Ministers to exercise any function or enjoy any power"—
      that is Tory terminology—
      "in any part of England, Wales or Northern Ireland."

      215
      I was dismayed when, this morning in Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who is no longer in his place, accused me℄if that is the right word℄of being a clever Edinburgh lawyer. I am not a lawyer and whether I am clever or not is a matter of opinion, but I do come from Edinburgh. My point is that there is a Latin legal phrase, which I do not know, but which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) may be able to tell me, the gist of which is that, if one mentions certain things in a list, one opens up the possibility of other things that are not on that list entering the frame. An amendment that states that Scottish Ministers may not exercise functions in England, Wales or Northern Ireland opens up the possibility that they could exercise powers and functions in Germany, France, the Channel Islands and so on. The phrase is misguided.
      Mr. Heald: We do not mind if Ministers exercise power in Germany, but if they wish to exercise powers in England, they should be accountable. The only way that that can be done is by a Minister of the Crown under the auspices of this Parliament.
      Mr. Gorrie: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. He is opening up a can of worms, and he is also preventing sensible co-operation.
      There are gloom merchants in the Chamber, such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Instead of Bloody Dalyell℄his famous ancestor℄we have Gloomy Dalyell, who may play as big a part in history as his ancestor. We also have gloom merchants in the Conservative party, who think that everything will be a disaster.
      Many of us think that there are opportunities, one of which is for constructive co-operation between the Scottish Parliament and Executive and the Westminster Parliament and Executive. There might be agreed, joint efforts in Cumbria or elsewhere in which there would be co-operation. If the amendment were passed, no Scottish Minister or Member of the Scottish Parliament could take part in any of those joint efforts. For example, the amendment would rule out the creation of a country park on either side of the border which was jointly managed from both countries.
      The amendment is misguided, and the answer℄as I have said before, with all due respect℄is for the English to think about how they wish to run their own affairs. They could then set up their own Parliament or regional assemblies. The sooner they do so, the better.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I had begun to doubt myself. Having intended to speak in favour of amendment No. 279, I began to have my doubts when I heard Labour Members question my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). However, I have now returned to my former opinion℄even more starkly℄having heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who raises every fear that I had about the Bill.
      The Bill states:
      "Statutory functions may be conferred on the Scottish Ministers".
      216
      Having read the Bill in its totality, I would welcome the addition of the rider: "but not in so far as they might affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland." That seems entirely proper, and everything that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has said confirms that.
      It is difficult to confer a general duty on a Member of Parliament to hold the Executive to account when there remains a possibility℄albeit theoretical℄that the Executive are not accountable to him. That is a theoretical argument, but there is a more important argument which has more resonance in terms of public opinion. I would say to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) that, in these matters, perceptions are even more important than reality.
      Even now, I am approached by constituents at meetings and in public℄in a most unwelcome, unsolicited and unhelpful way℄who share their observation that, "Now Scotland is getting its own Parliament, isn't it awful and awkward that we have a Government entirely dominated by Scottish Members?" I have to point out to them that their concern is quite illegitimate and that they have no proper grievance. Those who sit on the Treasury Bench have a mandate and are very properly there. I should hate it if a situation arose in which my constituents had a legitimate grievance, and amendment No. 279 would prevent that from happening. As said, perception is important in these respects, and the Committee has a duty to remove such sources of conflict and public discontent.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: I endorse the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Having sat through many hours of debate on the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, I am worried about disputes, because both Bills have the potential to create a great many disputes. That is one reason why I support amendment No. 280, which gives guidance on how some disputes might be resolved.
      Amendment No. 279 concerns potential disputes, or at least confusion, so I support what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said about clarifying the Bill. We must make it plain that nothing in the Bill permits Scottish Ministers to exercise any functions℄or "enjoy" any power, if that word is preferable℄in any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. That helps to clarify the Bill.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, before the Conservatives get anywhere in Scotland, the penny must drop that no one there is vaguely interested in exercising power south of the border, or in seeing Scottish Ministers exercising power south of the border? The people of Scotland simply want to get on with running Scotland; we are not interested in what happens south of the border.
      8 pm
      Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to say that, although what the hon. Gentleman says may be true in relation to the Scottish people, we in Westminster still face the prospect of Scottish Members coming down here and voting on purely English matters while we cannot vote on Scottish matters. So the potential for disputes still exists. I accept that the Scottish people have no selfish interest in matters outside Scotland, but the amendment attempts to clarify

      217
      the matter. If the hon. Gentleman says that there is no potential for problems, why should the clarification not be included in the Bill?
      Mr. Ancram: I was most interested in the intervention from a Scottish Nationalist, particularly given the geographical area that he represents, because it is precisely in areas near the border that we have all sorts of questions about rights over fishing on rivers and fishing within the Solway, all of which may well require decisions affecting cross-border issues. It seems strange that he should say that the Scots have no interest in those issues.
      Mr. Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Some issues may come under the jurisdiction of Scotland or England; I suggest that they should come under the jurisdiction of the Crown. That would be the best way to proceed.
      I also endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said about enterprise zones. The statistics for Scotland are, indeed, impressive. If we are to engage in the new spirit of co-operation℄in which the Minister seems to be willing to engage, albeit to a limited extent℄we want the best for Scotland. I admit that the Conservative party does not want a Scottish Parliament in the first place, but we do want what is best for Scotland. Amendment No. 310 deals with that issue. Like Wales, Scotland has attracted a disproportionate amount of inward investment in relation to its population, and we want that to continue for the purpose of creating more jobs and more wealth.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister clarify amendment No. 322, which seems to remove from the clause the references to sections 10 and 14 of the Industrial Development Act 1982? I understand that section 14 of that Act does not apply to Scotland in any event, whereas section 10 does. Is it correct that the change to the clause does not diminish the powers of Scottish Ministers but merely enables UK Ministers also to exercise certain functions, and that we may therefore be in the lucky position of having two sets of Ministers?
      Mr. Heald: The amendment is purely technical. If the hon. Gentleman reads amendment No. 332, which seeks to reserve the Industrial Development Advisory Board to the Westminster Parliament for the first time at this late stage in the proceedings, he may be a bit more concerned.
      Mr. Morgan: I was about to express my concern about section 10 of the 1982 Act. It strikes me as strange that the powers under section 10 should be exercised by two sets of Ministers. Given all the talk about co-ordination and the need for a concordat to prevent different people from going in different directions, how does having two sets of Ministers exercising the same function improve that co-ordination?
      Mr. McLeish: The debate has ranged from the ultra-theoretical to the issue of public perception. It may therefore be useful to try to take the middle route and discuss realism and pragmatism in relation to some of the issues that have been dealt with.
      Before I deal with the amendments, may I say a word about clause 59 and the Executive devolution order generally? The clause enables subordinate legislation to
      218
      provide for the transfer to Scottish Ministers of statutory ministerial functions to be exercisable by them either instead of, or as well as, by the UK Minister. I alluded earlier to the three-tier structure of that system. It also provides for the adaptation of such functions by requiring UK Ministers to consult with, or obtain the agreement of, the Scottish Ministers before they exercise statutory functions.
      The Government have made available to hon. Members copies of a working draft of a clause 59 order, which I shall refer to as the "Executive devolution order". That draft order lists over 300 functions in relation to reserved matters, which will be exercisable in or as regards Scotland by the Scottish Ministers, or in relation to which Scottish Ministers will be consulted before the UK Minister exercises the function.
      The draft order covers functions to be transferred in a wide range of areas, including betting, gaming and lotteries, firearms licensing, extradition, lord lieutenants, the Government indemnity scheme and the acceptance of property in lieu of tax, the funding of Gaelic television and radio, tribunals, electricity supply, environmental impact assessments, civil nuclear installations, roads, railways, airports, public sector pension schemes, abortion clinics and medicines legislation. It covers a wide sweep of Executive responsibility. It also provides for Scottish Ministers to be consulted over the appointment of the Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission. It delivers the Government's commitments on Executive devolution made in the White Paper.
      Amendment No. 279 seeks to ensure that Scottish Ministers cannot exercise any function or power outside Scotland. It is inappropriate because it would prevent Scottish Ministers from exercising some functions that are essential for the discharge of their responsibilities in relation to Scotland.
      The functions transferred to Scottish Ministers by virtue of clauses 49 and 59 will be exercisable not just in Scotland but as regards Scotland. There will certainly be circumstances where functions exercisable as regards Scotland need to be exercised outside Scotland, including in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For example, Scottish Ministers will need to exercise certain functions in relation to some public bodies based in England that have functions in Scotland, such as the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.
      Furthermore, Scottish Ministers will, on occasion, in exercising a devolved function, require to meet Ministers of the UK Government, for example in considering the formulation of policy, particularly where there are potential advantages in maintaining a degree of consistency in policy both north and south of the border. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made a passing reference to that. At a practical level, Scottish Ministers will need to have the authority to pay the property and staffing costs of any representative office in London.
      Although the Scottish Parliament will only be able to make laws that form part of the law of Scotland, it should, and will, be able to confer functions on Scottish Ministers which are exercisable outwith Scotland. That reflects the fact that there will be circumstances where Scottish Ministers will need to exercise functions outside Scotland to secure the effective implementation of policy on devolved matters north of the border.

      219
      For example, it should be open to the Scottish Parliament to confer functions on Scottish Ministers of promoting a devolved matter such as Scottish sport outside Scotland. If Glasgow℄or Glenrothes in my constituency℄wants to launch a bid to host the Olympic games, Scottish Ministers should be able to do their bit in promoting that bid abroad. The amendment would prevent them from doing that. That may sound trite, but I am trying to emphasise the fact that the amendment could result in functions and activities being stifled.
      The amendment would deprive the Scottish Ministers of any powers to exercise functions outside Scotland, even if they clearly related to devolved matters in Scotland and formed part of Scots law. It is therefore quite inappropriate. For those reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 279.
      Amendment No. 280 would provide that a dispute between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Ministers arising from the exercise of powers that the Minister of the Crown is permitted to exercise under clause 52 should be dealt with as a devolution issue under the provisions of schedule 6. I shall explain why I do not think that such a provision is necessary, or would be an appropriate use of the procedures in schedule 6.
      Clause 52 provides for a limited number of exceptions to the general rule that functions transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of clause 49 will cease to be exercisable by Ministers of the Crown in or as regards Scotland. In a number of cases, it makes sense for Ministers of the Crown to be able to continue to exercise certain powers as well as the Scottish Ministers. Almost all the powers concerned involve the provision of grants or loans from the departmental resources of the Ministers of the Crown, for transport infrastructure, certain scientific research, grants and loans to industry and road safety measures. Clause 52 also enables UK Ministers to continue the levy scheme used to promote the export of wool textiles.
      Scotland will continue to benefit from the United Kingdom Government's legitimate continuing interest in supporting such activities in Scotland. Given the nature of the powers concerned, there is very little likelihood of any significant dispute about how they are exercised. Our view is that any necessary co-ordination on these matters between the Scottish Executive and the relevant Department in Whitehall should be carried out on a non-statutory basis, and any dispute should be resolved in the same way. That is in line with the Government's approach to co-ordination between the Scottish Executive and Whitehall generally.
      I believe that any amendment to impose a statutory procedure for dispute resolution would be unnecessary and inconsistent with our general approach to the future management of the relationship between the Scottish Executive and United Kingdom Departments.
      Mr. Heald: If there is a dispute about the prime responsibility for one of those issues, and if agreement cannot be reached, how is it to be resolved?
      Mr. McLeish: That is another timely intervention. Schedule 6 deals with devolution issues that are confined to judicial issues, and are intended to police the boundaries of the devolution settlement. Obviously, if a
      220
      dispute arising from the exercise of functions referred to in clause 52 raised such questions, they could be dealt with as devolution issues as the Bill is currently drafted. For example, any question whether a Minister of the Crown had gone beyond what is authorised by clause 52 and was therefore purporting to exercise a function that was a devolved matter would fall within the definition of a devolution issue under schedule 6(1)(f).
      However, in the unlikely event of other disputes arising out of the exercise of the shared powers under clause 52, they would fall to be resolved under the non-statutory arrangements that I have described, because they would be of a policy rather than a judicial nature. There is an important distinction between matters that relate to devolution issues and justiciable factors concerning the boundaries of the settlement, and matters that clearly relate to policy.
      Amendment No. 305 is purely consequential on amendment No. 280, as it simply tidies up the numbering of the subsections in clause 52.
      Amendments Nos. 280 and 305 are unnecessary and inappropriate, and I invite the Committee to reject them.
      I can be more positive about amendment No. 286, and the consequential amendment No. 307, which raise a valid point that I accept in principle. Amendment No. 286 seeks to ensure that subordinate legislation under clause 59 is subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
      The Bill currently provides that subordinate legislation under clause 59 can be made by Her Majesty by Order in Council or by a Minister of the Crown by order. Under the Bill, subordinate legislation is subject to the negative resolution procedure in both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament, although it could be subject to affirmative procedure if the person making it were so to choose.
      Given the importance of Executive devolution orders, I agree that it would be more appropriate for subordinate legislation under clause 59 to be made only by Her Majesty by Order in Council, and for it to be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which is the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes and his Front-Bench colleagues. Subordinate legislation must also be subject to an affirmative resolution of the Scottish Parliament: there can be no question of imposing functions on the Scottish Executive without the equal agreement of the Scottish Parliament.
      An Order in Council, affirmative resolutions of both Houses and an affirmative resolution of Holyrood would require consensus and agreement, so I hope that that will allay the fears of Opposition Members about conflicts that may arise. Government amendments Nos. 306, 308, 323, 324 and 329 to 331 make the changes necessary to achieve that, and are all related to this key principle.
      8.15 pm
      Unfortunately, I cannot take such a sympathetic view of amendment No. 287, and I ask the Committee to resist it. It strikes at the heart of clause 59, and of our proposals for Executive devolution. It would remove the provision that allows statutory functions of UK Ministers of the Crown to be exercisable in or as regards Scotland by the Scottish Ministers instead of by the UK Minister. Although it would leave the possibility for functions to be exercisable concurrently by Scottish Ministers and by

      221
      UK Ministers, it would not allow a straightforward transfer of functions from the UK Minister to the Scottish Ministers.
      I referred earlier to the three tiers of the arrangement. It is eminently sensible for the affirmative resolution procedure to take place and for the transferred functions to be wholly exercised by Ministers of the Scottish Parliament. The amendment is unacceptable, because it would result in an unnecessary and unworkable duplication of powers in relation to Scotland. Clause 59 already provides for functions to be exercised concurrently if the UK Government and the Scottish Executive agree that that is the right approach.
      An order under clause 59 cannot be made without agreement. We fully recognise that concurrent exercise of functions will be the right approach when it is necessary to ensure compliance with European obligations. However, that can be provided for in the order itself: there is no need for the legislation to require that such functions can be transferred only on a concurrent basis.
      Amendment No. 288 is unacceptable because it seeks to provide a mechanism for functions exercised by the Scottish Ministers in relation to devolved matters to be exercisable in or as regards Scotland by UK Ministers. That would be quite contrary to the scheme of devolution set out in the Bill. The right hon. Member's objective may be to probe us on whether functions that have been made exercisable in or as regards Scotland by the Scottish Ministers by an order under clause 59 should be capable of being transferred back to a UK Minister.
      I am willing to consider whether any additional provision is needed to deal with that scenario, and what the nature of any such provisions should be. In any event, any re-transfer should be subject to the agreement of both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. In view of that, I should be grateful if the right hon. Member would not press amendment No. 288.
      Amendment No. 310 would remove the requirement for Treasury consent to the designation of an enterprise zone by the Scottish Ministers. We consider that that would be wrong, because of the tax privileges conferred by enterprise zone status.
      Clause 51 removes requirements for UK Ministers to agree to, or be consulted about, the exercise of functions by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of clause 49. It would clearly be inappropriate for such controls to be maintained over functions that relate to devolved matters. I hope that hon. Members will agree that amendment No. 310 is inappropriate.
      Government amendment No. 322 amends clause 52, which enables the UK Government to continue to share certain powers in relation to devolved matters. It makes two amendments to the reference to the Industrial Development Act 1982. It removes a reference to section 14, which does not apply in Scotland. It also deletes the reference to section 10, which concerns the Industrial Development Advisory Board. That body is responsible for advising the President of the Board of Trade about certain powers to provide financial assistance to industry.
      We propose that the board should be reserved, as there is already a parallel Scottish body, the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board, which was established under quite different legislation. SIDAB rather than IDAB should be the appropriate source of advice for the Scottish Ministers. The effect of reserving IDAB is that ministerial
      222
      powers in respect of the board set up under section 10 of the 1982 Act will remain with the United Kingdom Government.
      Mr. Ancram: Waffle.
      Mr. McLeish: One of those bodies advises the Secretary of State for Scotland on industrial development. It examines applications for regional selective assistance from indigenous companies and inward investment where the amount of grant likely to be offered is more than £250,000. An identical organisation services the President of the Board of Trade down south.
      Mr. Dalyell: The argument is difficult to follow, although I am not making a criticism. Have the Scottish Office and the Minister satisfied the Law Society℄they may well have℄that the reasons for the joint-exercise provision need to be made clear?
      Mr. McLeish: I hope that the Law Society will be satisfied. My hon. Friend has asked for clarification; we are trying to clarify something that is not clear in the Bill as it stands, and I think that, in relation to the two organisations, it makes sense for us to proceed on the basis that I have outlined.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The fact that the Industrial Development Advisory Board is included in the list of bodies with reserved powers suggests to me that the board will still have some functions with regard to Scotland, which will remain reserved.
      Mr. McLeish: Let me allay the hon. Gentleman's fears. Ours is a genuine tidying-up operation in relation to two organisations, one servicing the President of the Board of Trade and the other servicing℄currently℄the Secretary of State, but in future the First Minister of the Scottish Executive. We are simply saying that the position should be made clear in schedule 5. Nothing is being lost. We have a powerful advisory body, which will continue. It is replicated in the south, in relation to the President of the Board of Trade.
      The effect of reserving the IDAB is that the ministerial powers in respect of the board that were set up under section 10 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 will remain with the United Kingdom Government. There is no need for them to be shared, and the reference in clause 52 should therefore be deleted.
      Clause 52 provides for a limited number of exceptions to the general rule that functions transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of clause 49 will cease to be exercisable by Ministers of the Crown in or as regards Scotland. In a number of cases, it makes sense for Ministers of the Crown to be able to continue to exercise certain powers alongside the Scottish Ministers.
      Nearly all the powers concerned involve the provision of grants or loans from the departmental resources of the Ministers concerned, for matters such as transport infrastructure℄to which I referred earlier℄scientific research, industry and road safety measures. The clause also allows United Kingdom Ministers to continue to impose the various levies that we have described. In all those matters, the United Kingdom Government have a legitimate continuing interest in supporting activities throughout the UK, from which Scotland should continue to benefit.

      223
      Amendment No. 332 would add the Industrial Development Advisory Board to schedule 5, which deals with reserved matters. It is a technical amendment, designed simply to help to ensure that the board's role in advising the President of the Board of Trade remains entirely a matter for the UK Government and the UK Parliament. The board is established under the Industrial Development Act 1982, under which it advises the President of the Board of Trade on the exercise of certain powers under that Act to give financial assistance to industry.
      As the Bill is currently drafted, the board would fall within the devolved classification involving financial assistance for industry. It would therefore be treated as a cross-border public body, and would share certain functions with the separate Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board. We consider that it would make more sense for the UK body's activities to remain a matter for the UK Parliament, for functions relating to it to be a matter for the UK Government and for the Scottish body℄which will be fully devolved℄to advise Scottish Ministers. Amendments Nos. 322 and 332 will enable that to happen.
      Mr. Heald rose—
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is it in order for us to discuss clause 53 stand part?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: When we reach it.
      Mr. Heald: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but℄certainly in respect of amendment No. 279℄he did not really deal with the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). They asked how it was right for there to be cross-border public bodies and powers that, as a result of subordinate legislation, might be exercised by Scottish Ministers in respect of England℄or, indeed, Wales or Northern Ireland℄when there would be no accountability to this Parliament.
      The Minister said that some functions relating solely to Scotland might be required to be exercised in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. In a spirit of conciliation, let me offer him the chance to give me the assurance that Scottish Ministers shall not be permitted to exercise any function other than as regards Scotland, or enjoy any power in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
      We seek that for reasons of accountability. The Minister will understand our point if he looks at clauses 83 and 84. Indeed, he described the workings of those clauses rather well himself. If Scottish Ministers are indeed to deal with certain functions in respect of England, perhaps the Minister will justify that. Perhaps, in relation to amendment No. 279, he will also consider the issue of fishing in the border area℄in rivers such as the Tweed and the Esk, and in sea waters off the coasts of Scotland and England. Is he really saying that such matters could be dealt with solely by Scottish Ministers?
      Mr. Grieve: I was interested in clause 99, which has a bearing on the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
      224
      One reading of the clause is that, unless Scottish Ministers are appointed to the Privy Council, they will have no say in the operation of the fisheries on the Esk or the Tweed.
      Mr. Heald: Clause 99 states:
      "Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for regulating fishing for salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish in the River Tweed and the River Esk."
      No doubt that is due to a proper concern that fishermen on the English side of the Tweed and at the English end of the Esk might wish to fish on Sunday, and might not be able to do so if fishing were regulated solely by Scots law. That is not the only issue of its kind, however. A range of cross-border issues may arise, not just in relation to rivers but in relation to sea water. I ask the Minister for an assurance in the few moments that remain.
      We welcome what the Minister said about the amendments on which he accepts our arguments, but we continue to press him on the others. We ask him if he cannot find some way of meeting the case that the Opposition have made. He has gone a certain way towards that, but he has not gone far enough, and we will divide the Committee unless we are satisfied with the assurances that he gives us now.
      Mr. Dalyell: As the guillotine is coming down and this is our only opportunity, may I ask about the difficulties that might arise between the two Parliaments? Let us suppose that a future EC directive addressed matters that fell within the competence of a Scottish Parliament. That directive might be implemented by an Act of that Scottish Parliament, or an Act of a Scottish Executive, or a United Kingdom Minister under section 2℄
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss clauses that we have not yet reached. I call the Minister.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Let me just register the fact that this is a travesty of parliamentary scrutiny.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The Committee is discussing the Bill under the programme that has been agreed.
      Mr. McLeish: I am not sure that I can give the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) much more reassurance, but let me say something about amendment No.279.
      I think that there is an impression that, once the Parliament is there, we will organise ourselves into marauding groups that will want to nip down to Liverpool℄to cross the border, do a bit of pillaging, do a bit of legislating and return to the Parliament. That may figure prominently in some of the fantasies of Opposition Members, but the reality will be slightly different.
      In every instance, we have said that this will be about agreement and consensus. If we are transferring functions in the three-tier framework that I have described, it will all be about agreement in both Houses. It will be about affirmative resolutions. It will be about seeking agreement and, of course, about accountability. Any decision by both Houses in Westminster to transfer functions to the Scottish Executive will be made on the basis of agreement in this House, and all hon. Members will participate in that. I therefore argue that agreement can be reached.

      225
      There will be good will, but we have built in affirmative resolution procedures. There is an Order in Council to deal with the matter. Things have to be done by agreement. That is the important consideration behind much of the Bill.
      Mr. Heald: The Minister has moved but, sadly, not enough.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 364.

      Division No. 161]

      [8.29 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Amess, David

      Horam, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Baldry, Tony

      Johnson Smith,

      Beggs, Roy

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Key, Robert

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Body, Sir Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brady, Graham

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brazier, Julian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Letwin, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Butterfill, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cash, William

      Loughton, Tim

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Luff, Peter

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Chope, Christopher

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clappison, James

      MacKay, Andrew

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Madel, Sir David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Maples, John

      (Rushcliffe)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Colvin, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cran, James

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Norman, Archie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Paice, James

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Evans, Nigel

      Paterson, Owen

      Faber, David

      Prior, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Randall, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Flight, Howard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gale, Roger

      Ruffley, David

      Garnier, Edward

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gibb, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gill, Christopher

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gray, James

      Spring, Richard

      Green, Damian

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Greenway, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Grieve, Dominic

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Syms, Robert

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Thompson, William

      Hayes, John

      Townend, John

      226

      Tredinnick, David

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Trend, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Walter, Robert

      Woodward, Shaun

      Yeo, Tim

      Wardle, Charles

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Waterson, Nigel

      Wells, Bowen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Stephen Day.

      Whittingdale, John

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clelland, David

      Allan, Richard

      Clwyd, Ann

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cohen, Harry

      Ashton, Joe

      Coleman, Iain

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Colman, Tony

      Austin, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Baker, Norman

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cooper, Yvette

      Barron, Kevin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Battle, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cotter, Brian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cummings, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Bennett, Andrew F

      (Perth)

      Benton, Joe

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bermingharn, Gerald

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Berry, Roger

      Darvill, Keith

      Best, Harold

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davidson, Ian

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Boateng, Paul

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Borrow, David

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brake, Tom

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Denham, John

      Breed, Colin

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Doran, Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Drew, David

      Burnett, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Burstow, Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Byers, Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      Caborn, Richard

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Canavan, Dennis

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Casale, Roger

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Caton, Martin

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Chidgey, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Galbraith, Sam

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Galloway, George

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gapes, Mike

      227

      Gardiner, Barry

      Laxton, Bob

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lepper, David

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gerrard, Neil

      Levitt, Tom

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Linton, Martin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Livingstone, Ken

      Goggins, Paul

      Livsey, Richard

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Lock, David

      Gorrie, Donald

      Love, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McAllion, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCabe, Steve

      Grocott, Bruce

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Grogan, John

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gunnell, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hain, Peter

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McFall, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hanson, David

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harris, Dr Evan

      McLeish, Henry

      Harvey, Nick

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McNamara, Kevin

      Healey, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      MacShane, Denis

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Heppell, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hill, Keith

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marek, Dr John

      Hoey, Kate

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Home Robertson, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hope, Phil

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Meale, Alan

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Michael, Alun

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hurst, Alan

      Milburn, Alan

      Hutton, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mitchell, Austin

      Ingram, Adam

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Moore, Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jamieson, David

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Norris, Dan

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Olner, Bill

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Öpik, Lembit

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Pearson, Ian

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pendry, Tom

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pike, Peter L

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Plaskitt, James

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Pond, Chris

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      228

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Swinney, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Prosser, Gwyn

      (Dewsbury)

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rammell, Bill

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Rapson, Syd

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rendel, David

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Timms, Stephen

      (Hamilton S)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Todd, Mark

      Rooker, Jeff

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Rooney, Terry

      Touhig, Don

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Trickett, Jon

      Rowlands, Ted

      Truswell, Paul

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Tyler, Paul

      Salmond, Alex

      Vaz, Keith

      Salter, Martin

      Wallace, James

      Sanders, Adrian

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sawford, Phil

      Watts, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Webb, Steve

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Welsh, Andrew

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      White, Brian

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      (Swansea W)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Willis, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winnick, David

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

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Snape, Peter

      Wise, Audrey

      Soley, Clive

      Wood, Mike

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Woolas, Phil

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wray, James

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Greg Pope.

      Stringer, Graham

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after half-past Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [9 February] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 49 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 52

      SHARED POWERS
      Amendment made: No. 322, in page 22, line 24, leave out '14' and insert
      `9 and 11 to 13'. —[Mr. McFall.]
      Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 54

      POWER TO PREVENT OR REQUIRE ACTION
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 281, in page 22, line 40, leave out from `may' to end of line 41 and insert
      `apply to the Court of Session to seek an order to prohibit the proposed action'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 282, in page 22, line 44, leave out from 'may' to end of line 45 and insert
      `apply to the Court of Session to seek an order to require such action to be taken'.
      No. 283, in page 23, line 14, leave out
      `by order revoke the legislation'
      and insert
      `apply to the Court of Session for an order revoking the legislation'.
      Mr. Jenkin: I have to confess that I rise with some trepidation, because I was given this neat little collection of amendments to pursue. The more I delved into the Bill and had the Secretary of State jog my elbow and chuckle, the more I realised why a QC would want to delegate the matter to a non-lawyer. I shall try to be brief to give the Secretary of State as much time as possible to address all the issues that arise from clause 54.
      Clause 54, which we term one of the governor-general clauses of the Bill in view of the powers that it possesses, relates to clause 33, which, unfortunately, we did not have time to discuss. I remind the Committee that clause 33(1)(a) deals with the Secretary of State's powers to intervene. If a measure contains provisions which he
      "has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations",
      he can delay or make an order suspending the Royal Assent of an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
      Although I do not wish to tie the Committee in knots, the Secretary of State tells me that the provision relates back to clause 28—one of the most complicated clauses of the Bill, which sadly, we did not discuss. In addressing our amendments to clauses 54 and 55, I invite the Secretary of State to relate his comments to the other clauses that we have not discussed, while remaining in order.
      The key question is what is an international obligation, and what is the Secretary of State's determination of an international obligation in respect of his order-making powers under clauses 33 and 54. In the equivalent debate on Wales, we established that international obligations went beyond treaty obligations. We used as an example the Agenda 21 agreement on the environment. The example which I want to pursue in respect of the amendments is that of the Rio carbon emission targets. To what extent do they represent an international obligation on the United Kingdom that is translatable into an international obligation on the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament? What is the nature of the Secretary of State's decision whether to use his order-making powers in circumstances which I shall describe later?
      230
      The issue turns on whether the Secretary of State is making a political or a judicial judgment. The substance of our amendments to clause 54 and to clause 33 is that the Secretary of State is making more of a judicial pronouncement than a political judgment; therefore, it would be more appropriate for the matter to be decided by a court—whether it is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Court of Session—than by the Secretary of State.
      Let us accept that the circumstances would be exceptional, but they could also be extremely controversial. If the Secretary of State used an order-making power to strike down an action of the Scottish Executive or to compel the Scottish Executive to take an action that it would not otherwise take, one can imagine that the political atmosphere would become pretty heated. If we want a positive and constructive relationship involving Westminster and Whitehall and Holyroodhouse and St. Andrew's house, it is not difficult to suggest that the heat should be taken out of the issue by the courts rather than have an essentially judicial matter decided by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Wallace: There is much to commend amendment No. 281, not least the point that the hon. Gentleman has been making. However, if he has read the notes on clauses—as I am sure he has—he will note that one of the features of the international treaty obligations referred to in the Bill, and the reason for the clause, is that they have not been made part of our domestic law. How does he think that those obligations would become justiciably noted?
      Mr. Jenkin: I shall deal with that point.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): Do we have all weekend?
      Mr. Jenkin: I wish I had.
      The issue that the Secretary of State decides is not immune to questioning by the courts and may well be subject to judicial review. I shall deal with that point shortly.
      I invite the Committee to examine the possibility, which I had started to describe, of a dispute among the Government, Whitehall and the Scottish Executive over the extent to which Scotland was fulfilling its part of the obligation to reduce carbon emissions. It would fall to the Secretary of State to decide whether Scotland was frustrating the United Kingdom in fulfilling that obligation. Perhaps there had been a concordat between the Scottish Executive and Whitehall on how the emission targets should be divided between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and perhaps that agreement had broken down. When the point came at which the Secretary of State had to take a view on the issue, he might decide that Scotland had not contributed sufficiently to reducing emissions, and therefore invoke his order-making powers.
      I invite the Secretary of State to tell the Committee whether that order-making power would be subject to judicial review. If so, what would be the substance of the judicial review? It is one thing for the Secretary of State to decide whether he considers an international obligation to have been fulfilled, but, if it comes to a judicial review,

      231
      surely the court has to decide whether an international obligation existed and whether the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive were frustrating the United Kingdom's fulfilment of that obligation.
      Would it not be better if such an issue were decided initially by a court? I do not know whether the issue would ultimately finish in an international court—for it to decide a United Kingdom constitutional dispute—but that seems rather unlikely. Therefore, to answer the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I think that, on an issue of international obligation and international law, a domestic court would have to decide whether the Secretary of State was justifiably using that power.
      Our group of amendments would ensure that initially courts address the issues, rather than leaving them as the basis of political dispute. Specifically, in our proposed amendments to clause 33, we suggested that the matter should be referred directly to the disputes procedure, as specified in paragraph 4(1) of schedule 6. In amendment No. 281, we recommend using the Court of Session, but we are not fussy. If the Secretary of State comes up with a better idea, we should very much welcome those proposals. It is clearly odd to invite a United Kingdom domestic court to decide a matter of international law. Although it seems unavoidable that such adjudications will have to be made, they should not be made by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Dalyell: Clause 54 constitutes a substantial restraint on the competency of certain legislation in the Scottish Parliament. Although the clause empowers the "Secretary of State", that need not be the Secretary of State for Scotland; as the Bill is written, it could be any Minister of the Crown. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will confirm that.
      I must say that it is a travesty of scrutiny in the House of Commons that, as with clause 33, we did not debate clause 53. By the time of the Bill's Third Reading, no one will be able to say that the Bill was properly scrutinised. Unless we very thoroughly scrutinise clauses 33 and 53 at Report, we cannot claim to have had scrutiny.
      Given the existence of clause 53, which allows Westminster Ministers to override the actions or supply the omissions of Scottish Ministers in the European Community and convention spheres, it is not clear why clause 54(2), with its power to require action of a Scottish Minister in the same spheres, is necessary. Surely the same result can be achieved by the UK Minister asserting his independent right. Regardless, what sanctions are available to ensure that relevant action is taken by the Scottish Minister? Clause 54(1) clearly remains necessary, to take account of the possibility that a Scottish Minister committed to so acting could presumably act contrary to international obligations unless the UK Government retained a preventive power. Again, however, and much more pertinently, that raises the question of appropriate enforcement mechanisms. The Bill does not have much to say about those.
      232
      Clause 54(3) makes no provision for the Secretary of State's action to be directed to a particular person. Is it the First Minister or the member of the Scottish Executive who can be directed to act, and how can such a direction be reviewed? I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State on those matters.
      Mr. William Cash: As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has said, the provision in clause 54 ignores the fact that clause 53 has not been properly scrutinised, raising some fundamental questions—not the least of which is the relationship involving legislation that is made in the House, legislation that is made in the Scottish Parliament and the obligations that are imposed by section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The bottom line is simply that, in the Bill, an attempt is made to bypass the impact of the European dimension on legislation that will have an impact on the people of Scotland, not to mention on the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
      Clause 53, which has not been debated but is of direct relevance to the provision, states:
      "(1) Despite the transfer to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 49 … any function of a Minister of the Crown in relation to any matter shall continue to be exercisable by him as regards Scotland for the purposes specified in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972."
      It goes on:
      "(2) A member of the Scottish Executive has no power to make any subordinate legislation, or to do any other act, so far as the legislation or act is incompatible"—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Member that we are discussing clause 54. I should be grateful if he confined his remarks to the amendment before the Committee.
      Mr. Cash: The point that I am making arises with respect to clause 54(4). The question whether
      "the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe"
      that a provision
      "would be incompatible with international obligations"
      or
      "within the legislative competence of the Parliament by virtue of … section 28"
      is directly relevant to superior law, which takes us back to clause 53.
      I shall not go into the merits of clause 53. I shall simply make the important point that the consequences of legislation made in the European Community dimension—because it is superior law—will override any decisions taken, including those on the basis of so-called "reasonable grounds" by the Secretary of State. The bottom line is that, whether or not the Secretary of State comes to a conclusion based on what he may regard as "reasonable grounds", that is not within his jurisdiction, because it will be overridden by the fact that the legislative competence of the Parliament under clause 54(4) will be determined by the ultimate decision of the European Court.
      Mr. Wallace: Given that international obligations are defined in clause 111(7) as meaning
      "obligations … other than obligations under Community law",
      and therefore expressly exclude anything relating to Community law, how can Community law have relevance?
      9 pm
      Mr. Cash: I debated this question with the Minister during earlier proceedings. When he kept on saying that he was concerned with the question of international agreements—by which I mean international obligations—I made the point that he was completely confused about the interaction between what he was describing as international agreements and international obligations as defined in clause 111. That is where the problem lies.
      Clause 111 may be an attempt to define an international obligation, but the plain fact remains that whether such an obligation is an international obligation falling within the purview of the European Communities Act will be decided not by the Secretary of State's reasonable assessment but by the Court of Justice—if and when the question gets there because of a contravention of a provision of European Community law.
      We know perfectly well that, over and again, there have been attempts—as, indeed, there is in this Bill with regard to the Scottish Parliament—to create an impression that, somehow, we will be able to retain control over what is decided in this House. The White Paper demonstrates the nature of the problem by reference to the manner in which decisions will be taken in the Council of Ministers. An attempt is being made, somehow, to create an impression that there will be a continuing jurisdiction in this House or in the Scottish Parliament. The reference to legislative competence under section 28 shows that the Government are concerned about whether there would be legislative competence in the Scottish Parliament. There is a raft of inconsistency of jurisdiction in the schedules which seek to determine the Parliament's legislative competence.
      The Bill is unbelievably obscure and opaque when it comes to where decisions will be taken. I see the Secretary of State shaking his head. Perhaps he would be kind enough to say why he thinks that I am wrong on this point. I raised it with him in an earlier debate, and he admitted that he did not have the means of determining where the line was drawn. A massive confusion will occur, ultimately driven by the provisions of European Community law, which will override and frustrate any attempt, which I am sure the Government are making, in any Act of Parliament—including this Bill or, indeed, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—to create dividing lines between the various jurisdictions.
      We now have a tripartite jurisdiction. We are no longer talking only about what matters will be determined by ministerial decision. The opportunities that Ministers have to state whether they have reasonable grounds, which is a matter of judicial review, will be determined—as the Amsterdam treaty makes abundantly clear—not in the courts of first instance but in the highest courts in the land.
      The Secretary of State will be in an extremely ambiguous position in his relationships with the United Kingdom Cabinet, Scotland and the Council of Ministers. He will find himself in increasing difficulties over the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament as
      234
      stipulated in subsection (4). Who will be the ultimate arbiter? Who will make the fundamental decisions? It will not be the Secretary of State.
      The clause is a load of codswallop. It is an attempt to give the impression that the Secretary of State will have the power to revoke legislation where he has reasonable grounds to believe that there has been an infringement of the powers that are laid down—it is an ultra vires issue. He is arrogantly trying to give the impression that he can make decisions that he will not be able to make.
      Irrespective of what the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said—that clause 111 defines international obligations—where there are conflicts with the European Court and European Community obligations, decisions will be taken by the highest courts in the land and, ultimately, by the European Court itself. The Secretary of State is living in cloud cuckoo land if he does not understand that the implications of the clause will be overridden by decisions ultimately taken by the European Court.
      In the past few years, a denial has been increasingly built into the legislative process. There has been a refusal to admit that there will be complications in determining the overriding jurisdiction of the law-making powers of this land in relation to a raft of legislation, including those matters set out in the schedules to the Bill, as the debate on clause 28 demonstrated. There will be no clear dividing line, and ultimate jurisdiction will lie with the European Court of Justice.
      The Secretary of State can remonstrate and shake his head. He can say that he does not think that that will happen, but I guarantee that, within a matter of years, it will become abundantly clear that—despite the Government's protestations—the dividing line of legislative competence will be determined by the European Court in those areas where it has the competence to decide.
      I see that the Secretary of State has been handed a note from his advisers. I should be delighted if he would be good enough to read out what advice he has been given, as it is clear that he cannot make up his own mind on the subject. I have raised this point with him over and over again—
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman is out of touch.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister may say that, but over and over again there have been attempts to give the impression that we are in control of our own affairs, on questions of overlapping jurisdiction, ultra vires issues and legislative competence, when in reality those matters have been resolved against us. The Secretary of State may seek to determine those questions of legislative competence in a Bill of this sort, on what he would term reasonable grounds, but there is no basis for the confidence that is expressed by the look on his face at the moment.
      Mr. McAllion: I shall not follow the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Indeed, I doubt whether any hon. Members present could do so.
      When the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) introduced this group of amendments on behalf of the Opposition, he said that the key to understanding them was the definition of "international obligations". One of

      235
      the keys to understanding the amendments, as well as the clause, is the definition of "any action proposed". Clause 54(3) states:
      "'action' includes making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation and, in subsection (2), includes introducing a Bill in the Parliament."
      That tells us what the definition includes, but it does not tell us what is excluded. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will be clear about what is meant by "action". Does it refer only to subordinate legislation—to Bills of some sort—or can it refer to any sort of action taken by the Scottish Executive, or indeed, the Scottish Parliament?
      I shall give an example. Let us pretend that the Scottish Parliament is already in existence and that, in the middle of this international crisis in the Gulf, the First Minister has decided to hold a debate on the crisis and to put forward a resolution for the approval of the Parliament that would condemn any military action in the Gulf either by the United States of America or by the United Kingdom. That is an action that the Prime Minister in this Parliament could well define as being opposed to international obligations undertaken by the United Kingdom Government. Obviously, we are under some sort of obligation to support the Americans in any military action in the Gulf. Could the UK Prime Minister overrule the Scottish Parliament and stop it holding such a debate?
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The answer to that question is simply no. I fear that my hon. Friend is suffering from the delusion that a speech by him against certain forms of action in the world amounts to an international obligation. That is an optimistic definition of his own efforts.
      Mr. McAllion: My right hon. Friend deliberately misses my point. I was not referring to international obligations arising from any speech that I might make, but simply saying that the British Government are under an international obligation, I would assume, to support America in the Gulf at the moment. If a Scottish Parliament were against giving that support, would that be defined as going against a UK Government international obligation?
      Mr. Dewar: The answer is that there is no such international obligation. The foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government is a matter for the judgment of the Government of the day, but a decision to follow a certain line in international debate does not constitute an international obligation.
      Mr. McAllion: I am greatly relieved to find that we are under no obligation to undertake military action in the Gulf. That will be a great source of satisfaction for many Labour Members.
      Mr. Cash: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that, under both the Maastricht and the Amsterdam treaties, what is or is not decided as an international obligation is continuously and progressively being taken into European jurisdiction. Therefore, my earlier point—about which he was dismissive—is entirely relevant to this debate. The bottom line is that it is no good the
      236
      Secretary of State saying that he will have the right to make those decisions, because he is already being overtaken by—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have just arrived in the Chair, but I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman, and clause 54 does not concern our obligations in Europe, so perhaps we could leave that question for this evening.
      Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to you for your ruling, Mr. Martin. If the definition of an international obligation is any international obligation of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that, if, the United Kingdom Government signed up to the multilateral agreement on investment this April, it would be the sort of obligation that would affect the Scottish Parliament?
      My right hon. Friend will recognise that the multilateral agreement on investment prevents any Government, whether of the UK or of Scotland, from discriminating against multinationals. It is expected that, under that agreement, multinationals will be able to sue local authorities which they believe to be in breach of that obligation not to discriminate. The Canadian Government are trying to ban a dangerous toxin that is used as an additive in petrol but, because the toxin is produced by only one multinational company, they have been taken to court under the north American free trade agreement, which is similar to the multilateral agreement on investment, on the basis that to ban the toxin would be to discriminate against the multinational that produces it.
      When he winds up the debate, will my right hon. Friend confirm that a Scottish Parliament acting through local government legislation to ban toxins on environmental grounds might under the clause be subject to UK Government intervention to prevent such legislation being passed, because it might be in breach of the multilateral agreement on investment? If the answer is yes, is not that a good and strong argument for not signing up to the multilateral agreement on investment until we hold a proper debate in this Chamber?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Wallace: First, may I say how much I envy your power, Mr. Martin? When I intervened on the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and suggested that the clause dealt with international obligations, which are defined expressly as not including anything relating to European Community law, he told me that I was missing the point. I am sure that the Committee was relieved that he did not try to explain how you, too, had missed the point as, from the Chair, you could not possibly have missed the point—in fact, you were bang on.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have great confidence in what is contained in a British Act of Parliament. Does he dispute the fact that, if there is a dispute about whether a matter that is thought to be a matter of international obligations as defined in the Bill

      237
      is in fact to be regarded as a matter of Community obligations, the question will go to the European Court of Justice for a decision? Will he answer that?
      Mr. Wallace: I am convinced that, if the matter is one of Community law, it will fall under clause 53. In addition, the Parliament will be ultra vires under other clauses, including clause 28.
      Mr. Cash: That is not my point.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member will have to behave himself.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman asked rhetorically how it was that he might be mistaken. The answer is that, when one is as Euro-obsessed as he is, one can be mistaken about a great many things.
      Earlier today, when my colleagues and I went through the amendments, we thought that amendment No. 281, which was moved by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), held some superficial attraction. We thought that something must be wrong, as we might have to support a Conservative amendment which seemed to be constructive. When the hon. Gentleman thought that he had the wrong brief when he rose to move the amendment, we thought that our analysis had been right.
      However, the hon. Gentleman did make a fair and legitimate point when he said that, if many of the matters in question could be put into the hands of the courts, that might reduce any political tension that may arise in future between the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood and the Westminster Parliament. The difficulty is that, if they are not incorporated into domestic law, international treaty obligations are not automatically judicially noted.
      However, if my recall of practising law many years ago is correct, I believe that it was and is possible to set out foreign law in one's pleadings, so specific treaty obligations can be set out in pleadings to any action or application before the Court of Session. I should be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State thinks that the provision might reduce some of the tension that might arise if it was thought that, for political motives, the Secretary of State in Westminster had intervened in the Scottish Parliament.
      Clause 54(2) states:
      "If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that any action capable of being taken by a member of the Scottish Executive is required for the purpose of giving effect to any such obligations"—
      that is, international obligations—
      "he may by order direct that the action shall be taken."
      If, for example, the intention is to distribute fairly the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions across the United Kingdom, I am sure that it is not in prospect that all the responsibility will be loaded on to the Scottish Executive, or the balance put on Scotland.
      Clearly, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I are on the same wavelength, because the issue connected with international obligations that I wish to raise is the multilateral agreement on investment. I mentioned to the Secretary of State earlier tonight that I thought that the issue was flavour of the month, and he said, "Not in Anniesland." I can tell him
      238
      that it is in Dundee and Orkney. The issues connected with the multilateral agreement on investment are serious and are becoming more current.
      Mr. McAllion: The issues are serious, and one of the best attended meetings that I have been to recently in Dundee was about the multilateral agreement on investment. Feeling is running high among ordinary people in Scotland, and if any hon. Members believe that the people do not know or care about the multilateral agreement on investment, they should think again.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is right, and we shall find that the issue is increasingly addressed in the contents of our postbags. He gave the example of a local authority taking certain actions, but what would happen if the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive were to take certain actions? For example, if one of those bodies was trying to attract inward investment and imposed certain requirements with regard to local employment or the use of indigenous suppliers, would that fall foul of the multilateral agreement on investment? Could the Secretary of State at Westminster intervene to prevent that? Who would be ultimately liable—the United Kingdom Government or the Scottish Parliament—if a multinational company were to sue for damages for a breach of the multilateral agreement on investment?
      The issue has not been aired sufficiently, and I bear some responsibility for that, because I have become aware of the problem only in the past week or two. The House of Commons should have a broader debate on it, but this debate addresses issues that will be relevant to the workings of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government. It may be unfair to ask the Secretary of State to produce an answer tonight, but I hope that he appreciates from the contributions to the debate that the issue will require explanation at some stage, and sooner rather than later.
      Mr. Swayne: I regard it as one of the principal duties of the Committee to remove sources of potential conflict before the Parliament begins to sit. I have read the Bill sequentially without the benefit of a legal education, and my impression of clause 54—and I have pointed out to the Committee before that impressions are very important—was that it gave draconian powers to the Secretary of State. Under clause 54(1), he may
      "direct that the proposed action shall not be taken."
      He is given a similar power in clause 54(2), and under clause 54(4), he may
      "by order revoke the legislation."
      It strikes me as an obvious source of conflict if a Secretary of State, who is effectively appointed by the British Prime Minister under the Crown, may revoke legislation made by a Parliament responsible to the Scottish people. Amendment No. 281 would at least ameliorate that conflict in some respects.
      Mr. Salmond: I have waited 20 years to agree with something said by my old university friend, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), but I am now in that position.
      I have two questions for the Secretary of State for Scotland. First, will any Secretary of State have the power to adopt a quasi-judicial, supervisory role over the

      239
      functions of the Scottish Parliament on any issue related to international obligations? Secondly, what are "reasonable grounds" and who will judge what would be reasonable grounds for an intervention? I await the answers to those questions with great interest. Meanwhile, I hope never again to agree with the hon. Member for New Forest, West.
      Mr. Grieve: I want to pick up an important point, which I hope that the Secretary of State will address.
      It is always said that courts grant mandatory injunctions very sparingly. However, clause 54 makes it possible for a Secretary of State to give a mandatory direction without having any power to back it up, because ultimately, as I understand it—the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—if the Scottish Parliament, annoyed at the fact that there had been a direction that legislation should be introduced, simply said, "We will do nothing about it," the only solution would be for the Westminster Parliament to introduce the legislation and impose it.
      That strikes me as an unsatisfactory state of affairs. In those circumstances, would it not be better if there were a mechanism to enable the courts to determine who was right in a dispute?
      Mr. Owen Paterson: It is vital for the Secretary of State to give us some clarification in answer to the questions that have been asked in the debate, such as: what are reasonable grounds, and how are they decided? Ministers have laughed and sniggered, but those questions are fundamental.
      Ministers must also address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). International obligations are defined in clause 111. That is fine, but what happens if the European Court of Justice does not agree with the definition in the Bill? It is most important that the Secretary of State quickly reads the piece of paper in front of him, which may have come from the dog run over there, which may inform him.
      Time is running out. My final point, which I have made in previous debates in Committee, is that the Bill presumes that a party in power in Westminster has friends in power in the new Scottish Parliament—which may not always be the case. I should like the Secretary of State to consider an example from recent years—the break-up of Czechoslovakia. Clause 54 fills me with foreboding, because it is possible to see conflict ahead and it is ludicrous that the Secretary of State should be the grand panjandrum who decides. Amendment No. 281 should be made, so that disputes are settled in a court of law. The Secretary of State laughed at me when I took the example of the former Czechoslovakia—
      Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
      Mr. Paterson: The Secretary of State did laugh.
      The Committee should think carefully about what happened in the Czech and Slovak lands, which were bound together in a union and have since fallen apart, catastrophically for the secessionist nation. The secessionist nation is now the one that is struggling. It is the one that was previously subsidised by the richer nation. The nationalist—the secessionist—party in this
      240
      case has a rotten example from the past 10 years, and it should address it. As it stands, clause 54 is a recipe for conflict.
      Sir Robert Smith: I shall be brief. Subsection (2) of clause 54 seems to be the one that is most likely to lead to controversy or conflict. It says:
      "If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that any action capable of being taken by a member of the Scottish Executive is required for the purpose of giving effect to any such obligations, he may by order direct that the action shall be taken."
      The Secretary of State may desire to fulfil an international obligation such as the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, but a range of actions might be available to achieve that object. By what process will the Secretary of State choose an action so as to produce the least damaging reaction from the Scottish Parliament? Conflict may well arise in that regard. That worries me.
      Perhaps, when he replies, the Secretary of State will address that issue, which seems to give the Secretary of State a much wider power to intervene. Stopping an action is a specific and focused act. Forcing an action when there could be a range of options to achieve an international goal is far wider-ranging. I am still quite sympathetic to the concept that, if one goes to the courts first and sorts the matter out, one knows where one stands. If one takes the action and relies on judicial review, the process is dragged out and becomes bogged in a quagmire.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: It seems curious that my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) always seem to attract derision for constantly hitting the nail on the head. I shall not rehearse the points that they made.
      When the Scottish people were given devolution, I think that they expected to be given democracy. I ask the Secretary of State to address this point: how on earth can the Scottish people have democracy if one person has the right to overturn legislation? How does that sit with the principles of democracy?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Dewar: I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to the rich array of questions that has been laid before me. I shall begin with the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who asked about the bit of paper that I was passed. It says, "Paterson, North Shropshire". The hon. Gentleman probably has a case for saying that that is a pretty sinister message. I am rather fond of the name "Paterson": it is attached in my mind to an admirable make of oatcake. Oatcakes are quite fresh smelling and crumble at the edges—and I suspect that that description is appropriate in this case.
      I was touched also by the hon. Member for New Forest, North—
      Mr. Swayne: New Forest, West.
      Mr. Dewar: I am very sorry; it is not an area that I know well. The hon. Gentleman read sequentially. Perhaps he should practise a little longer, but I congratulate him on his achievement and I wish him well in that venture. I must also inform him that I do not

      241
      believe in guilt by association; my doubts about him have nothing to do with his friendship with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
      Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be careful in what he says about Paterson shortbread—it is made in my constituency.
      Mr. Dewar: I eat it often, which perhaps accounts for many things.
      I take the debate seriously, but I want to put it in perspective. Hon. Members will recall that we impinged on the question of international obligations for a very short time during the debate on 29 January. Anyone who has the energy will find the relevant passages concerning amendment No. 173 at column 604 of Hansard. That amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). I always think that, in some mysterious way, Woodspring is an appropriate name for the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He raised some interesting points on that occasion, and fortunately we returned to the issue today.
      The first and very obvious point to make is that clause 54 is an example of the care with which fail-safe mechanisms have been built into the Bill. There is no suggestion that the procedure will be used commonly—in fact, it may never be used at all. However, it was thought right that the mechanism should be in the Bill to guard against a situation in which for some reason—I find it difficult to envisage—the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament should fail to recognise the implications and the importance of an international obligation entered into by the United Kingdom, steadfastly refuse to observe it and act in some way contrary to it. That runs parallel with the point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—it may also assist my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
      There is also the possibility of a refusal to honour an obligation under European law. That point must be dealt with against that eventuality—although I think it is probably an unlikely one.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to address that point. He also asked me—it is a great curiosity, and no doubt very flattering to those who write the notes—about a piece of paper that was handed to me. It is not a particularly sophisticated argument and is probably the product of reading the Bill. It says;
      "Clause 54 does not deal with EC obligations, but with international obligations—see clause 111(7). It will therefore be for the ordinary domestic courts to deal with any judicial review, not the European Court of Justice, as was being suggested."
      I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that clause 53 provides, by reference to section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, a fail-safe mechanism to deal with a failure to honour European obligations. Clauses 33 and 54 contain similar and parallel machinery to deal with the unlikely consequences of a refusal to honour international obligations, which I mentioned a few moments ago.
      Mr. Jenkin: Is the Secretary of State therefore giving the Committee an assurance that all the obligations that are at present classed as international obligations between members of the European Union will at no stage ever be transmuted into European Community law by some action of a European Court, as has happened in the past?
      Mr. Dewar: I am not going into such arcane matters. We are discussing a sensible series of safeguards against the kind of friction and difficulty that Opposition Members envisage. I think that they exaggerate the danger. I do not think that it will occur, but if we did not make provision in the Bill against those eventualities, we would be open to criticism, such as, "What happens if there is friction? What happens if there is a refusal?" If default will fall heavily on the state in which we shall all be involved—the United Kingdom—and which signed up for those obligations, it is important that we have a way in which to obviate the problem.
      Mr. Rowe: In the admittedly unlikely event of such a disagreement arising, does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that it would be subject to scrutiny by the House of Commons, or would it be an arbitrary act or an executive act of the Secretary of State? If it were subject to scrutiny by the House, would that not lead to a curious situation where Scottish Members might line up with the Scottish Parliament, and other Members might sympathise with them?
      Mr. Dewar: It may be a curious situation, but the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that clause 33 contains a provision whereby a Bill may be prevented from going for Royal Assent because of such a dispute. The relevant Secretary of State will lay an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from making that presentation. Under clause 54(4), where a statutory instrument or some other form of subordinate legislation is being dealt with, an order must be laid revoking that legislation. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is adequately covered.
      Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman has a slight disadvantage, which is that I think that he is a reasonable man. I have no doubt that he will strive with all his might to arrive at reasonable grounds if the provision leads to the possible revocation of legislation. My problem with it—I invite the Secretary of State to answer the question that so far has not been answered by him—is that clause 111(7) purports to describe international obligations. It states that those are obligations other than those relating to European Community law.
      However, with his great experience, the right hon. Gentleman must know that there are spheres of jurisdiction where Community law overlaps with what purport to be international obligations that might fall within the remit of domestic law. Does he accept that the Bill itself is subject to the question of whether the Court of Justice would arrogate to itself jurisdiction—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I am making a substantive point relating to a question of important constitutional law which arises in the context of—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Let me answer that point. The hon. Gentleman made an intervention and he should know by now that interventions should be brief. He certainly had a good innings in that one.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Stone always has a good innings. It is always redeemed by the fact that he grins at his own efforts at the end, in the most pleasant and genuine of ways, and we all forgive him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I can only ask my hon. Friends to search their hearts for charity. A perfect antidote is, when the hon. Gentleman crosses the 18th minute, to leave the Chamber. That cuts the pain quite considerably.
      On a more serious note, I cannot pretend to be an expert on international jurisdiction, but I hold to the simple point that I have made—that we have built into the Bill a series of procedures to reduce any possibility of friction. That is what we are constantly being asked to do. The hon. Member for Stone is only one of a procession of hon. Members saying, "Oh, if there is friction, what a difficulty that will be." This measure meets that point.
      Clearly, if there is a difficulty, we would expect the respective authorities in Edinburgh and London to discuss the issue and to see, at official level, whether agreement could be reached. There might have to be ministerial contact at both ends of the country. From that, one proceeds in the way that we have described—the European way, through section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 or, if it is an international obligation, the route that we are now debating.
      Mr. Salmond rose—
      Mr. Dewar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment.
      I come now to some of the other points that have been made. I am anxious to get across that this is a belt-and-braces and a fail-safe measure, not a general override power which a Secretary of State can use at whim. If he had to lay orders because it involved subsidiary or primary legislation, clearly he would, in the first place, have to convince the House, which, presumably, is not beyond reason, and, if it was arbitrary, the House would tell the Minister in no uncertain terms that that was so.
      However, if the Minister got the measure through the House and at that point it was still thought to be arbitrary, we have built in the reasonableness test exactly to ensure that it would be justiciable so that those who were oppressed, or felt that they had been oppressed, by an arbitrary decision could go to the Court of Session, or some other relevant domestic judicial forum, in order to test and contest that issue.
      I understand the point made by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) about the part that the courts could play, but speed is the essence of this. If there is a breach of an international obligation, it must be brought to an end as quickly as possible. If it has not been possible to do so through agreement, and one then has to have recourse to the courts, it is right to do so in order to test the reasonableness of the decision that has been taken.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow would recognise that the term "Secretary of State" does not just mean the Secretary of State for Scotland. It means the relevant Secretary of State. If the matter concerned was a breach of an international obligation, it is likely that the Foreign Secretary would bring the matter to the House of Commons and, ultimately, deal with the situation that had arisen.
      Mr. Salmond: A few seconds ago, the Secretary of State said that a Secretary of State would first have to get the matter through the House. By what procedure would that be done? Would it be by affirmative resolution? Given that international obligations are often arguable—the Spanish interpretation of their obligations in fisheries policy is often different from that in the United Kingdom—why should the judgment of an individual Secretary of State on what is or is not an international obligation be superior to that of an entire Scottish Parliament?
      Mr. Dewar: We propose to use the negative procedure. We are talking about a breach of an international obligation; that is not some vague concept amounting to no more than a disagreement about policy. We are talking about a specific breach which is causing acute difficulty to the Government of the United Kingdom and where a solution, in these extreme circumstances, has to be found. Our proposals are not unreasonable.
      I wish to refer to the essence of the amendments, and perhaps I could be spared further interventions in the interests of the Committee.
      Several points have been made. We have been asked why we do not assume that the matter will be dealt with under the ultra vires negotiations through the normal dispute procedure over vires that leads to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. The answer to that—put fairly by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on another occasion, and again today—is that it is difficult for the courts to deal with international obligations that have not been imported into their own domain of domestic law. The courts are not normally in a position to assess the compatibility of actions under domestic law with our international obligations, except to the extent that they have been incorporated into domestic law.
      It may be useful to bear in mind that international obligations include not only those established by international treaties, but obligations under customary international law, binding Security Council resolutions and decisions of international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice. These could all be relevant and could lead to great difficulty if there were an impasse on the matter. It is right to build in the kind of machinery we have been discussing.
      9.45 pm
      I wish to give two brief examples, as it is important to put them on the record. In terms of marine transport, there are obligations under customary international law. If, for example, a Scottish Executive were to impose restrictions on entry to Scottish ports which would be inconsistent with these obligations, there could be a need for action under clause 54. Similarly, the bilateral air services agreement to ensure non-discriminatory treatment at airports is another example where it would be extremely difficult for the domestic courts to act.

      245
      To sum up, ultra vires is a track to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but it is not available to us. There are great difficulties in customary international agreements in using the domestic courts. We have suggested, in the most unlikely circumstances in which this will be necessary, that we move with some speed; that the provision is justiciable within the domestic courts because of the reasonableness test; and that it is a sensible provision which will allow good order and sensible business to be conducted within the United Kingdom, while accommodating the proper position and the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Those of us interoseed in that good order will see that this is a sensible clause which does not require the kind of amendment that the Opposition have urged upon us.
      Mr. Jenkin: I shall be extremely brief, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State. However, we are not satisfied because, quite simply, we are dealing with a potentially draconian power. These matters will be subject to dispute. The Secretary of State may find himself dealing with a substantially nationalist Parliament, as we see from recent opinion polls. Even when he takes action—and it becomes clear that the reasonableness test has been satisfied by a judicial review—if the Scottish Executive persists with an action or refuses to take an action which has been outlawed, what then?
      Mr. Dewar: Legislation.
      Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for that clarification. But how much better it would be to take the heat out of the matter initially by making sure that the courts dealt with it ab initio, rather than dragging in the courts later—perhaps after mistakes had been made.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 323.

      Division No. 162]

      [9.48 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Allan, Richard

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Amess, David

      Chidgey, David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Clappison, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Baker, Norman

      (Rushcliffe)

      Baldry, Tony

      Collins, Tim

      Beggs, Roy

      Colvin, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bercow, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cran, James

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Body, Sir Richard

      (Perth)

      Boswell, Tim

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Brady, Graham

      Dafis, Cynog

      Brake, Tom

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Brazier, Julian

      Day, Stephen

      Breed, Colin

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan, Alan

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Burnett, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Burns, Simon

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Burstow, Paul

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Cash, William

      Flight, Howard

      246

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Norman, Archie

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Oaten, Mark

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Page, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Paice, James

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gibb, Nick

      Paterson, Owen

      Gill, Christopher

      Prior, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Rendel, David

      Gorrie, Donald

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Green, Damian

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Greenway, John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Ruffley, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hammond, Philip

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Salmond, Alex

      Harvey, Nick

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hayes, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Horam, John

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

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Streeter, Gary

      Johnson Smith,

      Swayne, Desmond

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Swinney, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Syms, Robert

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Kirkwood,Archy

      Thompson, William

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Townend, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Trend, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Tyler, Paul

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Viggers, Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Wallace, James

      Livsey, Richard

      Walter, Robert

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Wardle, Charles

      Loughton, Tim

      Webb, Steve

      Luff, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Welsh, Andrew

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Mackay, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Willetts, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Willis, Phil

      Madel, Sir David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Maples, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Yeo, Tim

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Moore, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      Moss, Malcolm

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Ainger, Nick

      Austin, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Barron, Kevin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Ashton, Joe

      Begg, Miss Anne

      247

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Efford, Clive

      Benton, Joe

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ennis, Jeff

      Berry, Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Best, Harold

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Betts, Clive

      Fisher, Mark

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Flynn, Paul

      Boateng, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Borrow, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Galloway, George

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gapes, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burgon, Colin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gerard, Neil

      Byers, Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Canavan, Dennis

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chaytor, David

      Grogan, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gunnell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hill, Keith

      Colman, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Home Robertson, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hope, Phil

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cummings, John

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hutton, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ingram, Adam

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Dismore, Andrew

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Doran, Frank

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      248

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Laxton, Bob

      Rammell, Bill

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Levitt, Tom

      (Hamilton S)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Linton, Martin

      Rooker, Jeff

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rooney, Terry

      Lock, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Love, Andrew

      Rowlands, Ted

      McAllion, John

      Roy, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      McCabe, Steve

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      Macdonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheerman, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McLeish, Henry

      Skinner, Dennis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Snape, Peter

      Mandelson, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Marek, Dr John

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Meale, Alan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Michael, Alun

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

      Milburn, Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Timms, Stephen

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Todd, Mark

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Touhig, Don

      Mudie, George

      Trickett, Jon

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Truswell, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Norris, Dan

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Olner, Bill

      Vaz, Keith

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pearson, Ian

      Watts, David

      Pendry, Tom

      White, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Pike, Peter L

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Plaskitt, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Pollard, Kerry

      (Swansea W)

      Pond, Chris

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      249

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wray, James

      Winnick, David

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wise, Audrey

      Wood, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Woolas, Phil

      Mr. Jim Dowd and Jane Kennedy

      Worthington, Tony

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [9 February] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 55 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 59

      POWER TO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 323, in page 25, line 2, leave out 'Subordinate legislation may' and insert
      `Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.
      No. 324, in page 25, line 10, leave out 'subordinate legislation' and insert 'an Order'.
      No. 325, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'legislation' and insert 'Order'.
      No. 326, in page 25, line 16, leave out 'Subordinate legislation' and insert 'An Order'.—
      No. 327, in page 25, line 18, leave out 'subordinate legislation' and insert 'an Order'.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 60

      TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY AND LIABILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH FUNCTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 328, in page 25, line 31, leave out 'subordinate legislation' and insert 'an Order'.
      No. 329, in page 25, line 41, leave out 'subordinate legislation' and insert 'an Order'.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Clause 60, as amended, 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. McFall.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      CONSUMER CREDIT
      That the draft Consumer Credit (Increase of Monetary Limits) (Amendment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
      That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.
      That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.

      FEES AND CHARGES
      That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Question agreed to.

      Beef Bones Regulations
      [Relevant document: The memorandum relating to this instrument contained in the Nineteenth Report of Session 1997–98 from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (HC 33-xix).]
      10.4 pm
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg to move,
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2959), dated 15th December 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be annulled.
      People from the outside world looking in at the proceedings of our House and Parliament must feel somewhat bemused. It is only now, well into February and some considerable time after the event, that the House of Commons has got around to debating something that has excited great public and consumer controversy and that has, in effect, legal force, following the decision of Her Majesty's Government. When some of our European colleagues examine the way in which we do things in this House and Parliament—not least on matters agricultural—Ministers will have difficulty in defending and explaining their activities to their European counterparts. A procedure such as this can only add to Ministers' difficulties and to our difficulties as a House.
      The purpose of our prayer is to give the Government in particular and the House in general an opportunity to agree, on Division, that it is never too late to think again about the regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I welcome that generous response from the Conservative Benches, because I want to introduce a note of cross-party harmony between the Liberal Democrats and our friends in the parliamentary Conservative party.
      When the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came to the House before Christmas and made his initial statement, in response outside the House, the leader of the Conservative party wobbled a little, saying that the Conservative party may have had to give the statement a bit of support. However, a much more trenchant response came that afternoon from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who replied on behalf of the Conservative party in the House.
      None the less,I and other Liberal Democrats who were present noticed that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the previous Minister of Agriculture, endorsed the Government's actions. I notice that he is not in his place. I can only wonder whether the parliamentary Conservative party or the Government feel more embarrassed by his endorsement of the Government's proposals. Given his uncharacteristic absence from a debate such as this, I wonder whether the 1922 Committee has him under house arrest.
      Both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members will vote in favour of the humble address; they support our motion. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats, in that spirit of generosity that characterises our approach, are happy to be able to offer the parliamentary Tory party two things that it has lacked so much during this Parliament: direction and leadership.
      Mr. James Gray: I welcome the opportunity to return to the hon. Gentleman the thanks of
      252
      the parliamentary Conservative party for the support that his noble Friends in the other place gave to the Conservative party when it prayed against the same order there.
      Mr. Kennedy: That is a particularly decent contribution from the Conservative candidate whom I defeated in 1992. The generosity of the Conservative party knows no bounds.
      There is much that the Conservatives are on the back foot about because, before 1 May, they had been in government for a long period, but this is one aspect of agricultural policy where the Government of the day have had sole control, and it is therefore right that we hold the Government of the day to account and clearly state our opposition to their proposal.
      Let me make it clear that the opposition of the Liberal Democrats to the measure—here we part company and I shall leave the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to make his own case—is both practical and philosophical. It is not what has been characterised in certain newspapers such as the Evening Standard as a personalised attack on the Minister of Agriculture. I note that he has been described as "Dr. Jack Boot" in certain editorial columns—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I assume that he is consoling the former Minister of Agriculture.
      It is not a cheap, opportunistic campaign against the Minister of Agriculture. I acknowledge that he has reflected carefully on the matter. The Liberal Democrats are not arguing that the Government should have pursued a policy of anti-disclosure or secrecy when the scientific and medical evidence was passed on to them during the second half of last year. For a party that has long since argued the case, now taken up by the Government, for a food standards agency, that would be a perverse thing to do.
      Our objections on the practical level, however, arise first from the fact—as the Minister said in his original statement before Christmas—that SEAC, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, as well as giving him the evidence and the medical advice from the chief medical officer, set out three options, which the Minister outlined in his statement. The Government decided on the toughest, the most radical or the most extreme option. [Interruption.]Labour Back Benchers may say that it was sensible, but the people who are probably best placed to judge the sense of it are those who will have to enforce it. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health described the measure as "practically unworkable". That is not a good basis on which to proceed.
      Mr. George Stevenson: If the hon. Gentleman finds my right hon. Friend's decision so unreasonable, why did the Liberal Democrats oppose the previous Government when they said that there was no danger of transmission from one animal to another or from animal to human? Yet now that my right hon. Friend has taken the decision, they oppose it.
      Mr. Kennedy: I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but I think that our stance on the issue during the last Parliament shows that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are glaringly wide of the mark. The Liberal Democrats never pursued that case, nor are we doing so tonight.

      253
      First, the practicality of the measure is fundamental to judging its worth. Secondly, there is a fundamental philosophical point to be considered. Although individual citizens are right to look to the state and the apparatus of Government for security, advice and support, when it is necessary, when the element of risk is defined as being as minute as it is in this case, we decisively come down on the side of individual liberty. Provided that the necessary information has been placed in the public domain, the individual should be left to make the critical judgment.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is it not the case that new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has such a long incubation period that it is extremely difficult to determine the risk? In saying that the risk is negligible, is not the hon. Gentleman misleading the House, because we simply do not know, and therefore we had to err on the side of caution?
      Mr. Kennedy: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the remarks at the National Farmers Union annual conference last week by the Government's principal adviser who chairs SEAC. He pointed to the fact that the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the concerns that have been attendant upon it are now, thank goodness, moving decisively in the right direction. Set against that backdrop, the decision seems all the more practically and philosophically perverse.
      The third pointt is the nature of the consultations that were conducted not only inside but outside Parliament. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) mentioned the consultation, in the form of a debate, that occurred in the other place, which resulted in a vote of 207 to 97 against the Government. Most interestingly—I say this as a representative of a party that shares the Government's enthusiasm for getting rid of the hereditary element—even if one breaks down that vote and disregards the votes of hereditary peers voting, the Government would still have lost the vote. That should tell Ministers something about the force of their argument.
      Let us consider the Government's practical consultation process. The statement was made in the House on Wednesday 3 December; the official proposals were faxed over the following weekend, with a response deadline of 4 pm on 12 December; the order was made on 15 December; and the ban was effective from 16 December. Mr. John Fuller, director of the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders—who I should have thought would know a thing or two about the matter—described that as making
      "a mockery of the consultation process bearing in mind SEAC's assessment of the minimal risk."
      Given that the Ministry, on a practical level, has not always covered itself in glory, I was amazed at the speed and the rapidity with which it assessed the replies to the consultation—not least when among the 300 very disparate organisations that it consulted were the Al Hasaniya Moroccan Women's centre and the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain. I do not know whether that was a case of the Ministry wanting to know whether lions in winter prefer their beef on or off the bone, but I think that, when they consulted so widely and—as the BBC "Food and Drink" programme reported in the past 24 hours—only seven of 104 responses supported the Government's ban, Ministers should have started a fresh consultation or thought twice before imposing the ban.
      254
      Perhaps, in passing, I may mention one other matter that is indicative of the debate on beef, of the ban on British exportation and even more so of the importation standards that are being applied to beef entering this country—which many hon. Members feel does not have to meet the stipulations that we place on our own beef producers. The vast majority of imported beef is deboned. Once beef is off the bone, it is very difficult to ascertain whether the specified risk materials—on which, from 1 January, the Government have rightly taken action—have been removed in accordance with UK domestic practice.
      Therefore, there should surely be a total ban on beef imports from member states in which the specified risk materials have not been removed to the standards that we are imposing on our own sector. Additionally, surely further spot checks of consignments of imported beef should be made at their final destination—which is permissible under single market regulations and not contrary to the provisions of the European treaties that we have signed.
      I hope that, in responding to the concerns that have been raised widely in the debate, the Minister will be able to address that issue. Like hon. Members who have spoken to farmers anywhere in the United Kingdom in the past few months, he can be under no illusion that farmers are suffering not only from a sense of injury but from the sense of insult that accompanies that injury because of the lack of a level playing field. As we pursue a policy of removing beef from the bone, we are increasing the likelihood of not being able to check imports to the same standards that we apply to our own beef.
      Another issue—perhaps the Minister will reply to it, too—is that, when the ban was imposed, more than a few farmers had cattle booked into abattoirs and butchers lined up to buy the carcases. They then discovered that those buyers pulled out because of the huge uncertainty that developed almost overnight. If the cattle were just under 30 months old, the farmers may well have had to enter them for the over-30-months scheme. We have all seen the cuts in that scheme under this Administration. Even if the Government resist repealing the ban, it should certainly not apply to cattle under the beef assurance scheme, which has already been established under SEAC regulations, because there is not the slightest possibility of contraction of BSE in such herds.
      What of the risk factor? What judgment did the Minister make? SEAC concluded that there was a minute chance of transfer of the BSE agent via the nervous tissue attached to the spinal base tissue. What was the calculation of odds? After the matter became public, it became common parlance that the calculation of odds was 1,000,000,000:1.
      Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kennedy: I will, for the last time, but not before pointing out that there is 100 times more chance of being struck by lightning.
      Dr. Turner: As I am a new Member, will the hon. Gentleman remind me what the then Government said

      255
      were the odds on CJD being transmitted to humans? As a member of the public, I remember being told that there was no chance.
      Mr. Kennedy: I am certainly not here to defend the previous Government. The quantifiable difference between this state of affairs and the previous state of affairs is that the scientific evidence has been published and made available to the public. That was not so before.
      The calculation of odds does not back up the case being made by the Government. As a previous Prime Minister famously said, advisers may advise, but Ministers decide. Ministers took this decision and Ministers have to face up to the fact that, within hours of taking it, consumers were voting with their feet, purses and wallets and stocking up for Christmas.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I had the good fortune this afternoon to meet Professor Frank Raymond, who was a senior MAFF adviser and probably the best British expert on beef. He described the order as a travesty because it was not based on the soundest possible research.
      Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I confirm that the two of us have met several delegations of farmers from different parts of Wales, the west country, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The same message comes through time and again. There is inevitable professional frustration at the way in which the figures are presented and the conclusions are reached. There is a sense that there is no genuine consultation in the minds of Ministers or the actions of the Ministry.
      Mr. John Townend: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with the inconsistency in Government policy on risk factor? The Government have banned T-bone steaks and oxtail, although, as the hon. Gentleman has said, they carry a risk of 1,000,000,000:1. The decision on smoking, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of people die every year, is left to the individual. We put warnings on the packets, but leave the decision to the individual. What is the difference in this case?
      Mr. Kennedy: As a smoker, I have to be careful. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has pointed out, the risk for the smoker is not so much what we should be concerned about. We should be more concerned about the passive smoker who is sitting next to him. The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point; there is inconsistency. I suspect, having read the press statements of the right hon. Member for Fylde, that we shall be hearing more about that.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kennedy: No, I must make progress. It would not be fair to give way, as many hon. Members want to speak.
      I direct my remarks to Labour Back Benchers, especially the newly elected ones who have participated fully in the chorus, whipped up by the Prime Minister,
      256
      that they are members of the most rural, countryside parliamentary Labour party ever to have been returned under the coat tails of a Labour Government. If that is so, Labour Members should reflect carefully before tonight's vote. This is a litmus test issue, not just for farmers but, in its knock-on effects, for the rural economy as a whole.
      Labour Members should ask themselves who will win if the motion is defeated. Farmers will not; they are experiencing yet another dent in the reputation of one of their principal products in an already weak market. The consumers will not win, either. They are denied a right to decide. Moreover, for the few days when they had that right to decide, they exercised it in complete defiance of the Government's advice.
      There will be no winners in terms of the reputation of Ministers. By a perverse irony, the reputation of the previous Minister of Agriculture suffered because he was perceived as doing too little, too late, and now the reputations of a new set of Ministers are suffering because they are perceived as doing too much, too soon.
      If the motion is defeated, the real loser will be Parliament itself. We should ask ourselves a serious question: if, after dubious and inadequate consultation, Parliament passes unworkable and unenforceable legislation, which does not command public confidence and which encourages otherwise law-abiding people to behave illegally, it is failing in the job that it should be doing. We are talking about a bad law. The Government should take the opportunity offered by this Liberal Democrat motion and—in the words of a Scots song—go home and think again.
      10.26 pm
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I am pleased to have this opportunity—I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) in his opening remarks—to explain why the regulations were introduced, as, clearly, a number of misconceptions have been voiced in recent weeks and recent minutes. Given the short time available, I shall cover the main points as briefly as possible.
      The Government have been accused of taking a rushed decision in response to a very small risk. We did not. There were indications last summer from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee that actions might need to be taken to remove the risk of a newly discovered BSE infective material entering the human food chain.
      The picture became clearer in succeeding months. In late November, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Health, with other Ministers, met to consider the issues with the chairman of SEAC, the deputy chief medical officer and senior officials. At the time, the research results were known, but SEAC's likely recommendations were not. When SEAC's recommendations were known and the chief medical officer's advice had been sought and received, a decision was taken by Ministers, including the Prime Minister.

      257
      There was therefore no ill-considered or hasty reaction to SEAC's report. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, was able to make a statement to the House on 3 December that had been fully and carefully thought out.
      Mr. John Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
      It may assist the House if I put SEAC's recommendations in the context of the research findings that led to them. New results from continuing research had shown, first, that BSE infectivity had been found in the dorsal root ganglia of bovine animals. Secondly—something that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West did not mention—there were indications, which are still being evaluated, that BSE infectivity may also be found in the bone marrow of cattle. Dorsal root ganglia are in the channels within back bones. The preliminary findings of possible BSE infectivity in bone marrow apply to all bovine bones. SEAC reported that the risk to human health was very small, a point to which I shall return.
      SEAC's advice came in two parts and not as the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West described it or as has been reported. First, SEAC recommended that the research results should be published and consumers warned of the risk—we did both at once. Secondly, the committee recommended that, if the Government decided that further action was necessary to reduce the small risk further,
      "either: no beef with the bone in from cattle over 6 months old should be sold to the consumer; or cattle slaughtered between 24 and 30 months of age for human consumption should be deboned under official control by the Meat Hygiene Service in licensed plants".
      Frankly, it should have been no surprise to anyone either inside or outside the House or in the scientific community that we decided that further action was necessary. Ever since the introduction of the ban on specified bovine offal in 1989, Governments have always—I repeat, always—excluded from the human food chain any tissue in which BSE infectivity has been identified. The only way to ensure that that was done in the light of the new SEAC findings was to prevent bone-in beef from cattle over six months old from being sold to consumers.
      That was one of the options SEAC had recommended. The other—the deboning of older cattle slaughtered between 24 and 30 months of age—was not a practical proposition owing to lack of cutting plant capacity and because the Meat Hygiene Service does not have sufficient qualified staff for enforcement.
      Mr. Michael Jack: Why did not SEAC recommend those options?
      Mr. Rooker: That was not SEAC's view. We are making the decisions and that is what we are accountable for.
      Mrs. Angela Browning rose—
      Mr. Rooker: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
      258
      The Governmenttook very careful account of advice from the chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman. Sir Kenneth made it absolutely clear that he
      "would be very concerned if any tissues that have been shown to transmit BSE were knowingly allowed to remain in the human food chain".
      Therefore, the action taken was fully in line with past practice and the chief medical officer's firm advice on the need for action as the natural history of BSE and new variant CJD is still largely unknown.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Rooker: I will give way in a moment.
      Some people claim that there is no example in the past of SEAC giving a view without a recommendation. That is incorrect. In 1994, advice only was given on the use of calf intestines and thymus. However, the then Government operated a policy of extreme caution. In a parliamentary answer, the then Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that SEAC had
      "concluded that the theoretical risk of infection of man from food from infected calves is minuscule. They advised that the continuing results of the experiment should be carefully monitored to confirm this basic conclusion."
      The right hon. Lady continued:
      "I have carefully considered this advice in consultation with my right hon. Friends the other Agriculture Ministers and the Secretary of State for Health. We have concluded while the assessment of SEAC and of the CMG is that any risk to health is minuscule, the Government's policy of extreme caution in relation to BSE requires us to ensure that the tissues in which infectivity might potentially occur are removed from the human and animal food chain."—[Official Report, 30 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 654. ]
      I greatly regret that the Opposition have now disowned that very clear policy.
      Mrs. Browning: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I understand his point about advice from SEAC and the chief medical officer and the need for a belt-and-braces policy. However, there is an inconsistency in the decision made by the present Government compared with decisions made by the previous Government in respect of different parts of the carcase. If there is a risk, however minuscule, why is the material not specified bovine material and treated properly, as the rose of the carcase which is considered to be at risk is treated?
      Mr. John Home Robertson: Is that what the hon. Lady is suggesting?
      Mrs. Browning: No, I am not suggesting that. If the Minister is going to put forward an intellectual case for the risk, he must also explain why the material is not SBM.
      Mr. Rooker: I shall come to that point—the hon. Lady has asked a fair question. We are being practical—about the nature of the bits involved. I notice that she did not refer to the potential problem in respect of bone marrow, which is conveniently ignored by most commentators.
      To return to the risk to consumers, SEAC emphasised that the risk is very small; however, it is very real. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a terrible disease. The first

      259
      signs of new variant CJD are often psychiatric, including anxiety, depression and behavioural change which progresses. After a period of weeks or months, difficulties in walking appear— [Interruption.] This is not a joking matter for victims' families.
      The patient develops uncontrollable jerky movements, progressive stiffness of the limbs and incontinence. As the disease progresses, patients lose awareness of their surroundings, become unable to recognise members of their family and finally pass into a state of complete physical unresponsiveness. There is no treatment and, after one or two years, the patient dies. It is distressing to family and friends to watch someone they care for and love become so seriously ill. No one—I repeat, no one—has yet recovered.
      The idea that we might be able to cook our way out of this—that we might be able to eliminate the risk by cooking—is a non-starter. The agent with which we are dealing is so powerful that surgical instruments used on new variant CJD victims have to be destroyed—they cannot even be sterilised. It would be quite wrong to expose people to the disease unnecessarily. I am well aware that many people believe—I hope that their belief is based on ignorance, rather than on callous disregard—that it would be enough to warn consumers of the risks and leave them to make their own decision. I fundamentally disagree with that.
      One cannot tell which of the bones in a butcher's shop contain tissues that are BSE-infective. If we allowed free sales of bone-in beef, there would be no protection for the many consumers of beef that had been cooked on the bone—people who wanted to continue to eat beef would have no choice. With pre-prepared or manufactured foods, the problem becomes even more difficult, as without a total ban on the use of the bones or of beef cooked on the bone, it would be impossible for consumers to tell whether their food was safe to eat.
      Mr. David Heath: None of us would discount the horrors of CJD, but would the Minister explain one technical point? I find it hard to grasp the distinction being made between the infectivity of the dorsal root ganglia and the infectivity of the neural process which forms part of the same cell but lies outside the spinal column and the autonomic ganglia, which also lie outside the spinal column. Why are they treated differently?
      Mr. Rooker: Because the SEAC advice is specific to the dorsal root ganglia and potentially to bone marrow, to which subject I shall return.
      Mr. David Curry: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Rooker: No, I want to continue. This is a very short debate and I am the one who will be criticised for using up time. I have already given way a couple of times, but I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman before I sit down.
      It is far better in such circumstances for consumers to be able to rely on the fact that all the tissues that are known to carry the risk of infectivity have been removed
      260
      entirely from the food chain. Not only does that give full public health protection but it serves to boost, rather than undermine, consumers' confidence in beef and beef products. At a time when the beef industry is facing difficulties, that is not something to be dismissed as lightly as I fear that it is dismissed by the Opposition.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge rose—
      Mr. Rooker: I shall give way in a moment—to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).
      I remind the House what I said earlier about potential marrow infectivity. We do not yet have confirmation of that point, in the same way as in the summer we did not have confirmation about dorsal root ganglia. We waited for confirmation before we acted. It would have done more damage to the industry and no service to the consumer if the Government had had to come back to the House a few short months later to deal with what was, essentially, exactly the same problem.
      Opposition Members have claimed outside the House—and will probably repeat tonight—that it is not possible to enforce the regulations. That is far from the case. The media highlight a few individuals but the hype is at variance with what is happening in the rest of the country. The regulations are as enforceable as other public health and consumer protection measures. Guidance has been given to local authorities—which has been welcomed today by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health—and to the Meat Hygiene Service to help them in that task, and I am confident that they are doing it effectively and to the best of their ability.
      Mr. David Maclean rose—
      Mr. John Swinney rose—
      Mr. Rooker: I repeat that I will give way, but to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon—in a moment. I admit that some breaches of the regulations have been reported, but the vast majority of food manufacturing, distributing and retailing businesses are complying willingly. I challenge any right hon. or hon. Member to deny that fact. Equally, most consumers appear to have accepted the need for the controls at the current time.
      Any businesses that are found to be acting illegally are being advised of their obligations and warned to stop. Thereafter, the matter is not one for the Government but for the judicial process.
      Mr. Curry: Have not the Government themselves redefined risk? I refer the Minister to the White Paper on the Food Standards Agency. The third guiding principle for the agency states:
      "The Agency will make decisions and take action on the basis that … the Agency's decisions and actions should he proportionate to the risk; pay due regard to costs as well as benefits to those affected by them; and avoid over-regulation".
      If that is the case, how is it possible to conceive that the Food Standards Agency would ban beef on the bone?
      Mr. Rooker: I take that point on board. If and when the Food Standards Agency and its officials know what I do not know and what nobody in the House or outside knows—the incubation period of new variant CJD—a

      261
      proper decision can be taken. Until that is known, we cannot proceed on that basis. Opposition Front Benchers may wish to infect the population, but the Government will not do so. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is a serious subject and many people outside want to hear our deliberations. They should be taken calmly and in order.
      Mr. Rooker: The Government have been criticised for going too far in the latest action, but we shall not be deterred by such accusations, nor shall we shrink from what I admit has been a difficult decision. We made it clear on taking office that we would treat consumer protection as our top priority. That was a change of policy from that of the previous Government.
      Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just heard an outrageous slur on the former Government, and I invite you to invite the Minister to withdraw his remarks.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have only heard points of argument, which the right hon. Member may in due course catch my eye and have the opportunity to rebut.
      Mr. Rooker: The Government's decision to give consumer protection top priority was a clear change of policy from that of the previous Administration. That we have done, and we shall continue to do in relation to both British meat and imported meat. I am confident that, as a result of the action that we have taken, British beef is the safest in Europe and probably among the safest in the world, which is why we remain frustrated at the delay in reopening export markets.
      As a result of our action in the House tonight in approving the regulations, Ministers can go to Brussels, look the Ministers of other member states in the eye and say, "Our beef does not contain infectivity." Without the regulations, we cannot say that. The controls are fully justified by the need to protect public health and enhance consumer confidence. In doing so, we are doing the farming industry a real favour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no.''] Oh, yes.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister answer two specific questions? First, in relation to what he has just been saying, how many other member states that have BSE have had to introduce the same regulations? Secondly, if the regulations are so easily enforceable, how many successful prosecutions have there been since 16 December?
      Mr. Rooker: The answer to the second question is, I do not know. It might be early days. I am unaware of any successful prosecution—I am unaware of any prosecutions taking place. One reason for that is probably the fact that very few people are not obeying the regulations. [Laughter.] Regarding the hon. Gentleman's first point, which is a legitimate one, three or four, or perhaps five, member states are considering introducing these regulations and are seeking advice. At present, no country has introduced the regulations that we have, although I know that Italy has in force some similar regulations regarding beef imported from Switzerland.
      262
      Earlier I referred to advice given in 1994, and I quoted the former Minister of Agriculture, now the shadow Leader of the House. I said that that advice—it was also in the press notice and the answer to the parliamentary question—clearly stated by the then Minister, said, on scientific and medical advice, that there was no evidence of BSE causing CJD in humans.
      That was 1994. We now know that that is not true. We do not know the incubation period of new variant CJD. The fact that there have been—some say "only"—23 cases so far gives no confidence and no guarantee that the number of new variant CJD cases will not increase dramatically. Think about it. We cannot yet predict the scale of the new variant CJD epidemic. We must take steps to reduce the risks that we can identify, and the risk of beef on the bone is a risk that has been identified—small, I accept, but nevertheless real. This is a responsible Government, and we could not have acted in any other way.
      I believe that the regulations—I hate to upset Opposition Members—represent a balanced response to the position that the Government faced when they received SEAC's advice. Of course, we expect the BSE epidemic to come to an end by the year 2001. The practice is in line with the prediction at the present time and, as cases decline, it will naturally be right to review all the protective measures taken by the House, including this one, to which I hope the House will agree tonight.
      10.48 pm
      Mr. Michael Jack: It is always a distressing incident in the House when a Minister loses his cool and emotion overcomes reason. I give the Minister of State the opportunity to intervene on my remarks by saying that, when the Conservatives were responsible for dealing with BSE and all its implications, we took all the scientific advice into account in protecting human health. We took very seriously indeed all the questions connected with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. We do not treat the subject lightly. I invite the Minister to withdraw his scurrilous accusations against the previous Government.
      Mr. Rooker: Every measure was too slow, and we have embarked on a damage limitation exercise to restore public confidence.
      Mr. Jack: The record will show that the Minister cast a slur on the Opposition, and I shall demonstrate why we have taken a responsible attitude in this matter.
      Mr. George Stevenson: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. In that context, will he explain to the House why, between 1986 and 1988, the previous Government did absolutely nothing to protect the consumer interest?
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should contain his enthusiasm and read the report of the Southwood committee, in which Professor Southwood praised the previous Government for the totality of their efforts on BSE. We are already seeing the Government's bullyboy tactics, which are designed to distract the House from properly considering the issues under debate this evening.

      263
      Before I entered the Chamber, I received a message from Mrs. Rolfe of Wantage in Oxfordshire. She said:
      "On behalf of the farmers, butchers and customers I organised a petition at Millbrook Butchers of Grove in Oxfordshire. We collected 282 signatures!"
      She sent a copy of the petition to her local Member of Parliament. She concluded her message by saying:
      "The petition simply states that the ban on beef on the bone is an infringement of free trade of farmers and butchers and an infringement of the customer's right to choose."
      The Conservatives speak on behalf of the beef eaters and the consumers of this country.
      It is regrettable that this evening we have been treated to an emotional outburst by the Minister of State who spoke in place of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Where is the Minister of Agriculture? He is clearly the one who took the political decision to go further than the advice of SEAC, and he should answer to the House this evening for his actions.
      Mr. Eric Martlew rose—
      Mr. Jack: No, I will not give way. We have heard enough from Labour Members; I want to make some points in this debate.
      The Minister of State gave the impression that sweetness and light surrounded the decision to impose the ban. However, he did not tell the House about the answer that the Minister of Agriculture gave me on 22 December. In the context of SEAC's advice, the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "the advice I have received represented the consensus view of all the members of the Committee who attended the meeting."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 486.]
      The word "consensus" is crucial: it means that there was not unanimity.
      The Minister knows that there was disagreement within SEAC about the matter. He also knows that that is why the committee gave further advice to Ministers. The Minister did not put before the House the terms in which that advice was couched. According to paragraph 6 of the SEAC advice, using a series of "pessimistic assumptions" the committee worked out that there was a 95 per cent. chance of no cases of new variant CJD occurring as a result of people eating beef on the bone, and only a 5 per cent. chance of one case arising in the whole of 1998. The committee went on—
      Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
      Mr. Jack: I want to make this point before the hon. Lady tries to put me off my stroke.
      I remind the Minister of paragraph 7 of the SEAC advice:
      "We recommend that the new research findings from the pathogenesis experiment together with our assessment set out above be made public."
      I make it clear that the Opposition do not disagree with the public's being given that information: an informed
      264
      choice is a vital contribution to public health. However, the advice continues:
      "If the Government decides that action is necessary to reduce this small risk further"—
      a risk that we have already learnt is 1,000,000,000:1—
      "we recommend"—
      and it goes on to give two other options. Therefore, the Minister of Agriculture clearly took a political decision that went beyond the basic scientific advice provided. It was unnecessary.
      It is interesting that, shortly after the Minister made his statement, MAFF put on the internet advice that effectively said, "You have now heard the new scientific finding. If you have beef in the freezer or in the fridge, you can make up your own mind about what to do with it." That is the way that it should have been.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a news release in June 1994 stated:
      "The Government's Chief Medical Officer continues to advise that there is no evidence that humans can contract Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease from an animal with BSE"?
      He was wrong then. How can he be so sure that he is not wrong now?
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady is confusing an argument of yesterday with the advice of this Government. We are here to debate the failings of this Government. I wonder how many Labour Members have told farmers, butchers and meat eaters in their constituency that tonight they will come here and do the business for them. It looks as though all they can do is use derision against our argument.
      There is clearly confusion in the way in which the risk is handled in the Ministry of Agriculture. I asked the Minister whether he could tell me to what extent the calculation of risk to mortality governs his approval of food for human consumption. So far he has been unable to give an answer to that question.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jack: Not to the hon. Gentleman.
      Let us look at the inconsistency in the way in which the Government handle risk. Why are they prepared to sanction a risk of one in 200 of people dying from smoking cigarettes at the rate of 10 a day? With regard to food risk, why are the Government prepared to sanction death at the rate of one in 5 million from poultry meat infected by salmonella and meat infected by E. coli, yet, when it comes to a risk of 1,000,000,000:1, this Minister decides to act? He has told us about the risk of people dying, yet he turns away from greater risks of people dying.
      It is a great pity that the Minister of Agriculture is not present. He has been a stalwart defender of the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield in his constituency. In my judgment the nuclear industry is safe, but the Library of the House of Commons confirmed to me that the additional risk of getting fatal cancer near Sellafield can be estimated in any year as one in 200,000. The Minister of Agriculture personally subscribes to a safe nuclear industry with a risk of one in 200,000, yet when it comes to negligible risk, he wants to decide for everyone else what risk is taken.

      265
      Once the risk is made public, people can make up their minds whether to live near Sellafield, and whether to eat beef. When the information on risk was made available, the Ministry put out on its internet site the following words:
      "SEAC concluded that the risk is very small and did not say that the Government needed to act at all other than to make the results public. On this basis the action proposed by the Government is precautionary in the extreme"—
      those are the Minister's own words—
      "and there is no need to clear existing stocks. The Government has spelled out the risks to consumers so they can make up their own minds about stocks in the kitchen or in the freezer."
      Why could the Government not have left it at that?
      As to the chief medical officer, he has said that the risk to human health is "small, even negligible". Let us see what others say. The Scottish office of the British Medical Association says:
      "There are many more risky behaviours about which the public remains uninformed and it would be sensible to let the public choose whether they are prepared to take what appears a minuscule risk."
      Northern Foods—after all, Mr. Chris Haskins is dealing with better government—says:
      "Finally, we would comment on the draconian proposals for what is agreed to be an extremely low risk. Surely it would have been sufficient to make the findings public and let consumers make their own choice."
      Mr. Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend rightly asks where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is. He is in the Smoking Room. Should he not be here?
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) will decide whether to take interventions. We cannot have many hon. Members on their feet at the same time. There is a limited amount of time for the debate.
      Mr. Jack: The Minister clearly knows where he wants to take his risks.
      In reaction to the advice, Sainsburys, that reputable organisation in the sale of food, said:
      "On this basis, we believe that where the risks in food available for human consumption are so low, that they cannot be statistically established, our task as a responsible food retailer is to highlight the implied risk to our customers and let them choose whether or not to buy the product."
      If such organisations say that the Minister should have left it to advice, what right has he to order consumers in this nannyish way to do what he bids?
      On the media today, the Minister has been fond of praying the National Farmers Union in aid of his cause. In a letter of 12 December, the NFU said:
      "Ordinary common sense would suggest that consumers should be provided with the facts and be allowed to make their own purchasing decisions."
      On oxtail, the Meat and Livestock Commission says that the science is not proven and that that should be taken from the ban.
      266
      If all that inconsistency in government is not enough, the Minister for Public Health, in introducing the Green Paper last week, tellingly said:
      "People don't want to be bossed around or be told what they should eat".
      It is a pity that the Department of Health had not told the Minister of Agriculture what the new line was.
      The whole of this advice is based on a scientific experiment which some have challenged. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister of State says in reply to the remarks of the noble Countess of Mar and the noble Lord Willoughby de Broke in the other place when they debated the matter.
      The Government have tried to convince us this evening that they acted with speed. Why was it only today that they published the advice to local authorities on implementation? It took them a long time to get the rules right for this so-called well-thought-out policy. It is a shambolic performance.
      The Minister of State serves a Birmingham constituency. Today I telephoned Birmingham's chief food safety officer and I listened carefully to what he said. He pointed out that, in terms of enforcement, his department works on a risk-based system. The risks of new variant CJD from eating beef on the bone are so low down on the risk scale that enforcement, will not happen unless people complain. The very people who want to buy beef on the bone are hardly likely to complain.
      How many representations has the Minister had from his own Labour Back Benchers on the matter? I am sure that he has had lots of letters, and it is about time that we knew about that.
      Let us consider enforcement. Paragraph 4 of the information that the Minister kindly sent me states:
      "There is no requirement for increased food authority activity although there will be some additional demand for guidance".
      Even the Minister is saying, "Carry on as normal, lads. Don't go out and do anything you wouldn't do otherwise." When we inquire what that is, we hear that it is the odd visit every six, 12 or 18 months to find out what is going on in the butcher's shop or the restaurant.
      We then come to the clincher on enforcement. Paragraph 12 states:
      "Bone-in beef displayed for sale at retail food premises, for example a butcher's shop, is an indication to an enforcement officer that beef may be being sold there in contravention of the prohibition"
      of the regulation. It goes on to say that, if someone puts up a notice saying, "I will not sell it on the bone," that is all right. It is a complete farce, and the Minister of State knows it. The enforcement measures are nothing more than a sham, and they undermine all the so-called "serious discussion" that the Minister prayed in aid of the measure.
      The Government are inconsistent in the way in which they handle risk, and they are taking a nannyish approach to the matter. The Opposition stand for informed consumer choice, and I invite right hon. and hon. Members to join us in the Lobby tonight.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the flow of debate, but I seek your guidance. Given the good turnout from both Opposition parties—and the fact that the shadow Cabinet spokesman is present—the absence of

      267
      the Minister of Agriculture must be for a good reason, departmental or otherwise. In normal circumstances, the Minister of State would make an obligatory reference at the beginning of his speech to the right hon. Gentleman's absence.
      I was not going to intervene until two things prompted me to do so. One was the statement by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), that the Minister of Agriculture had been spotted in the Smoking Room. The second was that his absence from the Chamber is all the more remarkable since I am certain that, a few minutes ago, there was a rare sighting of that most exotic bird, the Minister without Portfolio.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must know that it is not a matter for the Chair who responds from the Treasury Bench.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully accept that it is not a matter for the Chair who is in the Chamber and who is not, but Madam Speaker has on several occasions expressed her concern at the cavalier attitude that has been displayed towards the House by Ministers of the Crown. Is it not the ultimate cavalier attitude for the Minister of Agriculture to be sitting in the Smoking Room while this issue—which is of enormous concern to the farmers of this country—is debated on the Floor of the House?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister of State is answering for the Government on this matter.
      11.2 pm
      Mr. Eric Martlew: I shall try to lower the temperature—and I shall probably bore people. I shall support the Government tonight and oppose the Liberal Democrats' prayer. I have re-read the speech made by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 3 December, and one would think that he supported the Government on that occasion. I read the speech three times and it suggested that he supported the Government—perhaps he could tell us otherwise. He then went on to carp, as he has just done. There has been a change in the attitude of the official Opposition.
      We have to be ultra-cautious, because this House does not have a good record on BSE and CJD. We have what I would call a criminally complacent Opposition who were criminally complacent in government. I am sure that the public inquiry will find that.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Martlew: No, I am not going to give way. I wish to be brief and allow other hon. Members to speak.
      Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it parliamentary language for the hon. Gentleman to describe the activities of the Opposition as "criminal"?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order. It is a matter of argument, and it is not an unparliamentary word to use.
      Mr. Martlew: If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is so thin-skinned, he should not have come into Parliament.
      268
      I have probably taken part in every BSE debate since the 1980s, and this House has done badly on the issue. I was a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture—I see the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), another former member of the Committee, in her place—which looked into BSE. We saw all the experts, scientists, farmers and butchers, and we concluded that British beef was safe. That was a wrong decision, and I apologise to the House for getting it wrong. Politicians rarely apologise, but that is what happened. If we are not careful, wrong decisions could be made again.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: First, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's view is that British beef is not safe? Secondly, at what odds should the public's lawful activities be banned? Given that it is far more dangerous to drive a car to come to Westminster to observe the proceedings of the House, would the hon. Gentleman support the abolition of the motor car for the same reasons he supports the abolition of beef on the bone?
      Mr. Martlew: That intervention does not warrant a reply. I think that British beef is safe now. It was not safe when we had the Select Committee, and we reached the wrong conclusion, although we made some good recommendations. Had our recommendation for tracing been implemented by the previous Government, our beef would not have been banned in Europe.
      In a statement on 20 March 1996, the then Secretary of State for Health said that there was a strong possibility of a link between new variant CJD and BSE. That statement replaced everything that we had been told before. It was tragic because we have lost people. An 18-year-old girl in my constituency had her life before her—she was bright, intelligent and full of life—but she died from the new variant CJD. That may be why I take this matter more seriously than other hon. Members.
      Dr. Liam Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Martlew: I am sorry; I shall not give way again.
      There are other reasons why I take the matter seriously. I am a Cumbrian Member of Parliament and I worked in the dairy industry for 20 years. We received a delegation of Cumbrian farmers and we had disagreement after disagreement, but one matter on which many of them agreed with me was that the Government were right to ban beef on the bone.
      Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Martlew: I shall not give way on that point.
      Those Cumbrian farmers do not want their products going into butchers' shops with a Government health warning stamped all over them like a packet of cigarettes. That would be nonsense. They also realise that beef on the bone represents 3 or 5 per cent. of the market and that they need to get the European ban lifted. That ban will not be lifted if we sell potentially dangerous beef.
      Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Martlew: No, I shall not give way.

      269
      If we are to put the beef trade back on its feet, the best that we can do is continue the ban of beef on the bone and get the European ban lifted.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: There is one point that the hon. Gentleman has not dealt with, which he must answer now. If he believes in the ban of beef on the bone, why have not the Government treated the bones in the same way as specified bovine material? If there is contamination, that is the only way in which they could proceed.
      Mr. Martlew: I gave way to the hon. Lady because she was on the Select Committee with me and I was hoping that she would take the opportunity to apologise to the House for the fact that she, too, got it wrong on that occasion.
      The ban is temporary; once we have eradicated BSE from the British herd, it will be lifted. In June 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food released a press release, which said that the UK had had three objectives under its policy to control BSE, including:
      "to protect consumers of bovine products in the UK and elsewhere against any risk, however remote".
      That was when the Conservatives were in government. If they were in government today, they would ban beef on the bone. The Labour Opposition would have been sensible and would have supported the Conservative Government. Conservative Members are now playing politics with this issue. I am fed up with cheapjack jokes about this serious matter.
      11.14 pm
      Mrs. Angela Browning: I had intended to deal with the weakness of the Government's regulations in terms of their enforceability. However, I am so concerned about some of the Minister's points about safety that I would rather address the issue of human health and the food chain.
      The Minister put a compelling argument based on the advice that the Government have been given by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee about bone and the potential infectivity of bone marrow. I understand only too well that when such advice is given, the Government must act.
      In the past 10 years, as further research has been made known, primarily through SEAC, different parts of the carcase and different organs have been deemed to be infective or potentially infective. Advice was given to the previous Government on thymus and tonsils. Not long ago, research showed that the retina in the eye was potentially infective. Orders were made that required the removal of that part of the carcase, and its disposal in such a way as to prevent infectivity from entering the food chain and from being a source of contamination.
      The Minister said that the action that the Government have taken on bovine bone allows them to go to Brussels and say that British beef does not contain infectivity. I accept that statement. If he believes that this is a human health issue, and if he can make that statement with confidence in Brussels or anywhere else because of the requirement to remove bovine bones from the carcase so that they do not enter the food chain, it must surely follow that the Government should introduce measures to dispose of those bones in the same way as every other part of the carcase with potential infectivity is dealt with.
      270
      I cannot think of another organ or another part of the carcase that is deemed to be BSE-infective that is not disposed of in that way. I invite the Minister to name any part of the carcase that is potentially infective according to official advice, but which is not disposed of in the strict and rigorous way that he is familiar with and which I have outlined.
      Mr. John Bercow: He remains seated.
      Mrs. Browning: Indeed, he remains seated.
      The fact of the matter is that the Government made a political decision. The Minister invoked the name of the Prime Minister when referring to that decision. If it was a political decision, the argument about a potential risk to the food chain is not legitimate. It must be one or the other. He has not convinced the House of the genuine basis of his concern about infectivity to humans. If his concern was genuine, he would have classified bones as specified bovine material.
      Mr. David Drew: In the immediate aftermath of the introduction of the ban on beef on the bone, the Meat and Livestock Commission carried out a full investigation through consumer research. It found that 40 per cent. of people who eat beef will continue to do so, come what may. However, a further 40 per cent. were uncertain, and would be worried by any rumours that might be spread. If that were a problem, consumer demand would have fallen considerably, whereas demand for beef in the past couple of weeks has been at its highest since February 1995. Is that consistent with the argument about problems caused by a ban on beef on the bone?
      Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of State, said that by taking this measure he could confirm that beef did not contain infectivity. If I accept that as a genuine statement in the interests of human health—and the Minister has invoked the advice that he has been given; not just the SEAC advice, but advice from the chief medical officer—I must accept that he genuinely believes that there is a risk. If he believes that, he should follow it through. I invite the Minister again to name any part of the carcase that has been deemed to be potentially infective in regard to BSE that is not properly disposed of. Otherwise, his argument on the grounds of human health and safety does not stand up.
      Let me make a final point to the Minister. If human health is indeed at risk, I must invite him tonight to answer a named-day question that I put to him on 5 February:
      "To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if the requirement to remove bone from beef applies to animals killed on the farm for the farmers' own consumption."
      Clearly, if there is a risk—as the Minister has said tonight—it would be indefensible for him to allow farmers to consume their own beef on the bone.
      The Minister replied to me:
      "I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."
      In other words, on 5 February he was not sure whether there was a risk to farmers or to any other human being. I invite him to say now whether he believes that farmers who consume beef on the bone from home-killed animals are at risk.
      11.21 pm
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I have been present at many—indeed, virtually all—the debates on BSE in the House over the past 10 years. The Opposition—the Government of the day—would have done better to listen more to the contributions of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—who was here tonight—my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was a shadow Agriculture Minister for many years.

      At many stages during the late 1980s and early 1990s, we warned the Government that they could never rule out the possible connection between BSE and CJD. We warned them relentlessly that that was always a possibility, but they dismissed it completely, and accused us of scaremongering. The Government's track record at the time was too little, too late. If the accusation is that we have erred too far on the side of safety, that is wonderful.
      Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Williams: No. Time is very short, and I have many important things to say.
      I wanted to intervene on the Minister. I tried nine or 10 times, but he would not give way. I am glad that I have now been called. [Interruption.] I mean the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). He got into quite a huff over an allegation that my hon. Friend the Minister had made about the previous Government. I wish—I am happy to give way to the shadow Minister on this point—that the previous Government would have the decency to apologise to the families of the 23 victims of CJD whose deaths were caused by lack of action and by assurances that, at the end of the day, did not mean very much. We hope that there will not be many more victims, but the fact remains that the Conservatives have created an awful crisis in my constituency and throughout rural Britain.
      Like most other hon. Members, I was taken aback when I watched the lunchtime news that day and heard the headline story that, in future, bones would have to be taken out of beef because of infectivity in both the dorsal root ganglia and bone marrow. I noticed on that lunchtime bulletin that, immediately after the Minister's interview, the president of the National Farmers Union, Sir David Naish, gave his support for the decision. In addition, the Meat and Livestock Commission gave its immediate support, and very important, Ruth Evans, director of the National Consumer Council, in a letter to The Guardian on 6 December, said:
      "This Government is to be applauded for avoiding prevarication"
      on the issue.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Williams: I will not give way.
      I listened intently to the arguments of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Fylde, in attacking the regulations. He based his arguments completely on the fact that the risk is infinitesimal; it is one in a billion. SEAC did
      272
      say that, but it is speculation. We have no real idea what the true risk is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) pointed out in an intervention, there is a long incubation period: it could be three, five, 10 or even 30 years. There may be just 20 or 30 CJD victims or there may be thousands; we do not know. In that case, that one-in-a-billion risk becomes a risk of about one in 10 million.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Williams: I give way to the right hon. Member for Fylde.
      Mr. Jack: Have I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he saying that all the SEAC advice is speculative? That is the import of what he has just said. He is undermining the whole basis of the Minister's argument.
      Mr. Williams: I was saying that, when SEAC speculates that the chance is one in a billion, that is based simply on the fact that, to date, the number of new variant CJD victims is 23. The figure is based on that order of magnitude of incidence. If the incidence is 10, 100 or even 1,000 times as much as that, which we cannot rule out at this stage, that one in a billion figure becomes 10, 100 or 1,000 times less.
      Mr. Keetch rose—
      Mr. Williams: As the hon. Gentleman has tried to intervene several times, I give way to him.
      Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give me some advice to pass on to the beef farmers of Herefordshire? Are they more likely to die from eating beef off the bone in Herefordshire than from drinking and smoking in the tea and smoking rooms of the House of Commons?
      Mr. Williams: Our beef is probably the safest in Europe, and it will be safer still if the regulations are passed.
      Mr. Paul Marsden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is indefensible to say that we should allow the 5 per cent. risk, whereby there could be one more case of new variant CJD? Clearly, it is not sustainable to say that there should be another death on top of the other 23.
      Mr. Williams: The problem with the previous Government was that, throughout the 10 years that they handled the crisis, they never adopted the precautionary principle. The most serious allegation that the Liberal Democrats, the House of Lords and the Conservative party can make against us is that we err too much on the side of safety, but it is about time that Governments throughout the world erred on the side of safety.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Williams: Time is running out, so I shall not give way again.
      I am surprised that in this evening's well-attended debate, we have spent one and a half hours debating beef on the bone, when there are more serious issues affecting the rural economy. Because of the BSE crisis and the value of

      273
      the green pound, and thanks to the previous Government and the problems that they caused, the rural economy is in a desperate plight. Our time would have been far better spent—
      Mr. Tyler rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not accept that motion.
      Mr. Williams: Our time would have been far better spent considering the European beef ban. The lifting of the ban would be the answer to our problem. We should also have been discussing the painfully slow progress on the certified herds scheme.
      It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).
      The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 312.

      Division No. 163]

      [11.30 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Allan, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Arness, David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Duncan, Alan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Baker, Norman

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, Nigel

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Beggs, Roy

      Faber, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bercow, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Blunt, Crispin

      Flight, Howard

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brady, Graham

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brake, Tom

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      Garnier, Edward

      Breed, Colin

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gibb, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gill, Christopher

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burnett, John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Burns, Simon

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burstow, Paul

      Gray, James

      Butterfill, John

      Green, Damian

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Greenway, John

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cash, William

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Chidgey, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Chope, Christopher

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Clappison, James

      Harvey, Nick

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Hayes, John

      (Rushcliffe)

      Heald, Oliver

      Collins, Tim

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Colvin, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Horam, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Hughes, Simon (Southwaik N)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Hunter, Andrew

      (Perth)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      274

      Johnson Smith,

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Ruffley, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Keetch, Paul

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Salmond, Alex

      Key, Robert

      Sanders, Adrian

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

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

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Leigh, Edward

      Spring, Richard

      Letwin, Oliver

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lidington, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      Livsey, Richard

      Swinney, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Syms, Robert

      Loughton, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mackay, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Thompson, William

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Townend, John

      Madel, Sir David

      Tredinnick, David

      Maples, John

      Trend, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wallace, James

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Walter, Robert

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Wardle, Charles

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Moore, Michael

      Webb, Steve

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Wells, Bowen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Welsh, Andrew

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Norman, Archie

      Whittingdale, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Page, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Paice, James

      Willetts, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Willis, Phil

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Prior, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Randall, John

      Woodward, Shaun

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Yeo, Tim

      Rendel, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Donald Gorrie.

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Betts, Clive

      Ainger, Nick

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Allen, Graham

      Boateng, Paul

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Borrow, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Browne, Desmond

      Austin, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Barnes, Harry

      Burden, Richard

      Barron, Kevin

      Burgon, Colin

      Battle, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Bayley, Hugh

      Byers, Stephen

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Caborn, Richard

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Berry, Roger

      Canavan, Dennis

      Best, Harold

      Casale, Roger

      275

      Caton, Martin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grogan, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hain, Peter

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hanson, David

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heppell, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cohen, Harry

      Hill, Keith

      Coleman, Iain

      Hinchliffe, David

      Colman, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hope, Phil

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Crausby, David

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      (Copeland)

      Hutton, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Illsley, Eric

      Darvill, Keith

      Ingram, Adam

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Dobbin, Jim

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Drew, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Efford, Clive

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fisher, Mark

      Laxton, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Leslie, Christopher

      Flynn, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Galbraith, Sam

      Lock, David

      Galloway, George

      Love, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike

      McAllion, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCabe, Steve

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Goggins, Paul

      Macdonald, Calum

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McFall, John

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McLeish, Henry

      276

      McNamara, Kevin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McNulty, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McWalter, Tony

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McWilliam, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Snape, Peter

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Meale, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michael, Alun

      Stevenson, George

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Milburn, Alan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Miller, Andrew

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stringer, Graham

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Norris, Dan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Olner, Bill

      Todd, Mark

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Touhig, Don

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Trickett, Jon

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Pearson, Ian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pendry, Tom

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pike, Peter L

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Plaskitt, James

      Vaz, Keith

      Pollard, Kerry

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pond, Chris

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pope, Greg

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pound, Stephen

      Watts, David

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      White, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      (Swansea W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rammell, Bill

      Winnick, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Wise, Audrey

      (Hamilton S)

      Wood, Mike

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Woolas, Phil

      Rooker, Jeff

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wray, James

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Jane Kennedy and Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. James Paice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you ask the Clerks to inspect the voting list to discover whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food voted? As the Minister responsible for a very controversial piece of legislation, which has upset farmers and consumers throughout the country, he had the discourtesy not to

      277
      appear for the debate, although he was seen elsewhere in the precincts of the House. If he voted, he could clearly have been present for the debate.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is relieved to see the Minister of Agriculture behind the Chair. May we have confirmation that, contrary to one rumour that ran through the Lobby, he has not resigned?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member's point of order takes the matter even further away from those on which the Chair rules. The record will be evident to everyone tomorrow.

      PETITION

        Under-age Drinking
        11.42 pm
        Mr. Paul Truswell: It is my pleasure to present this petition, which has been signed by 1,200 of my constituents. It concerns the tragic death of 14-year-old John Knowles. It states:
        The petition of the citizens of Pudsey Constituency
        Declares that we support Mr. and Mrs. John Knowles of Calverley, Pudsey, and our MP Paul Truswell in their campaign to amend the Licensing Act 1964 following the death of 14-year-old David Knowles. David died when he ran across the Stanningley Bypass, Pudsey, after consuming three cans of lager. He had purchased the alcohol for himself and a friend on two occasions from an off licence in Pudsey. Following police investigations, the Crown Prosecution Service initiated proceedings against those who had sold David the alcohol. This prosecution could not proceed because of the precedent set by the appeal of Russell v. DPP, December 1996. This case confirmed that people selling to persons under 18 can be found guilty under section 169(1) of the Act only if they are the licensee or the directly employed servants of the licensee.
        In David's case, those who sold him the alcohol were employed by a national off licence chain, and not by the person whose name appears on the licence operating at their place of work. They were therefore immune from prosecution.
        The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons amend the Licensing Act 1964 to correct this major defect in the law which no longer provides the protection to people under 18 originally intended.
        And the Petitioners remain etc.
        To lie upon the Table.

        Child Care Workers (Registration)
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        11.44 pm
        Mrs. Jackie Ballard: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter. I understand that the Government are committed to a national child care strategy, and I applaud that end. They have also said many times that the provision of child care is crucial to their welfare-to-work strategy. However, there is an urgent need to ensure that there are adequate resources to regulate and monitor child care standards and that parents can have access to information about the people to whom they are entrusting their precious children.
        Many working parents juggle with a variety of child care providers, including friends and relatives, live-in nannies—who are no longer only the province of the very rich, but often the resource of the moderately well-off—after-school clubs, child minders, holiday play schemes, creches and nurseries. With that in mind, I hope that the Government will be persuaded to introduce a system of national registration for all child care workers regardless of the setting in which they work.
        As I am sure the House knows, a reasonably thorough system for the registration of child minders is carried out by local authorities. However, child minders can move to other local authority areas and seek registration there without revealing any problems that may have occurred in their original local authority area. There is no way of checking unless they admit to having been registered elsewhere.
        There are no registration procedures, even locally, for people who work as nannies in the child's home. That is to the detriment of all the parties concerned: the child, the parent and the person providing the child care. The child is being cared for by someone who will not have been subject to any police checks and who may not even have had any relevant training. Parents have no way of checking a prospective nanny's background, such as by contacting previous employers—unless the nanny divulges their names—or by checking for relevant criminal convictions. They can get no independent view of whether the person whom they are considering for looking after their child would be suitable. They have only the references that the nanny chooses to supply.
        Nannies are left to negotiate whatever terms and conditions they can with prospective employers. There is often no limit to the hours of work or time on call expected. They are often exploited by employers because there is no legal framework or registration system that could help to protect their employment conditions or rights. Last year, the case of Louise Woodward showed the potential risks of asking a young, inexperienced woman to work long hours looking after two demanding young children. Surely that is a case—and there are many others—which shows that a fairly simple change in the law could significantly reduce the risk of further incidents of harm to young children.
        A national registration system for child care workers would also help prevent unsuitable people from being able to move from one local authority area to another. If someone works at a children's home in one area and leaves after complaints, but is not convicted of any

        279
        offence, there is often no way in which another local authority can be aware of it when considering whether to offer that person employment. A national registration scheme would allow people to be struck off in a manner similar to doctors if found guilty of professional misconduct.
        Such a scheme could also help to increase the status of child care workers and give them recognition for the valuable role that they perform. On gaining a recognised qualification, people would apply to a national body for registration. The registration system could have a requirement for the individual to notify the body of any changes in his or her circumstances. There could also be a requirement for the individual to keep updated and take part in regular training. As the Secretary of State for Social Security said recently:
        "Childcare is a fundamental part of Britain's infrastructure, on a par with transport or communications."
        The Professional Association of Nursery Nurses is totally in support of the registration of child care workers and so is the Playpen Nanny Registration campaign, which was launched last July in the wake of the Louise Woodward case. It tells me that, in opposition, the Labour party was also very supportive of the idea of a national child care registration scheme, so I hope that the Government will consider a scheme for national registration as it would significantly increase the protection offered to children cared for in a variety of settings and to the workers providing that care.
        11.50 pm
        Mr. Steve McCabe: I must acknowledge the sincere concern of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) about these matters. However, I wonder whether she is being a little too narrow in concentrating so much on nannies. As she acknowledges, we already have registration for child minders and nurseries, under the auspices of local authority licensing. Tragically, as we saw recently in the case of Alex Rae in Bolton, that form of registration affords little protection if the child minder and nursery owner do not choose to follow the local authority recommendations.
        I also wonder exactly how nannies would be registered under the hon. Lady's proposals. It seems to be a complex issue. About 150,000 people are engaged in all sorts of child care, some in their own homes and some in local authority, voluntary and private settings. We also know that about 70 per cent. of those engaged in residential child care have no qualifications.
        The hon. Lady said that she wanted a register to which people would apply on receipt of qualifications. If we had that sort of register, we would exclude hundreds of thousands of people who are already engaged in child care. I wonder whether that is the way forward.
        A lot of work has been done on the subject. Roy Parker's report in 1990, "Safeguarding Standards", made a number of recommendations and the 1997 report of the General Social Care Council's information group also made a number of recommendations. What the reports have in common is that they both imply a register with different levels of registration because they recognise that there has to be a procedure for registering those with qualifications, but that there also has to be a process for
        280
        ensuring that those already engaged in work obtain qualifications. The reports both recommend a multi-level register, where people could be registered when in employment, but where there would be a target for obtaining qualifications, so that registration was not only a safeguard, but was aimed at consciously driving up standards.
        My one point of issue with the hon. Lady is that I believe that we need a comprehensive framework both to safeguard children and to drive up standards among those who work with children. To take action largely in respect of nannies, without having regard for the variety of all those who work in other settings, could be a short-term measure which was of limited value and ignored a considerable body of work carried out in this country. Although I support the concept of registration, my plea is that we should not rush in. We should go for a comprehensive framework and aim to drive up standards among those who do not have qualifications as well as to register those who already have qualifications.
        11.54 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) on what I believe is her first Adjournment debate.
        Mrs. Ballard: Second.
        Mr. Boateng: She has indeed been fortunate to have secured two Adjournment debates in her short time in the House. I congratulate her on choosing, for her second Adjournment debate, a topic of importance. The question of how we train and support child care workers is one that raises issues that go to the heart of the nurturing of children and young people and the circumstances in which they are brought up.
        The hon. Lady concentrated specifically on nursery nurses and nannies, which is an important matter, not least because it touches on people's own homes and the personal arrangements that they choose to make in respect of the upbringing of their children. I would submit that such factors put nannies in particular in a different category from the generality of child care workers, so the response is necessarily a different one.
        The debate gives us the opportunity to highlight the considerable success of the Children Act 1989 in providing a proper regulatory mechanism for those who provide services for, or work with, babies and often with vulnerable young children. It also gives me an opportunity to signal to the House the way in which my hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment and I are taking forward the issue of rationalising and streamlining the regulation, inspection and enforcement of early-years provision. We have an opportunity to make a real difference through the interventions we make in lives of children and, in so doing, to add enormous value in terms of their capacity to benefit from education in later life. The child development and education aspects of this issue are obviously important.
        About 100,000 child minders, 5,700 day nurseries, 16,500 playgroups, 2,500 out-of-school child care projects and 4,800 holiday play schemes are registered under part X of the 1989 Act. Regulation ensures that acceptable standards are in place for the safety of our youngest

        281
        children and for the reassurance of their parents. The range of standards in the Act and its guidance are important when children are cared for on the premises of others, be those day nurseries, kindergartens, playgroups, pre-school or the homes of child minders. They ensure that children in such care are looked after by suitable people in suitable premises.
        The legislation was not intended to cover those who care for babies and small children in the children's homes. There is a balance to be struck, as I suggested at the beginning of my remarks, between the rights of parents to make arrangements for the care of their children in their homes and the safety needs of those children. To most parents, who often wish to call on informal care arrangements provided by members of their families, formal regulation would be an unacceptable intrusion. When parents ask the teenage child of a friend to help with babysitting, they do not expect the state to interfere in such arrangements.
        The Act does not regulate carers such as nannies and au pairs. In such circumstances, it is vital for parents to check carefully all those whom they employ in their homes to care for their children. As parents, they must take on the responsibility of ensuring that the person employed to look after their children is fit and proper to undertake that most important of roles. No registration or regulation system can be a substitute for the care that a parent should take in making such decisions. However, we welcome the efforts of those, such as nanny agencies, who provide information so that parents can make an informed choice when they take the decisions that can be of such crucial importance to their children.
        It is also important that parents should inform themselves of the qualities that they should seek in those who care for their children. The hon. Member for Taunton mentioned some of the agencies that make such information available to parents. We shall also consider how training opportunities for those acting as nannies and au pairs can be made more accessible. It is clearly desirable that such opportunities should be made available to people who choose to do such work so that they are better able to add value to the lives of the children for whom they care.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) referred to the practicalities of registration, and the hon. Member for Taunton will, I am sure, recognise that we must take those into account. It is not practical to register every type of child care of short duration. Indeed, creches run for less than two hours a day or supervised activities provided on fewer than six occasions a year are not currently required to be registered and it would not be practical to require the registration of such facilities.
        However, that does not abrogate the parental responsibility to check that children are properly cared for in such facilities. If parents leave their child at a creche at a fete or a similar event, they have a duty to ensure that the arrangements for caring for their child are satisfactory. It is not the role of the state to intervene in parents' lives in such a way.
        A case was recently put before the House by the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) concerning a problem faced by the social services in Doncaster. As a result, the local social services department has developed a good practice guide for
        282
        short-term facilities to ensure that they are safe and proper places in which to leave children. The hon. Member for Taunton has helped us with tonight's debate. We shall consider how such material might be disseminated and adopted more widely on the voluntary, good practice basis.
        Similarly, it is a matter for the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry how agencies that provide nannies for use in a domestic situation might best be helped to ensure that such nannies are the sort of people that we would want to work in our homes, looking after our children.
        There are also important issues regarding the position of independent schools, the fact that they are taking care of progressively younger children, the role of social services departments in that regard, and the interface between social services departments and the Office for Standards in Education.
        Obviously, we want closer co-operation between social services departments and education departments in relation to the early years. As a national child care strategy develops, we want arrangements to be made throughout Government that will protect and nurture the interests of children and their development while respecting the privacy of people's homes and the peculiarly personal relationship that will always exist between the employers of a nanny, an au pair or someone brought into the home to provide such services, and the child and parent.
        I shall say one or two words in response to points raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green about the future regulation of the social care sector. We have committed ourselves to the establishment of a general social care council. That is an important step forward, not least because it assumes responsibility for the development of professional standards in social care, and the link between the development of those standards and training.
        Inevitably, there will be an impact on the regulation and discipline of workers in child care. However, it is important to understand that the way forward will not necessarily involve nannies or those working in that type of private domestic capacity. The arguments as to the appropriateness of registration will continue, even after the council is established.
        Undoubtedly, the surest way of ensuring that we promote an agenda that is about standards—about using every opportunity to improve the quality of child care available to our children in a number of ***settings—is to recognise the vital role in that regard of education and relevant training. Training should be geared to meeting the vocational needs of people seeking to enter this area of work. It should be firmly rooted in common sense and good practice and recognise the balances that must be achieved. We must ensure that a range of provision is available and that parents take informed choices.
        The hon. Member for Taunton raises an important issue, to which the House will undoubtedly return from time to time. It is right that we should. I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates that, while we are not able to go as far as she wants regarding the registration of nannies, we recognise that it is an important issue. It must be monitored carefully and viewed within the wider context of child care provision.

        283
        It is important that, as we take this agenda forward, we ensure that the consultation process is open to a wider debate and a wide cross-section of views. It is also important that all those who have a stake in good-quality education and child care feel that they are in a position to influence the development of a regulatory system that meets the needs of the times in which we live—times in which people will increasingly look to order their lives by utilising a range of provision in this area.
        Dr. Peter Brand: Will the Minister also consider another group of vulnerable children who are not currently protected either by the Children Act 1989 or education legislation? The parents of those children are not in a position to exercise the judgment to which the Minister referred. Such children come to this country to learn about the British way of life and the English language and, at present, have no protection. I am very worried about some of the domestic placements that are made for those children.
        Mr. Boateng: The question of au pairs should be considered.
        Dr. Brand: With respect, I obviously did not make myself clear. I am talking about foreign schoolchildren
        284
        who attend language schools in this country and are placed with host families who are not vetted by any authority.
        Mr. Boateng: That is another issue. There are signs that some people are seeking to exploit such children and their parents. However, that burden should not fall first and foremost on the British taxpayer and the state. It is important for any parent who seeks to make decisions about their children's education in a foreign country to take great care before launching their children into that country's education system. I do not believe that it is the primary responsibility of the state to take up the cudgels on behalf of such parents.
        The state must ensure that there is transparency, accountability and proper regulation of a range of establishments in this country. We must also ensure that in this field—or, indeed, in any other—we do not abrogate the proper parental responsibility to take care and make sure that they are informed about the arrangements that they make for their children. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that we must assume responsibility for that area—[Interruption.] I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not persuaded.
        We have an existing responsibility to will fulfil in terms of the development of our national child care policy. We must ensure that we have the appropriate range of safeguards in place. We shall meet that responsibility. The hon. Lady's debate tonight has opened the matter for discussion on the Floor of the House in a way that contributes towards an objective that I know we all share.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the engagements he undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of his duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e) other means. [28928]

  The Attorney-General
  The information is as follows:

  13 January: Law Centre: by car

  15 January: Inner London Crown Court: by car

  21 January: Argentine Embassy: by car

  26 January: London Welsh Association: by car

  27 January: US Embassy: by car

  28 January: BP, Britannic House: by car

  28 January: Law Society: by car

  All engagements were in London.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list each major new computer system that(a) his Department, non-departmental bodies and (c) agencies under his responsibility have purchased in the last five years; what was the initial purchase cost and what was the final cost; what was each system's (i) planned and (ii) actual date of commissioning; what major computer systems will be purchased by bodies in categories (a), (b) and in the next financial year; and what is their estimated cost. [27854]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Taking "major" to mean at a cost of more than £20,000, the information is as follows:?

  DCMS

  Collection Management System

  Budget cost: £64,000

  Actual cost: £64,000

  Planned go live date: 8/94

  Actual go live date: 8/94

  Library System

  Budget cost: £36,000

  Actual cost: £36,000

  Planned go live date: 3/94

  Actual go live date: 4/94

  National Lottery System

  Budget cost: £32,000

  Actual cost: £32,000

  104

  Planned go live date: 5/94

  Actual go live date: 5/94

  Departmental Financial System

  Budget cost: £295,000

  Actual cost: £260,000

  Planned go live date: 01/10/96

  Actual go live date: 01/11/96

  Planned Systems for 1998/99

  Purchase Order Processing System

  Budgeted cost: £72,000

  Actual cost: Not yet known

  Planned go live date: 01/04/98

  Actual go live date: On Target

  Replacement E-Mail System

  Budgeted cost: Commercial in confidence

  Actual cost: Not yet known

  Planned go live date: 01/07/98

  Actual go live date: On Target

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  Cfacs financial system

  Budgeted cost: £231,000

  Actual cost: Not yet known

  Planned go live date: 01/04/98

  Actual go live date: On Target

  Royal Parks Agency

  Formation of Agency in 93/94

  Initial system set up cost: £288,596

  Wide Area Data Network

  Actual cost: £23,270

  Actual go live date: May 1995

  CARM Computer Aided Resource Management System

  Actual cost: £25,051

  Purchased: September 1995

  Actual go live date: February 1996

  Finance and Accounting System

  Actual cost: £33,041

  Purchased: October 1995

  Actual go live date: October 1995

  Works Maintenance System

  Actual cost: £66,435

  Planned go live date: September 1996

  Actual go live date: Replaced by below

  Works Maintenance System

  Actual cost: £25,304

  Planned go live date: November 1997

  Actual go live date: November 1997

  Upgrade planned: March 1998

  Estimated cost of upgrade: £43,000

  Planned Systems for 1998–99

  Replacement of RPA's PCs and office suite

  Estimated cost: £200,000

  Dates: not yet planned

  New Personnel and Payroll System

  Estimated cost: £30.000

  Dates: not yet planned

  105
  New Mapping System

  Estimated cost: £50,000

  Dates: not yet planned

  Non Departmental Public Bodies

  This information is not available centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many projects allocated funds by the National Heritage Memorial Fund have not claimed their full grants; what is the total sum involved; and what percentage this represents of the money allocated. [28512]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The National Heritage Memorial Fund encompasses two separate funds: the Heritage Lottery Fund, which distributes the heritage tranche of the proceeds from the National Lottery, and the Heritage Memorial Fund, which serves as a fund of last resort for the support of heritage projects throughout the United Kingdom. The number of completed projects which have been awarded grants by the Heritage Lottery Fund, but where the full value of the grant has not been claimed, is 93. The total value of grants awarded was £46.7 million. The total amount unclaimed was £1.3 million, or 2.7 per cent. of the total.

  The Heritage Memorial Fund does not keep information on unclaimed grants in a readily accessible format.

  Heritage Projects
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total sum allocated for heritage projects since the inception of the National Lottery; and how many projects have been assisted. [28511]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Government expect each of the good causes to receive £1.8 billion over the period of the current licence. The Heritage Lottery Fund, which distributes the heritage tranche of the Lottery proceeds, has so far made grants to a value of £892.6 million for 1,558 projects. Several of the other distributing bodies have also made grants to heritage projects but do not keep separate records.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what amount of Brazilian mahogany has been(a) acquired and (b) specified by his Department in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997; and for what purpose. [28380]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department has not acquired or specified any mahogany in 1996 or 1997.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to make public the results of Sir Richard Eyre's review of the Royal Opera House. [28868]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Sir Richard Eyre is due to report to me by 1 May 1998. I will make public the results of his review once I receive it.

  Appointments
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to implement the recommendations of the Nolan Committee on appointments; and what impact these measures have had on the time taken for appointments to be made. [28851]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has acted on the guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, whose appointment was recommended by the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life.

  We have established an appointments unit charged with overseeing the implementation of the Commissioner's recommendations. The unit also maintains a register of people who have expressed an interest in public appointment, acts as the secretariat for the advisory panels which provide independent scrutiny of shortlisted candidates, and co-ordinates advertising and executive search to fill posts where necessary, in accordance with the Commissioner's principle of proportionality.

  These measures have inevitably lengthened the appointments process.

  Museum Admissions Policy
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the date of publication for the Government's review of admissions policy to museums. [28189]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 6 February 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an interim announcement about the review of access to museums and galleries on 8 December 1997,Official Report, columns 652–53. As noted at that time, further consideration is being given to this issue in the context of the Government's Comprehensive Spending review, which will be completed in the summer. A further announcement will be made then.

  Lyric Theatre
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the membership of the working group Sir Richard Eyre has appointed to support him in his review of the future of lyric theatre in London. [29039]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Sir Richard has appointed the following members of his working group:

  David Brierley CBE

  Hilary Carty

  Mark Elder CBE

  Matthew Evans

  Gavin Henderson

  Melanie Leech

  Deborah MacMillan

  Kathryn McDowell

  Colin Nears CBE

  John Newbigin

  Trevor Phillips

  Michael Ratcliffe

  Graham Vick

  107
  The following representatives of the Royal Opera House and English National Opera are also participating in the review:

  Royal Opera House:

  Michael Berkeley

  Mary Allen

  English National Opera:

  Bob Boas

  Paul Daniel

  Sir Richard and his working group are consulting individually practitioners of both art forms and a wide range of experts in the fields.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Cannabis
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those under the age of 21 years in the Metropolitan Police area whose first offence is connected to cannabis were(a) charged, (b) cautioned, (c) convicted and (d) imprisoned in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [28725]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not available since data are not routinely collected on whether a particular offence is the first or a subsequent one committed by an individual.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 18 December on behalf of Mr. Turner. [28733]

  Mr. Straw
  I regret that there is no record of the letter dated 18 December from the right hon. Member being received in the Home Office. A letter dated 14 December from Mr. Turner was received in the Home Office on 18 December. He will receive a reply very soon. I will ensure that a copy of that reply is sent to the right hon. Member.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister intends to answer the letters from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Capell, 8 Wedgewood Road, St. Austell, dated 27 November and 22 December. [27953]

  Mr. Michael
  The reply was incorporated in my composite letter of 30 January to each hon. Member about the present position on the firearms compensation scheme. I regret that the volume of correspondence received about the progress of individual claims had prevented an earlier reply from being sent.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official cars are available for use by Ministers in his Department; and how many new cars have been acquired for the use of Ministers in his Department since 1 May. [25150]
  108
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: Eight cars are available for use by Home Office Ministers, the same number as were available before 1 May 1997. Two new cars have been paid for by the Department since 1 May 1997, one ordered prior to that date and one since.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times his wife has accompanied him on overseas visits; and what was the cost of her travel and other expenses. [25148]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: None.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many receptions have been held(a) in his Department and (b) at his official residence since he took office; how many people have attended; and what was the total cost of these events. [25186]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: Since 1 May 1997, I have hosted four receptions attended by approximately 300 people at a cost of £3,700. I do not have an official residence. Three of the receptions were held at the Home Office. The fourth, a reception for the recipients of police gallantry awards, was held at the House of Commons and accounted for 150 of the guests and for £1,870 of the costs.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for the extension of Section 11 funding for schools with ethnic minorities; and if he will make a statement. [27706]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 16 December 1997,Official Report, columns 86–87.

  Periodicals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26678]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The information requested is as follows:

  1995–96: £135,000

  1996–97: £166,000

  1997–98(to 31 December 1997): £112,000

  1997–98(estimated full-year expenditure): £135,000

  These figures relate to expenditure on newspaper and magazines purchase on subscription by the Home Office's information and library services (from 1 July 1997, by Home Office Communication Directorate's Resource Management Group), and include expenditure for the Prison Service and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. These figures also include expenditure for the Forensic Science Service. No central record is held of

  109
  materials purchased from Directorates' budgets, or for non-departmental public bodies (other than the Forensic Science Service) for which my Department is responsible.

  My Department purchases or obtains free of charge a wide range of newspapers and periodical publications. A list of the titles taken by the central Home Office, including the Prison Service and Immigration and Nationality Directorate, together with a list of titles taken by the Forensic Science Service, has been placed in the Library.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost of(a) Ministerial cars and drivers and (b) the Department's bill for taxis in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year. [27786]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The estimates available to me for the costs, borne by the Home Office, of Ministers' cars are as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1995–96

  296,752

  1996–97

  323,900

  1997–98 to date

  417,963

  1997–98 estimate

  503,963

  Some years, the figures will of course include the cost of the periodic replacement of cars as well as their maintenance and other running costs. This is the case in 1997–98: costs for two new cars have been incurred in 1997–98, one ordered before 1 May 1997 and one since. The information available to me about the Department's use of taxis is incomplete and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Stolen Property
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will review the powers of the courts to retrieve stolen property where it has inadvertently been returned to the offender and not to the owners; [27996]

  (2) how many incidents there have been in the past year where the police have returned stolen property to the offender and not to the owner of the property; and what action has been taken to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future. [27995]

  Mr. Michael
  The Police (Property) Act 1897 provides that any person claiming ownership of property seized and retained by the police may make an application to a magistrates' court for ownership to be determined and for delivery of that property to the person appearing to the court to be the owner. The Act maintains the right of any person to seek an order for recovery of property within six months after the date of the legal proceedings but any such right will cease at the expiry of that period of time. It is also open to the police to make application under the Act to determine ownership.

  Property seized and retained by the police and subsequently used as evidence in connection with a person's conviction is not returned to the offender but is disposed of in accordance with the Act. Property retained
  110
  by the police and unclaimed after a period of 12 months, or, in the case of forfeited property, six months, may be sold at auction and the proceeds of sale placed in the Police Property Act Fund. Moneys from the Fund are, among other things, donated to local good causes and victim support groups.

  I am satisfied that these arrangements are fair and that they generally work well. Information is not held centrally on the number of occasions the police have mistakenly returned property to the wrong person and the relevant time for correcting the mistake has passed. Where this happens, the police would be expected to pay compensation to the rightful owners.

  CS Gas Canisters
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what medical advice he has received in relation to the use of gas canisters by the police since their introduction; [28161]

  (2) what assessments of injuries sustained by members of the public he has evaluated since the introduction of CS gas canisters; [28163]

  (3) what plans he has to review the use of CS gas canisters by the police; [28164]

  (4) what medical advice his Department obtained prior to introducing the use of CS canisters by the police. [28162]

  Mr. Michael
  All available scientific and medical data were evaluated by experts from the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch, the Department of Health and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment before operational trials of CS spray were undertaken between 1 March and 31 August 1996. It was found during the trials that the risk of injury from the use of CS spray was much lower than that from police batons. Of the 99 injuries believed to have been caused by CS, six resulted in subjects being taken to hospital, although none was detained there more than briefly. There has been no subsequent centrally co-ordinated assessment of injuries sustained as a result of exposure to CS spray.

  My right hon. Friend studied all of the pathologists' reports and other medical and toxicological evidence submitted to the inquest which was held last year into the death of Mr. Ibrahima Sey. In the light of reading that material, my right hon. Friend confirmed his full support for the operational use of CS spray by the police. The use of CS spray and other equipment is kept under review by the Self Defence and Restraint Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that asylum seekers should have a right to legal representation at appeal hearings. [28185]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Asylum appellants already have the right, under section 23(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 and Rule 26 of the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996, to be legally represented at appeal hearings.
  111
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial provision he is making to ensure that asylum appellants may receive legal representation for their appeals. [28186]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the current year, a total of £6,737 million has been made available to the Refugee Legal Centre (RLC) and the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971, as follows:

  £ million

  RLC

  IAS

  Core Funding

  3.082

  2.592

  Spend to Save

  0.563

  0.500

  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect on asylum appellants of his withdrawal of special funding from(a) the Immigration Advisory Service and (b) the Refugee Legal Centre. [28187]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from the hon Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on 9 February 1998,Official Report, columns 24–25.

  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have successfully appealed against the refusal of asylum since 1992. [28184]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1997, a total of 44,360 appeals against the refusal of asylum were determined by Adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority. Of these, a total of 2,030 were allowed. I regret that equivalent information for years prior to 1994 is not available.

  Handguns (Compensation)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the anticipated average period from receipt of claims for payment of compensation for handguns surrendered (i) under section (a), (ii) under section (b), (iii) under section(c) and (d) for. 22 handguns. [28280]

  Mr. Michael
  The present average processing time for claims under Options A and B of the compensation scheme for large calibre handguns and for applications under the voluntary ex gratia payment scheme for small calibre pistols is around 22 weeks from the date of receipt in the Firearm Compensation Section. Regular processing of claims and applications under Option C of the schemes has begun, starting with those received at the beginning of July.

  EU Immigration and Nationality Department
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people on average were employed in the EC group of the Immigration and Nationality Department between 1 February 1996 and 31 January 1997; and how many are currently employed in the group. [28292]
  112
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 1 February 1996, 20 members of staff were employed in the European Community Group of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. On 31 January 1997, the number was 20 and on 31 January 1998, 26. These figures are on a head count basis and do not take account of part-time working or job sharing.

  Turkish Workers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken in the UK to give legal effect to the right of Turkish workers as regards residence and employment in accordance with Article 6 (3) of the Association Council Decision 1/80 adopted under the Turkey/EC Association Agreement 1963 and its Protocol. [28291]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Effect is given to Article 6 through instructions to caseworkers which ensure that Turkish nationals who are able to benefit from rights under the Agreement are granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom where appropriate.

  Residence Documents
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for residence documents or endorsements by third country national spouses of Community nationals exercising Treaty rights have been refused on the basis that the Secretary of State considered the marriage to be one of convenience since 1 February 1997. [28293]

  Ms Quin
  This information is not available. Statistics for the refusal of a residence document do not distinguish between reasons for refusal.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the length in time of residence documents or endorsements given to third country national spouses of EC nationals exercising Treaty rights who have been granted ILR. [28305]

  Ms Quin
  Where a European Economic Area(EEA) national has been granted indefinite leave to remain, the third country national spouse may apply either for leave to remain under the Immigration Rules on the basis of marriage to a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or for a residence document in accordance with European Community law. In the former case the applicant, if successful, would be granted 12 months' leave to remain in the first instance in the latter case, the third country national spouse may apply for a residence document which, if issued, would have the same validity as any extant residence permit issued to the EEA spouse. If the EEA spouse no longer holds a valid residence permit, one would be issued with five years' validity as the basis for the issue of a residence document of the same validity to the third country national.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many EC nationals have exercised Treaty rights of residence in the UK since 1 February 1997. [28307]
  113
  Ms Quin
  European Economic Area nationals who enter the United Kingdom in order to exercise a Treaty right are not required to apply for a residence permit. It is therefore not possible to provide an estimate.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for residence permits for EC nationals exercising Treaty rights have been issued for a period of less than five years in the last five years. [28295]

  Ms Quin
  Under European Community law, a residence permit is normally issued with a validity of five years. In the case of students and members of their family, however, a residence permit is issued with a validity of 12 months or, where the course of study is for a longer period, for the duration of the course. Information is not held as to how many residence permits with a validity of less than five years have been issued.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average time for consideration of applications for(a) residence documents for EU nationals and (b) residence documents or evidence of residence made by third country national family members of EC nationals exercising Treaty rights in the United Kingdom since 1 February 1997. [28299]

  Ms Quin
  The timeliness of completion of residence permits and residence document applications is expressed as a proportion of cases completed within one, two and six months. From 1 February 1997 to 31 January 1998, the averages were as follows:

  Per cent.

  Residence permits

  within 1 month

  26

  within 2 months

  48

  within 6 months

  73

  Residence documents

  within 1 month

  16

  within 2 months

  33

  within 6 months

  53

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for residence documents by(a) EC nationals and (b) third country national family members of EC nationals exercising Treaty rights have been (i) made and (ii) granted since 1 February 1997. [28304]

  Ms Quin

  Made

  Granted

  Residence permit applications

  2,848

  1,819

  Residence document applications

  1,850

  2,664

  Note:

  In the case of a residence document application an accompanying residence permit application is required, except in certain specific circumstances involving British or Irish nationals. Such residence permit applications are not separately recorded. The data for residence permit applications relate to those cases where an European Economic Area national applies for a residence permit without any application for a residence document being made by a third country national.

  EU Nationals
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters have been sent to European Community nationals in the United Kingdom advising them that they are no longer considered to be exercising Treaty rights and should therefore leave the United Kingdom since 1 February 1997. [28298]

  Ms Quin
  None.

  Coroners
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 280, how many full-time coroners are women. [28899]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is one full-time coroner who is female—the coroner for Inner London South.

  Visa Appeals
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restore the right of appeal to those who are refused visas when applying to visit close relatives. [26456]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are committed to providing a streamlined right of appeal for visitors denied a visa and we are examining the options for achieving this.

  European Court of Human Rights Rulings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has(a) taken and (b) intends to take to comply with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of (i) McCann and others v. UK and (ii) Murray v. UK. [27410]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have been asked to reply.

  We paid the applicants' costs in the case of McCann, as required by the judgment of the Court. No further measures needed to be taken by the Government as a result of the judgment. The Committee of Ministers' Deputies adopted a resolution on 20 March 1996 stating that the United Kingdom had complied with the terms of the judgment. In the case of John Murray, we have paid the costs and expenses of the applicant as required by the judgment of the Court. Further measures in response to the breach found by the Court are under consideration.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Benevolent Fund
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the(a) assets and (b) annual income of the Duchy of Lancaster's Benevolent Fund; and which (i) individuals and (ii) organisations have received money from the fund since 1992. [27630]

    Dr. David Clark
    I am not a trustee of the Duchy Benevolent Fund. As it is a registered charity, details of the charity's income and donations are submitted to the Charity Commissioners each year and I have asked the Secretary of the Fund to send my hon. Friend the details he requires.

    Property (Public Access)
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the property owned by the Duchy of Lancaster which is(a) open to and (b) not open to the public. [27631]

    Dr. David Clark
    The Duchy owns Tutbury Castle and Halton Castle which are open to the public. The Duchy owns other historical monuments which are in the Guardianship of, or are leased to, local authorities or to English Heritage. These are also open to the public.

    The majority of the property owned by the Duchy comprises tenanted farms, woodland, private houses, and commercial properties such as shops and offices. Much of the farmland and woodland is accessible to the public by rights of way or by voluntary access arrangements: the property is not "open to the public" in the literal sense of the term.

    Intestacy
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes there have been since 1992 in respect of the treatment of the estates of people who die intestate in the Duchy of Lancaster. [27629]

    Dr. David Clark
    There has been no change since 1992 in the treatment of the estates of people who die intestate in the County Palatine of Lancaster.

    Environment Information
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the principal points of difference between the rights of access to information provided for at present under(a) the non-statutory Code of Practice on Open Government and (b) the statutory right of access to information on environmental matters contained in the Environment Information Regulations 1992. [28924]

    Dr. David Clark
    The principal differences between the access provisions under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 (which give effect to EC Directive 90/313) are as follows:

    (a) the Code of Practice is non-statutory; the Regulations have the force of law;

    (b) appeals against non-disclosure under the Code of Practice are referable to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; the appeals mechanism for the Regulations would be by judicial review;

    (c) the formal coverage of the Code of Practice is determined by the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; the coverage of the Regulations is determined by the definition of "relevant person" in Regulation 2(3);

    (d) the Code of Practice applies to all information held by the bodies concerned; the Regulations apply only to information which relates to the environment, as defined in Regulation 2(2);

    (e) there are some minor differences in the wording of the exemptions from disclosure, although in practice the exemptions cover similar areas;

    (f) the exemptions in the Code of Practice are discretionary i.e. they allow certain information to be withheld from disclosure; the Regulations contain provision for certain mandatory exemptions i.e. they require that certain information must be withheld from disclosure.

    116
    The Government are considering how best to incorporate the requirements of the Environmental Information Directive 90/313 into the wider Freedom of Information policy proposed in the White Paper "Your Right to Know". Our aim will be to simplify and streamline the present arrangements for both applicants and holders of environmental information.

    Civil Service (Sickness)
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the overall level of sickness absence in the Civil Service. [29153]

    Dr. David Clark
    The average number of working days sickness absence per staff-year in 1996 was 10.2.

    I have placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the report prepared for my Department by OHSA Limited on Sickness Absence in the Civil Service during 1996, which contains a comprehensive analysis of the figures about the Civil Service.

    My Department regularly encourages Departments and agencies to review their approaches to sickness absence management.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those individuals or organisations who requested that their submission to the consultation document "Your Right to Know", should not be published; and if he will indicate the reasons given by the submitting parties for the withholding from publication. [28170]

    Dr. David Clark
    By Friday 6 February I had received 107 submissions from individuals and organisations in response to the White Paper Your Right to Know. Only two correspondents so far have requested that their submission be treated in confidence. In accordance with their wish for confidentiality, I do not intend to publish any details about these submissions.

    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will ensure that departmental submissions to the White Paper "Your Right to Know", will be published on the appropriate website on receipt. [28171]

    Dr. David Clark
    The White Paper Your Right to Know contains the Government's collectively agreed proposals for a Freedom of Information Act and is the result of detailed discussion within Government. The current period of consultation on the White Paper is therefore designed to enable the public, not Government Departments, to submit their views on the Government's proposals. Except in those cases—so far only two out of 107—where confidentiality is requested, these submissions will be published on the "Informing Government" website (http://foi.democracy.org.uk).

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Unemployment
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she will publish the results of the Government's review of long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [28624]

    Mr. Worthington
    Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 10 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about the current consultation process on long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    Work on the review of long-term unemployment was temporarily overtaken during the Autumn by the overriding priority of the New Deal. We have been examining how existing programmes for the long term unemployed could be best aligned with the New Deal while taking account of the outcome of last year's consultation exercise. I expect an announcement will be made shortly on the future shape of existing programmes and services.

    Correspondence
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her policy for responding to letters received in the(a) Scottish Gaelic, (b) Welsh, (c) Urdu, (d) Hindi and (e) Chinese language. [28061]

    Mr. Worthington
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not sought to establish a policy for responding to letters received in the languages specified in the question because Northern Ireland Departments and Agencies have not indicated a need for such guidance.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans are being made for disabled access to the Millennium Dome. [28141]

    Mr. Mandelson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) on 29 October 1997,Official Report, column 822. Since then, the Advisory Group has met four times; most recently on 29 January 1998.

    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Minister without Portfolio if the entry price for the Millennium Dome will exceed £10. [28923]

    Mr. Mandelson
    There will be a full range of entrance ticket prices covering adults, senior citizens, children, students, families and group rates. The detailed definitions and prices will be determined and announced in due course.

  NORTHERN IRELAND ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Car Driving Test Failures
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the percentage failure rate in 1997 for car driving tests; and of the total failed, what percentage were attributed in whole or part to(a) speeding and (b) driving too slowly. [27475]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 January 1998,Official Report, column 549. Statistics for overall pass/fail rates for the remainder of 1997 will not be available until March.

    An analysis of faults committed on a sample of 420,000 tests conducted between 1 June 1997 and 31 January 1998 shows that inappropriate use of speed was wholly or partly the reason for a candidate being failed 0.5 per cent. of tests. The computerised fault analysis system does not record whether a candidate was assessed as driving too quickly or too slowly.

    Copthall Stadium
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on whether to call in the proposed Copthall Stadium development, Mill Hill. [27828]

    Mr. Caborn
    Very shortly.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that local authorities prepare contingency plans for the provision of services to vulnerable groups in the event of the failure of computer systems to be millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [28237]

    Angela Eagle
    Each local authority is responsible for ensuring its own millennium compliance. Authorities have access to high quality advice on this issue through the Local Government Management Board, the professional body of local government IT officers (SOCTIM) and other professional bodies. During the course of their last annual audit programmes authorities' external auditors were advised by the Audit Commission to evaluate the plans authorities had in place to identify the extent of the year 2000 problem and for any necessary remedial action.

    Biodiversity
    Mr. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps the Government have taken to meet their obligations under the Action Plan for 1996 to 2000 for the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy; what further action will be taken in the period to 2000; and if the Government will make an annual report on progress to the House; [27976]

    (2) to what extent the Government have participated in international monitoring of the implementation of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. [27977]
    119
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what action the Government have taken to meet their obligations under the Action Plan for 1996–2000 for the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy; [28316]

    (2) in what manner and with what frequency he will report to Parliament on the actions taken to meet the Government's obligations under the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy; [28317]

    (3) if he will make a statement on participation in the international institutional arrangements for the implementation of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. [28318]

    Angela Eagle
    The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy is non-binding and does not lay down specific obligations. The Government are nevertheless strongly supportive of the Strategy process. In November we hosted the 'Planning for Biodiversity' Workshop for Central and Eastern European countries, providing a forum for the exchange of knowledge, experience and expertise in the development and implementation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and for discussion on other primary elements of the Strategy.

    The Government have participated in international monitoring of the Pan-European Strategy through its membership of the Executive Bureau set up to guide and review the implementation of the Strategy process. The Government are also a member of the Council for the Strategy which is responsible for devising a policy to direct, guide, support and co-ordinate its implementation and further development.

    The Government will continue to participate fully in the further development and implementation of the Strategy, and will play a leading role in the 'Environment for Europe' Ministerial Conference at Aarhus in June, which will review progress and take decisions about the way forward for the Strategy process to 2000. The Government will inform the House of the outcome.

    Mr. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government have taken in furtherance of (i) the Convention on Biological Diversity, (ii) the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, (iii) the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, (iv) the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and (v) the EU Habitats Directive. [27975]

    Angela Eagle
    The steps taken by the Government in relation to the Conventions and Directive mentioned are set out in the United Kingdom's First National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity dated 31 December 1997, a copy of which is available in the Library.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to implement the decision taken by the International Maritime Organisation in December 1997 to make mandatory the INF code for 120
    the safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level radioactive waste in flasks on board ships; and if he will make a statement on the implications for the safety arrangements for such nuclear shipments of implementation of the INF code. [27987]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    While the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has decided to make the INF Code mandatory, the work to give effect to this decision has yet to be completed. The Government support the IMO' s decision and are participating actively in the work to implement it.

    In the meantime, compliance with the INF Code remains voluntary. However, UK registered ships engaged in the carriage of relevant cargoes have documents of compliance issued by my Department's Marine Safety Agency. All foreign ships carrying INF Code materials to or from the UK have had similar documents issued by the appropriate maritime administration.

    Making the code mandatory will ensure that all ships engaged in the trade meet the high safety standards currently met by UK ships and will enhance our enforcement powers.

    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what quantities of radioactive waste have been returned to Spain since 1980 as a result of the processing of uranium-contaminated filter papers for the Spanish National Uranium Company; what forms of transport have been used for these shipments; how many such shipments have taken place; and what indication he has received as to plans by BNFL to increase the imports of such uranium residues. [27990]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The commercial and operational arrangements between BNFL and its customers are a matter for the companies involved, subject to meeting the relevant regulatory requirements. However, I understand from BNFL that they do provide a service to a number of customers for the recovery of uranium residues from various materials. I am satisfied that the transport of these materials and the return of any wastes are carried out in accordance with the appropriate regulations.

    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), of 4 November 1997,Official Report, column 147, concerning the International Atomic Energy Agency annual general conference, what indication he has received as to when the report on the transport of radioactive materials will be available from the International Atomic Energy Agency. [28227]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    As called for in IAEA General Conference resolution GC(41)/RES/12, the IAEA report on legally binding and non-binding instruments and regulations concerning the safe transport of radioactive material is expected to be available for the 8–12 June 1998 meeting of the Board of Governors. The usual practice is for Board documents to be circulated to Member States of the Agency approximately one month in advance of the meeting.

    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government has to construct a long-term underground storage facility for radioactive waste. [28277]
    121
    Angela Eagle
    The Government have been considering radioactive waste management in the light of the former Secretary of State's decision to dismiss Nirex's appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a rock characterisation facility at Longlands Farm, near Sellafield. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has now started an inquiry into nuclear waste management. The Government will want to see the Select Committee's report, which is expected in the summer, and to undertake widespread consultation, before coming to a firm view about the construction of a long term underground storage facility for radioactive waste.

    Housing (Easington)
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of empty housing units in the district of Easington in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997 (i) in total and (ii) by sector. [28243]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The numbers of vacant local authority and housing associations dwellings in Easington 1 April are set out below alongside the local authority's estimates of private and other public sector vacant dwellings.

    1995

    1996

    1997

    Local authority1

    433

    495

    579

    Housing association2

    74

    36

    49

    Other public sector1

    126

    3

    0

    Private sector1

    1,089

    1,095

    1,096

    Total

    1,722

    1,629

    1,724

    1 Source: Annual Housing Investment Programme(HIP1) returns.

    2 Source: Annual HAR10/1 returns.

    Telecommunications Licences
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of licences granted to code system operators under the Telecommunications Act 1984. [27942]

    Mr. Raynsford
    My Department is aware that code system operators licensed under the Telecommunications Act 1984 are required to develop a telecommunications network under the terms of their licence. The potential impact on the environment of the different forms of development involved is a key factor in forming Government policy on telecommunications planning. This is set out in my Department's Planning Policy Guidance note 8, supplemented by Appendix E to Circular 9/95 and by the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning on 4 November 1997 Official Report, columns 152–53. The general policy is to facilitate the growth of such systems while protecting the environment. It is important that operators and local planning authorities work together to ensure that network rollout is not carried out at disproportionate environmental cost.

    Sheffield Supertram
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instigate a review of the financial history of the Sheffield supertram project. [28235]
    122
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    Financial approval for Sheffield Supertram was given in December 1990. Government grant under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 was provided, together with borrowing approval for other approved costs. The scheme was built on time and to budget.

    The High Court ruling on 19 January 1998 made it clear that the Government were not committed to funding outstanding Supertram debt. It will be for the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, who co-ordinate public transport in their area, to decide whether a financial review should be undertaken.

    Sellafield
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of creating a joint environmental bilateral inspectorate with the Irish Republic to monitor the activities at radioactive discharges from Sellafield. [28172]

    Angela Eagle
    While the regulation of discharges from UK nuclear installations must remain a matter for the UK competent authorities, a UK-Irish Contact Group meets biannually to provide a forum for officials from both countries to discuss matters relating to radioactivity. This includes the exchange of monitoring data on levels of radioactivity in the Irish Sea.

    In addition, Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty requires the European Commission to determine whether the implementation of any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste is liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member state.

    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 1997 the volume of (1) highly active, (2) intermediate level and (3) low level radioactive waste stored at Sellafield. [28276]

    Angela Eagle
    Apart from 1980, we do not have estimates of the volumes of wastes stored at Sellafield for the years requested. Data for the years 1974, 1980, 1984, 1989 and 1994 are given in cubic metres in the table.

    11974

    21980

    31984

    41989

    51994

    High-level waste

    550

    900

    1,100

    1,317

    61,476

    Intermediate-level waste

    12,000

    23,320

    27,514

    30,543

    739,997

    Low-level Waste

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    601

    1,633

    1 Cmnd 6618, Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, HMSO, 1976

    2 Duncan, A G and Brown, SRA. Nuclear Energy Vol 21, 3 p161–166, 1982

    3 Fairclough, M P et al DOE/RW/85.009, The joint DOE/Nirex Radioactive Waste Inventory: January 1984, 1985

    4DOE/RW/89.110, The 1989 United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory, 1990

    5 DOE/RAS/96.001, The 1994 United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory, 1996

    6includes 78m3 of conditional waste

    7includes 2,179m3 of conditional waste.

    A copy of the summary of The 1994 United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory called Radioactive Waste Arisings in the UK - A Summary is in the Library. The next inventory—for 1998—will be published in 1999.

    Rural Poverty
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to make the Index of Local Conditions more sensitive to rural poverty. [28373]

    Mr. Raynsford
    My Department is currently consulting with a wide range of external organisations, including local authorities, on proposals put forward by Professor Brian Robson of the University of Manchester to update the Index of Local Conditions to a 1996 base and to incorporate methodological improvements. Professor Robson's recommendations include a number of changes to the Index which will make it more sensitive to the identification of deprivation in rural areas and which have been proposed by groups and individuals concerned with rural regeneration. These proposed changes include removing indicators on car ownership and children in flats, adding a new indicator on the receipt of housing benefit and council tax benefit and changing the way that the overall index value is calculated so that high levels of deprivation on certain indicators are not cancelled out by low levels on other indicators. It is hoped to publish the new Index of Local Deprivation in the Spring.

    Housing (Hampshire)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in the last three years from(a) public bodies, (b) voluntary organisations, (c) the private sector and (d) local associations in the Portsmouth City Council area about housing needs in that area. [27550]

    Mr. Raynsford
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: The Secretary of State receives a number of representations from groups and information is not held centrally in the format requested about housing needs.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the number of properties that are under-occupied in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [27898]

    Mr. Raynsford
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: Neither the Secretary of State nor the Local Authority has made any robust assessment of the number of properties that are under-occupied in Portsmouth.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in the last three years from(a) public bodies, (b) voluntary organisations, (c) the private sector and (d) local associations in the Southampton City Council area about housing needs in that area. [27559]

    Mr. Raynsford
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The Secretary of State receives a number of representations from groups and information is not held centrally in the format requested about housing needs.
    124
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many units of social housing have been built in the Southampton City Council area in each of the last five years. [27556]

    Mr. Raynsford
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The table shows figures of housebuilding completions (i.e. new build only) as reported to the Department by Southampton City Council and the National House Building Council.

    Southampton City Council: social housing new build: completions

    Numbers of dwellings

    Registered Social Landlords: Housing Associations

    Local authority

    1993

    18

    21

    1994

    37

    0

    1995

    0

    0

    1996

    5

    0

    1997

    8

    0

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the number of properties that are under-occupied in Southampton City; and if he will make a statement. [27900]

    Mr. Raynsford
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: Neither the Secretary of State nor the Local Authority have made any robust assessment of the number of properties that are under-occupied in Southampton City.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many units of social housing have been built in the East Hampshire District Council area in each of the last five years. [27562]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The table shows figures of housebuilding completions (i.e. new build only) as reported to the Department by East Hampshire District Council and the National House Building Council:

    East Hampshire District Council: social housing new build: completions

    Number of dwellings

    Registered Social Landlords: Housing associations

    Local authority

    1993

    16

    28

    1994

    25

    0

    1995

    25

    0

    1996

    88

    0

    1997

    45

    1

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in the last three years from(a) public bodies, (b) voluntary organisations, (c) the private sector and (d) local associations in the East Hampshire District Council area about housing needs in that area. [27563]
    125
    Mr. Raynsford
    The Secretary of State receives a number of representations from groups and information is not held centrally in the format requested about housing needs.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties formerly owned by Government Departments have been made available to(a) the council and (b) housing associations in the East Hampshire District Council area. [27564]

    Mr. Raynsford
    This information is not held centrally.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are on the housing waiting list of East Hampshire District Council; and what were the equivalent figures at the same time in each of the last five years. [27566]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The table shows figures of housebuilding completions (i.e. new build only) as reported to the Department by Southampton City Council and the National House Building Council:

    Southampton City Council: Social housing new build: Completions

    Numbers of dwellings

    1993

    18

    21

    1994

    37

    0

    1995

    0

    0

    1996

    5

    0

    1997

    8

    0

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the total number of registered homeless people in the East Hampshire District Council area; [27567]

    (2) how many people have been accepted on to the homeless register of East Hampshire District Council in each of the last five years. [27568]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The table provides the available data on the numbers of households accepted as homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts in East Hampshire for the calendar years 1992 to 1996 and the first nine months of 1997.

    Homelessness acceptances

    1992

    109

    1993

    75

    1994

    71

    1995

    164

    1996

    113

    19971

    119

    1 data for the first 3 quarters only.

    Under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 authorities must establish and maintain a housing register for the purpose of allocating their housing accommodation but there is no statutory obligation for local housing authorities to hold a register of homeless applicants. Accommodation secured as a discharge of a homelessness duty need not be a tenancy allocated under Part VI of the 1996 Act.
    126
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the number of properties that are under-occupied in East Hampshire District; and if he will make a statement. [27914]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Neither the Secretary of State nor the Local Authority have made any robust assessment of the number of properties that are under-occupied in East Hampshire District.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are on the housing transfer list of the East Hampshire District Council, and what were the equivalent figures at the same time in each of the last five years. [27915]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been accepted on to the homeless register of New Forest District,(b) Eastleigh Borough, (c) Havant Borough and (d) Test Valley Borough councils in each of the last five years. [28148]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The table provides the available data on the numbers of households accepted as homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts for the calendar years 1992 to 1996 and the first 9 months of 1997.

    Homelessness acceptances

    New Forest

    Eastleigh

    Havant

    Test Valley

    1992

    366

    231

    262

    197

    1993

    360

    176

    289

    152

    1994

    279

    186

    220

    163

    1995

    273

    166

    277

    161

    1996

    304

    142

    318

    180

    19971

    207

    80

    231

    85

    1 data for the first three quarters only.

    Under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 authorities must establish and maintain a housing register for the purpose of allocating their housing accommodation but there is no statutory obligation for local housing authorities to hold a register of homeless applicants. Accommodation secured as a discharge of a homelessness duty need not be a tenancy allocated under Part VI of the 1996 Act.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties formerly owned by Government departments have been made available to(a) the council and (b) housing associations in the Hart District Council area. [28360]

    Mr. Raynsford
    This information is not held centrally.

    Trains (Power Failures)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents there were in 1997 of power failure aboard trains(a) nationally and (b) in the Connex South Central region. [28607]
    127
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    This is an operational matter for train operating companies. We do not collect the information centrally. Connex South Central have given my officials to understand that the Company reported 64 instances of total power loss on its trains in 1997. We understand further that there were 355 instances where one or another on-train system was affected by some form of power loss, but this did not in all cases cause delays.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents of electricity failures there were on Railtrack-owned track in 1997. [28606]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    This information is not available in the form requested. Operational matters such as this are a matter for Railtrack, which has published information relating to the causes of train delays. From that I understand that, for the 24 weeks commencing 30 March 1997, out of a total of 301,974 delays to trains exceeding three minutes, 951 were attributed to causes connected with power supply maintenance and renewal for which Railtrack is responsible.

    Public Opinion Research
    Mr. Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the companies which bid for each public opinion research contract awarded since 1 May 1997; and what was the value and duration of each contract. [28876]

    Angela Eagle
    Details of the companies which bid for public opinion research contracts and the duration of these contracts are not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    However, details of all market research commissioned by the Department since I May 1997 and the value of such contracts are lodged in the House of Commons Library in response to a question from the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) answered on 5 February 1998,Official Report, column 728.

    Public Investment
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the levels of public investment in the constituencies of(a) Birmingham, Ladywood, (b) Liverpool, Riverside and (c) Tottenham for the last three years for which figures are available, excluding social security payments. [27967]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Information on public expenditure is not held at constituency level.

    Keighley Driving Test Centre
    Mrs. Ann Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the long-term future of the Keighley Driving Test Centre. [28043]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The Keighley Driving Test Centre will close at the end of February while detailed inspections and essential repairs are carried out on the building. A search for alternative premises in the town is underway. In the
    128
    meantime, driver testing operations will be transferred to Skipton; however, the intention is to retain a driver testing service in Keighley in the long term.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Minister of the Environment plans to answer the letter of Mr. Keith Duell dated 5 December 1997 regarding Verely Lake. [28862]

    Angela Eagle
    The Government Office for the South East replied to Mr. Duell's letter on 30 January 1998.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy for responding to letters received in the(a) Scottish Gaelic, (b) Welsh, (c) Urdu, (d) Hindi and (e) Chinese language. [28050]

    Angela Eagle
    The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has a translation service for incoming correspondence of all languages into English, and replies can be made in the language of the original letter.

    Greater London Assembly
    Mr. Duncan
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish(a) details of money paid by his Department to the yes campaign for a London mayor, (b) details of meetings between yes campaign officials and ministers, including names and dates and (c) details of contracts which his Department has with (i) individuals who hold positions on the yes campaign and (ii) companies which employ individuals who hold positions on the yes campaign. [28833]

    Mr. Raynsford
    On parts(a) and (b) of the question, I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on Friday 6 February 1998,Official Report, columns 835–36.

    On part (c) of the question, although I am aware of the existence of putative "Yes" and "No" campaigns, my Department does not have access to comprehensive details of those companies or individuals which may or may not be associated with, employed by or hold positions in those campaigns.

    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place the first version of the report on the electoral system for the Greater London Assembly commissioned from Professor Patrick Dunleavy in the Library. [28687]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Copies of the report we received from Professor Patrick Dunleavy and Dr. Helen Margetts—"Electing the London Mayor and the London Assembly"—were placed in the Library on Tuesday 3 February as I said in the House on 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 624. In line with usual practice, we do not propose to make available incomplete and uncorrected earlier drafts of the report.

    Transport Expenditure
    Dr. Brand
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the expenditure by the Exchequer through central Government agencies in the current financial year, expressed in terms of money per estimated passenger mile, on(a) motorways,(b) railways and (c) ferries. [28046]

    Mode

    Description of Expenditure

    1997–98 (estimated outturn) £m1

    Estimated passenger miles

    Motorways and Trunk Road

    Highways Agency Programme Expenditure

    1,473

    120bn in 19962

    National Railways

    Office of Passenger Rail Franchising support to train operating companies

    1,434

    20bn in 1996–97

    DETR Grants to English Passenger Transport Executives

    250

    Support to local authority heavy rail schemes3

    10

    London Underground

    Grant to London Underground

    543

    4bn in 1996–97

    Urban Light Rail

    Support for urban light rail schemes

    128

    282m in 1996–97

    Ferries

    Woolwich Ferry

    5

    680,000 in 1997–98

    Other than the Woolwich Ferry service, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions does not financially support the cost of operating ferry services. In 1996 an estimated 342 million passenger miles were undertaken on all domestic ferry routes (including inter island and river crossings and the Woolwich Ferry).

    1 Rounded to the nearest £1 million.

    2 This figure has been estimated for 1996 using figures from Table 1.1 and 4.9 in Transport Statistics Great Britain (1997 Edition)—the implied occupancy rate (passenger miles divided by vehicle miles) has been applied to mileage on motorways and trunk roads for buses and coaches, cars and vans, and motorcycles.

    3 Figures do not include support towards local authority heavy rail projects from the Single Regeneration Budget, Capital Challenge and TPP "Package" strategies, figures for which are not held centrally.

    4 Government pays grant to London Transport, who are responsible for allocating resources as between London Underground and other businesses.

    Mines and Minerals (North Yorkshire)
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue new planning guidelines to take account of the recent court decision involving North Yorkshire County Council on the subject of mines and minerals; and if he will make a statement. [28675]

    Mr. Raynsford
    I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the "Wensley Quarries case"—ex parte Brown. I will decide whether any action is needed, and if so, what form it should take, when I have been able to consider the full judgment in this case.

    Railway Safety
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that automatic train protection is introduced as soon as possible on high speed lines. [28830]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that Automatic Train Protection (ATP) schemes are installed on the Chiltern and Great Western Lines and on the Heathrow Express. Versions of ATP will be fitted to the West Coast Main Line and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Railtrack is considering alternative train protection measures for other lines and HSE is monitoring progress with Railtrack's strategy for the provision of these measures.
    130
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The information is not available in the format requested. The table shows the resources which the Department is providing towards motorways and trunk roads, railways and ferries in the current financial year, and the estimated volume of traffic on those modes:

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and which councils have(a) written off and (b) not written off arrears of community charge in each of the last three years; and if he will assess what factors have led them to do so. [28200]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Department does not collect information about the amounts of community charges written off by local authorities, and I have no plans to carry out an assessment of the factors which would led them to do so. Local authorities should only write-off debts where they are uneconomic to pursue.

    The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Statistical Information Service publish figures each year for the amounts of community charges written off by those authorities which respond to their survey. Copies of the publications for the last three years are available in the Library.

    Vessels (Health and Safety)
    Mr. Tredinnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps were taken by his Department to ensure that the penalties imposed by the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/2962) are consistent with those imposed by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and regulations under it. [28686]
    131
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency, Mr. R. Bradley, to write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. David Tredinnick, dated 10 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your question about consistency between the penalties imposed by the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997 and those imposed by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
    The Regulations were copied to other interested departments during their preparation, and the differential was pointed out at that stage. However, our priority was to ensure compatibility of the penalties imposed with those to which employers are subject under other merchant shipping legislation.

    Housing Fitness Standard
    Mr. Alan Keen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress his Department is making in reviewing the housing fitness standard. [28988]

    Ms Armstrong
    My Department has today issued a consultation paper on the housing fitness standard to seek the views of the local government associations and other relevant bodies on a range of proposals and options for change. The proposals have been drawn up taking into account responses received to an earlier initiating discussion paper; the results of research undertaken by Warwick University and the Building Research Establishment; and discussions with practitioner bodies and housing professionals.

    It should be the aim of any housing fitness standard to provide a means for identifying, and thereby enabling action to be targeted on, those sections of the housing stock where the health and safety risks are the greatest. The main proposal, outlined in more detail in the consultation paper, is for a fitness rating approach to be developed and tested as a successor to the current standard. This would given an overall rating to a property based on an assessment of a range of housing characteristics, rather than the current pass/fail on one or more requirements. A fitness rating approach would surpass the existing standard by encompassing all the important health and safety risks in the home but also by distinguishing the varying severity of those risks. As a result it would have the potential for providing a more effective mechanism for the evaluation of the housing stock, both nationally and locally, and for the targeting of resources as well as for determining where intervention and public resources are needed most.

    I have arranged for copies of the consultation paper and the research to be placed in the Library of each House.

    Emergency Towing Vessels
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his intentions are for the future provision of emergency towing vessels around the United Kingdom; and when he will publish the trials report and the cost benefit analysis report on emergency towing vessels. [29037]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Government will continue to station, for winter periods only, three Emergency Towing Vessels around the UK. Emergency Towing Vessels are 132
    seationed in the Dover Strait, the Minches and the South Western Approaches. My officials are arranging new contracts to cover the next few winters. These contracts will commence in October 1998.

    The report of the three year trial (1994 to 1997) and the report of the cost benefit analysis on Emergency Towing Vessels are both released today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries.

    Driving Licences (Diabetes)
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) of 1 December 1977,Official Report, column 48, on driving licences for insulin dependent diabetics, if he will establish a compensation scheme for those insulin dependent diabetics who were previously employed as drivers of vehicles in Category C1. [26191]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    [pursuant to her reply, 6 February 1998, c. 833–34]: The Government sympathise with any insulin-treated diabetics who lose their jobs as drivers following the expiry of their entitlement to drive category C1 vehicles. The change in legislation has been made in the interests of road safety, and it is not normal to provide compensation for those who may be affected by such changes.

  TREASURY

    Dorneywood
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions Dorneywood has been used by Ministers since 1 May; if he will list in each case(a) the Ministers present, (b) the dates in question and (c) the purpose of the visit; and if he will make a statement. [25769]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    [holding answer 27 January 1998]: Neither I nor any Treasury Ministers have used Dorneywood since 1 May. It has been used by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on several occasions.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the cost benefits of introducing a 10 pence tax rate(a) assuming revenue neutrality in means tested benefits and (b) assuming adjustments in means-tested benefits to pass the full benefit to claimants in bands of income of £500, assuming that the 10 pence rate (i) is in addition to the existing 20 pence tax rate and that the starting rate of tax is the same and (ii) substitutes for the existing 20 pence tax rate and (iii) is additional for the first £1,000 and then substitutes for the 20 pence tax rate; and if he will estimate the distribution of revenue forgone in each decile of income tax payers ranked by income. [26939]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I regret that such an analysis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Ms Keeble
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the Treasury last year of maintenance allowance in relation to income tax. [27492]
    133
    Dawn Primarolo
    The cost of tax relief in respect of maintenance payments in 1996–97 is estimated at £80 million.

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Lepper
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all(a) buildings, (b) works of art, (c) land and (d) other property in (i) the Brighton Pavilion constituency and (ii) East and West Sussex which are subject to public access or examination by the public as a condition of exemption from inheritance tax; what steps have been taken to inform the public about access to these; and what is the value of conditional exemption from inheritance tax for each year between 1979–80 and 1996–97 relating to (a) to (d) in (i) and (ii). [23938]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The statutory rules on taxpayer confidentiality prevent me from listing the specific details requested about conditionally exempt assets.

    Owners of conditionally exempt assets are primarily responsible for publicising the arrangements for public access to such assets according to the terms of the relevant undertakings. In general, steps required to publicise access may include, for example, advertising in an appropriate national publication, in the local tourist office or town hall, or in the case of scenic land in England, displaying a map board at all points of entry on to the land showing the agreed public access.

    For conditionally exempt works of art and other objects to which public access is by appointment only the Inland Revenue's Register provides relevant details. The computerised Register is available on the Internet at www.cto.eds.co.uk. Copies of the Register may be purchased from the Inland Revenue, and are also available for consultation at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, the National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, and the Ulster Museum, Belfast.

    The Inland Revenue have published a leaflet about the Register, "Our heritage—your right to see tax exempt works of art", IR 156, and a related poster. The leaflet is available from Tax Inquiry Centres.

    I regret that information about the value of conditional exemption for each year between 1979–80 and 1996–97 is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish by county the names of landowners who receive conditional exemption from inheritance tax because they allow public access. [24575]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 6 June 1997,Official Report, column 278.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of landowners who restrict public access to their land despite receiving conditional exemption from inheritance tax. [24577]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Inland Revenue is not aware of any landowners of conditionally exempt land who restrict public access to the land contrary to the terms of their 134
    undertakings. If my hon. Friend has any information on this issue, the Inland Revenue would be pleased to receive the details.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the names of individuals and the location of the land and buildings which are conditionally exempt from inheritance tax by reason of public access will be included in the scope of the proposed Freedom of Information legislation. [24667]

    Dawn Primarolo
    As explained in the White Paper "Your Right to Know", the proposed Freedom of Information Act will contain provision for access to official information generally. It will not list particular types of information. The information that my hon. Friend mentions will be within the scope of the Act. Its disclosure would depend, as for all information,(a) on decisions on the continuation of any relevant statutory prohibitions to disclosure and (b) on the substantial harm and public interest tests integral to the Act's access provisions.

    Tax Relief (Pension Contributions)
    Mr. Martin Bell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the reduction in Government spending which would have occurred in 1997–98 if tax relief on pension contributions had been restricted to the basic rate of taxation. [25754]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Information for 1998–99 was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 148.

    Sustainable Development
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [25898]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    The Treasury's aim is to raise the rate of sustainable growth, and achieve rising prosperity, through creating economic and employment opportunities for all. Sustainable development is an important factor in framing the Government's economic priorities. The comprehensive spending review of the Treasury will report on how the Department's organisation and resources are to be devoted to the achievement of this aim and its other objectives.

    Ministers (Company Directorships)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers in his Department have held company directorships since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [26722]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    [holding answer 3 February 1998]: The Ministerial Code says that
    "Ministers must resign any directorships they hold when they take up office".

    All Treasury Ministers have complied with the Ministerial Code.

    Tax Changes
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) short run and (b) long run price elasticity of demand is assumed by the Treasury in its analysis of the impact of tax changes in respect of (i) cigarettes, (ii) beer, (iii) wine, (iv) spirits, (v) petrol, (vi) domestic gas, (vii) domestic electricity and (viii) domestic energy as a whole. [27476]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The costings for tax changes for the current year and the following two years are published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. In preparing these costings, Customs and Excise use the following elasticities: cigarettes -0.201, beer -0.963, wine -1.048, spirits -1.070 and petrol -0.272. Domestic gas, domestic electricity and domestic energy as a whole are grouped under domestic fuel and power. All use an elasticity of -0.187.

    Foreign Income Dividends
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on the income of charities of the increase in the number of foreign income dividends since July 1997. [27721]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    This information is not available.

    Advance Corporation Tax
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the likely change in the capital structure of companies following the reform of advance corporation tax. [27723]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the response I gave the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 476.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the effect on companies with seasonal profits of a move to quarterly payments of corporation tax. [27722]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    We have received representations on this issue as part of the consultation on quarterly instalment payments of corporation tax. We shall carefully consider those and other representations that have been made, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce the outcome in his Budget.

    Insurance Premium Tax
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of jobs lost in(a) travel agency sector and (b) retail sector since the introduction of higher rate insurance premium tax; and if he will make a statement. [22623]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The effect of the introduction of the higher rate of insurance premium tax on all sectors is being monitored.
    136
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue raised for each year since its introduction of(a) insurance premium tax and (b) higher rate insurance premium tax. [22619]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Receipts of insurance premium tax since its introduction on 1 October 1994 are as follows:

    Year

    £ million total

    of which at higher rate

    1994–95

    117

    n/a

    1995–96

    635

    n/a

    1996–97

    671

    n/a

    1997–98 (to November)

    745

    65

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has for the proportion of higher rate insurance premium tax revenue raised from travel insurance. [22621]

    Dawn Primarolo
    It is not possible to estimate accurately the actual yield of Insurance Premium Tax from the separate sectors.

    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the monitoring by Customs and Excise of the introduction of the higher rate of insurance premium tax relating to the travel industry to reach its conclusions; if he will publish those conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [27346]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I have not set an end date for the monitoring, and I would expect Customs and Excise to continue to keep the higher rate of insurance premium tax under review. The findings of Customs will not be published since they contain commercially sensitive material.

    Mr. Alasdair Morgan
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make its his policy to charge a flat rate of IPT on all insurance on motor vehicles, travel and electrical retail goods; and if he will make a statement. [28137]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

    Mr. Alasdair Morgan
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of IPT applies to guarantees for(a) motor vehicles and (b) electrical retail products provided by the sellers of the product; and if he will make a statement. [28136]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: IPT applies only to contracts of insurance. Guarantees do not constitute such contracts and are therefore outside the scope of the tax.

    Mr. Alasdair Morgan
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has held with representatives of(a) the travel sector, (b) the electrical retail and rental sectors and (c) the motor vehicle sector to discuss the impact of higher rate IPT on their businesses; if he will meet representatives of these industries prior to the Budget to discuss higher rate IPT; and if he will make a statement. [28138]
    137
    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]I have met with representatives of the travel industry to discuss their concerns regarding higher rate IPT. I have no plans currently to meet further with industry representatives but I have asked officials in Customs and Excise to monitor the effect of higher rate IPT which has involved them in maintaining contact with trade bodies.

    Excise Duty
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of excise duty forgone by the successful smuggling or bootlegging of(a) alcohol and (b) tobacco and its products in each year since 1991.[27932]

    Dawn Primarolo
    HM Customs and Excise estimates of the revenue lost to the Exchequer through cross-Channel smuggling of alcohol and tobacco products in 1996 and 1997 are set out in the table:

    £ million

    Product type

    Excise duty

    VAT

    1996 Total

    Excise duty

    VAT

    1997 Total

    Alcoholic drinks

    135

    60

    195

    135

    65

    195

    Tobacco products

    510

    130

    640

    550

    135

    690

    Total

    645

    190

    835

    685

    200

    885

    Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals shown.

    Figures for estimated revenue losses use Customs assumption that 70–80 per cent. of smuggled alcoholic drinks substitute for similar products in the UK. Effectively 100 per cent. of smuggled tobacco is assumed to substitute for UK purchases.

    The above estimates exclude any amounts for revenue lost on alcoholic drinks and tobacco products involved in commercial fraud, smuggling in freight consignments or by air passengers. There are no official estimates for the extent of these activities. Similarly, there were no official estimates for the extent of smuggling prior to 1996.

    Governor of the Bank of England
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce a new contract for the Governor of the Bank of England. [28241]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Economic Secretary on 22 January to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce),Official Report, column 642.

    Bonus Payments
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the present arrangements for the taxation of bonus payments made to United Kingdom nationals by international banks operating in London but headquartered overseas in the light of recent cases. [28230]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    The policy for the taxation of employees is kept under constant review. There are no plans to carry out a specific review into the taxation of bonus payments.

    Low Pay
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the Canadian scheme for special tax credits for low-income working families; and if he will make a statement. [27688]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Pre-Budget Statement, the Government are considering the introduction of a "Working Families Tax Credit" to help make work pay for families on low incomes. And systems used in other countries, including Canada, have been looked at as part of that process.

    Mr. Gavyn Davies
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what role Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs has in the formulation of the Government's economic policy; and if he will make a statement; [27694]

    (2) what meetingshe has had with Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs in the last three months; what meetings are scheduled over the next three months; and if he will make a statement; [27692]

    (3) what meetings with Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs have taken place over the last three months at which one or more of his special advisers were present; and if he will make a statement. [27693]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    [holding answers 5 February 1998]: During the course of my duties I meet a wide range of economists and business people, including Mr. Gavyn Davies.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the setting of a minimum wage, the public sector will buy goods and services from overseas companies paying their employees less than the United Kingdom minimum wage. [28127]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: The Government's policy on public procurement is to obtain value for money for the taxpayer. The public sector will buy the goods and services which provide the optimum combination of whole-life cost and quality.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Correspondence
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy for responding to letters received in the(a) Scottish Gaelic, (b) Welsh, (c) Urdu, (d) Hindi and (e) Chinese language. [28051]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Lord Chancellor's Department does not have a written policy for responding to letters received in languages other than English and Welsh, other than that every effort should be made to respond to them. In cases where letters are written in Welsh, the practice of the Lord Chancellor's Department is to respond in Welsh to the same standards as if the reply was in English.

    EU Conventions
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 57, on the European draft convention concerning harmonisation of court documents and procedures, what changes of Rules of Court will be required; with whom discussions took place in March and April 1997; what parliamentary procedure will govern the ratification of revised Rules of Court; and what discussions he (a) has held and (b) proposes to hold on their implementation; and with which bodies. [28948]

    Mr. Hoon
    A Consultation Paper was issued in March 1997 to 50 individuals and organisations, representing a wide range of interests. Further consultation will take place before implementation with a similarly wide range of bodies. Until our plans for implementation have been finalised it is not known what changes to rules of Court might be required. Under section 3 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, any changes would be made by Statutory Instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Exports
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's ethical foreign policy on British exports since 1 May 1997. [26440]

    Mr. Robin Cook
    Since this Government took office, we have stepped up Foreign Office support for British exports and I have lobbied on behalf of British Companies from Central Europe to South-East Asia. We have responded to the report of the Export Forum, introduced a new scheme of short-term secondment of business executives to our embassies, and invited Chief Executives of 30 major companies to undertake promotional events for British business while abroad. We see no conflict between our drive to expand British exports and trade, and commitment to preventing British arms from being used to repress human rights and democracy.

    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the ways in which his Department assists the sales of British-manufactured goods abroad. [26458]

    Mr. Fatchett
    We assist the sale of British-manufactured goods abroad through the work of our 217 commercial posts in 140 markets. They provide information on overseas markets and help British companies to find local business contacts. They help promote products and services, and assist British companies who wish to participate in trade fairs and missions. Posts also give political and economic briefings.

    International Criminal Court
    Mr. McCabe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of excluding crimes 140
    involving the use of (a) nuclear weapons and (b) land mines from the remit of the proposed international criminal court. [26450]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    The UK supports proposals for the Court to be able to try war crimes which are recognised under customary international law. The use as such of nuclear weapons or land mines does not come into this category. But nuclear weapons and land mines, like any other weapon, might be used in a way that would contravene international law. Under the proposals we support, this could well lead to the user being prosecuted at the International Criminal Court.

    Israel
    Mr. Caplin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Israel. [26451]

    Mr. Fatchett
    We enjoy friendly relations with Israel.

    Dan Norris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Israel. [26464]

    Mr. Fatchett
    Britain enjoys friendly relations with Israel.

    Algeria
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Union's role in Algeria during the course of the United Kingdom presidency. [26452]

    Mr. Fatchett
    I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas).

    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Algeria before 30 June. [26457]

    Mr. Fatchett
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to visit Algeria.

    BBC World Service
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to meet representatives of the BBC World Service to discuss(a) future funding and (b) future language transmission policy. [26453]

    Mr. Fatchett
    Officials regularly meet with World Service to discuss such matters. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I have had several discussions recently with the Managing Director. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to do so in the near future.

    Iraq
    Ms Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in Iraq. [26454]

    Mr. Fatchett
    We and our Security Council partners are actively pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis. But we cannot rule out a resort to force if our diplomatic efforts fail to shift Saddam's intransigent stance.
    141
    Saddam Hussein has a horrifying arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction and we know from past experience that he is prepared to use them. It is vital for regional and international peace and security that UNSCOM be allowed full and unrestricted access to all suspected WMD sites and that his WMD capability is destroyed. A paper detailing UNSCOM' s achievements and the need for its continuing unrestricted operation has been placed in the Library of the House and sent to all Members.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date his Department's officials were first informed of the use of chemical weapons at Halabja in Iraq. [26399]

    Mr. Fatchett
    [holding answer 3 February 1998]: According to Foreign Office files, the FCO first became aware of the use of chemical weapons at Halabja on 19 March 1988.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports Her Majesty's Government have received of the terms of negotiations between Russian Foreign Minister Primakov and the Iraqi regime in the last six months; what reference was made to the prospect of the ending of sanctions in return for compliance with UN resolutions with particular reference to access for weapons inspectors; what agreement was reached; what consideration Her Majesty's Government gave to this; and if he will make a statement. [28588]

    Mr. Fatchett
    We welcome the initiatives of Russian envoys and others in trying to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis with Iraq.

    The Iraqi regime has offered a one-off inspection of Presidential sites to be conducted by UNSCOM and representatives of the P5. This offer falls short of the Security Council's demand for full and unrestricted access to UNSCOM for all sites that it wishes to inspect. It is not for Iraq to set conditions for its co-operation with UNSCOM.

    All Council members agree that the process of ending sanctions cannot begin until Iraq complies with relevant Security Council resolutions.

    Mr. Howard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 719–20, what progress has been made in tabling the draft Security Council resolution; and what is the current text of the resolution. [28884]

    Mr. Fatchett
    We continue to take the lead in discussions with Security Council partners. Our aim remains to send a tough and united message to Saddam Hussein. It would not be right to make public the precise text before we have discussed it with Council partners.

    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish an independent inquiry into the activities of(a) British banks and (b) subsidiaries of foreign banks based in Britain in the funding of the sale of British manufactured military or military capable technology to Iraq since 1980. [28168]

    Mr. Fatchett
    No. But we would be interested to see any information that my hon. Friend feels should be brought to our attention.

    China
    Mr. Bill O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with China. [26459]

    Mr. Fatchett
    As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when he visited China in January, there is new life in Britain's relations with China. We have made a fresh start down a broad road. We need a healthy relationship which allows us to address together the full range of issues, including difficult areas such as human rights.

    Camilla Carr and Jon Jones
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has obtained about the whereabouts of Camilla Carr and Jon Jones; and if he will make a statement. [26460]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    We do not know where or in what conditions Camilla Carr and Jon James are held. With the Centre for Peacemaking and Community Development, we are doing all we can to bring about their safe release. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised the case several times—most recently with President Yeltsin on 9 January. The President promised that Russia would do all it could to help. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have also contacted their Russian counterparts. The British Ambassador in Moscow is in frequent contact with the Russian and Chechen authorities to emphasise the high priority we attach to resolving this distressing case, swiftly and peacefully. A British police team visited Moscow and Nazran in December for discussions with the Russian and Chechen security authorities.

    United States of America
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the United States. [26461]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    The United Kingdom's relations with the United States are excellent.

    Middle East
    Mrs. Ellman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of likely progress in the middle east peace process. [26462]

    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of likely progress in the middle east peace process. [26463]

    Mr. Fatchett
    I refer my hon. Friends to the oral answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the middle east peace process. [26465]
    143
    Mr. Fatchett
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Arafat on 26 January. He reaffirmed the EU/UK view that the parties must respect their commitments under existing agreements, particularly with regard to Israeli redeployments from the West Bank. I visited Israel and the Occupied Territories on 14–16 January. In Israel I met Netanyahu, Mordechai (Defence Minister), Bentsur (MFA PUS-equivalent), and senior Labour politicians. On the Palestinian side, I met Arafat, Sha'ath (Minister of Planning and International Cooperation) and Faisal Husseini.

    Arms Trade
    Mr. Wells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms for consultation between EU member states on granting and denying export licences are proposed in the United Kingdom's text on an EU code of conduct on arms sales. [26512]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    Under our draft text, any state denying an export licence according to the Code of Conduct would circulate details of the denial to other Member States. Partners would then be required to consult the denying state before deciding whether to issue a licence for essentially the same goods to the same destination.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce a central database of accredited arms dealers from whom the Government purchase equipment. [27884]

    Mr. Spellar
    I have been asked to reply.

    The MOD has no current plans to introduce a central database of defence suppliers.

    EU Delegations
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each mission sent by the European Union to(a) India, (b) Nepal, (c) Sri Lanka, (d) Pakistan, (e) Afghanistan, (f) Bangladesh and (g) other South Asian countries (i) who was on the delegation, (ii) who led the delegation and (iii) what were the activities of the delegation. [27948]

    Mr. Fatchett
    There have been no special EU Ministerial missions in the past twelve months.

    Schengen Agreement
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 1998,Official Report, column 439, which member states United Kingdom officials approached on the issue of Schengen opt-in procedures; and what exchange of documents took place. [28513]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    It would not be appropriate for Ministers to report the details of all diplomatic contacts between officials of the UK and other Governments.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 1998,Official Report,
    144
    column 439, for what reasons Coreper discussed the opt-in procedure to Schengen on each occasion; at whose instigation; and on what dates. [28515]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    Coreper discussed this matter on 2, 10, 17 and 25 July as part of its work, under the chairmanship of the Luxembourg Presidency, to finalise the text of the draft Treaty of Amsterdam.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting at Denver with the Dutch Foreign Minister concerning the opt-in procedures for Schengen countries. [28571]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the content of every meeting which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or I have with another Foreign Minister.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 1998,Official Report, column 439, for what reasons he consulted the Irish Foreign Minister on the issue of the Schengen opt-in procedure; if any joint approach was agreed; if there was agreement on the version of events; and if he will make a statement. [28514]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    I consulted with the Irish Foreign Minister on the Schengen opt-in procedure as a matter of mutual interest. It would not be appropriate to publish details of our discussions.

    Ms Gaynor Regan
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from what budget the cost of the flight which Mrs. Regan took from Heathrow to Edinburgh on 9 October was originally met. [28331]

    Mr. Robin Cook
    The ticket for the flight was purchased privately by myself and at no stage was payment made from this Department's budget.

    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 439, to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), concerning overseas visits by Ms Gaynor Regan, if the permission from the Prime Minister was given in writing in each case. [28395]

    Mr. Robin Cook
    The only occasion when I was accompanied on a visit overseas at public expense by my spouse or partner was when Mrs. Margaret Cook went with me to Hong Kong from 27 June to 1 July. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's permission was given in writing on 25 June. Ms Regan has never accompanied me on an overseas trip at public expense.

    European Union
    Mr. Hesford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to provide information to those under 18 years old on the European Union and its institutions. [28375]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    This Department worked with the DfEE on an information and curriculum pack which has been sent to all schools, giving a basic introduction to the EU and its institutions and explaining our plans for
    145
    the UK Presidency. This department is also running a Presidency website, which schools and others can access for further information.

    European Economic Area (Permits)
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the average processing time of applications by non-EEA national family members applying for EEA permits since 1 February 1997. [28300]

    Mr. Fatchett
    Statistics recording average processing times for EEA family permit applications are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many EEA family permits have been granted to non-EEA family nationals since 1 February 1997. [28290]

    Mr. Fatchett
    Between 1 February and 31 December 1997, 9,019 applications for EEA family permits were issued at entry clearance Posts overseas.

    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many non-EEA family member nationals have applied for EEA family permits since 1 February 1997; and how many were refused. [28297]

    Mr. Fatchett
    Between 1 February and 31 December 1997, 9,127 applications for EEA family permits have been received and 105 applications were refused at entry clearance Posts overseas.

    Brazilian Mahogany
    Mr. Alan Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of Brazilian mahogany has been(a) acquired and (b) specified by his Department in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997; and for what purpose. [28378]

    Mr. Fatchett
    No Brazilian mahogany has been(a) acquired or (b) specified by this Department in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997.

    Execution (Texas)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received over the decision of the US state of Texas to execute Karla Tucker. [28572]

    Mr. Fatchett
    This Department received three telephone calls from members of the public on 4 February protesting about the decision of the US State of Texas to execute Karla Tucker. One of these callers also wrote to his MP, who has written to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State about the case.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Britain and Sri Lanka. [28592]

    Mr. Fatchett
    The UK has had a long and close relationship with Sri Lanka. We look forward to maintaining and expanding our links on every level.
    146
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British policy towards the civil conflict in Sri Lanka. [28574]

    Mr. Fatchett
    We believe a lasting solution to this tragic conflict can only be achieved through a political settlement. We have said publicly that we stand ready to help in the resolution of the conflict if both sides ask us to play a role.

    Chagos Archipelago
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the numbers of native Chagossians at present in exile due to the existence on the Chagos Archipelago of a USA military base. [28829]

    Mr. Fatchett
    According to our records approximately 1,200 'Ilois' left the British Indian Ocean Territory for Mauritius, and a 'handful' for the Seychelles, between 1965 and 1973. We do not know how many are still alive.

    Brazilian Rainforest
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to discuss the activities of Malaysian logging companies in the Brazilian rainforest areas with the Malaysian Government. [27094]

    Clare Short
    I have been asked to reply.

    I have taken no such steps. However, as members of the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO), both Malaysia and Brazil are committed to the Year 2000 Objective, which states that all tropical timber entering international trade shall, by the year 2000, come from sustainably managed sources. Both countries have also subscribed to ITTO' s recently revised Action Plan, which, among other things, calls for member countries to estimate the extent of undocumented trade and prepare national codes of conduct for all types of forestry operations.

  SCOTLAND

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the amount of money saved to date by(a) each of the current unitary and island local authorities in Scotland and (b) the former regional, district and island councils in Scotland as a result of compulsory competitive tendering. [23828]

    Mr. Macdonald
    This information has not been collected centrally for Scotland.

    Non-career Civil Servants
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to his Department since 1 May 1997. [25842]

    Mr. Dewar
    The number of casual, fixed-term appointees and Special Advisers appointed to my Department and its Agencies since 1 May 1997 is 870.

    Benefit (False Declarations)
    Mr. Sarwar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons were prosecuted for making a false declaration in respect of benefit in(a) 1986 and (b) 1996. [25643]

    Mr. McLeish
    The available information is set out in the table. Prior to 1989, information held centrally does not separately identify the relevant statutory offences and information for 1996 is not yet available. In addition to prosecutions for the statutory offences listed in the table, some prosecutions under the common law offence of fraud involved an offence of making a false declaration in respect of benefit.

    Persons proceeded against by main offence, Scotland, 1989 and 1995

    Main Offence

    Date of sentence/ acquittal

    1989

    1995

    Social Security Act 1975, Section 146

    78

    1

    Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, Section 21

    240

    0

    Social Security Act 1986, Section 55

    604

    26

    Social Security Administration Act 1992, Section 112

    —

    1,328

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Chisholm
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the research report commissioned by his Department on service provision for women experiencing violence will be published. [26418]

    Mr. McLeish
    [holding answer 30 January 1998]: We hope to publish the report in early March.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the gross cost of setting up mechanisms for the means testing of citizens of other EU member states to assess their eligibility to pay tuition fees. [27715]

    Mr. Wilson
    In Scotland it is not proposed to set up a separate mechanism for the means testing of EU students' eligibility to pay tuition fees. It will be carried out alongside the means testing of tuition fee support for Scottish domiciled students. The additional costs cannot be separately identified, but are minimal.

    Export Market Development
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers, and under which statutory provisions, the Scottish Office has which enable it or its agencies to help firms located in Scotland to develop export markets overseas. [27641]

    Mr. Wilson
    My Department, through Scottish Trade International, a joint organisation between The Scottish Office and Scottish Enterprise, assists the delivery to Scottish-based companies of support from the Government's Overseas Trade Service, funded by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. In addition, Scottish-companies benefit from export advice and assistance from Scottish Enterprise on the basis of 148
    section 1(a) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 and from export advice now funded by my own Department under the Industrial Development Act 1982.

    Local Authority Boundary Review
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to proceed with the boundary review for Scottish local authority elections; and if he will make a statement. [28124]

    Mr. Macdonald
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland (LGBC) are currently reviewing local authority electoral boundaries, as required by legislation. So far, the LGBC have sent the Secretary of State reports for Angus and East Lothian and we are expecting them to send in reports for all other authorities within the next few months. We will consider all these reports and decide whether to implement them as they stand or with modifications.

    Transport Expenditure
    Dr. Brand
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the expenditure by the Exchequer is in the current financial year, expressed in terms of money per estimated passenger mile, on(a) motorways, (b) railways and (c) ferries. [28045]

    Mr. McLeish
    It is not possible to provide the information precisely in the form as requested. The table shows:expenditure by The Scottish Office on motorways and an estimate of expenditure per passenger mile in the current year based on vehicle miles travelled and estimated vehicle occupancy figures.
    the Franchise payment to ScotRail (who operate 96 per cent. of all passenger rail services in Scotland including the Anglo-Scottish Sleeper) and an estimate of expenditure per passenger mile for ScotRail services;
    expenditure by The Scottish Office on ferry services provided by Caledonian MacBrayne Co (Clyde and Hebrides) and P&O Scottish Ferries Ltd (Northern Isles), and estimated cost per passenger mile information. The subsidy provided by The Scottish Office supports, as well as passengers, the carriage of accompanied cars and, in the case of Caledonian Macbrayne, commercial vehicles, buses coaches, livestock and freight also. In producing this estimate, Revenue Deficit Grant, capital grants for vessels, piers and harbours grants, and National Loan Fund repayments have all been taken into account.

    Mode

    1997–98 (estimated outturn £m)

    Estimated cost per passenger mile 1997–98 (£)

    Motorways Railway Ferries

    37.114

    0.012

    Railway

    280.0

    0.11

    Ferries

    32.218

    0.45

    The information on railways concerns only ScotRail. The same information for cross border services operated by Great North Eastern Railway and Virgin Rail cannot be apportioned separately for Scotland.

    Similarly, information on ferries is confined to those directly funded by central government. Some local ferry services are also supported by certain local authorities in Scotland.

    Public Investment
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the levels of public investment in the constituencies of Glasgow(a) Maryhill, (b) Shettleston and (c) Springburn for the last three years for which figures are available, excluding social security payments. [27968]

    Mr. Dewar
    Information on public expenditure is not held at constituency level.

  HEALTH

    Health Authorities Programme
    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of purchasing and maintaining the new Health Authorities Programme and the number of eligible schemes that have yet to have access to the new Health Authorities Programme; and what plans he has to improve the access and efficiency of the new Health Authorities Programme. [27027]

    Mr. Milburn
    The New Health Authorities Programme was created to re-align health authorities' primary care systems, and the data held within them, with their new boundaries created in April 1996. The resultant changes will be implemented between July 1998 and July 1999.

    The total cost of this work programme is £3.85 million, spread across 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. The outcome is a set of one-off changes to meet the requirements of primary legislation, but the software developed will enable any further health authority boundary changes to be implemented more quickly and at less cost.

    Information Management
    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of the measures to improve information management in the NHS announced in the White Paper, the New NHS; when he expects these measures to be fully operational; and if he will estimate how much of the NHS will be covered by these new measures. [27024]

    Mr. Milburn
    The overall cost of the wide range of measures mentioned in the White Paper will depend on the outcome of our Information Management and Technology strategy for the National Health Service. This will provide the necessary planning framework.

    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review on the role of the Information Management Group will report; if he will list the members of the review committee and publish its remit; and if he will make a statement on information management in the NHS. [27022]

    Mr. Milburn
    The review of the Information Management and Technology (IM&T) strategy for the National Health Service is being carried out by Mr. Frank Burns who has been seconded to the NHS Executive for 12 months from his substantive appointment as Chief Executive of the Wirral Hospital NHS Trust.
    150
    Mr. Burns
    started his review in June 1997 under the auspices of the NHS Executive Board and its IM&T Policy Sub-Committee. His review is based on extensive and direct personal consultation with all the major NHS and public 'stakeholders'.

    We expect to receive his report within the next 2 months.

    Administrative Register
    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of purchasing and maintaining the Administrative Register and the number of eligible schemes that have yet to have access to the Administrative Register; and what plans he has to improve the access to and efficiency of the NHS Clearing Service. [27025]

    Mr. Milburn
    National Health Service Administrative Register functions will be offered to NHS organisations through the NHS Strategic Tracing Service. The purpose of the tracing service is to enable any NHS organisation, within agreed access and security protocols, to determine a patient's NHS number and other related administrative data.

    The tracing service is currently the subject of a public and private partnership procurement, with the expectation that a contract will be awarded early in the next financial year. It is not possible to publish the costs of using the tracing service, and its integral administrative register functions, until the procurement process is complete. The tracing service will bring to fruition the successful pilot operation of the NHS administrative register throughout the NHS in Wales.

    The Department is working closely with NHS trusts to ensure that they all submit complete, timely and accurate data to the NHS Clearing Service, and that full use is made of electronic transfer of data via the NHS-wide network, NHSnet.

    Exeter System
    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of purchasing and maintaining the Exeter system and the number of eligible schemes that have yet to have access to the system; and if he will give details of future plans he has to improve access to and the efficiency of the system. [27026]

    Mr. Milburn
    The Exeter System is supported by the Family Health Systems (FHS) organisation, which is part of the National Health Service Executive. The cost of maintaining and supporting the system for all health authorities in England and Wales was £5.8 million for 1997–98. Development costs vary annually according to business requirements stemming from legislative and policy changes.

    We will be considering the longer term future of the Exeter System in the context of the changes set out in "The New NHS, Modern and Dependable" White Paper.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much additional Government money is available to Shropshire Health Authority for establishing extra NHS dentists. [27154]
    151
    Mr. Milburn
    We have made £9 million available to health authorities in England for Investing in Dentistry schemes in 1997–98 and a further £10 million for 1998–99. This is not apportioned to health authorities, but will be spent according to need as proposals are received and considered. Shropshire Health Authority has submitted eight Investing in Dentistry proposals, of which one has so far been approved at a cost of £45,000.

    Meningitis
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of meningitis have been reported in the Northumberland Health Authority area since 1991. [28208]

    Mr. Milburn
    The cases of meningitis reported in the Northumberland Health Authority area since 1991 are as follows:

    All Meningitis

    1991

    11

    1992

    25

    1993

    8

    1994

    8

    1995

    19

    Source:

    Public Health Laboratory Service.

    Ambulance Service (Northumberland)
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by the Northumberland Ambulance Service in each year since 1991. [28210]

    Mr. Milburn

    National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services: all staff directly employed by Northumbria Ambulance Service as at 30 September for each year

    Whole-time equivalent

    1991

    680

    1992

    700

    1993

    680

    1994

    730

    1995

    750

    1996

    730

    Note:

    Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

    Source:

    Department of Health non-medical workforce census.

    Registered Mental Health Nurses
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered mental nurses were employed by Northumberland Health Authority in each year since 1994; and what was the percentage change in each year. [28211]

    Mr. Milburn
    It is not possible separately to identify registered mental health nurses from other qualified nurses working in the mental health area of work in the Department of Health's annual non-medical workforce census. The figures for all qualified nurses working in the mental health area of work are in the table.
    152

    National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services qualified nurses working in the mental health area of work employed by Northumberland Health Authority as at 30 September 1996.

    Year

    Whole-time equivalents

    1994

    270

    1995

    290

    1996

    270

    Percentage change

    1994–95

    1—

    1995–96

    -6.3

    1 Not applicable.

    1. Whole-time equivalents are rounded to the nearest ten; per cent. changes were calculated using unrounded figures.

    2. Due to the introduction of new occupation codes in 1995, figures for 1995 and 1996 are not directly comparable with earlier years.

    Source:

    Department of Health annual non-medical workforce census.

    Beta Interferon
    Mr. Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the district health authorities which provide to NHS trusts earmarked funding for the prescription of the drug Beta Interferon; and if he will make a statement; [28021]

    (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effectiveness of Beta Interferon in the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis; and if he will increase the resources available to district health authorities to fund the provision of Beta Interferon to patients with multiple sclerosis; [28020]

    (3) how many patients with multiple sclerosis in each district health authority he estimates might benefit from the provision of Beta Interferon. [28019]

    Mr. Milburn
    Details of all the health authorities which have earmarked funding for National Health Service trusts for the treatment of multiple sclerosis patients with Beta Interferon are not available. Health authorities determine their own priorities with regard to funding particular treatments, including whether to ring-fence resources for prescribing particular treatments. The Department does not usually allocate funding to health authorities for specific drug treatments, but allocates funding according to a formula calculated to meet expected patient need in each health authority.

    As part of the Department's health technology assessment programme, an evaluation and pharmaco-economic analysis project is being undertaken on Beta Interferon. It is not possible to estimate at this stage how many patients might benefit from treatment with the drug.

    NHS Anniversary
    Sir Richard Body
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the charge upon public funds that will be made to mark the 50th year of the National Health Service. [28608]

    Mr. Milburn
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 19 December 1997,Official Report, columns 389–90.

    Public Health
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 5 February 1998,Official Report, columns 1229–30, if he will list, for each of the target headings listed in the Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", the target reduction in mortality, expressed as a percentage, contained within the Green Paper and the corresponding target or targets, where sub-headings are applicable, for those headings within the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation". [28852]

    Ms Jowell
    Although there are similarities between the priority areas covered in "Our Healthier Nation" and the old key areas in "The Health of the Nation", the targets differ because they cover different time periods, different combinations of diseases, different age groups (for cancers) and, in the case of accidents, a morbidity measure rather than one for mortality. "Our Healthier Nation" focuses on health outcome measures, while "The Health of the Nation" targets contained a mixture of outcomes and determinants.

    Circulatory diseases

    Our Healthier Nation target proposed:
    To reduce the death rate from heart disease and stroke and related diseases (i.e all circulatory diseases combined) among people aged under 65 by at least one third (33 per cent.) by the year 2010 from a baseline at 1996.

    Related Health of the Nation targets:
    To reduce the death rate from coronary heart disease among people aged under 65 by at least 40 per cent. by the year 2000 from a baseline at 1990.
    To reduce the death rate from stroke among people aged under 65 by at least 40 per cent. by the year 2000 from a baseline at 1990.

    Cancers

    Our Healthier Nation target proposed:
    To reduce the death rate from all cancers combined among people aged under 65 by at least one fifth (20 per cent.) by the year 2010 from a baseline at 1996.

    Related Health of the Nation targets:
    To reduce the death rate from breast cancer in the population invited for screening (measured using females aged 50–69) by at least 25 per cent. by the year 2000 from a baseline at 1990.
    To reduce the death rate from lung cancer by at least 30 per cent. in men aged under 75 by 2010 from a baseline at 1990.
    To reduce the death rate from lung cancer by at least 15 per cent. in women aged under 75 by 2010 from a baseline at 1990.

    Suicide and undetermined injury

    Our Healthier Nation target proposed:
    To reduce the rate of suicide and undetermined injury deaths for all ages by at least one sixth (17 per cent.) by the year 2010 from a baseline at 1996.

    Related Health of the Nation target:
    To reduce the rate of suicide and undetermined injury deaths for all ages by at least 15 per cent. by the year 2000 from a baseline at 1990.

    Accidents

    Our Healthier Nation target proposed:
    To reduce the rate of occurrence of "major" accidents (defined as those accidents requiring medical attention at a hospital or by a family doctor) for all people aged 2 and above by at least one fifth (20 per cent.) by the year 2010 from a baseline at 1996.

    The Health of the Nation targets on accidents were in terms of mortality, not morbidity, and so no direct comparisons are possible.
    154
    In each case, the baseline "at 1996" means the three year average mortality rate (adjusted to account for differences in the age structure of the population) for the years 1995/96/97, and the Health of the Nation baselines "at 1990" were the three year average mortality rates for the years 1989/90/91.

    Turnberg Report
    Mr. Maples
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Turnberg Report, which he published on Tuesday 3 February, was exactly the same as the text of the report originally submitted to him in November by Professor Turnberg. [28674]

    Mr. Milburn
    Yes. The Turnberg Report was submitted to Ministers on 18 November 1997. It was published in its original form, subject to minor typographical amendments.

  WALES

    Nurses
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified nurses are employed in(a) trusts and (b) private health establishments. [27271]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    At 30 June 1997, there were approximately 16,900 whole-time equivalent qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors directly employed by NHS Trusts in Wales. The latest detailed information provided by private health establishments indicated that there were about 2,700 whole-time equivalent qualified nurses at 31 March 1995, although it is believed that this may be an under-estimate.

    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to improve the morale of nurses. [27270]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    I hope that nurses will have been heartened by the steps the Government have taken to cut back on unnecessary bureaucracy, by the ending of divisive local pay for staff on national contracts, by our search for a better, more robust approach to NHS pay in the longer term, and by the publication of our White Paper "Putting Patients First". This sets out plans for replacing the wasteful internal market, and includes commitments to involve community nurses more in organising health services for their patients and to develop a Strategic Framework for Nursing and a new Human Resources Strategy.

    I am glad that we have been able to accept the recommendations of the independent Nurses' Pay Review Body for a rise of 3.8 per cent., the highest for six years. Nurses stand to receive 2 per cent. from 1 April, rising to 3.8 per cent. from 1 December.

    By staging the increase, we can meet pay costs within the resources available to the NHS without prejudicing the planned level of service delivery.

    NHS Internal Market
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money he estimates will be saved in Wales by the abolition of the internal market in the NHS; and how much of this sum will be spent on building community hospitals in Wales. [27147]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Together with the proposed reconfiguration of NHS trusts in Wales, the abolition of the NHS internal market will create estimated savings of up to £50 million over the lifetime of the current Parliament. These savings will be reinvested in frontline patient care, including services in community hospitals where appropriate. Individual capital projects are judged on their own merits and against the framework of commissioning authorities; strategic plans. Generally, capital schemes will be developed through the Private Finance Initiative.

    New Deal (Older Unemployed People)
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what skills training older unemployed people entering the New Deal will receive; and if he will make statement. [27647]

    Mr. Hain
    From June, people aged 25 and over who have been unemployed for two years or more will be able to train towards an approved, employment-related qualification for up to a year while remaining on Jobseeker's Allowance.

    In addition, an employer subsidy of £75 a week for up to six months will be made available to people from this group. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently announced his intention to pilot measures by which employers facing skills shortages will be able to receive up to 75 per cent. of this subsidy as an up-front payment towards training costs.

    Both of these measures are designed to work in tandem with existing ES and TEC provision.

    We announced on 5 January our intention to invest more money from the windfall levy to enable us to develop Gateway opportunities for the older unemployed who have been out of work for a year or 18 months. Variants of the New Deal approach will be introduced through pilots, trying proposals out in selected areas.

    Diabetes
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people currently suffering from diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [27650]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    A health survey of adults was carried out in Wales during 1995 and one of the questions asked was 'Are you being treated for diabetes?'. The results showed that diabetes was reported by 3.2 per cent. of the adult population. Respondents were also asked if any children, under the age of 18 years, in their household were being treated for diabetes and the responses suggested that this was the case for approximately 0.3 per cent. of children.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many apprenticeships he estimates the New Deal will provide in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [27646]

    Mr. Hain
    It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the number of apprenticeships that will be made available under the New Deal over the period of its implementation. Some young people will access to apprenticeship-type training as part of the New Deal employment option and others will progress onto apprenticeships when completing their period on the New Deal. All young people will have access to quality training to improve their skills and employment prospects.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what powers the Welsh Development Agency has to assist companies in Wales to develop export markets; and if he will make a statement. [27478]

    Mr. Hain
    Section 1 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 provides the necessary statutory powers for the activities of the Agency. The Agency has a number of initiatives and schemes which assist companies in Wales to develop overseas business opportunities. I will arrange for the Chief Executive of the Agency to write to the right hon. Member with details of these initiatives and schemes. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

    North-South Road Links
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to upgrade north-south road communications within Wales; what plans are being developed to accelerate such a programme following the establishment of the national assembly; and if plans to upgrade north-south road communications will be material to his decision on the location of the national assembly's permanent home. [27642]

    Mr. Hain
    The extent to which improvements are needed to the road network between north and south Wales was one of the main issues raised for consideration in the recent consultation exercise on the review of the Welsh trunk road programme. The review process is still at an early stage and it is not possible to say when we will be able to give any indications as to the size, composition and overall strategy of the future trunk road programme. Given this, it would not be appropriate to draw any connection between an, as yet, undetermined strategy for the trunk road network in Wales and the current debate on the location of the National Assembly.

    Crickhowell House
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much rent his Department currently receives from Crickhowell House in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement. [27481]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    My department receives no rent from Crickhowell House. The Welsh Office is the leaseholder of the property which is occupied by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority who are responsible for the payment of rent to the landlord, Grosvenor Waterside Ltd.

    Teachers
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers in each local education authority in Wales have had their employment terminated during the past year. [28011]

    Mr. Hain
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Casualty Units
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to reduce the waiting times in casualty units in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [27970]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Latest available information to the end of September 1997 shows that 94 per cent. of patients at Accident & Emergency departments were assessed within 10 minutes of arrival; 95 per cent. of patients were admitted into the main hospital within 2 hours of the decision to admit; and 95 per cent. of patients received treatment within 4 hours.

    Further improvements to this performance will be considered during the development of a new NHS Charter for Wales which is currently the subject of consultation in the NHS in Wales.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the impact of the changes in the distribution formula for the Welsh Office's funding of local government in Wales from the poorest unitary authorities, with particular reference to social deprivation and council tax income; and what further consideration he is giving to this matter. [27997]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    My hon. Friend has received 27 representations. He and the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) accepted the recommendations of the joint review group instigated at the request of the WLGA, following an eighteen month examination of the issues that drive the need for local authority expenditure on services. Acceptance was conditional upon the commissioning of a joint independent review of the concept of local authority spending need in readiness for the National Assembly for Wales. The review will be commissioned shortly.

    Learning Difficulties
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with learning difficulties will have places in the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [27645]

    Mr. Hain
    It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the number of people with learning difficulties who will benefit from the New Deal over the period of its implementation. All young people who are eligible, or who become so, will be offered opportunities to participate in a job, training or useful work experience.

    Young people who have special needs, including those with reading, writing and numeracy problems, will be able to join the New Deal early (ie they will not have to be
    158
    unemployed for 6 months). They will have access to the help they need to improve their skills and employment prospects.

    Teacher Training Students
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students are currently in teacher training; and how many of them are men. [27644]

    Mr. Hain
    The latest available figures for the number of students on courses of Initial Teacher Training at higher education institutions in Wales relate to the academic year 1996/97. There were 6,022 students on courses of initial teacher training as at 1 December 1996, of whom 1,581 were male.

    National Assembly for Wales
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evidence he has assessed on the campaigning activities of senior civil servants for the location of the National Assembly. [28312]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    I have not asked Welsh Office officials to campaign for any particular location for the National Assembly for Wales, and I have no evidence of them doing so.

    Household Population Growth
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the predicted total growth in the all-Wales private household population over the period 1998 to 2016(a) as a percentage and (b) as a numerical value. [28143]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    It is estimated from the 1994 based household projection that the total private household population in Wales will rise from 2,889,000 in 1998 to 2,913,000 in 2016. This represents a growth of(a) 0.8 per cent. (b) 24,000 compared with 1998. Details of the method used in the projection and notes on the reliability of the estimates can be found in 1994 Based Household Projections for Wales, a copy of which is in the Library.

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the projected annual private household numbers for the county of Monmouthshire each year from 1994 to 2019–20. [28147]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Household estimates from the 1994 based household projection for the county of Monmouthshire for each year from 1994 to 2016, the last year of projection, are shown in the following table. Details of the method used in the projection and notes on the reliability of the estimates can be found in 1994 Based Household Projections for Wales, a copy of which is in the Library.

    Projected households for county of Monmouthshire

    Year1

    Number

    1994

    33,400

    1995

    34,000

    1996

    34,500

    1997

    35,500

    1998

    35,500

    1999

    36,100

    2000

    36,600

    2001

    37,100

    2002

    37,600

    159

    Projected households for county of Monmouthshire

    Year1

    Number

    2003

    38,100

    2004

    38,600

    2005

    39,200

    2006

    39,700

    2007

    40,200

    2008

    40,700

    2009

    41,200

    2010

    41,700

    2011

    42,200

    2012

    42,600

    2013

    43,100

    2014

    43,600

    2015

    44,000

    2016

    44,400

    1 At 30 June each year.

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the predicted total growth in the private household population in Monmouthshire over the period 1998 to 2016(a) as a percentage and (b) as a numerical value. [28146]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    It is estimated from the 1994 based household projection that the total private household population in Monmouthshire will rise from 85,800 in 1998 to 97,700 in 2016. This represents a growth of(a) 13.8 per cent., (b) 11,900 compared with 1998. Details of the method used in the projection and notes on the reliability of the estimates can be found in 1994 Based Household Projections for Wales, a copy of which is in the Library.

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the projected annual net migration rates into Wales for the private household population for each of the years 1990–91 to 2019–20. [28144]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    The available estimates from the Office for National Statistics' mid-year estimates and the Government Actuary's Department's 1996-based population projections relate to all civilian migration, not just private households. The figures are shown in the following table:

    Estimated net civilian migration into Wales1

    Year

    Net inward migrants

    1991

    9,000

    1992

    1,800

    1993

    2,200

    1994

    3,800

    1995

    3,500

    1996

    5,700

    1997

    7,000

    1998

    6,000

    1999

    5,500

    2000

    5,500

    2001

    5,500

    2002

    5,500

    2003

    5,500

    2004

    5,500

    2005

    5,500

    2006

    5,500

    2007

    5,500

    2008

    5,500

    2009

    5,500

    2010

    5,500

    2011

    5,500

    2012

    5,500

    2013

    5,500

    160

    Estimated net civilian migration into Wales1

    Year

    Net inward migrants

    2014

    5,500

    2015

    5,500

    2016

    5,500

    2017

    5,500

    2018

    5,500

    2019

    5,500

    2020

    5,500

    1 In 12 months to 30 June each year.

    Sources

    1990–91 to 1995–96: Office for National Statistics' mid year estimates.

    1996–97 to 2019–20: Government Actuary's Department's 1996-based national population projections.

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what circumstances a unitary authority would be permitted to provide for substantially less new housing than is predicted in the Welsh Office household apportionment. [28145]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    The Welsh Office's 1994 Based Household Projections for Wales are essentially trend based and do not make allowances for the effects of local or central government policies. They should be used as a base for policy projections.

    Where a local planning authority's policy based provisions differ from these projections the differences should be fully justified in the development plan. The Secretary of State will consider intervening where the justification for the development plan figures is either unsound or unacceptable.

    Public Opinion Research
    Mr. Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts for public opinion research his Department has awarded since 1 May; if he will indicate the(a) purpose, (b) cost, (c) value and (d) duration of each contract; and which companies (i) bid for and (ii) were awarded each contract. [28880]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    The following contracts for public opinion research have been awarded by my Department since 1 May 1998:

    Business and Environment Campaign—Phase 2: Telemarketing Exercise
    Purpose: Telemarketing research exercise to around 3,000 decision makers within Welsh SMEs to gauge their awareness of the Department's Business and Environment Campaign.

    Cost: £18,071 plus VAT

    Value: £18,071 plus VAT

    Duration: 5 February to 20 March 1998

    Two companies submitted formal bids for the contract—Golley Slater Telephone Marketing Ltd. and Pell and Bales Ltd. The contract was awarded to Golley Slater Telephone Marketing Ltd.

    Contracts Awarded by Central Office of Information on Behalf of the Welsh Office
    Understanding Devolution
    Purpose: To inform development of the "Voice for Wales" white paper

    Cost: £12,986 including VAT

    Value: £12,986 including VAT

    Duration: July 1997

    161
    The project was not competitively tendered as the timetable did not allow it. The project was awarded directly to Andrew Irving Associates because of their established record of researching in Wales and evidence of adequate recruitment resources.

    Devolution Campaign Evaluation

    Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Welsh Office's campaign to promote the referendum

    Cost: £23,148 including VAT

    Value: £23,148 including VAT

    Duration: August 1997

    The project was not competitively tendered because there was insufficient time. The contract was awarded to Beaufort Research, the only contractor offering an omnibus service within Wales.

    Both these contracts were one off projects, completed within 4–6 weeks of commissioning. The costs shown include management time.

    Ministerial Travel
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the engagements he undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of his duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e) other means. [28941]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    I undertook the following engagements, outside the Office, during January:

    2 Business Dinners in Cardiff.

    1 Business Lunch in Cardiff.

    Meeting with European Commissioners at Lancaster House, London.

    Presentation at Hydro Aluminium Alupres at Bedwas, Caerphilly.

    Economic Social Committee Dinner at Cardiff Castle.

    Dinner with Transport and General Workers Union (Wales) at House of Commons.

    1 Business Lunch in London.

    Official opening of Hydro Power at Elan Valley, Powys.

    Visit to Red Kite Centre and Farmtrail at Gigrim Farm, Powys.

    Opening of Golwg Magazine Offices, Lampeter.

    On each occasion I travelled by official car.

    I frequently use the train to travel between Gwydyr House in London and the Welsh Office in Cardiff.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Public Opinion Research
    Mr. Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many contracts for public opinion research her Department has awarded since 1 May; if she will indicate the(a) purpose, (b) cost, (c) value and (d) duration of each contract; and which companies (i) bid for and (ii) were awarded each contract. [28873]

    Clare Short
    The Department engaged Opinion Leader Research Ltd. to carry out public opinion research in the autumn. The purpose was to test public attitudes towards and awareness of what the Department is doing and what 162
    we are trying to achieve. It repeated a similar exercise undertaken under the previous Administration. There was no Ministerial involvement in the design or awarding of the contract.

    No other bids for this work were invited. The work was carried out over a period of a few weeks at a cost of around £43,000.

    A summary document of the research has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Papua New Guinea
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has provided to Papua New Guinea to relieve the effects of the drought and prevent starvation; and if she will make a statement. [28610]

    Clare Short
    We have contributed over £400,000 to assist those affected by the drought. These funds have been channelled through Non-Government Organisations such as World Vision UK, Christian Aid, UK Foundation for the South Pacific and the Salvation Army and have concentrated mainly on the provision of food and water. We will continue to monitor the situation closely through our High Commission in Port Moresby and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Geneva.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Ministerial Meetings
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers' meetings Ministers have attended since 1 May. [22646]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    I and my Ministerial team have attended a total of 76 farmers' meetings since 1 May.

    Beef Imports
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what quantity of beef imports into the United Kingdom was physically examined for compliance with the SRM ban and the OTMS requirements in the period 1 to 16 January; what were the countries of origin of the inspected meat; which organisations undertook each of these checks; and if he will publish the results of these examinations; [25460]

    (2) how many individual shipments of beef to the United Kingdom there were in the period 1 to 16 January; how many such shipments received only a documentary examination; what the countries of origin of these shipments were; and if he will publish the results of these examinations; [25461]

    (3) what quantities of beef were imported into the United Kingdom in the period 1 to 16 January; from which country they came; and what were the quantities in the same period in 1997; [25459]

    (4) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 495, how he is notified about checks made on beef imports into the United Kingdom; [25500]
    163
    (5) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 495, what information he collates to ascertain that checks are being made to ensure that beef coming into the United Kingdom complies with the (a) SRM and (b) OTMS requirements and is microbiologically safe; and for what reason his Department keeps no central records of the number and results of checks made on beef imports into the United Kingdom; [25498]

    (6) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 495, where the records of its checks made on beef imports into the United Kingdom are held; [25499]

    (7) if he will list the points of entry to the United Kingdom where checks have been carried out since 1 January to ensure that beef coming into the United Kingdom complies with the (a) SRM ban and (b) OTMS requirements; [25501]

    (8) what physical checks are made on beef coming into the United Kingdom to establish that it is not over 30 months old and meets the SRM requirements; [25504]

    (9) how many consignments of beef have been rejected on the grounds that they did not comply with the (a) OTMS Scheme and (b) SRM ban since 1 January; [25502]

    (10) for what reasons the proposal to lift the beef ban in Northern Ireland has been based upon beef off the bone. [28533]

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the inspection of imported beef. [26688]

    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) of 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 98, how many random checks were carried out on consignments of beef imported to the United Kingdom from EU and non-EU countries on each day since 1 January 1998 at ports in (a) England, (b)Scotland, (c)Wales and (d)Northern Ireland; and how many consignments failed to meet the Government's unilateral controls in relation to specified risk material. [26862]

    Mr. Walter
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of beef imported from other European Union member states were inspected between 1 and 22 January to ensure that they did not contain specified risk materials and that their import certification was accurate, and in accordance with the Specified Risk Material Order 1997. [27003]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answers 26 and 27 January 1998]: Official Overseas Trade Statistics on the quantities and country of origin of beef imported into the United Kingdom are available only for complete calendar months. Statistics for January 1998 are not yet available. Official Overseas Trade Statistics for January 1997 are set out in the table.

    All consignments of animal products imported directly into the United Kingdom from outside the European Union (EU) are subject to documentary checks at designated Border Inspection Posts (BIPs), including checks on the certification relating to specified risk
    164
    materials. Some consignments are also subject to physical checks, the levels of which are laid down in Community law. Most Border Inspection Posts are operated by local authorities. At those which are not, checks are carried out by the State Veterinary Service.

    Single Market rules permit only random spot-checks at destination on animal products traded within the Community. Consistent with those rules, a daily sample of randomly selected consignments from EU member states are subject to documentary checks by Ministry officials for conformity with the new unilateral controls relating to specified risk material.

    Data on the number, type and results of veterinary checks on beef consignments at Border Inspection Posts, and on the number and outcome of the random documentary spot-checks on beef consignments arriving from or via other EU Member States, are being collated on a monthly basis from 1 January 1998, the date when the Specified Risk Materials Order came into force. No data are available yet. They will be published in the Department's BSE Enforcement Bulletin which is place in the Library of the House.

    There are no resrictions on the import of beef from animals over 30 months of age. The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No.2) Regulations 1996 prohibit the sale for human consumption of all meat derived from bovine animals which at the time of slaughter were more than 30 months old. This measure applies to all bovines slaughtered on or after 29 March 1996, whether in the UK or overseas, other than those born, reared and slaughtered in those third countries specifically excluded by the Regulations and UK animals from the Beef Assurance Scheme.

    UK imports of fresh beef and beef offal: January 1997

    Tonnes

    European Community

    Irish Republic

    4,896

    Netherlands

    1,325

    France

    608

    Germany

    596

    Spain

    149

    Belgium-Luxembourg

    105

    Other

    87

    Total EC Imports

    7,764

    Non-European Community

    Uruguay

    954

    Australia

    518

    Argentina

    720

    Zimbabwe

    341

    Brazil

    218

    USA

    172

    Namibia

    161

    New Zealand

    245

    Other

    22

    Total Non-EC Imports

    3,352

    Total Imports

    11,116

    Notes:

    All data are provisional and subject to amendment.

    The above data include an estimate of below threshold exclude an estimate for non-response.

    Source:

    Business and Trade Statistics Limited

    Ministerial Engagements
    Mr.Öpik
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his official engagements during the period of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council of Ministers. [26935]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    My diary for the duration of the Presidency is, of necessity, incomplete and provisional. It would serve no purpose to provide details of meetings which might or might not take place.

    Small Holdings
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to give direct financial aid to farmers of small holdings; and if he will make a statement. [26994]

    Mr. Morley
    None. It is not our policy to discriminate between farms on the basis of size of holding.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Forth
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [26922]

    Mr. Morley
    Since 1 May 1997 there have been no resignations. One member of the Senior Civil Service in the Department retired before pensionable age; he had responsibilities to my noble Friend the Minister responsible for Farming and the Food Industry, Lord Donoughue, and myself. No senior staff have changed responsibility.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when before Easter farmers will receive their HLCA and enhanced suckler cow payments. [25675]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 28 January 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on 3 February 1998,Official Report, columns 591–92.

    Ritual Slaughter
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were killed for ritual slaughter in the United Kingdom during 1997. [26052]

    Mr. Morley
    Information is not held separately on the numbers of animals killed without prior stunning by the Jewish or Muslim methods.

    Farming Co-operatives
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of the provisions of the Competition Bill [Lords] on farming co-operatives. [26000]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 28 January 1998]: An amendment has been tabled by my noble Friend, Lord Simon of Highbury, for discussion at Lords Report Stage
    166
    on 9 February which would provide an exclusion from the Chapter I prohibition under the Bill for this type of co-operative along the lines of EC Regulation 26/62.

    Calshot Oyster Fisheries
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department received the second application from Calshot Oyster Fishermen Ltd for extension of the Calshot Oyster Fishery Order submitted on 7 September 1996; and when his Department authorised newspaper advertising of it. [27377]

    Mr. Morley
    The application was received by the Department on 11 September 1996. Following preparation of the draft Order and map and consultation with interested parties, including other public bodies, my officials wrote to Calshot Oyster Fishermen Ltd. on 6 June 1997 requesting that it should be advertised.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlay his Department's decision to remove a discretionary area from the Variation Order for the Calshot Oyster Fisheries notified to Calshot Oyster Fisherman Ltd on 16 December 1994; and what representations he received in support of the removal. [27361]

    Mr. Morley
    The Department of Transport and the Deputy Harbour Master, Associated British Ports in Southampton, advised that the Calshot Oyster Fishery should not be extended into the Thorn Channel, a narrow navigation channel for large vessels entering the port of Southampton, because of the risk of small fishing boats interfering with safe navigation.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what correspondence his Department has had with objectors to the extension of the Calshot Oyster Fisheries since 1 June; what was the nature of the correspondence; what are the bases for the objections; and if he will make the correspondence available to the Calshot Oyster Fishermen Ltd. [27388]

    Mr. Morley
    The objections to the proposed Calshot Oyster Fishery (Variation) Order are primarily concerned with the potential loss of earnings, although there were also objections on the grounds that it would make enforcement more difficult and also to the principle of such fishery Orders.

    My officials wrote to the 7 objectors requesting further information. Three replies were received, one of which was considered irrelevant. The two other letters contained a more exact figure of the potential loss of earnings as a result of the extension of the fishery. The author of one of these letters expressed the wish for it to be kept confidential whilst the other letter will be made available to Calshot Oyster Fishermen Ltd.

    Food Safety
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what statutory authority any food found in a food retailer's premises is deemed intended for human consumption. [27335]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Section 3 (3) of the Food Safety Act 1990.

    Pear Producers (CCC)
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the chemical CCC cannot be used by United Kingdom pear producers; and what investigations he is conducting in this matter. [27343]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The use of CCC (or chlormequat) on pears is not approved in the United Kingdom. An application for approval of this use was made on behalf of UK growers, but this was rejected in October 1995 because sufficient safety data was not provided.

    Retail samples of pears were collected in 1997 as part of the annual surveillance programme for pesticide residues. These samples are being analysed for CCC and other pesticide residues and the results will be published later this year.

    Beef on the Bone
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish the advice given to him by local environmental health officers about their assessment of the enforceability of the ban on beef on the bone; [27339]

    (2) how many representations he has received from local environmental health officers concerning the enforceability of the ban on beef on the bone. [27338]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Since the Regulations came into effect, I have received one letter from a local authority environmental health department about their assessment of the enforceability of the ban on beef on the bone. This was a notification that the authority's Environment Sub-Committee felt the Regulations would prove difficult to enforce effectively, and a request for guidance on enforcement. In addition, officials of my Department have responded freely to telephone requests for advice received from individual environmental health officers. They have also discussed the Regulations and their enforcement with representatives of local authority organisations, including the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his advice on the interpretation and operation of his Beef on the Bone Order. [27333]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Initial guidance on the interpretation and operation of the proposed ban on bone-in beef was published on the Department's Internet site on 3 December 1997, and subsequently updated a number of times during that month. A further update is now being prepared. Advice has also been given to individual telephone callers on the proposed ban and subsequently on the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 following their coming into effect on 16 December 1997. Draft guidance to local authorities on the interpretation and operation of the Regulations was circulated to local authority representative bodies, including the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, on 12 January 1998 and discussed at a meeting between their representatives and my officials on 16 January. A revised version was circulated on 28 January for final comment and was issued to all local authorities today. I
    168
    have arranged for a copy to be sent to the right hon. Member. A copy has also been placed in the Library of the House and on the Department's Internet site.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice or information he has received from Mr. Simon Williams about his assessment of the enforceability of the ban on beef on the bone. [27337]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: None.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement listing the ways in which, as a result of the beef deboning process, dorsal root ganglia could enter the food chain. [27342]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Dorsal root ganglia lie close to the bones of the vertebral column, which is required to be removed under the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 and disposed of in accordance with the Animal By Products Order 1992. The Regulations require that deboning of bone-in beef at food premises is carried out in a hygienic manner, in particular so as to avoid the risk of contamination of any food or ingredient.

    Certified Herd Scheme
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the proposal for an export certified herd scheme in Northern Ireland did not include a measure to allow beef on the bone to be exported from herds with no record of BSE. [27341]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The decision to propose the deboning of all beef exports under the Export Certified Herds Scheme follows a recommendation from the European Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee.

    Lost and Stolen Items
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those items valued at more than £25 stolen or lost from his Department since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [27773]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The items valued at £25 or more that have been reported stolen or lost from the Department since 1 May 1997 are as detailed:

    Number

    Description

    Amount (£)

    1

    Theft of mobile phone and one tone pad

    350.00

    2

    Loss of pocket memo and four calculators

    122.31

    3

    80 cage traps stolen or damaged beyond repair

    2,800.00

    4

    Theft of video camcorder and polaroid camera

    1,300.00

    5

    Theft of Siemens Nixdorf Laptop PC

    2,893.40

    Total

    7,465.71

    Theft and Fraud
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department,

    169
    (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 to date. [27772]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The hon. Member will wish to know that the cost of theft and fraud to the Department and its Agencies was as follows:

    Financial year

    Number of cases

    Value£

    Amount recovered £

    1995–96

    28

    115,891.00

    26,025.00

    1996–97

    17

    29,735.00

    2,500.00

    Analysis of 1995–96 shows that 22 cases relate to theft or attempted theft of Departmental assets by persons unknown. 6 cases relate to false claims or thefts by the Department's staff. The value of these cases was approximately £12,800 of which £2,000 has been recovered. For 1996–97, only 2 cases involved the Department's staff; the total loss was £585, of which £560 was recovered.

    Figures have not yet been collated for 1997–98. The Department's non-departmental public bodies have a duty to report any cases of fraud to the Department, but none have been reported.

    Fisheries Council
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 493, in what areas he judged it necessary to invoke the Hague Preference on stocks at the last Fisheries Council; in which areas it could have been invoked and was not held to be necessary; and if he will press for an extension of the Hague Preference to other areas of the United Kingdom. [27532]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: At the December 1997 Fisheries Council, the UK invoked Hague Preference in respect of stocks of West of Scotland saithe and whiting, North Sea whiting and Irish Sea cod and whiting. This was the first occasion that Hague Preference had been invoked for North Sea whiting.

    In view of the Council's decision to maintain national quotas for West of Scotland herring at levels agreed in previous years, the UK did not invoke Hague Preference for this stock and, in line with longstanding practice, the UK did not invoke it for North Sea mackerel; nor did we invoke Hague Preference in respect of North Sea sprat or Norway pout for which the Council allocated the full total allowable catches to Member States for the first time.

    Hague Preference may be invoked only for certain stocks of importance to fisheries dependent communities in Ireland and the northern parts of the UK. Its use is opposed by some other Member States and I do not see any prospect of Member States with fisheries dependent areas which do not benefit from Hague Preference agreeing to its being made available for other stocks and other areas of the United Kingdom.

    Fisheries
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the anticipated additional tonnage of(a) cod, (b) plaice, (c) saithe and (d) whiting that will be discarded from British-registered fishing vessels as a result of (i) recent changes in enforcement measures and (ii) the proposed restrictions on the landing of black fish. [28123]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: From 1 January this year it has been a requirement of UK fishing vessel licences such that any fish subject to quota which are retained on board should not subsequently be discarded. This, and other enforcement measures, which are currently being considered and about which the fishing industry will be consulted, should not result in additional fish being discarded at sea.

    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the effort limitation controls applied to pelagic fisheries in EU member states. [28047]

    Mr. Morley
    Council Decision 97/413/EC which set objective and detailed rules for the fourth series of fisheries Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes (MAGP IV) required Member States to submit fishing effort limitation programmes to the European Commission by 30 June 1997 as a basis for the formal adoption of individual national programmes by 30 November 1997. The European Commission announced on 17 December 1997 that it had duly adopted these programmes, but the resulting Decisions have still to be published in the Official Journal. Details of the expected United Kingdom Decision were given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 494.

    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the resources dedicated by each EU member state to enforce the effort limitation controls for pelagic fisheries. [28048]

    Mr. Morley
    A summary of the resources dedicated by each Member State to the monitoring, surveillance and control of fishing activities is contained in a European Commission report to the Fisheries Council under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93. The latest such report (Com(97)226 final) covers 1995 and a copy is in the Library of the House. A report on 1996 is expected shortly. It is the responsibility of the individual Member States concerned to determine how their resources should be deployed to ensure compliance with EU controls, including new effort limits for pelagic fisheries under MAGP IV.

    Relative Stability Principle
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of his Department's policy regarding the application of relative stability(a) up to the end of and (b) beyond 2002. [28119]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) on 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 301.
    171
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the principle of relative stability. [28122]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: The Government support the principle of relative stability under the Common Fisheries Policy.

    Horticulture
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the(a) strengths and (b) weaknesses of the United Kingdom horticulture industry; and if he will make a statement. [28540]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: British growers have well developed production and marketing skills, and a system of traceability and product assurance, which makes them second to none in the European market place. There are still too many

    £ million

    Fresh fruit (apples, cherries, pears, plums and strawberries)

    Fresh field and protected vegetables

    Potatoes

    Ornamentals

    Hops

    Exports and re-exports

    20.3

    33.3

    105.8

    36.4

    5.0

    Imports

    423

    806.1

    316.3

    468.3

    7.2

    Balance of payments

    -402.7

    -772.8

    -210.5

    -431.9

    -2.2

    Fuller details can be found in the Basic Horticultural Statistics for the United Kingdom (1986–1996), published by the Department's Statistics Division.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help his Ministry is providing to the horticulture industry to(a) increase consumption of any of its outputs, (b) improve the industry's marketing and (c) develop new forms of technology beneficial to the industry; what expenditure is available for such programmes for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000; and what were the expenditure levels on the equivalent assistance in (1) 1994–95, (2) 1995–96 and (3) 1996–97. [28543]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: My noble Friend Lord Donoughue recently attended the launch of the Fresh Produce Consortium's Campaign "Give me Five" and strongly endorsed their message that people should eat more fruit and vegetables each day. The Department also encourages and co-ordinates applications for EU funding under Apple Promotion and Flower promotion scheme.

    The Department has worked closely with fruit and vegetables producer organisations to ensure that they take full advantage of EU funding for operational programmes. The objectives of the programmes include planning and adjusting production to meet demand, particularly in terms of quality and quantity.

    The Department has a horticulture research programme that is directed primarily towards strategic underpinning work to improve the competitiveness and market responsiveness of the sector and the industry's interaction
    172
    production units in relation to the number of customers for horticultural produce. A stronger role for producer organisations is part of the solution.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what projects to benefit United Kingdom horticulture are currently being funded by his Ministry as part of the Technology Foresight Programme. [28548]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: A technology foresight exercise is currently underway covering the hardy nursery stock sector. Reports have already been produced on apples, strawberries and mushrooms.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by product type details of the balance of payments deficit for United Kingdom horticulture, excluding those products which cannot normally be grown in the United Kingdom because of climatic factors. [28539]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The balance of payments for the main groups of horticultural products in 1996 are as follows:

    with the environment. Priority areas are those showing most potential for growth and added value, especially where there is a clear trade gap opportunity. Work covered by the Department's Research and Development programme includes breeding for improved quality; pest and disease resistance; crop production, including improving crop uniformity and scheduling; crop protection, with work covering the epidemiology of pests and diseases as well as biological and integrated pest management; the improvement of storage and shelf life. The Department's funded work provides a strong underpinning base from which the levy-funded bodies, such as the Apple and Pear Research Council and the Horticultural Development Council, pick up and the results and develop them through to industry application.

    The Department's expenditure available for horticulture research is:

    (i) 1997–98 = £11,255k

    (ii) 1998–99 = £11,294k (provisional), and

    (iii) 1999–2000 = £11,294k (provisional)

    The Department's expenditure on horticulture research is:

    (1) 1994–95 = £11,760k

    (2) 1995–96 = £11,761k

    (3) 1996–97 = £11,833k

    In addition to these figures, there are a number of cross-sector projects which will have a bearing on horticulture R&D.

    The Department is also lead sponsor of the Horticulture LINK programme. The aim of the programme is to encourage collaborative funding of

    173
    research by industry and government to enable and accelerate the exploitation of new products, processes and systems in all areas of the horticulture industry.(MAFF HortLINK spend: 1997–98 = £500k, 1998–99 = £870k, 1999–2000 = £950k).

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies his Ministry is pursuing to help increase exports of United Kingdom horticultural production. [28547]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: I want to see a strong British horticultural sector, taking up the growth in consumption here and producing for the single market rather than exporting occasional surpluses. The strengthening of producer organisations will help to achieve this objective.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish for each of the last five years for which information is available(a) consumption per head in terms of value and weight of fruit, salad and vegetables, and (b) purchases per head of flowers, ornamentals and plants, in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the Netherlands, (iii) France, (iv) Germany, (v) Italy, (vi) Sweden and (vii) Belgium. [28545]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: Details of consumption of fruit and vegetables per head in terms of weight are as follows. Data on the value of consumption per head are not readily available.

    Average annual consumption (kg/head) Vegetable and vegetable products

    1995

    1994

    1993

    1992

    1991

    UK

    87.21

    92.44

    94.30

    98.40

    93.99

    Netherlands

    76.57

    74.64

    81.58

    81.92

    66.06

    Germany

    77.84

    79.74

    78.21

    86.16

    82.04

    France

    125.12

    120.91

    118.75

    115.34

    123.97

    Italy

    149.50

    162.60

    150.49

    177.75

    171.37

    Sweden

    60.70

    67.28

    63.54

    64.33

    59.94

    Belgium/Luxembourg

    123.20

    109.17

    117.88

    112.14

    104.44

    Fruit and fruit products (excluding wine)

    1995

    1994

    1993

    1992

    1991

    UK

    80.88

    82.64

    80.45

    78.76

    76.51

    Netherlands

    155.56

    145.05

    140.06

    177.47

    143.53

    France

    100.71

    97.27

    90.05

    98.19

    83.92

    Germany

    109.86

    123.06

    121.96

    155.31

    121.25

    Italy

    126.04

    141.76

    142.55

    149.23

    134.03

    Sweden

    99.66

    104.19

    98.99

    96.36

    101.27

    Belgium/Luxembourg

    118.15

    139.17

    103.88

    172.68

    139.50

    Source:

    FAO

    There is no information available on purchases per head of flowers, ornamentals and plants. A separate figure for salads is not readily available.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the areas of horticultural production in which the United Kingdom has a natural advantage compared to the rest of Europe. [28538]
    174
    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: British growers have a temperate climate, production skills, a strong research base and a supportive Government.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reforms to the European Union horticulture regime have been introduced since 1 January 1995; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the impact that these changes have had on the United Kingdom horticulture industry. [28542]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The reform of the EU Regimes for Fresh and Processed Fruit and Vegetables came into effect on 1 January 1997. The objective of reform is to bring about far greater market orientation among EU growers while reducing reliance on intervention. Money saved on intervention is being made available to Producer Organisations (POs) for approved multi-year operational programmes. A total of 65 programmes have been approved in the UK in 1997, with a potential for grant of £10.3 million in 1998.

    In addition, the EU Hop Regime was amended in July 1997 and the EU Flower and Plant Promotion Fund was introduced in 1996. Under the hop reform, producers will receive their income aid payments more quickly. The promotional fund is intended to increase the purchase of flowers and plants, and I want British growers to supply up the extra production needed.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Ministry's main priorities for the horticulture industry; and if he will make a statement. [28546]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The Government wish to see a successful, competitive horticulture industry, together with an increase in the production and consumption of fruit and vegetables, increased production and use of ornamental plants and flowers and an ever stronger relationship between producers, retailers and consumers.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which representative bodies from each part of the horticultural trade he and his Ministers have met with since 2 May 1997. [28541]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: I had the opportunity to meet a number of representatives of the industry when I attended the Royal Agricultural Show last July. My noble Friend Lord Donoughue has met the NFU Horticultural Executive, NFU Horticulture advisers, representatives of the Fresh Produce Consortium, the Horticultural Export Bureau, the Horticultural Trades Association, the Royal Horticultural Society and East Malling Trust for Horticultural Research. My hon. Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the National Association of British Market Authorities and the Birmingham Wholesale Fresh Produce Association when he visited Birmingham Wholesale Markets. And my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has met Bedfordshire Growers and will shortly visit a pot plant nursery in South Lincolnshire. My noble Friend Lord Carter met industry organisations when he attended Marden Fruit Show last October. Further visits are planned.

    Beef
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when in December his Ministry received a request for more information from the Commission on the workings of the data based beef scheme; when he undertook to reply; and when he did reply. [28532]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: I received the European Commission Scientific Steering Committee's Opinion on the Date Based Export Scheme proposal from Commissioner Bonino on 11 December 1997 with an invitation to comment.

    Extensive discussions with the Commission quickly followed, and my officials formally responded to the Opinion on 29 January.

    Wholesale Markets
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Ministers' current policy on the

    1995

    1996

    1997

    Country

    Possible expenditure MECU

    Actual expenditure MECU

    Possible expenditure MECU

    Actual expenditure MECU

    Possible expenditure MECU

    Actual expenditure MECU

    Maximum possible future expenditure MECU1

    Germany2

    218.5

    217

    145.6

    144.7

    —

    —

    Nil

    Netherlands

    99

    49.3

    66

    32.8

    —

    —

    Nil

    Austria

    38

    18.9

    25.36

    12.6

    —

    —

    Nil

    Denmark

    7.6

    3.9

    5.1

    2.6

    —

    —

    Nil

    Luxembourg3

    3.1

    3.1

    2.1

    2.1

    —

    —

    Nil

    Belgium4

    39.5

    25.8

    26.3

    13.3

    —

    —

    Nil

    Sweden

    —

    —

    54.2

    27.8

    12.5

    6.6

    6.25

    Ireland

    —

    —

    —

    —

    170.8

    91.2

    170.8

    Italy

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    495

    1 Ireland and Sweden have indicated plans to pay some of the outstanding aid available.

    2 50 per cent, of actual expenditure in 1995 and 1996 was nationally funded.

    3 50 per cent, of actual expenditure in 1995 and 1996 was nationally funded.

    4 Approximately 20 per cent, of actual expenditure in 1995 was nationally funded.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    New Deal (Employer Agreement)
    Mr. Rooney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a participant in the employment option of New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds will have a good cause for leaving if the employer fails to comply with the employer agreement. [25563]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    [holding answer 26 January 1998]: We have put into place procedures to ensure that employers do comply with the terms of the agreement. They will be monitored, and, where the terms and conditions of the Employer Agreement are not being met, the New Deal caseworker will intervene and attempt to resolve the situation.

    If a person leaves a New Deal option, the Adjudication Officer will take all circumstances into account in deciding whether the person had good cause. In doing this, they can call upon evidence from the caseworker.
    176
    findings of the Strathclyde Report on Wholesale Markets; and what current help his Ministry is giving to assist with the implementation of its principal findings. [28544]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The Government accept the recommendations in the Strathclyde Report. However it is for those directly involved to make their decisions in the light of the Strathclyde Report and their own commercial assessment. My Department is ready to consider ways in which we can assist the process.

    Agrimonetary Compensation
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the last three years for each member state of the European Union the amount in ecu they have been entitled to claim in monetary compensation for exchange rate changes; how much they have claimed; and how much is outstanding. [28354]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: As at July 1997, aid notified to the Commission for the nine other EU Member States entitled to pay agrimonetary compensation between 1995–97 was as follows:

    Guidance to Adjudication Officers, prepared by the independent Central Adjudication Services, specifically cites the standard of provision as a possible relevant circumstance.

    Disabled Staff
    Mrs. Ballard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on encouraging employers to employ disabled staff. [27255]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    The Disability Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for employers with 20 or more employees to discriminate against disabled employees and job applicants. It ensures that, if a disabled person has a particular disadvantage in doing a job, the employer may have to help to overcome it. We are consulting on the small firms threshold to see whether it should be reduced. We are also looking at how to secure comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people through the establishment of a Disability Task Force which will look at, among other issues, the setting up of a Disability Rights Commission.
    177
    There is a wide range of help available from the Employment Service to employers to help them employ and retain disabled people.

    Employers who make positive efforts to recruit disabled people are able to demonstrate their commitment to good practice through the use of the disability symbol in their recruitment advertisements and other literature.

    Disability Benefits Claimants
    Mrs. Ballard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for re-training for work claimants of disability benefits who lose their entitlement. [27256]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    There is a range of help available to unemployed disabled people through programmes delivered by the Employment Service (ES) and through training programmes delivered through the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs). Both the employment and the training measures pay specific regard to the needs of disabled people.

    Specialist advice is available form Disability Employment Advisers in local ES offices.

    School Exclusion
    Mr. McCabe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will issue guidance to schools on the use of permanent exclusion in cases where students are due to take GCSE examinations. [27357]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    We will shortly be consulting on new guidance to schools and LEAs on the use of exclusion. This will emphasise that permanent exclusion should be avoided wherever possible, and draw attention to the particular problems exclusion causes for pupils studying for public examinations.

    Nursery Vouchers
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery vouchers were taken up in schools which took part in the scheme. [27940]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The nursery education voucher scheme operated in England for the summer term of 1997 only. During that period, some 450,000 vouchers were redeemed in maintained schools and 24,000 in independent schools.

    Ofsted Inspections
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if it is part of the official remit of OFSTED to ascertain from inspection whether schools are satisfying the statutory requirements of the National Curriculum. [28521]

    Mr. Byers
    Inspectors evaluate and report on the extent of schools' compliance with statutory requirements, as required by the Framework for the Inspection of Schools. The Framework is determined by HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

    Lifelong Learning
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a White Paper on lifelong learning; and if he will make a statement. [28722]

    Dr. Howells
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment plans to publish a consultation paper on lifelong learning on 25 February, together with our responses to the reports from the Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and the Further Education Funding Council's Widening Participation Committee.

    Correspondence
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy for responding to letters received in the(a) Scottish Gaelic, (b) Welsh, (c) Urdu, (d) Hindi and (e) Chinese language. [28056]

    Dr. Howells
    The policy is to reply in the language of the original letter whenever possible.

    Ministerial Travel
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the engagements he undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of his duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e) other means. [28933]

    Dr. Howells
    Details of the engagements undertaken by the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom during January 1998, and the mode of transport used, are set out in the following table.

    Engagements undertaken in the United Kingdom during January 1998 by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment

    Date

    Destination of Journey

    Mode of Transport

    7 January 1998

    Interview for Radio Sheffield (Sheffield)

    Car

    Launch of the New Deal Programme (Sheffield)

    Car

    Meeting with senior departmental staff (Sheffield)

    Car

    8 January 1998

    Cabinet meeting (London)

    Train and Car

    Visit of the EU Commissioner (London)

    Car

    13 January 1998

    Interview with ITN (London)

    Train and Car

    Interview with Sky News (London)

    Car

    14 January 1998

    BETT '98 conference (London)

    Car

    15 January 1998

    Strategies to promote effective parenting skills conference (Sheffield)

    Train and Car

    19 January 1998

    WH Smith "Ready Steady Read" photocall (Sheffield)

    Car

    20 January 1998

    National Conference on lifelong

    Car

    learning (Sheffield)

    Car

    Visit to Earl Marshal School

    Train and Car (Sheffield)

    Train and Car

    Meeting with Shrewsbury

    Headteachers (London)

    179

    Engagements undertaken in the United Kingdom during January 1998 by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment

    Date

    Destination of Journey

    Mode of Transport

    21 January 1998

    Launch of the family circle bullying campaign (London)

    Car

    22 January 1998

    Camberwell after school club(London)

    Car

    Guest speaker at the kids club network Car conference (London)

    Car

    Cabinet meeting (London)

    Car

    26 January 1998

    Discussion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer (London)

    Train and Car

    27 January 1998

    Senior Civil Service conference (London)

    Other (on foot)

    GL Cabinet Committee (London)

    Car

    Standards Task Force meeting (London)

    Car

    29 January 1998

    Launch of the National Year of Reading (London)

    Car

    Speaker and host at the Fulbright Commission (London)

    Car

    Education SSA (North Yorkshire)
    Mr. Dorrell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the education SSA for North Yorkshire for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [28198]

    Mr. Byers
    The education SSA for North Yorkshire in 1998–99 is some £206.7 million. This represents an increase of some £13.6 million or 7 per cent. over the comparable figure for 1997–98.

    Standards and Effectiveness Unit
    Mr. Dorrell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many posts have been created within the Standards and Effectiveness Unit in his Department; and what is his estimate of the cost of this unit in 1998–99. [28197]

    Mr. Byers
    The Standards and Effectiveness Unit was set up in May 1997 to be the focus for the Department's work on raising standards in schools. It covers a wide range of functions including literacy and numeracy, performance measurement and target-setting, inspection of schools and LEAs, Education Action Zones, Education Development Plans, the Standards Task Force and the National Year of Reading. Its current complement of 95 staff are drawn very largely from existing staff together with some ten experienced practitioners with recent experience as headteachers, inspectors, researchers and advisers. The costs of the Unit for 1998–99 have yet to be finalised but will be met within the running costs of the Department's Schools Directorate.

    Schools Budget
    Mr. Dorrell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority in England, the total aggregated schools budget for the financial year 1997–98. [28270]
    180
    Mr. Byers
    I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 82.

    Job Clubs
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are presently attending job clubs in Kingston-upon-Hull; how many jobs have been secured by people using job clubs(a) in total, (b) by gender and (c) by each year since the job clubs were established; and if he will list the estimated consequent fall in the number of clients. [27966]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 10 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question relating to how many people are currently attending Jobclubs in Kingston-upon-Hull; how many jobs have been secured by people using Jobclubs (a) in total, (b) by gender and (c) by each year since Jobclubs were established; and if the estimated consequent fall in the number of clients can be estimated. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Employment Service Chief Executive.
    In January of this year 449 people were attending Jobclubs in Kingston-upon-Hull.
    Information on the numbers of people securing jobs through Jobclubs is, unfortunately, only available for 1996 and 1997 and is not available by gender as gender based information is not collected. The available information is as follows:

    Year

    Number of people finding work through Jobclubs in Kingston-Upon-Hull

    1996

    1,221

    1997

    1,323

    It is not possible to estimate the consequent fall in the number of unemployed people since the total figure will be affected by many other factors influencing the inflows to, and outflows from, unemployment.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and which job clubs in Kingston-upon-Hull are(a) to be closed and (b) to have their staff or hours reduced as a result of the transferring of funds to the Welfare to Work scheme. [27965]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 10 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question relating to how many and which Jobclubs in Kingston-upon-Hull are to be closed and have their staff or hours reduced as a result of the transferring of funds to Welfare to Work. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Employment Service Chief Executive.

    181
    The Employment Service District Manager in Kingston-upon-Hull is currently consulting local partners on the future provision of Employment Service programmes including Jobclubs in the Hull Employment Service District. The partners include a wide variety of local organisations such as Local Authorities, Training and Enterprise Councils, and voluntary groups. This consultation exercise is due to end on 11 February after which decisions on future provision will be taken as soon as possible. Separately, one existing Jobclub provider has given notice that they wish to terminate their contract from 31 March.

    ADAPT Training Programme
    Ms Jenny Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many bids were made in 1997 in the United Kingdom under the ADAPT training 182
    programme to run from 1997 to 1999; how many bids were successful; and what proportion of the United Kingdom allocated budget has been committed to United Kingdom projects. [14264]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    [pursuant to his reply, 12 November 1997, c. 556]: Unfortunately the correct reply was not sent: the answer should have read:

    In the United Kingdom, 344 bids were assessed in 1997 under the ADAPT Programme. Of these 185 were successful. The UK Programme budget for ADAPT for the period 1995 to 1999 is 316,812,000 ECU of which 192,174,790 ECU (60.7 per cent.) has been committed to projects. 12,695,706 ECU has been allocated to Technical Assistance.
    183

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Maternity Pay
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 314, what proportion of recipients of statutory maternity pay fall within the weekly earnings bands (a) under £100, (b) £100 to £199, (c) £200 to £299,(d) £300 to £399, (e) £400 to £499, (f) £500 to £599 and (g) £600 or more. [24741]

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 314, on statutory maternity pay, if she will list the numbers of claimants in each of the bands of income specified. [25011]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The information requested is set out in the table.

    Number of recipients of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), proportion of recipients with SMP, total amounts of SMP and average amounts of SMP by amount of weekly earnings for GB, 1995–961

    Weekly earnings

    Number in receipt of SMP (000's)2

    Proportion of SMP recipients percent

    Total amount of SMP' £million3

    Average amount of SMP4 £

    under £100

    26

    16.3

    25.4

    1,000

    £100 to £199

    57

    35.5

    83.1

    1,400

    £200 to £299

    39

    24.0

    75.9

    2,000

    £300 to £399

    23

    14.4

    58.2

    2,500

    £400 to £499

    9

    5.3

    26.0

    3,000

    £500 to £599

    3

    1.9

    11.0

    3,500

    £600 and more

    4

    2.5

    19.6

    4,800

    1 The figures are based on an estimate of those whose whole period of SMP is within the 1995/96 tax year and

    excludes those whose claim straddles two tax years. The total number in receipt of SMP in that year was around 321,000.

    2 Rounded to the nearest thousand.

    3 Rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

    4 Rounded to nearest hundred.

    Source:

    The Lifetime Labour Market Database (LLMDB), a 1 per cent. sample of the National Insurance Recording System taken at February 1997.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total bill for housing benefit payments in each of the last five years in the Portsmouth City Council area. [27545]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: The information requested it set out in the table.

    Year

    £000

    1992–93

    39,200

    1993–94

    46,000

    1994–95

    48,770

    1995–96

    52,570

    1996–97 (provisional out-turn)

    56,430

    Sources:

    1. Department of Social Security Planning and Finance Division.

    2. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    184
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what has been the total bill for housing benefit payments in each of the last five years in the East Hampshire District Council area; [27569]

    (2) what has been the bill for housing benefit payments in each of the last five years in the Hart District Council area. [28362]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    The information requested is set out in the table:

    £000

    District council area

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–95

    1995–96

    11996–97

    East Hampshire

    7,980

    9,470

    10,520

    11,150

    11,630

    Hart

    4,270

    5,280

    5,430

    5,570

    5,690

    1 Provisional out-turn

    Sources:

    1. Department of Social Security Planning and Finance Division.

    2. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects the appeal of Mrs. G. J. Archer of 7 Queens Road, Brixham, Devon TQ5 8BG, against the withdrawal of her disability living allowance to be resolved. [27822]

    Mr. Denham
    One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. This is why we have continued with the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP).

    The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project 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. Anthony Steen, dated 9 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when she expects the appeal of Mrs. G J Archer, of Brixham, Devon, against the withdrawal of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA), to be resolved.
    Mrs. Archer's DLA was withdrawn following a postal enquiry by the Benefit Integrity Project. Following the application made by Mrs. Archer to review her entitlement to benefit, a different Adjudication Officer reviewed the decision to withdraw DLA. The revised decision was despatched to Mrs. Archer by first class post on 4 February.
    I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.
    I hope you find this reply helpful.

    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answers to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) of 30 January 1998,Official Report, columns 421–22, on disability living allowance by disability and region, if she will provide the

    185
    same information for Scotland; if she will list the number of claimants in each category (i) for the United Kingdom and (ii) for Scotland who have had their disability living allowance benefit payments (a) set aside, (b) reduced and (c) increased; and if she will make a statement. [27906]

    Mr. Denham
    The administration of Disability Living Allowance 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. John Swinney, dated 9 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking pursuant to her Answer to the honourable Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central of 30 January on Disability Living Allowance by disability and region. You asked if she would provide the same information for Scotland; if she will list the number of claimants in each category (i) for the United Kingdom and (ii) for Scotland who have had their Disability Living Allowance benefit payments (a) set aside, (b) reduced and (c) increased; and if she will make a statement.
    The information is not available in the format requested as figures for benefit payments of DLA which have been set aside are not held.
    The information which is available is shown in the attached tables.
    I hope you find this reply helpful.

    Payments of disability living allowance

    United Kingdom

    Scotland

    Disabling condition

    Awards reduced

    Awards increased

    Awards rediced

    Awards increased

    Arthritis

    4,230

    36,330

    420

    2,680

    Muscle/joint/bone disease

    2,430

    13,180

    270

    750

    Blindness

    510

    5,840

    60

    500

    Stroke related

    1,960

    10,060

    170

    850

    Learning difficulties

    2,360

    45,330

    120

    850

    Other mental health causes

    3,760

    12,610

    460

    1,080

    Epilepsy

    1,520

    5,040

    100

    170

    Deafness

    460

    1,810

    20

    80

    Malignant disease

    620

    3,620

    20

    170

    Chest disease

    740

    9,590

    40

    850

    Back ailments

    2,800

    13,560

    170

    1,020

    Heart disease

    1,430

    10,750

    150

    1,230

    Parkinsons Disease

    20

    1,440

    20

    120

    Diabetes Melitus

    990

    3,060

    100

    190

    Renal Disorders

    200

    780

    20

    40

    AIDS

    20

    340

    0

    20

    Skin diseases

    400

    460

    20

    40

    Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

    420

    570

    60

    60

    Limb loss

    40

    140

    0

    20

    Other

    6,090

    27,100

    520

    2,100

    All Disabling Conditions

    30,990

    201,630

    2,740

    12,820

    Notes:

    Figures are provisional and subject to change.

    The figures provided are rounded to the nearest ten units and relate to 12 months ending on 30 November 1997 for Great Britain and to 12 months ending 31 August 1997 for Northern Ireland.

    The figures for United Kingdom include those for Scotland
    186

    Disability living allowance for Scotland by disability

    Main disabling conditions

    Awards care

    Awards mobility

    Arthritis

    30,170

    44,070

    Muscle/joint/bone disease

    10,330

    13,730

    Blindness

    4,710

    5,020

    Stroke related

    9,370

    10,060

    Learning difficulty

    15,770

    17,250

    Other mental health causes

    15,900

    16,640

    Epilepsy

    5,100

    4,350

    Deafness

    1,270

    1,020

    Malignant disease

    2,480

    2,840

    Chest disease

    7,210

    12,630

    Back ailments

    8,470

    13,960

    Heart disease

    8,620

    19,530

    Parkinsons disease

    870

    980

    Diabetes Melitus

    2,850

    2,560

    Renal disorders

    620

    670

    AIDS

    390

    480

    Skin diseases

    790

    230

    Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

    1,150

    1,280

    Limb loss

    40

    50

    Other

    24,020

    28,450

    All disabling conditions

    150,090

    195,730

    Notes:

    Figures are provisional and subject to change.

    The figures provided are rounded to the nearest ten units and relate to 12 months ending on 30 November 1997 for Great Britain and to 12 months ending 31 August 1997 for Northern Ireland.

    Benefits Integrity Project
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what requirements are placed on assessment officers involved in the Benefits Integrity Project in respect of informing claimants of the possibility of(a) benefit loss and (b) appeal against that loss arising out of interviews as part of the project; what steps have been taken to ensure that assessment officers engaged in the Benefits Integrity Project make clear their involvement in this project when making home visits; and if she will make a statement; [27861]

    (2) what is the number of assessment officers involved in the Benefits Integrity Project by (a) region and (b) parliamentary constituency in Scotland; [27862]

    (3) if she will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines issued to assessment officers involved in the Benefits Integrity Project; [27863]

    (4) what are her criteria for assessing suitability or availability for work under the Benefits Integrity Project; [27864]

    (5) how many terminally ill recipients of disability living allowance have had their benefit (a) set aside, (b) reduced and (c) increased as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement; [27865]

    (6) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) of 30 January 1998, Official Report,columns 420–21,how many people with multiple sclerosis have had their benefits reviewed under the Benefits Integrity Project; how many of these had payments (a) set aside, (b) reduced and (c) increased; and if she will make a statement; [27907]

    (7) in how many cases reductions in benefit as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project have been advised against in writing to (i) the assessment officer and (ii) the appeals

    187
    officer by a qualified medical practitioner; in how many of these cases the reduction was confirmed; and if she will make a statement. [27909]

    Mr. Denham
    One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with the Benefits Integrity Project.

    The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

    Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Swinney, dated 9 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to recent Parliamentary Questions regarding the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP).
    As announced by the Secretary of State today, it is important that decisions about benefit entitlement are made fairly and are seen to be fair. In future, no decision made by the project resulting in reduction or removal of entitlement to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will be made solely on the evidence provided by the claimant—there will always be additional evidence to support the decision.
    We have been liaising closely with organisations of and for disabled people from the early stages of the Project. This new initiative underlines our determination to act properly to get the benefit right and to listen and act upon any concerns. We will continue to involve these groups in the evaluation of the Project as it develops.
    This project continues to operate under the normal assessment and adjudication rules that are applied to all DLA cases. Adjudication Officers (AOs) who are responsible for assessing cases referred to them under the BIP follow exactly the same guidelines as those applying to all other DLA cases. No special guidance has been issued to AOs involved in the BIP. A copy of the AOs Guide, which provides general information about legislation affecting DLA, is held in the Library.
    To minimise unnecessary distress to individuals receiving DLA and to avoid nugatory enquiries people with certain conditions will not be contacted directly by the BIP. This includes recipients of DLA who are terminally ill, defined in DLA legislation as having a life expectancy of less than six months.
    The BIP visiting officers are required to explain to customers, at the time of the visit, that the purpose of gathering the information contained in the questionnaire, is to ensure that the correct amount of benefit is in payment. They also explain the length of time it is likely to take for a decision to be made on their case. When the decision is notified, the customer is given information about how to request a review or appeal against the decision should they wish to do so. The customer should request a review within three months of the decision.
    All cases are sent to Blackpool for adjudication where the cases are dealt with on an alphabetical basis in chronological order, by approximately 80 AOs. The information is not available broken down into regions or parliamentary constituencies. At present, there are 139 visiting officers employed nationally on the BIP of which 14 are based in Scotland.
    The criteria used to determine entitlement to DLA relate to the mobility and care needs arising from a person's disability; their ability to, or suitability for work is not relevant. People in receipt of DLA can work without it having an effect on their entitlement.
    A special exercise was conducted to identify customers suffering from multiple sclerosis whose awards were looked at under the BIP. Of the 1,706 cases examined, 22 awards have been set aside, 114 reduced, 59 increased and 1,511 remain unchanged.
    The information is not available for the number of medical practitioners who have written to assessment and appeals officers. It may help if I explain. AOs decide on entitlement to benefit taking
    188
    into account the information before them. They can request information from any source if they think it necessary to enable them to make the correct decision. The AOs may ask for information from qualified medical practitioners which they will take into account when making their decision but the medical practitioners do not give advice about whether or not benefit should be awarded.
    I hope you find the reply helpful.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people assessed to date will receive(a) increased, (b) unchanged and (c) lower levels of benefit as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement; [27535]

    (2) if she will provide a breakdown by benefit category of the change in the number of people in receipt of each benefit as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement; [27536]

    (3) how many appeals are in progress following benefit re-assessments under the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement; [27537]

    (4) if she will estimate the savings achieved (a) in total and (b) by benefit category, as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement. [27538]

    Mr. Denham
    One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with Benefits Integrity Project.

    The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

    Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 9 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP).
    The figures provided represent the position as at 31 December 1997.
    A total of 40,615 cases, have been examined as part of the BIP. Of the total cases dealt with 978 have had their benefit increased, 31,920 have been unchanged and 7,717 have had their benefit reduced/or stopped. These include 7,462 renewal cases of which 242 have had their benefit increased, 3,868 remain unchanged and 3,352 have had their benefit reduced or stopped.
    The project is looking again at DLA awards. The two categories are those awards of the higher rate for the mobility component combined with either the highest or middle rate of the care component. 10,960 claims, with the higher rate mobility component combined with the highest rate of care component, have been examined of which 8,676 were unchanged and 2,284 were reduced. There is no scope for increase in these awards. 29,655 claims, with the higher rate of the mobility component combined with the middle rate of the care component, cases, have been examined of which 978 were increased, 23,244 were unchanged, and 5,433 were reduced.
    311 appeals have been received following re-assessment under the BIP.
    Using the Benefits Agency's standard method of calculating savings, the amount of savings attributable to the BIP, after taking into account increases in benefit, in this financial year is £15,798,836.60. The amount attributable to awards of the higher rate of mobility combined with the highest rate of care is £5,025,665.60 and to awards of the higher rate of mobility linked to the middle rate of care is £10,773,171.00.
    I hope you find the reply helpful.

    Ministerial Travel
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the engagements she undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of her duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e) other means. [28943]

    Ms Harman
    My engagements in January were all within London and I travelled to them by car.

    Correspondence
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her policy for responding to letters received in the(a) Scottish Gaelic, (b) Welsh, (c) Urdu, (d) Hindi and (e) Chinese language. [28063]

    Mr. Denham
    The Department and its Agencies will, whenever possible, respond to letters in the language in which they are written.

    The Department publishes leaflets in up to 16 different languages including Welsh, Urdu, Hindi and Chinese.

    Estimated additional revenue raised in a full year by increasing employer contribution rates and number of employees for whom they would pay more

    Additional Revenue (£ million)

    (a)

    (b)

    (c)

    Employers' contribution rates in respect of employees with weekly earnings above the amounts in column (a)

    Employees weekly earnings above

    12 per cent.

    15 per cent.

    20 per cent.

    25 per cent.

    30 per cent.

    Number of employees

    465

    750

    1,875

    3,750

    5,650

    7,525

    3,450,000

    500

    650

    1,600

    3,200

    4,775

    6,375

    2,850,000

    600

    425

    1,050

    2,100

    3,150

    4,175

    1,600,000

    700

    300

    725

    1,450

    2,175

    2,900

    950,000

    750

    250

    625

    1.225

    1,825

    2,450

    750,000

    800

    200

    525

    1,050

    1,575

    2,100

    600,000

    900

    150

    400

    800

    1,175

    1,575

    400,000

    1,000

    125

    300

    600

    925

    1,225

    300,000

    Source:

    Government Actuary's Department.

    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of increasing the amount an employee may earn before his employer pays National Insurance contributions from £62 a week to(a) £70, (b) £75, (c) £80, (d) £85, (e) £90, (f) £95 and (g) £100 a week. [28689]

    Mr. Denham
    The information requested is in the table.

    Reduction in revenue from Class I National Insurance contributions

    Weekly lower earnings limit £

    1Full year effect £ million

    (a)

    70

    -55

    (b)

    75

    -95

    (c)

    80

    -115

    (d)

    85

    -135

    (e)

    90

    -155

    (f)

    95

    -180

    (g)

    100

    -205

    1 Gross of contracted-out rebates.

    Note:

    Assumes that there are no changes to the other earnings brackets for employer National Insurance contributions.
    190

    National Insurance contributions
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will estimate how many companies would have to pay more in employer National Insurance contributions if the Government were to increase the rate of employer NICs on incomes above(a) £465, (b) £500, (c) £600, (d) £700, (e) £750, (f) £800, (g) £900 and (h) £1,000 a week; and in respect of how many employees they would have to pay more; [28688]

    (2) if she will estimate the revenue which would be raised by increasing the rate of employer National Insurance contributions on incomes above (a) £1,000, (b) £900, (c) £800, (d) £750, (e) £700, (f) £600, (g) £500 and (h) £465 a week from 10 per cent. to (i) 12 per cent., (ii) 15 per cent., (iii) 20 per cent., (iv) 25 per cent. and (v) 30 per cent. [28690]

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

    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of abolishing the 3 per cent. band of employer National Insurance contributions. [28691]

    Mr. Denham
    Employers currently pay secondary Class 1 National Insurance contributions at the rate of 3 per cent. in respect of employees who have gross earnings between £62 and £109.99 a week. If this band were abolished, so that no employers' contributions were paid on earnings of less than £110 a week, the estimated loss of contribution revenue would be around £260 million in a full year.

    Source:
    Government Actuary's Department

    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate how many companies would have to pay less in employer National Insurance contributions if the Government were to increase the amount an employee may earn before his employer is liable to pay NICs from £62 a week to(a) £70, (b) £75, (c) £80, (d) £85, (e) £90, (f) £95, (g) £100 and (h) £110 a week; and in respect of how many employees they would have to pay less. [28692]
    191
    Mr. Denham
    Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

    The number of employees in respect of whom employers would pay less in National Insurance contributions in an average week.

    Weekly lower earnings limit (£)

    Number of employees

    (a)

    70

    550,000

    (b)

    75

    900,000

    (c)

    80

    1,050,000

    (d)

    85

    1,200,000

    (e)

    90

    1,350,000

    (f)

    95

    1,600,000

    (g)

    100

    1,700,000

    (h)

    110

    2,050,000

    Note:

    Details of the number of employers who would pay less are not available.

    Source:

    Government Actuary's Department.

  DEFENCE

    Joint Strike Fighter
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications will be required to the dimensions of the Joint Strike Fighter to permit it to be operated from Invincible class aircraft carriers. [26775]

    Mr. Spellar
    The operational requirements document for the Joint Strike Fighter incorporates Royal Navy requirements, which are very similar to those of the US Marines. Royal Navy requirements include the ability for the Short-Take Off, Vertical Landing variant to operate from the invincible class aircraft carriers without modification to the aircraft.

    US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 1998,Official Report, column 719, what factors underlay his decision to designate exports of nuclear materials to the United States after 1979 as a matter covered by Category 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [27249]

    Mr. Spellar
    To disclose details of individual transfers of special nuclear materials between the United States and the United Kingdom, other than aggregated information of transfers during the period covered by the Barter arrangements, could reveal information which both the UK and US regard as classified because, if revealed, it could be of benefit to a potential enemy.

    Large Calibre Guns
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many individual test firings of large calibre guns for the purposes of proof and evaluation took place on United Kingdom ranges operated by the Defence Evaluation Research Agency and its predecessor in each of the last five years; and what is the projected number in the current year and in each of the next five years; [27263]
    192
    (2) what was the annual income for the proof and evaluation of large calibre gun firings to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and its predecessor in each of the last five years; and what is the projected income for the current year and each of the next five years. [27261]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 3 February 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 10 February 1998:
    I have been asked to reply to your questions about the number of, and derived income from, test firings of large calibre guns at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's ranges over the last five years, for the current year and for the next five years. I am answering both questions in this letter.
    Data on the firing is collected as the number of firing days rather than actual rounds fired. While this information could be compiled from range and trials records it is not readily available. Numbers of rounds actually fired on a day vary greatly from one or two if the work is of an experimental nature, involving complex instrumentation, to over 100 for proofing type activities. Data on firing days for the past five years by range is:

    Year

    Eskmeals

    Shoeburyness

    1993

    241

    243

    1994

    206

    245

    1995

    215

    246

    1996

    228

    225

    1997

    299

    246

    Both ranges have more than one firing site that could be in use on the same day.
    The future number of firing days depends on the long term requirements of the Ministry of Defence and other customers. While it is expected that work will reduce in this area over the next few years, large calibre gun firing will remain the dominant activity on the ranges.
    The income from large calibre gun firings since 1995 is given below. Information on a comparable basis prior to the inclusion of the ranges in the Trading Agency is not available.

    1995–96: £4,024k

    1996–97: £3,367k

    The projected income for the current year, 1997–98, is £6,376k. Future income will depend on the requirements of the Ministry of Defence and other customers for the facilities but an income of £4,970k is expected for 1998–99.
    I hope this information is helpful.

    DERA Test Ranges
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the dimensions of the Sea Danger Area around the Eskmeals DERA test range; [27266]

    (2) what are the dimensions of the Sea Danger Area around (a) Pendine and (b) Aberporth; [27260]

    (3) what are the dimensions and total acreage of the Eskmeals range operated by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [27264]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 3 February 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.
    193
    Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 10 February 1998:
    I have been asked to reply to your questions about the dimensions of the sea danger areas around the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's ranges at Eskmeals, Pendine and Aberporth, and the dimensions and total acreage of the Eskmeals range. I am answering all three questions in this letter.
    The current sea danger area at Eskmeals extends to a maximum of approximately 49 kilometres with an area of 1038 square kilometres. It is intended to extend this danger area in the near future. The danger area has a height of 50,000 feet.
    Pendine has a sea danger area that extends to a maximum of approximately 18 kilometres with a total area of 230 square kilometres. The danger area has a height of 27,000 feet.
    Aberporth has a sea danger area that extends to a maximum of approximately 105 kilometres by 88 kilometres with a total area of 8074 square kilometres. The range has unlimited height.
    The Eskmeals range has a maximum length of approximately 3.5 kilometres and a maximum width of approximately 1.5 kilometres. The total land area, excluding foreshore, is 1604 acres. The range has firing rights over land for rear safety of an additional 500 metres in width.
    I hope this information is helpful.

    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many complaints about noise pollution from the Eskmeals test range have been received in each of the last five years and this year to date; [27267]

    (2) how many complaints about noise pollution have been received concerning (a) Pendine and (b) Aberporth ranges in each of the last five years. [27259]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 3 February 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 10 February 1998:
    I have been asked to reply to your questions about the number of complaints about noise pollution received at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's ranges at Eskmeals, Aberporth and Pendine. I am replying to both questions in this letter.
    The number of complaints about noise pollution received in each of the last five years are as follows

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    Eskmeals

    0

    1

    3

    0

    2

    Pendine

    9

    23

    20

    25

    20

    Aberporth

    2

    0

    1

    0

    0

    There have been no complaints about noise pollution at the Eskmeals ranges during the current year to date.
    I hope this information is helpful.

    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what test, evaluation and research work is currently carried out at the Eskmeals DERA test range; [27265]

    (2) what was the annual income for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and its predecessor from the depleted uranium facility at Eskmeals in each of the last five years; and what is the projected income for the current year and each of the next five years. [27262]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 3 February 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.
    194
    Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 10 February 1998:
    I have been asked to reply to your questions about the work carried out at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's (DERA) range at Eskmeals; and the annual income from the depleted uranium facility at Eskmeals over the last five years and projected income for the current year and the next five years.
    The range at Eskmeals carries out test and evaluation work in support of MOD projects and commercial programmes for a wide range of systems including:

    Proof of

    Ordnance

    Ammunition

    Explosives

    Gun components Fuses

    Armour and armour systems

    Trials of

    Long range ballistics

    Gun components

    Ammunition

    Attack of armour systems

    Demolition and disposal

    Clearance trials for aircraft

    Ordnance

    Complete gun systems

    Free flight rockets

    Armour research and development

    Ship sea trials.

    The income for the DU firing facility at Eskmeals since 1995 is given below:

    Year

    £000

    1995–96

    700

    1996–97

    615

    1997–98

    623

    Information on a comparable basis prior to the inclusion of Eskmeals in the Trading Agency in 1995 is not available. Future income will depend on the requirements of the Ministry of Defence for the facility but an income of approximately £600k is expected for 1998–99.
    I hope this information is helpful.

    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of the State for Defence what was the total(a) income and (b) costs for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency ranges at (i) Pendine, (ii) Eskmeals and (iii) Shoeburyness in each of the last five years. [27366]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 4 February 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 10 February 1998:
    I have been asked to reply to your question about the income and costs of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's ranges at Pendine, Eskmeals and Shoeburyness in each of the last five years.

    195
    The income and costs of the three ranges since 1995–96 is given below. Information on a comparable basis prior to the inclusion of the ranges in the Trading Agency is not available.

    1995–96 £k

    1996–97 £k

    1997–98 £k (forecast)

    Pendine

    Income

    4,092

    8,075

    5,360

    Costs

    6,274

    7,050

    6,741

    Eskmeals

    Income

    5,365

    5,180

    8,101

    Costs

    8,450

    8,537

    8,210

    Shoeburyness

    Income

    25,603

    17,886

    22,247

    Costs

    26,108

    21,105

    20,012

    The Ministry of Defence has provided £8.7 million in strategic pricing to land ranges at Shoeburyness for 1997/98.
    I hope this information is helpful.

    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the merger of the management and administration of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency land, sea and air ranges will take place. [27695]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 10 February 1998:
    I have been asked to reply to your question about the merger of the management and administration of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's (DERA) land, sea and air ranges.
    The management and administration of DERA's land, sea and air ranges were merged into a single sector within the Agency on 1 April 1997. There will be a further realignment of senior management responsibilities within the ranges on 1 April 1998.
    I hope this information is helpful.

    Type 23 Frigates
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what complements of crew Type 23 frigates(a) carried when first commissioned and (b) carry currently. [27508]

    Dr. Reid
    When first commissioned the complement of crew carried by Type 23 frigates was 173. The current complement is 171.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to reduce the complement of Type 23 frigates by refitting with less manpower-intensive equipment; and if he will make a statement. [27887]

    Dr. Reid
    There are no plans to reduce the complement of Type 23 frigates by refitting with less manpower-intensive equipment. Manning implications are taken into consideration when the Operational Requirement for future ships is considered; however, the size of the complement is affected by other considerations such as the manpower needed for damage control and fire-fighting.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average availability of Type 23 frigates for operational service in each of the last five years. [27504]
    196
    Dr. Reid
    Type 23 frigates achieved approximately 85–89 per cent. average availability for operational service in each of the last five years with the exception of 1996 when the figure dropped to just over 80 per cent. due to a number of ships experiencing a particular defect. This discounts time spent in planned maintenance.

    Type 42 Destroyers
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the complement of Type 42 destroyers by refitting with less manpower-intensive equipment; and if he will make a statement. [27883]

    Dr. Reid
    There are no plans to reduce the complement of Type 42 destroyers by refitting with less manpower-intensive equipment. Manning implications are taken into consideration when the Operational Requirement for future ships is considered; however, the size of the complement is affected by other factors such as the manpower needed for damage control and fire-fighting.

    Military Assistance Overseas
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 8 July 1997,Official Report, column 422, and 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 244, on military assistance provided to other countries, who is conducting the review; when the review started; and when he expects it to be completed. [27979]

    Dr. Reid
    The review of our practice on the release of information on military assistance provided to foreign countries has been carried out jointly by my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in consultation with other affected Government Departments. The review was announced in a written answer on 28 January 1997,Official Report, column 141, by the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I hope to announce its outcome soon.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual forgone efficiency saving resulting from the delay to new construction at Ministry of Defence (P E) Abbey Wood caused by the Strategic Defence Review. [28323]

    Mr. George Robertson
    Decisions on the new construction planned at Abbey Wood have been delayed to keep options open while we re-examine the prospects for greater efficiencies overall in the Strategic Defence Review. Since final decisions on the Review have yet to be taken, I cannot give details of future efficiency savings or the impact of the Review on previously planned savings. I am, however, confident that the outcome of the Review will result in improved efficiency throughout my Department.

    Export Contracts
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of new export contracts secured by the British defence industry between 1 May and 31 December 1997. [28311]
    197
    Mr. Spellar
    Information on defence related exports, which include support and infrastructure as significant elements as well as defence equipment, is recorded by the Defence Export Services Organisation. It includes information on contracts signed in each year, supplied by British industry on a voluntary basis. Every effort has been made to make the following information accurate, but the reports on which figures are based may not be complete.

    The information is recorded on a quarterly basis. For the last three quarters of 1997 (ie 1 April-31 December 1997), the total value of new contracts recorded as signed was £4.73 billion.

    Tank Transporters
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the consortia bidding for the supply of tank transporters; and if he will make a statement on the progress of this project. [28338]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: As announced in the MOD Contracts Bulletin Volume 12, No 8 of 10 December 1997, an invitation to submit outline proposals to meet this Department's requirement for heavy equipment transportation has been issued to:

    Econofreight Heavy Transport

    Consortium headed by:

    Mercedes-Benz(UK) Ltd

    Consortium comprising:

    Serco Ltd and MAN Truck & Bus (UK) Limited

    Consortium comprising:

    Alvis Unipower plc, Ryder plc, PHH Vehicle Management Service plc

    Multidrive Ltd.

    Consortium headed by:

    Lex Service plc

    A joint venture comprising:

    Brown & Root Ltd./Oshkosh Truck Corporation

    Econofreight Heavy Transport and Multidrive Ltd. have subsequently withdrawn from the competition.

    The remaining consortia are due to submit their outline proposals later this month.

    Fox Hunting
    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of army personnel, both staff and civilian, involved in the hunting of foxes with hounds on the defence estate. [28912]

    Mr. Spellar
    I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hounds are maintained at(a) the Salisbury Plain training area and (b) the Otterbum training area for the purpose of hunting foxes. [28913]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Royal Artillery Hunt keeps a pack of some 80 hounds on Salisbury Plain Training Area. The Hunt is, however, a private organisation and kennels in which the hounds are kept were built by and belong to the Hunt and not the Ministry of Defence.

    No hounds are kept at Otterbum Training Area.
    198
    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to public funds of the use of army vehicles and equipment in connection with the hunting of foxes with hounds on the defence estate. [28918]

    Mr. Spellar
    As with Army horses, Army vehicles and equipment may be used in connection with fox hunting, when they are not required for Army duties. However, individuals using Army vehicles and equipment for this purpose pay to do so, so that no cost is incurred by the public purse.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the number of reported injuries to(a) army personnel and (b) horses involved in the hunting of foxes with hounds on the defence estate in each of the last five years. [28915]

    Mr. Spellar
    My Department does not hold records of the number of injuries sustained by Army personnel when hunting foxes with hounds on the Defence estate. No central records are held of injuries sustained by Army horses involved in fox hunting on the Defence estate, and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. My Department holds no records of injuries sustained by privately owned horses involved in hunting on the defence estate.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by rank the number of army and civilian personnel who are involved(a) full-time and (b) part-time in maintaining stables of horses and kennels of hounds for the purpose of hunting foxes on the defence estate. [28916]

    Mr. Spellar
    No Army or MOD civilian personnel are employed to maintain stables of horses or kennels of hounds for the purpose of hunting foxes on the defence estate.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to public funds of the maintenance of(a) stables of horses and (b) kennels of hounds for the purpose of hunting foxes on the defence estate. [28919]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Ministry of Defence does not maintain stables of horses and kennels of hounds for the purpose of hunting on the defence estate.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by name those army units which maintain horses and hounds for the purpose of fox hunting on the army estate. [28917]

    Mr. Spellar
    No Army units maintain horses and hounds for the purpose of fox hunting. Members of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment and the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery participate in various hunts throughout the country, and may use their Army horses to do so. However, as with other non-military equestrian activities, Army horses may be used for hunting only if it does not impede military or ceremonial duties, and any additional costs incurred are borne privately by the rider.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many army personnel have(a) been hospitalised for more than 24 hours and (b) taken sick leave of more than three days following injuries sustained while involved in hunting with hounds on the defence estate in each of the last five years. [28914]
    199
    Mr. Spellar
    This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    RAF Chivenor
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military units are currently based at RAF Chivenor; and what plans there are to transfer other military units to the base. [28676]

    Mr. Spellar
    Chivenor became an establishment of the Royal Marines Command within the organisation of Commander-in-Chief Fleet in Autumn 1995. The units based at RM Barracks Chivenor are: The Commando Logistic Regiment Royal Marines; 59 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers; the Squadron Headquarters and "A" Flight of 22 (Search and Rescue) Squadron RAF; and 642 Volunteer Glider School RAF. There are no current plans to transfer other military units to the base.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Radio Communications Agency
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Radio Communications Agency was last subject to an audit by the National Audit Office. [24687]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The National Audit office undertook an audit at the Radio Communications Agency during 1997. The assignment, which involved auditing the Agency's annual accounts for 1996–97, was completed prior to the issue of the Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons on 7 November 1997 (prepared in accordance with the Agency's Accounts Direction of 21 July 1993). The Agency Annual Report and Accounts for 1996–97 containing these audited accounts is available in the Libraries of the House.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) rental, (b) leased and (c) freehold property assets are held by the Radio Communications Agency. [24689]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The following figures are the latest available for a full financial year. This information covers only properties for which the Agency was then required to disclose asset details in its audited balance sheet. At that time, the Agency did not include in its balance sheet capital values for freehold, long leasehold or rented properties or related land which it occupied, except where it had incurred capital costs itself in acquiring or improving those properties. At 31 March 1997, the carrying value of such costs was £2,420,000, relating almost exclusively to fitting out its leased temporary headquarters at London Blackfriars.

    The position will change with effect from 31 March 1998 when PRS rents are abolished. Property values will subsequently be included in the balance sheet where the Agency is the sole or major occupier. The fixed asset carrying values of such properties that would have applied at 31 March 1997, if PRS rents had already been abolished, was £819,000.
    200
    The details have been taken from the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts 1996–97 which is available in the Libraries of the House.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the budget of the Radio Communications Agency is spent on overseas visits. [24688]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The following figures are the latest available for a full financial year.

    £000

    1996–97

    Overseas travel spend

    715

    Total Agency spend

    40,587

    Overseas travel spend %

    1.76%

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total annual revenue raised by the Radio Communications Agency; and from what sources. [24691]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The following are the latest available figures for a full financial year:

    Sources

    Income £000

    Licensing:

    Statutory (see breakdown below)

    36,127

    Interdepartmental

    3,838

    Other:

    Examination work

    383

    Typing testing and certification work

    477

    Miscellaneous income1

    1,783

    Total Income

    42,608

    Licensing: Statutory breakdown

    Aeronautical

    937

    Amateur and Citizen's Band

    1,579

    Broadcast

    4,179

    Fixed Services

    5,886

    Maritime

    1,987

    Private Business Radio

    10,922

    Programme making and special events

    1,070

    Public mobile communications

    7,248

    Space services

    2,224

    Technology Development

    98

    Total

    36,127

    1 Miscellaneous income consists principally of income from investigation of domestic interference complaints.

    These figures are taken from the Agency's Annual Accounts and Reports for 1996–97, a copy of which is available in the House's library.

    Multilateral Agreement on Investment
    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department 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. [26716]
    201
    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 30 January 1998]: The Department for International Development is commissioning a study on any implications the MAI may have for developing countries. We support continued consultation with developing countries on this matter.

    Empty Properties
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her estimate of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has responsibility, in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year. [26595]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Government property is held in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, for those properties for which my Department is administratively responsible, my best estimates are as follows:

    Year

    Department

    Agencies

    Other

    1995–96

    Cost

    172,824

    —

    2,458,000

    Value

    —

    —

    32,202,000

    1996–97

    Cost

    325,743

    55,000

    2,756,000

    Value

    75,000

    100,000

    34,102,000

    1997–98 (to date)

    Cost

    604,236

    45,833

    2,341,000

    Value

    3,450,000

    100,000

    28,570,000

    1997–98 (full year)

    Cost

    786,518

    55,000

    3,166,000

    Value

    3,450,000

    205,000

    26,070,000

    Notes:

    1. Building earmarked for demolition have not been valued.

    2. Developed land with no buildings on it has been excluded from the figures.

    Conferences
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the conferences held by her Department since 1 May 1997, giving in each case the(a) purpose and (b) estimated cost. [27779]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Information in the form requested is not held centrally within the Department, which has held many conferences since 1 May 1997. It could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Official Hospitality
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her current estimate of the expenditure of her Department, its agencies and non departmental public bodies on hospitality since 1 May 1997. [27780]
    202
    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Disaggregated information in the form requested in respect of non-departmental public bodies and the Government Offices could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The other information is as follows:

    £000

    Central Department

    508,403

    Companies House

    19,000

    National Weights and Measures Laboratory

    3,875

    Patent Office

    14,199

    Radiocommunications Agency

    62,853

    Total

    608,330

    Blind Trust
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the compatibility of paragraph 114 of the Ministerial Code with the membership of her blind trust for research expenses. [28126]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: I am satisfied that I have complied with paragraph 114 of the Code.

    Engineers
    Mr. John M. Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she had during her recent visit to Land Rover regarding the recruitment of skilled engineers; and if she will make a statement. [28530]

    Mr. Battle
    Land Rover did not raise this matter during my right hon. Friend's recent visit.

    The Government attach a high priority to raising skill levels in the workforce. DTI is closely involved, along with the local partners and vehicle manufacturers, in several initiatives to increase the supply of skilled engineers in the automotive sector.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will assess the advantages of increasing the level of the fossil fuel levy with a view to encouraging renewable energy services. [28320]

    Mr. Battle
    The rate of the fossil fuel levy is set in response to expected demand on levy funds. My Department is currently reviewing what would be necessary and practical to achieve 10% of the UK's electricity needs from renewable sources by the year 2010. I will publish the outcome of that review later this year.

    Independent Retailing
    Mr. Cotter
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will commission an Office for National Statistics research paper on all aspects of independent retailing in the United Kingdom.[28478]

    Mr. Battle
    The Department of Trade and Industry has no plans to commission a research paper from the Office for National Statistics on independent retailing.

    Respiratory Diseases (Coalminers)
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated total legal bill for the Government for the recent coalminers' respiratory diseases action. [28267]

    Mr. Battle
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The Government took over this liability from British Coal on 1 January 1998. Total costs of defending the litigation are approximately £10 million to date, with the vast majority of costs having been met by British Coal. In addition, the Government will meet the plaintiffs' costs, as instructed by the High Court on 6 February, as and when they are presented and finalised.

    Energy Industries (Employment)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the number of persons employed in the United Kingdom in the energy industries by sector in each of the last three years. [28344]

    Mr. Battle
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: Figures separately identifying components of the energy industries such as electricity and gas are not readily available; however, estimated figures for these sectors for 1980, 1990 and provisional figures for 1996 were published in Volume 1 of the 1997 Energy Report "Shaping Change". These estimates are based on detailed Annual Employment Survey data which have been revised since publication of the Energy Report. For this reason, the ONS figures, which are more up to date than those in the Energy Report, are given.

    The latest available comparable figures for employment in the energy industries in Great Britain are as follows:

    Employees in employment in the energy industries

    Thousands

    11995

    11996

    11997

    Mining of coal, lignite, peat extraction

    10.9

    10.5

    9.6

    Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas4

    25.3

    30.8

    33.7

    Electricity, gas steam and hot water supply5

    117.8

    99.8

    98.7

    Manufacture of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel6

    30.0

    33.6

    33.2

    Total

    184.0

    174.8

    175.2

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics

    1Annual Employment Survey figures, based on September. Figures exclude contractors.

    2Short term Survey data, based on September 1997. Figures exclude contractors.

    3Corresponds to Standard Industrial Classification 1992 (SIC92) code 10.

    4SIC92 11

    5SIC92 40

    6SIC92 23

    Fuels (Consumption)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the proportionate share of British fuel consumption represented by the major fuels in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997; and what estimate she has made of these relative shares for 1998. [27981]
    204
    Mr. Battle
    [holding answer 9 February 1998]: Estimates for 1998 are not available. Updated energy projections are currently being prepared by the DTI and will be published later in the year. The available figures for the share of primary energy consumption due to each of the main fuels in the UK are as follows:

    UK inland consumption of primary fuels and equivalents for energy use, percentage share of total primary energy consumption

    1995

    1996

    1997 (provisional)

    52000

    Coal1

    22.7

    20.2

    18.8

    12.9

    Petroleum2

    34.7

    33.9

    34.0

    36.4

    Natural gas3

    31.9

    35.6

    36.3

    39.7

    Primary electricity4

    10.5

    10.3

    10.9

    11.0

    Total (per cent.)

    100

    100

    100

    100

    Total (million tonnes of oil equivalent)

    219.5

    231.6

    222.4

    234.2

    1 Includes other solid fuels and solid renewables (wood, waste etc.).

    2 Excludes petroleum for non-energy use and international marine bunkers.

    3 Includes colliery methane, gaseous renewables (landfill gas, sewage gas).

    4 Mainly nuclear electricity, but includes hydro and net imports of electricity.

    5 DTI forecast as published in EP65 "Energy Projections for the UK" in March 1995 but modified to reflect the current methodology for calculating nuclear fuel inputs. Forecast based on central GDP growth and low fuel prices. For the year 2000 renewable sources are included under primary electricity, they are projected to account for 0.6 per cent. of primary energy consumption in 2000.

    Companies House
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 666, if she will indicate the cost of the (a) refunds, (b) free screens and (c) free searches given to subscribers to the new on-line Companies House information system; and if the cost has been refunded to Companies House by ORT. [28920]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    Refunds and free searches on Companies House on-line information system are as follows:

    The indicative costs:

    (a) Refunds on subscriptions: £9,300

    (b)Free screens: £3,800

    (c)Free searches: £32,400

    Discussions are continuing between Companies House and ORT and their network provider over refunds to Companies House.

    Defence Export Licences
    Mr. David Davis
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on delays in the application process for export licences for defence equipment made by British companies. [26431]

    Mr. Brady
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on delays in the application process for export licences for defence equipment made by British companies. [26439]

    Mrs. Beckett
    Licences to export strategic goods are issued by the President of the Board of Trade and the Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority. Relevant
    205
    individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest, as determined by them in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.

    In his announcement last year of new criteria of the assessment of export licence applications on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear that the criteria would not be applied mechanistically and that individual applications would be considered case by case. In the months following the announcement, this led to an increase in the time taken to assess some applications. The Government appreciate the inconvenience and uncertainty that results from any delay in the processing of individual
    206
    applications and my department, together with the other departments involved, is continuing to work to reduce processing timescales generally.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment is made of the likely incidence of sham recovery, as defined by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, in its October 1997 report on the import and export of radioactive waste, when considering application from nuclear reprocessors to import spent nuclear fuel. [28468]

    Mr. Battle
    The UK has no facilities for the direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel and therefore "sham recovery", as defined by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, is not a practical option.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Iran
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
What obstacles exist to establishing full diplomatic relations with Iran and when they anticipate that these obstacles will be removed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have full diplomatic relations with Iran. Our embassy in Tehran is headed by a chargé d'affaires, however, not an ambassador. This is a reciprocal agreement. We have been encouraged by recent political developments in Iran and would welcome a more constructive bilateral relationship. However, we still have major concerns about Iran's attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, its support for terrorism, including groups opposed to the Middle East peace process, its poor human rights record and the continuing and wholly unacceptable threat to the life of Salman Rushdie and those associated with his work.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, since it is obvious that the people of both Iran and Britain want closer relations, can the Minister confirm that it is the policy of the Government to support and encourage closer links for commercial and cultural reasons? Further, does the Minister agree that it may be a good idea to send to Iran an all-party parliamentary delegation led by a Minister in order to clarify issues and perhaps find a better way forward?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been encouraged by recent developments. As I informed the House about 10 days ago, we hope for an improvement in the relationship. We are reviewing the relationship under our presidency of the EU. It is too early to commit ourselves to the kind of exchanges with Iran that the noble Lord suggests, but if that country is able to demonstrate its willingness to go forward on human rights, terrorism and in particular the unjustifiable fatwa on Salman Rushdie the picture in that respect will appear much brighter.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I accept the comments of the Minister as to those matters that Iran must put right. However, has she considered the possibility of extending cultural relations, perhaps through the British Council, as a way of encouraging the more liberal elements that at long last are beginning to emerge in Iranian society?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, as and when Iran takes the right steps. but they must be definitive steps. At the moment cultural exchanges are bound not to sit well with a country that has expressed a fatwa on the life of a British citizen for writing a book. Such exchanges are bound to be a little difficult, to say the least, until Iran addresses that point.
Lord Healey: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's remarks about Iran. But does she agree that all the complaints she makes about that country apply equally to Israel? Indeed, even the case of Salman Rushdie is reciprocated in Israel by the treatment of Vanunu. Therefore, should we not at least have as good relations with Iran as we have with Israel?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. The state of Israel has a democratically elected government. We may not agree with many of the actions that that government take. I have had occasion to express that view in this House in relation to Jerusalem and illegal settlements. The Israeli Government are, however, democratically elected. We are discussing with them how to take forward the peace process. We are not at present engaged in that kind of discussion with Iran about the matters that that country must address, notably terrorism, its record on human rights, and the question of Salman Rushdie.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House of the cost of the special protection that has been provided to Salman Rushdie since the fatwa was placed upon him and what proportion of that is borne by the public purse?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to give definitive figures for the cost of the special protection provided to Salman Rushdie. I shall ensure not only that the answer is sent to the noble Baroness but also that it is placed in the Library of the House. I believe that the noble Baroness raises an important point. But the issue must be seen in the context of protecting the life of a British citizen. Whatever the costs, they have been fully justified. I believe that when the Opposition were in government they would have taken a very similar view.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the editor of the English language newspaper published in Tehran, the Iran Daily News, has just been sentenced to death on a charge of spying for Great Britain? Is the Minister also aware that 200 people were executed by Iran last year, some by the barbarous method of stoning? Does the Minister agree that the Iranians have a very long way to go before they satisfy the criteria of human rights to which she referred?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the sentence of death to which the noble Lord refers. We have protested about that matter to the Iranian Government. We have also made our views clear about the case of Mr. Hofer, a German national, who at the moment is also under sentence of death.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Iran, may I ask whether the Minister is aware of Iran's exemplary work with regard to refugees? That country has opened its borders to no less than 4 million refugees in the past decade with virtually no help from United Nations agencies or the European Union. Is the Minister prepared to draw this work to their attention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. It is because we are aware of positive developments in Iran in recent months, which we have noted and which our EU partners have been watching with interest, that we are encouraged by that country's recent attempts to make better relationships, not just in respect of the refugees mentioned by the noble Baroness but also with its neighbours. It has reduced its rhetoric about the West; it has condemned terrorist atrocities in Algeria and Egypt. Another positive step has been the recent decision to ratify the chemical weapons convention. For those reasons, we feel that it is right to review our relationship in a positive way.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, given that the Foreign Secretary has said that we and our EU partners cannot forge a new partnership with the US on Iran while we are looking down the barrel of the sanctions Act gun; while the US Secretary of State has said that "we"—in other words, the US and the EU—are working together to achieve convergence in our approaches to Iran; and while faithfully implementing US law, how is that convergence to be achieved?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. As I said to the House on a previous occasion, we take a different view from the US about Iran—a point which some noble Lords might wish to know in view of some of the ill-founded remarks made about the UK Government always following the lead of the US. We do not believe in isolating Iran. Our long-term goal is not the containment of Iran. We do not accept the ILSA legislation—the US extra-territorial legislation—nor do we accept its isolation. We shall continue to argue those points with our friends in the US so that we can find a point of agreement upon which to go ahead.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under Iranian law only the person who placed the fatwa can remove it? Since it was put on by Khomeini, there is an impasse that cannot be removed because he is dead.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is taking an unnecessarily negative view on that point. If we did not believe that there were grounds for furthering the relationship, we should not have made the point under our presidency of looking forward to improved relations with Iran. I have made clear the point about Salman Rushdie. That is non-compromisable, but let us hope that the Government of Iran can meet us on that important matter.

Alcohol: Excise Duty Fraud
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in reducing fraudulent disposal within the United Kingdom of alcoholic liquor, after it has been taken out of bond without payment of excise taxes, for the supposed purpose of exporting it abroad.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Customs continue to pursue vigorously those involved in excise duty fraud and have had notable successes. Figures for this type of fraud are not recorded separately, but it forms a high proportion of the achievements of the Customs National Investigation Service. In the financial year 1995–96 the revenue evasion-prevented value of cases was some £150 million and in 1996–97 it rose to £572 million.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Since his reassuring Answers to my Question on 30th June, at least one large racket has been broken up, with convictions of the culprits. Is he aware that that confirms our impression that his power and influence extend far beyond this House? Is he satisfied, though, that the special investigators whom he mentioned then can now detect the sophisticated forgeries which play a major part in these frauds, and which are so damaging to industry and retailers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot tell a lie: I did not do it all by myself. The noble Lord is of course right. The assignment of 130 additional investigators under the spend-to-save initiative has been notably successful. However, I fear that the ingenuity of fraudsters advances as well as the skills of the investigators.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how did this type of evasion become so profitable and so widespread? Was it due to a reduction in staff in the Revenue? How did it happen? It used to be that one could hardly get a nip in a distillery and now apparently the land is flowing with duty free alcohol.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, legitimate duty free goods form a separate issue. As the noble Lord will be aware, it is planned to come to an end in July of next year. As to his first question, there has been an increase in the amount of fraud over a considerable period. There are many reasons for that. They include, but are not dominated by, differences in duty.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is not part of the problem that, as a result of the single market, we have had to take certain steps with regard to excise duty and how people can take whisky out of bond for export which allow these crooks to get into the business? Does the noble Lord realise that I greatly welcome his assurances that steps are being taken, and

995
will be taken legislatively if necessary, to prevent that? Does he further agree that the problem is not just one for the Excise, it is one for legitimate businessmen who find that other businessmen can, by buying this whisky which was due for export, indulge in predatory pricing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for nearly everything he says. He is right to say that we are taking action to review—if that is not a dirty word, too—the whole issue of fraud, smuggling and cross-border shopping. That was announced in the July Budget. The results of the inquiry are in their final stages and will be used in the run up to the forthcoming Budget. Concurrently, a high level group of states of the European Union is due to report by March this year. Therefore, as the noble Lord suggests, a great deal is going on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as part of the review system, could consideration be given to offering the bond system so that a rebate is paid against viable shipping or transport documents at the time the goods are removed from the warehouse for export? In other words, could we not introduce a new system which could be verified at the time with documents that are difficult to forge because they can be checked by Customs and Excise?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord's question contains two aspects. The first is a review of whether and when duty should be paid. Drawback fraud—that is when duty is paid and then claimed back as though the goods had been exported—is an important source of fraud and I do not think that the noble Lord's solution would work well. Secondly, documentation is as simple as it can be consistent with keeping proper records. The difficulty is the sophistication of those who continue to forge the documentation. We spend a great deal of time on checking cases of fraud and forged documentation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the end of duty free shopping next year. Is he aware that many people are concerned that the end of duty free shopping will cause not only a great deal of discomfort to the ordinary public but will result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs? Has my noble friend had representations from my old trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union—I declare an interest—which is concerned about the matter and is mounting a national campaign to oppose it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of the concern and that claims of job losses are circulating. They seem to the Government to be grossly exaggerated. The ending of duty free shopping has been presaged for many years as a natural and necessary part of the single market. The continuation of duty free shopping would require the unanimous vote of all states.

Strategic Defence Review
2.53 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to complete the strategic defence review.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, the strategic defence review is now looking at possible missions for our forces, military tasks, future force structures and capabilities, procurement and a wide range of efficiency-related issues. Once all work on the review has been considered by Ministers, we will publish a White Paper setting out our overall conclusions. I envisage that the White Paper will be published in the first part of this year.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he assure the House that the defence review is still determined by foreign policy and defence requirements and not by pressures for further cuts in the defence budget? In that context, will he take an early opportunity to discuss these matters with officers and men and women of the Armed Forces, where he will find considerable concern and anxiety about their future?
Lord Gilbert:: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the review is and will remain foreign policy-led. The noble Lord is right in saying that we are discussing. and will continue to discuss, these matters with members of the Armed Forces. It is particularly important that we maintain well equipped and well motivated forces and that is part of the strategic defence review. I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord that later this week I shall be visiting British service personnel in Kuwait and Bahrain. I shall also be visiting Qatar, when I hope to be able to brief our friends in those countries about our efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the Gulf crisis.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, if the strategic defence review recommends measures which will entail greater expenditure, will the Minister appeal to the Treasury for an increased defence Vote? If that is not forthcoming will Ministers in the Ministry of Defence resign their offices of state?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is a little premature for us to be considering resignation. We are not without hope of obtaining certain enhancements to our capabilities as a result of the review.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with defence commitments as they are and as they are likely to continue, with the Armed Forces so manifestly overstretched and undermanned, and with previous defence studies going back for at least nine years prying into every nook and cranny of defence value for money, there can be no logical case for reducing further the resources allotted to defence?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I note what the noble and gallant Lord says. He speaks with great wisdom on these

997
matters, but, even after his tenure as Chief of the Defence Staff, we believe that there is still waste and that we can gain efficiency enhancements. We hope to be able to obtain additional resources for the defence Vote out of those savings.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Eurofighter is included in the strategic defence review? It is an expenditure of about £15 billion, which is possibly the largest portion of defence expenditure. It is a lot to exclude. Looking at our foreign policy as a whole and the review as part of that, can the Minister also confirm that the budgets and figures will take account of expenditure in other parts of our international policy, including a small part of the budget taken up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the Eurofighter is an expensive project. It will be the biggest single drain on our resources in the years ahead. We have made it clear that we are committed to buying 232 of these planes in conjunction with three of our leading allies in Europe. I am pleased to say that the programme is making a great deal of progress.
As regards other elements of expenditure, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on defence diplomacy. As the noble Lord indicated, it costs a great deal, but we believe that it will bring considerable bonuses in enhanced security.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that one of the major features of our survival during the last war was that we had the largest merchant navy in the world. It was able to suffer tremendous losses while continuing to supply the logistics. During the past 25 years it has disappeared from the oceans. Can the Minister tell us whether the White Paper will deal with the delivery of logistics? We have no merchant navy. We were called to action in the Falklands and managed to get away with it, but we could not do so again because we have no ships.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I must invite my noble friend to await the outcome of the review, but I can assure him that questions of our strategic lift capabilities figure highly in our thoughts at this moment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, may I express my sympathy with the Minister for his inability for months to answer any Question that has been asked because of the imminence of the strategic defence review? Will he draw to the attention of his honourable friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and particularly in the Treasury, the lowering of morale among our Armed Forces because of the delay in the review and their fears for the future, which seem to be justified?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, of course I do not accept for one moment the quite preposterous postulate put forward by the noble Lord that the morale of our Armed
998
Forces is very low. I am quite sure that I shall very shortly be able to bring back detailed refutation from the Gulf on that point.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in view of some alarming reports that the Government are considering forming a tri-service logistics monolith, will the Minister assure the House that the logistic command of our forces will continue to be exercised separately by each of the services? Does he agree that the doctrine and practice of support for the Royal Air Force, which is very mobile, differs from that for the Army and that both are different from that for the Royal Navy?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that the requirements of the three services differ considerably in areas of logistics, supply and maintainability. However, he will recognise, from his vast experience in these matters, that there are still many savings which can be made in those areas.

Gibraltar: NATO Activities
3 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present position of Gibraltar is causing any difficulty in regard to activities associated with NATO membership.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there continue to be some restrictions on NATO military activities in and around Gibraltar, affecting aircraft movements, naval movements and the participation of Gibraltar-based military assets in NATO exercises. We are discussing those bilaterally with Spain in the context of Spanish integration into the NATO command structure.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Are she and her colleagues fully aware that over recent years Spain has been particularly enthusiastic to support self-determination and international recognition throughout every part of Europe except Gibraltar; notably in the cases of Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino? Could not our policy be one of seeking to ensure that Spain is consistent and extends the same approach to the Rock? Let it be based upon democracy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government have in no way been anything other than straightforward in their views on that question. We have no hesitation whatever in making that clear not only to Spain but to our friends elsewhere. Our commitment remains steadfast. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in his speech on 4th February to the Dependent Territories Association Conference, we stand by the assurance given to the people of Gibraltar in the preamble to the 1969 constitution. We shall never allow the people of

999
Gibraltar to pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm in the light of the changes in the structure of the Allied Command Europe Southern Region that COMGIBMED will be retained; in other words, the retention of the Commander Gibraltar Mediterranean?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an undertaking that we shall not allow Spanish military command over Gibraltar nor the presence of Spanish military personnel on the Rock. We have made that clear.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, given that Spain has certain responsibilities of her own in relation to defence in the straits; that Spain has been a member of NATO for some years; and that Spain is a full member of the European Union, would not the Government give some thought to making it a higher priority in their foreign policy aims to reach a solution of that problem? That would be of great assistance to the future development of our relations with Spain and the rest of Europe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government give a very high priority to that issue, as I said in my original Answer. We are currently discussing those issues bilaterally with Spain. Moreover, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised those issues with his Spanish counterpart on 10th December last year and we have discussed those matters in the margins of the conference to which I referred a few moments ago with Peter Caruana.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that on both sides of the House we are grateful for her robust repetition of this country's position; namely, that there is no circumstance in which Gibraltar will change its status without the consent of its people? In those circumstances, will she please consider following the American example as regards its dependent territories and allow Gibraltar to send a delegate to this Parliament without voting powers but with the right to sit and speak, as a signal to our friends in Spain of our Government's determination?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean; My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support for the Government's forthright commitment on Gibraltar. He raises the question too of representation in the Houses of Parliament of those from Gibraltar. Mr. Caruana has put forward various suggestions to my right honourable friend which are being considered at present. I ask the House to await the outcome of my right honourable friend's considerations of various constitutional points and other matters of practical application which Mr. Caruana has put forward.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am delighted with her splendid and
1000
unequivocal statement that British interests will be upheld as they have been over a long period of time in relation to the Rock of Gibraltar? But is she aware that there are many complaints that the Spanish authorities are harassing tourists and lorry drivers who wish to cross from Spain to Gibraltar? Will she put pressure on the Spanish authorities to cease that harassment since it is non-communautaire—if I may put it in that way?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was not aware of my noble friend's approbation but I am very pleased to hear it. In addition, he raised the important question of the harassment around the Gibraltar-Spanish border. We are aware of those incidents as and when they arise; and when they arise, we make very clear to the Spanish authorities what we think of them.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, specifically, is it still the firm position of the Foreign Secretary to continue to defer agreement on Spain's integration into NATO's military command structure unless all the current Spanish restrictions on the movement of military aircraft in and out of Gibraltar are dropped since, as the Minister knows, NATO decisions must be reached by consensus?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said in answer to the original Question, we are discussing those matters at present. It is not wise to prejudice the outcome of those decisions. But I have made it very clear that many of the Spanish ambitions in relation to Gibraltar are unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3 p.m. today, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Iraq.
I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to,
"brief comments and questions for clarification".
There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's official reply to the Opposition spokesman.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Anti-social behaviour orders]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("16,") and insert ("12,").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is a probing amendment. It is always a privilege and a joy to address the Committee while feeling as though one is being trampled underfoot by noble Lords leaving the Chamber after Question Time. I have to say that I hope that that will not be a procedure in the future Scottish parliament.
The amendment is designed to find out why it is considered unwise to include secondary school pupils in the scope of antisocial behaviour orders in Scotland. This is a particularly relevant issue in Scotland, where the peak age of offending is one year before the school leaving age; namely, 15 years. If the merit of an antisocial behaviour order is that it is forward looking and, hence, likely to control future behaviour, why is it not appropriate to use such a civil remedy in the worst cases of juvenile offences?
I can anticipate, with respect, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will say that introducing antisocial behaviour orders into the children's panel system would be too complicated, and that children can be referred to the reporter if they are behaving antisocially. Should he do so, I would reply that the public do not know that the reporter can receive complaints about antisocial behaviour as opposed to specific offences.
I strongly suspect that local authorities will receive complaints about under 16 year-olds. As the bulk of the antisocial behaviour will be generated by that age group, the antisocial behaviour officer—or whatever the person concerned is called—will have to send the complainants away dissatisfied. Alternatively, the antisocial behaviour officer will have to send them to the reporter. That would be in breach of the policy of having a one-stop shop.
Perhaps—and this is, I hope, an important "perhaps"—as an afterthought, the noble and learned Lord will say that it is the Government's intention that parents of children who behave antisocially will be made the subjects of an antisocial behaviour order. I can give a serious example to the Committee of where that might be appropriate. Despite the kind words last week of the noble and learned Lord about Clackmannanshire, it is from there that I want to draw such an example.
Youthful off-road motorcyclists are becoming a real pain to many citizens in Clackmannan. They are riding inadequately silenced motorbikes around the Back Wood, within 50 metres of the flats. I should declare an interest here in that I live 300 metres from the same woods, and I should say that the noise is intrusive at that distance. Therefore, I leave it to of the Committee to imagine what it is like at 50 metres for those who live in the flats. The motorcyclists are riding on, and demanding priority on, a legally-asserted public footpath, among other footpaths. The surface of that public footpath is being broken up, and pedestrians are now avoiding that footpath because of such misbehaviour.
The case I make is this: if an antisocial behaviour order is not available for these youthful motorcyclists, will the order be appropriate for the parents who bought the motorcycles? A child brought before the children's panel is usually cited as being "beyond parental control", and an offence is libelled in evidence. Where does the parent stand in all this if he has bought the motorcycle? Does that act of purchase and consequent encouragement of his children to ride the motorbike, in an antisocial manner, constitute behaviour suitable for an antisocial behaviour order? I believe that I have said enough in that respect. The inclusion of over 12 year-olds in the clause would meet the needs of harassed people, especially neighbours. It is miserable to have one's home life disturbed regularly by others. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In speaking to Amendment No. 43, to which I have attached my name, perhaps I may speak also to the other amendments in the group. The amendments raise two important issues. The first was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie; namely, whether or not antisocial behaviour orders, and sex offender orders set out in Clause 19(6), can be sought against those under the age of 16. The proposal in the amendments is that the lower age limit should be reduced to 12 years of age. Those noble Lords who had been considering the Bill in detail will be aware that the similar English provisions admit the possibility of orders being made against children of 10 years of age, or older.
Moreover, if a sheriff makes an antisocial behaviour order against a child under the age of 16, there is the related issue of whether he should also have power to grant an order against the parent/guardian, or other adult caring for that child, requiring such an adult to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the child complies with the antisocial behaviour order which has been imposed.
As far as concerns the first argument, I am tempted to confine my remarks to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said on the last occasion. When referring to the words of the noble Earl, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the noble Earl's considerable experience of social work in Scotland and suggested to me that I might do well to listen to him. I should like to return that invitation because, whether or not the noble Earl is speaking about Clackmannan or other areas in Scotland, he undoubtedly has experience in the matter.
There are a number of other arguments that I wish to lay before the Committee this afternoon. In doing so, it is important for Members of the Committee to bear in mind the fact that the Bill does not include any Scottish equivalent of the parenting order, which is one of the provisions to which our attention will be turned later today. It cannot be disputed that there is ample evidence available, both to those who work within the criminal justice system and members of the public, to show that a significant proportion of the conduct that constitutes antisocial behaviour in our society is committed by children.
Indeed, I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be well aware of an action which took place in Kirkcaldy sheriff court in 1994. It was raised by Glenrothes Development Corporation, the new

1003
town authority, which sought to evict a family by the name of Graham. Among the witnesses in that case was the noble and learned Lord's honourable friend the Minister of State, Henry McLeish, who gave evidence as the local MP. The hearing lasted some three weeks, and the sheriff delivered herself of a 139-page judgment. It was obvious from a reading of that document that a very significant proportion of the behaviour which had, quite frankly, terrorised the neighbours of that family had been committed by two children under the age of 16. In the event, the action was successful and the family were evicted, but not until—and this may be of significance when we come to consider later amendments—very protracted court proceedings had run their course.
When we began our debate last week in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stressed that youths whom he described as,
"constantly playing games such as baseball, football and [other] loud games".
can make life a misery for householders. I believe that those comments were used in the context of black householders, but I am quite sure that the noble Lord would willingly accept that they could apply to householders of all descriptions. On that occasion the noble Lord also said:
"This country will not stand for thar.—[Official Report, 3/2/98: col. 5381
I agree with that comment but, in my submission, it is equally applicable to children whether they live north or south of the Border.
As the noble Earl mentioned, in Scotland we have a well-established and much respected system of children's panels to which children who are in need of compulsory measures of care are entitled to be referred. Among the grounds for making such a reference is that the child has committed an offence. There are many others, but I need not go into them this afternoon. However, the existence of that panel system does not mean that there are never occasions when the public interest demands that children should be prosecuted. Frankly, those occasions do not happen very often, but they occur from time to time. This would involve the direct supervision of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the procurators fiscal. After consulting with reporters to the children's hearing, they may decide that it is not appropriate that a child should be dealt with by a children's hearing but should be prosecuted in a court of law, with various restrictions to protect the anonymity of the child, the accused and any child witnesses who may give evidence.
The proposal that I put before the Committee in this series of amendments, in so far as it applies to sex offender orders, could arise only if that course of action had been taken and if a child who had committed a sexual offence such as rape, lewd or libidinous practices, indecent assault, or something of that nature, had been prosecuted in a court of law and had been convicted, because Clause 19 sex offender orders apply only to such persons who have been convicted in the courts.
1004
I believe that there are cases where it would be appropriate for the courts to grant such orders against children, for example children of a family such as the Graham family to whom I have already referred. There may be other children who are quite outwith the control of the adult or parent with whom they reside. In their cases the children's hearings powers offer no real protection to members of the public. This issue was addressed by the Government in the consultation paper. Paragraph 7 may give a somewhat misleading impression. It states in relation to a child,
"Breach of a supervision order would lead to the Hearing reviewing the original order and considering the case for stronger measures".
As I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will accept, the powers available to a children's hearing are limited to imposing supervision requirements either of a non-residential nature, which allow the child to remain at home, or with a residential requirement which can specify where the child should stay, either with an adult, another relative or, in extreme cases, in secure accommodation. The latter is, of course, a drastic step. As is always the case as regards young people in custody, there are limited places available.
If this additional option were available to the state through a local authority, I believe that it would offer innocent members of the public additional protection from antisocial behaviour at the hands of children. I mentioned a moment ago that this matter was referred to in the consultation paper. When the Minister, Mr. McLeish, reported on the outcome of that consultation exercise he stated that 70 per cent. of those who responded to the consultation paper supported the idea of such orders applying to children under 16 years of age. That consultation involved a wide range of consultees including some police bodies, local authorities and others. Despite such a volume of support the Government unfortunately did not decide to implement in Scotland what they are committed to implementing in England.
I can deal with the second issue more briefly. If we are dealing with a child against whom an antisocial behaviour order is imposed, and the adults in that household have not attracted such an order themselves as a result of their behaviour, I believe it would help to protect the public and, equally importantly, help to ensure that the young child behaves himself, if the adults were subject to an order along the lines of that I propose; namely, one which requires them to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the child complies with the order that has been imposed on him.
Finally, Amendment No. 98 seeks to give power to a sheriff to refer a child to a children's panel if during the course of a hearing under Clauses 18 or 19 the child's behaviour came to his attention. I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Earl.
Lord Monson: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may a mere Sassenach inquire why he and his colleagues have opted for 12 as the minimum age rather than 10, as in the clauses covering similar

1005
offences in England and Wales? Sadly it appears that children younger than 12 are capable of committing sexual offences nowadays.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The question raised by the noble Lord is a valid one. As I am sure he is aware, the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is eight years of age. I took the view that the age of eight was somewhat on the low side with regard to the amendment. Clearly the noble Earl has reached the same view. I may be wrong, but I believe that we have tabled the identical amendment virtually simultaneously. It is not a question of my adding my name to the noble Earl's amendment. Considering the matter from my perspective as a lawyer and from the noble Earl's perspective as a social worker, we have both reached the conclusion that 12 would be an appropriate age. However, I fully take the point that there is a difference of two years between that which would apply in Scotland and that which would apply in England. As I understand it, the age provision in England is the new age of criminal responsibility which the Government propose.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I speak in support of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has said. My understanding is that the peak age of offending is 15. In addition we have the compelling evidence of the Graham case, as the noble and learned Lord has outlined. My understanding is that the operation of the children's panel system recognises that there are cases when it is in the public's interest to remove children from the panel system and prosecute them. Such prosecutions are initiated against those who have demonstrated great violence and indeed have committed serious sexual offences. I believe that 70 per cent. of those who replied to the consultation supported the idea of antisocial behaviour orders for those under 16. I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could take those points into account.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): I shall deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in relation to the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I assure the noble and learned Lord, as I assure the entire Committee, that I always listen to the noble Earl and give his observations due attention, as I do in the case of all Members of the Committee.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, the children's panel system does admit exceptions—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, also observed—but they are truly exceptions. Before a child under the age of 16 can be prosecuted in the court, one requires the specific authority of the Lord Advocate. These requests, fortunately, are few and far between because in Scotland we are justifiably proud of the panel system where children are referred to the children's panel and the panel deals with them in imposing, as required, supervision orders which are either non-residential or residential.
1006
As the noble Earl anticipated, the position of the Government is that in Scotland those under 16 are dealt with by the children's hearing system. We would not want to cut across that. As I have already observed, there may be exceptions to that in extreme cases which occur with the permission of the Lord Advocate. However, any child about whom there is concern—this does not simply involve the commission of an offence; it may apply if a child is unruly or even if a child is the subject of an offence, particularly one perpetrated by others of his or her family—may be reported to the children's reporter who will consider whether there is a need for a hearing. At that stage the hearing can decide what measures are required and whether compulsory measures of intervention are required, in which case a supervision requirement will be imposed. A whole range of conditions may be attached to such a requirement. A breach of a supervision requirement would lead to the child being brought back to the panel system and the hearing would review the original decision and consider whether further conditions or more stringent measures should be imposed. The Committee will appreciate that the whole regime is quite different from that which is in place in England. Where there is a concern that a child poses a risk to the community and may commit a sexual offence, the children's hearing system already again provides a mechanism for monitoring the child and regulating his or her behaviour.
Once the child is 16, the existing provisions for sex offender orders would allow the police to apply for an order provided the child had received a conviction for a sex offence at some point in the past. Clearly that would require the authority of the Lord Advocate to proceed. The children's hearing system tackles antisocial behaviour with vigour. In addressing the needs of the child, it is conscious that it is in the child's best interests to face up to his or her antisocial behaviour and the impact that that behaviour has on communities. It may also restrict a child from having contact with specific individuals or groups of individuals. The Committee will appreciate that such contact is often the cause of much antisocial behaviour.
Even if antisocial behaviour orders were to extend to under-16s, however, it would not be appropriate for them to be made against the relevant parents, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, suggested.
It is a fundamental principle of Scots law considered in detail by the Kilbrandon Commission, which was the basis for setting up the children's panel system, that the parent should not be held responsible for the actions of his or her child. To require parents to ensure that a child complies with an antisocial behaviour order with a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment if it could be proved that they had not taken all reasonable steps to do so would run contrary to the principle underlying our system in Scotland.
I repeat that in the Scottish context antisocial behaviour of children should be dealt with by the children's panel system. That does not of course let parents entirely off the hook. Hearings seek to establish what lies behind a child's actions and the parents are

1007
required to be present as part of that hearing system. They have to attend and to be involved. They are encouraged to participate in the decision-making process and are then expected to support the child in carrying out whatever is required by the hearing.
Amendment No. 93 would impose a restriction on divulging the name, address, school or any other information which could lead to identification of a person under 16 who is the subject of, or a witness to, any proceedings in the court in any press, television or radio report.
I assume that the amendment aims to protect the identity of children under 16 who may be the subject of an antisocial behaviour order or a sex offender order. But neither of those orders apply to children under 16; nor should they. So there is no need to include this type of protection. As for those under 16 who may be witnesses, Section 47 would already apply to reporting the details.
Amendment No. 94 would empower the sheriff to refer a child under 16, or any other children likely to live in the same house as that child and about whom there may be fears for their safety or wellbeing, to the principal reporter. That already happens. If there is concern about a child or anyone living with him or her in the family, it is possible for anyone having such concern to refer the matter to the principal reporter. Any child who commits an offence, or about whom the social work services or police have concerns, is automatically referred to the children's reporter. And any other children who are considered to be under threat from that child would also be similarly referred. Referrals can be made by anyone. There is therefore no need to make specific provision for referrals by the sheriff.
In the light of those comments, I ask that the noble Earl withdraws the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his exceedingly generous remarks about my experience. I think that he exaggerates to a substantial degree.
Perhaps I may say first to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I picked the age of 12 because it seemed to be the start of secondary schooling. Perhaps one should draw some distinction between primary and secondary schooling.
Mention has been made of parenting orders which are not being imposed in Scotland. I know of people who have already been sent by their individual children's hearings to parenting classes. This is already part of the set-up in Scotland. Much of the debate has revolved around parental responsibility; and so it should. Indeed, the example I gave of off-road motor cyclists could not be clearer on that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, referred to the Graham family. There is a need for what might be called a whole family antisocial behaviour order. We should consider that somewhere down the line.
The more I listen to discussions of the children's panel system, the more I wonder why is of the Committee are going to great lengths to create a youth justice system when they need only look across the
1008
Border and adopt what we have in Scotland. However, I would rather not put down an amendment which deletes "youth justice system" and inserts the appropriate section of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 in case one or two flaws in our precious children's panel system are identified.
I said that it was a probing amendment. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
A noble Lord: Not-Content.
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".
Noble Lords: Content.
The Chairman of Committees: To the contrary "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Chairman of Committees: I think the "Not-Contents" have it.
Noble Lords: Content.
The Chairman of Committees: Clear the Bar.
3.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Marsh, L.

Bellwin, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Belstead, L.

Merrivate, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Monson, L.

Brentford, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Dundee, E.

Peel, E.

Fookes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Rees, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Harlech, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Higgins, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Holderness, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde,L.[Teller]

McConnell, L.

Suffield, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Manton, L.

Wharton, B.

1009

NOT CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birdwood, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Blyth, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Borrie, L.

Bradford, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Burlison, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Montague of Oxford, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Moyne, L.

David. B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Peston, L.

Dixon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Quinton, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside. L.

Rea, L.

Ewing of Kirkford L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sewel, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Halsbury, E.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hattersley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Healey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Tenby, V.

Howell, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hoyle, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Whitty. L.

Janncr of Braunstone, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 107 names. The Clerks recorded 106 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iraq
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on Iraq which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"At the end of last week I visited the Gulf and held meetings with leading figures in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to share with the House the three key points they made.
"First, they have real fears about the threat Saddam Hussein poses to their region. Secondly, like ourselves, they would prefer a diplomatic solution. But lastly, if Saddam does not accept the diplomatic initiatives that have been offered to him, then, as Prince Saud said, it is the Iraqi regime that will bear responsibility for the consequences. I agree with them on all three counts.
"On the first point, there is no room for doubt over the scale of Saddam's chemical or biological capability, nor over his repeated attempts to conceal it. Last week I published a paper setting out the statistics of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and documenting his persistent deception.
"Saddam claimed he had only 650 litres of anthrax. The figure turned out to be 8,400 litres. He continues to have the capability to manufacture enough extra anthrax to fill two more warheads every week. One such warhead could depopulate an entire city. Saddam has programmes to produce at least three other germ agents.
"Saddam claimed his VX nerve gas programme had ended in failure. The truth turned out to be that he has the capability to produce 200 tonnes of VX agent. One drop of it is enough to kill. Ten years ago next month, Saddam used chemical weapons to kill 5,000 Iraqi citizens at Halabja. He also used them against fellow Moslems in his war with Iran. He will not hesitate to use them again.
"As Richard Butler, the executive chairman of UNSCOM, has noted, Saddam, "avoids answering questions and prevents UNSCOM from finding the answers". In the past nine months he has delayed or denied access to four out of five sites where UNSCOM believed concealment was taking place.
"The UN inspectors are our only guarantee that Saddam will not fulfil his ambition to acquire the weapons that could wipe out whole cities. However, that guarantee is of little value if they are not allowed to carry out effective inspections into the sites where they suspect chemical or biological weapons, or vital information, are concealed.
"We also agree with our allies in the Gulf that it would be better if we could resolve this confrontation by diplomatic means. That is why Britain took the lead in proposing to its Security Council partners a new resolution condemning Saddam's repeated obstruction of UNSCOM's work. That approach has

1011
received widespread support among council members. Japan has offered to co-sponsor the resolution.
"We are also in close touch with the attempts at diplomatic mediation by Russia, France and the Arab League. Saddam has a history of backing down under pressure, and we welcome the recent signs that Iraq is ready to consider a diplomatic solution. However, I have to say to the House that, as yet, the proposals coming out of Baghdad fall well short of our requirement that any agreement should be convincing and should enable UNSCOM to resume its work without restrictions, without deadlines and without any no-go sites. While we want a peaceful solution, an outcome which left him able to develop chemical and biological weapons would make it only too likely that the peace of the region would be broken again by Saddam himself.
"Our quarrel is with Saddam Hussein, not with the Iraqi people. We support the territorial integrity of Iraq and would like to see it rejoin the international community. Meanwhile, we are at the forefront of the diplomatic efforts to bring relief to the Iraqi people. We have led the negotiations at the UN to more than double the oil-for-food programme. We are the second largest donor of humanitarian aid to Iraq. There are no sanctions against food or medicine. It is Saddam, not the UN, who has decided to use his resources to construct presidential palaces for himself and to create weapons of mass destruction for his regional ambitions, rather than to purchase food and medicine for his people.
"Finally we agree with our major Gulf allies that if diplomacy fails, the responsibility for the consequences will rest solely on Saddam. The best prospect for a diplomatic solution is to leave Saddam in no doubt of our resolve if he persists in his ambition to develop chemical and biological arsenals. He would be making a major miscalculation if he mistook our reluctance to use force for a lack of determination to use it if necessary. I hope both sides of the House will support that clear and firm message to Saddam".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I should like to thank the Minister for updating the House with the latest developments on the situation in Iraq. I should also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our ongoing support to the Government, while they, together with the United States, continue to take a firm stand on Iraq, to ensure that United Nations resolutions are enforced and the UNSCOM inspectors are able to remove and destroy horrific chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We support the Government in their desire to pursue all diplomatic avenues to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with the will of the international community. But if diplomacy fails, it is right to keep the military option open.
1012
However, there have been developments since the Government's last Statement. I wish to ask the Minister for an absolute assurance that the clearest possible diplomatic, strategic and military objectives will be set for any action that we take and that these will be reported to the House at the appropriate times.
I particularly wish to ask the Minister for that assurance today, since over the last week certain statements have been made on our objectives. I believe that clarification from the Minister would be most helpful. For example, last Monday the Foreign Secretary in another place said that our objective was to secure Saddam Hussein's compliance with Security Council resolutions and ultimately for the Security Council to be assured that all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related facilities have been destroyed. However, last Friday in Washington President Clinton said that the United States' objective was to prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening his neighbours and the world with weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, on Sunday the Secretary of State for Defence spoke of the possible objective of reducing the ability of Saddam Hussein and his regime to survive.
I appreciate that the Minister has at all times been clear in what she said to your Lordships' House. However, I am sure she will agree that differing statements of the objective we hope to achieve are leading to uncertainty, confusion and a growing level of concern in your Lordships' House. Could the Minister therefore today clarify the Government's objective to resolve this crisis? Should all diplomatic means be exhausted and it prove necessary to take the military option, can the Minister assure the House on behalf of the British servicemen and women whose lives may be put at risk that clear, unequivocal objectives will be set?
Could the Minister also clarify the legality of the steps the Government might take in the event of an armed conflict? Is the Government's position that Resolution 687 provides sufficient authority for military action?
We currently hold the important position of President of the European Union. I wish to ask the Minister what discussions are ongoing with our other partners in the Security Council and in Europe, given that the French Foreign Minister, Hubert Védrine, has said:
"resorting to force is not desirable in the current situation and would not solve the problems we are confronted with".
He has described the British and American position as "propaganda" to intimidate Saddam Hussein and there is also President Yeltsin's warning that an attack could lead to a third world war. What assessment have the Government made of the draft UN motion being drawn up by France, Russia and the Arab League, which aims to secure access to 68 possible locations of material for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Given the incursion of some 7,000 Turkish troops into northern Iraq yesterday, can the Minister tell the House what implications this will have for any military action they may be preparing to take?
There is no doubt across your Lordships' House that we stand upon the precipice of a grave crisis. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer the Government our continued

1013
strong support in their efforts to ensure that Saddam Hussein respects the will of the United Nations and the world community. For that we need to set clear and unequivocal objectives for the actions taken by the Government with the consequences fully thought through.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I also wish to add my congratulations to the Minister on repeating the Statement made in another place. I wish to underline the extraordinary significance and concern that all in the House will feel about the information she has given to the House on the biological and chemical weapons availability in Iraq at present. It underlines more clearly than anything else could the extreme importance of ensuring that inspectors have access to all the sites in which such weapons may be developed or produced.
May I also ask the Minister, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whether she could make clearer the objectives that the Government and their major ally, the United States, have in mind? As the noble Lord said—and he was correct to say it—there has been a certain ambivalence about the ultimate goals of the operation. Clearly, for the sake of our forces and of others, it needs to be made as clear as possible precisely what those objectives are.
I wish to ask the noble Baroness three questions. First, have there been consultations between the foreign ministers of the European Union countries with regard to the resolution that is to be tabled by the Arab League, Russia and France? In that context, is the United Kingdom circulating its own draft resolution in the hope of getting greater support from the European Union for that resolution?
Secondly, can the Minister tell us whether, if access is given to the weapons sites, including the presidential palaces, by Saddam Hussein, there would be a willingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to consider some phased easing of sanctions?
Thirdly, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is any opportunity for reconsideration to be given to the composition of inspection teams, if that access is granted, given the earlier initiative taken by Russia with regard to Security Council members being represented on the teams.
Lastly, perhaps I may comment that one of the difficulties we encounter in the whole operation is that there is a perception, not least among those Arab countries that took part in the original Gulf Co-operation Council, that the treatment of the breaches by the Netanyahu government of some of the UN resolutions currently standing with regard to the peace negotiations with Israel is a real difficulty in bringing them on board, as it is crucial to attempt to do.
4 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their support at this
1014
difficult time. The noble Lord asked for an assurance that all diplomatic avenues would be exhausted, first and foremost. I can reiterate what my right honourable friend said in another place; that is, that all such avenues are being pursued. My right honourable friend was in the Gulf last week. My honourable friend Mr. Fatchett will be going to the Gulf shortly, as will my noble friend Lord Gilbert; and my right honourable friend Dr. Reid has also been in the Gulf.
The United Kingdom Government are doing everything they can to seek a peaceful and diplomatic solution to this problem. The noble Lord asked for assurances that the clearest possible targets—diplomatically, strategically and militarily—are set and that the objectives are clear. Again, I can give him that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was concerned that perhaps there were slightly conflicting messages emerging as regards objectives. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that our objective is the compliance with Security Council resolutions. I remind your Lordships that Security Council Resolution 687 sets out the ceasefire agreement. The ceasefire agreement compelled Saddam Hussein to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and to undertake not to create any more such weapons. The noble Lord said that that was somehow in conflict with the statement that Saddam had to be prevented from threatening the region and the world. In fact it is not. If Saddam Hussein complied with Resolution 687, he would be removing the threat that is perceived by the United Kingdom, the United States and many other countries which have made their position clear over the past week.
The noble Lord asked about discussions elsewhere. My right honourable friend's discussions with many countries over the past week or so indicate their agreement not only with the objectives set out by Her Majesty's Government, but also with the position of Her Majesty's Government that if those objectives cannot be secured through diplomatic channels, we should not rule out the use of military force. That has been agreed by Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany and New Zealand among others.
Others take the position at the moment that they wish to pursue diplomatic channels. However, in pursuing diplomatic channels they are also saying that it is essential that Saddam Hussein complies with Security Council Resolution 687 and that he must allow the unfettered access of UNSCOM to places where weapons may be stored or made. We must ask ourselves whether, if that is not achieved through diplomatic channels, Saddam Hussein will take any such measures if he does not believe that there is the threat of military action behind those diplomatic channels. Unfortunately, the history of dealing with Saddam Hussein tells us that he is more likely to discuss the issue if he believes that a military threat may be deployed.
The noble Lord also asked about the position of the Turks in northern Iraq. Her Majesty's Government have seen the reports about the Turks entering northern Iraq. At the moment those reports are denied by the Turks.

1015
The leadership of the Turkish Democratic Party told us that the reports are untrue and the Foreign Office is checking out the situation. I asked an official in the Foreign Office this morning to check out the reports and unfortunately he was unable to confirm the position in northern Iraq. Of course, Ministers have asked officials to keep the matter under constant review. It is an important factor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised questions in relation to consultation. Of course we are in consultation. In fact, the diplomatic effort at the moment is second to none—and rightly so, as I am sure all your Lordships would expect. The noble Baroness raised in particular the efforts of the Arab League, the French and the Russians over coming to an agreement and a possible Security Council resolution. Those discussions are ongoing at the moment. But we will have to see whether a Security Council resolution will enable UNSCOM to have free and unfettered access to the places that need to be visited in Iraq. Last week the Russians came forward with some suggestions, but those suggestions involved only one-off visits to those sites, after which there was no latitude for further visits. That is not acceptable. We must have unfettered, free access at times of UNSCOM's choosing.
Also, the noble Baroness asked whether, if access was given, there would be a phased easing of sanctions. We are not in a position to be able to agree that. Once we see full compliance—I emphasise, full compliance—with Resolution 687, then we shall be able to revisit the question of the issuing of sanctions. But I stress that at no point has the United Nations introduced sanctions against food or medicine. The vital humanitarian aid needed by the people of Iraq could go to the people of Iraq tomorrow if Saddam Hussein would allow it. Moreover, we have supported unconditionally the suggestions put forward by the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, to increase the oil for food provisions, as I was able to report to your Lordships' House last week.
The noble Baroness asked about the composition of inspection teams. There are 44 people on the inspection teams at the moment covering 17 nationalities. The inspectors are selected for their professionalism and expertise in a highly specialised field. It is not a United States selection; it is not a British selection; it is a selection made by Richard Butler, who happens to be an Australian. He makes his selection on behalf of the United Nations from the people who are most suitable and who have the best expertise to carry out their direction under Resolution 687.
Questions were also raised by the noble Baroness regarding the Gulf Co-operation Council and some of the difficulties in the region in relation to what is perceived to be a double standard concerning the Netanyahu government. We have discussed this matter in your Lordships' House before and I must reiterate to the noble Baroness what I said earlier this afternoon. The difference is that the Netanyahu Government—whether or not we agree with what they are doing—are a democratically elected government with whom we are discussing the Middle East peace process. Her Majesty's Government made clear that we do not accept their position over Jerusalem; that we do not accept their
1016
position over the settlements on the West Bank; and Her Majesty's Government have said that in our view those settlements are illegal. But that is a different position to the position of Saddam Hussein and his flouting of what is, in effect, a cease-fire agreement; his stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction and, I am afraid I must say to your Lordships, his entirely discredited record of the way he has treated his own people and his neighbours in the use of those weapons of mass destruction.
4.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness from these Benches that the prayers of Christian people throughout the country are with those involved with this situation. especially those who bear heavy responsibility at this time and who will be making crucial decisions in the days ahead. In the diocese of Oxford, for example, Thursday is being kept as a special day of prayer. Churches will be open and people have been invited to come to church to pray and light a candle for peace.
As I say, those prayers are for those who bear heavy responsibility and who will be making crucial decisions in the days ahead. It will be a prayer especially that the terrible threat posed by the presence of the weapons of mass destruction can be averted by peaceful means even at this late stage.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for those words and for his prayers. This is a matter which should be of concern not only to those who practise the Christian faith, but to British people of all faiths. I hope that there will not be any move to try to drive a wedge between different faiths in the inter-faith community in this country. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the destruction by violent means—for example, by aerial bombardment—of biological weapons is without precedent? It could result in the dissemination of those self-generating poisons and lead to the most appalling infection of the entire world. I hope that Her Majesty's Government and the American Government will bear these thoughts in mind.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government and all governments—indeed all people of good will—must bear in mind what the noble Earl has said. However, I would say this to him. It is not the case that this is without precedent. My right honourable friend published a document last week. I have brought 100 copies of the document to the House and I shall be happy to distribute them. The document makes clear that the Al Hakam BW factory, which was 3 kilometres by 6 kilometres in size, was destroyed. The factory was producing 50,000 litres of anthrax and botulinum. The Iraqis claimed that the factory was producing animal feed. That was not so, as UNSCOM discovered. It was destroyed and I am happy

1017
to say that none of the appalling and horrible consequences that the noble Earl suggested might happen was visited on the people of Iraq as a result.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever the misdeeds of the Netanyahu government, for whom I am not a spokesman, it is still a fact that Israel is not a threat to the lives of the inhabitants of the cities of its neighbours? It is in Tel Aviv that gas masks are being fitted on children, not in any of the Arab capitals. Is not this threat to the lives of people in a city in the Middle East a greater concern than the details of any ultimate settlement in the Middle East, for which we must all hope?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have already made it clear that the comparison between Israel and what is happening in Iraq is not an appropriate one, given the potential involving weapons of mass destruction which is under discussion here. However, I do believe—and Her Majesty's Government believe—that were Mr. Netanyahu able to be rather more constructive over the Middle East peace process, there might be less need to put gas masks on children in Tel Aviv.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as I indicated last week, I warmly support the Government and congratulate them and my noble friend on the diplomatic efforts being made to solve this problem without resort to bombing? Will my noble friend accept that one of the obstacles in the way of diplomacy is that the people may not know? While it is true to say that the people of the United Kingdom, the people of the United States and the people of the free world know about the joint diplomatic efforts by the United States and the United Kingdom, it is almost certain that the people of Iraq do not know about the diplomatic efforts and the impact that those diplomatic efforts might have on the final outcome. May I enter a plea, simple though it may seem, that before we drop any bombs we might return to what is an old-fashioned idea and, as a final throw of the dice, drop a few leaflets on Iraq in the hope that someone will pick them up and the free world's message might well get through?
Baroness Symons of Vernham: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. I expect he is right and that most of the people of Iraq are completely unaware of what is going on. He suggests that leaflets should be dropped on Iraq. Her Majesty's Government and the other governments who are contemplating this appalling situation at the moment are very aware of the dangers to the civilian population of Iraq. As we said in the Statement, our difficulty is with Saddam Hussein and not with the Iraqi people. I stress that point to your Lordships' House. We will do everything we can to minimise the threat to the civilian population.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, having visited Halabja and seen the site of the appalling massacre which she mentioned, I have
1018
every sympathy with the line that she takes on the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons? However, if the result of military action was only to destroy a fraction of these weapons while ensuring that the inspectors were permanently excluded from Iraq. would that count as a success? Will the noble Baroness kindly answer the question that was put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as to whether Resolution 687 gives legal authority for the military action we are contemplating? If not, does the draft resolution which is in the course of preparation give that authority; and if so, how will it ever get through the Security Council?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord asks whether destroying only a fraction of the weapons while securing the exclusion of UNSCOM inspectors would be seen as securing our objective. The answer is unequivocal—no, of course it would not. The objective is to ensure that the UNSCOM inspectors go back into Iraq and that they are able to secure compliance with the Security Council resolution which was the price of the ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War.
The noble Lord asked about Security Council Resolution 687. The Security Council resolution sets out the terms of the ceasefire—the terms for ending the Gulf War. They include unequivocally the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction and the undertaking not to create any more. The fact is that Saddam Hussein has already broken what in effect was the ceasefire agreement for the Gulf War. We therefore do not believe that other Security Council resolutions are, strictly speaking, necessary, but that does not mean that they are not desirable. Of course it is desirable to get maximum unity of purpose in the United Nations to secure agreement that Saddam Hussein should cease from his creation of these dreadful weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I may be wrong, but is not the short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the ceasefire resolution stands? It has never been rescinded. Until it is rescinded—and there is no prospect, as far as one can see, that it will be rescinded—it is full authority for the action that may have to be taken by Her Majesty's Government.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe I have made Her Majesty's Government's position clear. But I would say to the noble Lord that, while in effect what he says is true, that should in no way detract from the full commitment of Her Majesty's Government to seek a diplomatic solution to this question. I cannot stress that too much to your Lordships' House.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while many of us appreciate the nature of the dilemma which faces the Government and the American Government in the situation in which they find themselves, it is a matter of doubt whether dropping bombs on Iraq without the support of other Arab countries is a way out of that dilemma?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that no one is being trigger

1019
happy over this. We are in a desperately serious situation. But I am afraid that the history of Saddam Hussein in relation to his ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction has been that he mistakes reluctance to use force as weakness and as a lack of determination. He would be well advised not to make such a mistake.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a possibility that this most unpredictable of men could perhaps get rather bored at protracted negotiations on the diplomatic front the longer they go on? If he has such an enormous stockpile of chemical weapons, what is to prevent him loosing off some of them in a pre-emptive strike and jeopardising the lives of the very people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred? Is there any danger of that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to second guess the way in which Saddam Hussein may operate. What we are clear about is that we must have unity of purpose on our side and act as much as we can with that unity of purpose with our allies in the United Nations.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any timescale has been set for the inspections and the destruction of these evil weapons? It is now seven years since the end of the Gulf War. Is it to be 10 years, 20 years or even longer? As regards military action, is that likely to bring about a solution on the creation of an effective opposition in Iraq? It seems up to the present that this situation is having the opposite effect by increasing the grip that Saddam Hussein has on the Iraqi people.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord asks about a timescale. The objective is to secure inspection at all the sites which UNSCOM believes should be inspected as soon as possible. There is no objective to do that within any particular timescale, but it must be done as soon as possible. The noble Lord also asked whether military action will not ensure that effective opposition in Iraq is further subverted. Her Majesty's Government believe that the objective is not whether there is an effective opposition in Iraq, but that Saddam Hussein complies with his obligation under the Security Council resolutions.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, the Minister will realise that under the UN Resolution the Kurds are not receiving the food and equipment needed and promised. She told us that with the diplomatic situation, which I thoroughly understand, that will be done as soon as possible. One will have to report back to the Kurds what that actually means. They feel that Saddam Hussein has absolutely no interest at all in resolutions from the United Nations and the Kurds will go on starving until some action is taken.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if the Kurds are right in believing that Saddam Hussein has no interest in Security Council resolutions, that
1020
reinforces the view that Her Majesty's Government have taken that such resolutions need to be backed up by the threat of military action.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the Minister enlighten us as to whether, in the event of the military option having to be used, that will be a joint decision by the American and British Governments or will it be for the British Government at the time to decide independently whether to take part in any operations which the Americans might wish to mount?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can tell your Lordships that any decisions taken will be reached in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is the Minister aware that General Norman Schwartzkopf, who commanded the allied forces in the Gulf War, has strongly expressed his opposition to any such action and feels that it would be counter-productive?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a number of individuals have expressed strong feelings on this question. Sometimes when people move away from the centre and are unaware of the threat posed, it may be that they do not have all the knowledge which they might have on important points or which is available to those who have determined that Saddam Hussein is a threat not only in the region but also to the rest of the world.
It may help if I illustrate the point in relation to UNSCOM. On 2nd February I was able to give your Lordships a detailed list of what UNSCOM had found. What I did not give your Lordships was the list of weapons that are unaccounted for. We believe that Iraq may have operational Scud-type missiles with chemical and biological warheads. We do not have any knowledge where 17 tonnes of growth media for BW agents has gone. UNSCOM strongly suspects that the admitted Iraqi figures for the production of BW agents are still far too low.
Iraq's CW programme was on an enormous scale. We know that 4,000 tonnes of CW precursors are simply not accounted for. These could have produced several hundred tonnes of CW agents, which would be enough to fill several thousand munitions. Over 31,000 CW munitions are not accounted for. Over 600 tonnes of VX precursors are also not accounted for. These are not just figures for us to throw about, but real weapons of mass destruction. We do not know where they are. They are in the hands of a man who may well be prepared to use them. So my answer to General Schwartzkopf and others who have doubts is to ask them what they would do in relation to this appalling litany of unfound weapons. I believe that the determination shown by Her Majesty's Government on this matter is entirely right.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords. I have been reflecting on what the Minister said earlier about opposition to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I visited Iraq some three years ago on a

1021
humanitarian visit to investigate the effect of sanctions. We were both shocked by their effect, particularly on children in hospitals and clinics. But I was equally shocked by the hostility of ordinary people in Iraq to the British and American Governments whom they blamed for sanctions and also for the great suffering incurred during the Gulf War. Lest it be thought that we were being misled by that impression, the noble Lord and I were quite skilful at slipping away from our official engagements and using our charitable links to meet ordinary Church people. I have no doubt that the use of force would push the ordinary people of Iraq, who are hostages in their own country, further into the grip of Saddam Hussein. I view the use of force with deep foreboding. I plead for a more patient approach until we are absolutely clear that the use of force will have the desired outcome.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has spoken about the effect of sanctions on children and other defenceless people and the hostility of ordinary Iraqi people to the British and those of other nationalities whom they believe are responsible. I do not find that surprising. Of course there will be that kind of a hostility because the people do not know that there is a £2 billion oil-for-food programme; they do not know that Saddam Hussein has built palace after palace rather than feed hungry people and give medicine to children; they do not know that he has spent money from the programme on weapons of mass destruction. But we know that is what he is doing. I say to the right reverend Prelate that much as he fears what may happen to people in Iraq in the appalling eventuality of military action, and much as we all fear that, the alternative is that many more innocent people will suffer eventually and be in Saddam Hussein's appalling grasp if we do not take determined action.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 18.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 14. line 33, after ("was") insert ("reasonahly").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 44, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 45 which stands in my name and those of my noble friends and to refer also to Amendment No. 53 which stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
The issues raised in this group of amendments are similar to those debated in relation to Amendment No. 13 on our first Committee day when we considered Clause 1. As I read it, the difference between my amendments and that now tabled by the Lord Advocate boils down ultimately to where the onus should lie in dealing with the reasonableness of the behaviour complained about. As I am sure that the Lord Advocate
1022
will appreciate, when I tabled my amendments I had no knowledge of his amendment and no doubt he was in exactly the same position with regard to my amendment. Given that the issue has been raised by both sides, the question that arises is whether some further consideration should be given to the best way forward.
The structure of Clause 18(1) is clearly based on the definition of the common law offence of breach of the peace in Scotland. If such an offence was prosecuted, clearly no question of onus on the accused would arise. Therefore, the problem that troubles me is this: if the onus in this civil order is transferred to the person against whom the order is sought, with that person having to seek to prove the reasonableness of his action in all the circumstances, curiously it may end up with it being more difficult to avoid the order being pronounced than to avoid a conviction for breach of the peace. That seems a conundrum.
I should be interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has to say on the matter and, indeed, to hear what any noble Lords may wish to contribute to this brief discussion. In the light of these competing amendments, it might be sensible for some further consideration to be given to the matter. We all seek a common purpose. The question is the best way to reach it, having regard to the fact that, once pronounced, an antisocial behaviour order could have serious consequences for the person against whom it is pronounced. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: As the noble and learned Lord said, this amendment raises the same issue as was raised with regard to the English provision which was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Williams.
Amendment No. 44 would require the sheriff to be satisfied that actions were reasonably likely to cause alarm or distress. It would be unnecessary to require this expressly in the clause. The sheriff will, in determining whether an action was likely to cause alarm and distress, make a reasonable assessment of the facts.
Amendment No. 45 would introduce a test that antisocial conduct caused or was likely to cause alarm or distress to a reasonable person. The proposal is inconsistent with the intention that it is for the sheriff to determine whether conduct caused or was likely to cause alarm or distress to particular persons in the relevant area. It would seem appropriate to leave it to the sheriff to decide this on the particular facts, rather than having to consider the view of the hypothetical reasonable person.
The question of onus was dealt with in the first group of amendments which the noble and learned Lord tabled when we were last in Committee. As was said then, we are dealing here with a civil order, not a criminal order. The test is the same as that set out in the Protection from Harassment Act, which dealt with a civil order.
I turn now to Amendment No. 53, which stands in my name and which has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. This amendment mirrors an amendment to the equivalent English provisions, which we discussed earlier. It is intended to make it

1023
absolutely clear that an order should not be made if the behaviour complained of can be shown to have been reasonable in the circumstances.
As your Lordships know, this amendment has been laid in response to concerns expressed during the Second Reading of the Bill in this House. We would, of course, expect the local authority to consider carefully whether the behaviour in question could be thought of as reasonable before making an application for an order. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments and I shall move Amendment No. 53.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will quickly be able to confirm that antisocial behaviour orders are designed for those people who may be verging on being described as "persistent" offenders rather than for a person who has committed just one antisocial act. What level of persistence does the noble and learned Lord see as being necessary for this scheme?
Lord Hardie: It will depend on the individual case. I agree that we are dealing with persistent cases, but one can appreciate that the nature of the conduct in one case may not require terribly much in the way of persistence whereas the nature of the conduct in another case may require it to have occurred on many occasions before it would be appropriate for the local authority to come forward.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. This is a technical area, so I shall consider the matter further with the Law Society of Scotland which suggested Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 which stand in my name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 14, line 37, leave out from ("to") to ("of") and insert ("one person who is not a member").
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to deal with the situation where only one person is harassed by another. The Committee heard examples of such cases and reasons why such a provision might be included in the legislation when we discussed the English and Welsh provisions. Perhaps I may give the Committee just one scenario—not from Clackmannan but from Alloa. An occupier of a lower flat may find that the occupier of the upper flat crashes around in the middle of the night. The neighbour below—a single occupier; and that is the key point—may be frequently woken by such obscure activity. No one else may be affected by that antisocial behaviour, yet it is totally unfair on the person living below. Why does the Bill not recognise that situation?
I believe that the solution—an antisocial behaviour order forbidding the unacceptable behaviour—could be effective in ending misery unfairly inflicted on an
1024
neighbour below. Clearly, the amendment seeks to reduce the number of people who are required to complain from two to one. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 47.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 59 are grouped with this amendment. so I propose to speak to them all now in addition to that moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. When I was last in Alloa it was in Clackmannan, but I defer to the greater experience in these matters of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, although I should be interested to hear whether there has been any recent change of government policy in that regard.
As to Amendment No. 47, I look for an undertaking similar to that given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when Amendment No. 5 was debated last time. It was an undertaking of a very qualified nature but it was nevertheless an undertaking. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will agree that this issue should be looked at, if for no other reason than that if these orders are to be introduced it is essential that they are perceived by is of the public to be fair. If one individual who has been severely harassed by a group of teenagers is advised by a local authority that nothing can be done about it because it is he and he alone who has been harassed, whereas action can be taken in respect of a couple in another street who have been harassed by another group of teenagers, that will be perceived as unfair. I hope that the matter can be looked at again.
I should like to make brief reference to Amendment No. 48 which is also in this group. This amendment is quite straightforward. It has been my experience in practising criminal law over the years that quite often when individuals are the victims of anti-social behaviour that behaviour is directed at more than one member of the family. From time to time, because of the geographical accident of where the divisions between local authority boundaries lie, it is possible that some of the harassment takes place in one area and some in another. I believe that it would be perceived as unfair if action was taken about harassment against two people in one area but not if it took place in different areas.
Finally, I should like to refer to Amendment No. 59 which seeks to tighten up the provisions of Clause 18(1)(a)(ii) so that when there is such a course of conduct there is a limit to the period on which the application can be based.
Lord Renton: If a rusty old of the English Bar who is more Scottish than anything else may dare to intervene in this debate, I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon has said about Amendment No. 47. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, will agree that that amendment is simply an alternative to his. I believe that from a drafting point of view Amendment No. 47 is a better one.

1025
Amendment No. 48, which has been tabled by my noble friends, seeks to leave out from page 14, line 38, the words "the authority's area" and insert "Scotland". It must be borne in mind that some of the local authority areas are very small, especially those in the centre of Scotland and in the Borders. Realistically, I believe that it would be better to have a much larger area, and I do not think that Scotland is too large. If one bears in mind that in Carlisle and Berwick-Upon-Tweed people are so close to each other north and south of the Border one must consider whether one should even confine it to Scotland. I am not certain that the words "confined to an authority's area" are at all necessary in the Bill, especially in relation to Scotland. As to Berwick-Upon-Tweed, if one looks in the telephone book one will find about 20 Rentons—I believe that is more than one will find in any other telephone book in the United Kingdom. They live both north and south of the Border. I mention that only as a practical detail to illustrate the effect that this clause is likely to have.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hardie: Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would enable a local authority to apply for an order where the behaviour in question was directed against one individual. Where such behaviour is personally directed the individual victim can already seek a non-harassment order from the civil court; and where the behaviour is part of a crime an order can be granted as part of the criminal proceedings. Where only one individual is involved as a victim, and given that a mechanism for that individual to tackle the harassment is already available, it would not be appropriate for the local authority to apply for an antisocial behaviour order on behalf of the whole community.
There appears to be some difficulty about the wording of Amendment No. 47 which, taken at face value, would mean that the local authority could apply for an antisocial behaviour order only where one victim, and one victim alone, was involved. I am sure that that was not the intention of the noble Earl. As noble Lords will recall, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has reminded the Committee, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn undertook to consider this matter again before the next stage of the Bill. We will do the same as far as concerns the Scottish provisions. As my noble friend Lord Williams indicated, it is unlikely that our views will change. I do not want to hold out false hope in your Lordships' hearts.
Amendment No. 48 would allow a local authority to apply for an antisocial behaviour order to protect persons living in its area from future harm even when the antisocial behaviour that had caused concern took place outside that area. This would not be appropriate. Antisocial behaviour orders are intended to address local situations and to impose prohibitions relevant to those situations. I have listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said about the geographical areas of Scotland. In my view, it would be wrong to allow a local authority to apply for an order on a pre-emptive basis on the argument that the person was alleged to have behaved badly elsewhere. In a country
1026
like Scotland the consequence of that amendment would be that, if someone behaved in such a way that he was considered to be antisocial and then moved from one local authority to another and reformed, he would never get away from the fact that he had committed a misdemeanour in another part of Scotland. It is important that we give people the opportunity to mend their ways.
It should be noted that the terms of Clause 18 would allow a local authority to apply for an order against someone resident outwith its area if the antisocial behaviour causing concern affected people within that local authority's area. Amendment No. 59 would add to the definition of course of conduct that the two occasions on which the conduct took place must have occurred no more than six months apart. The definition in subsection (6) is identical to that used in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and is well precedented. To narrow the definition of course of conduct by introducing an arbitrary time frame would not be appropriate. I would certainly not want to fetter the discretion of the sheriff in this way.
To answer the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in response to the previous amendment, much will depend on the nature of the conduct. Even in the case of conduct of a severe nature which was separated by a period longer than six months, it would be appropriate for the local authority to apply for such an order. I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should like to deal further with a point that I raised earlier. I referred to a case where a family was split by a local authority boundary. To put it in context, perhaps part of a family lives in Musselburgh, which I believe to be in East Lothian district—certainly it used to be—and part lives in Edinburgh. If two is of that family in either area were the victim of this conduct, it would be competent for such an order to be pronounced, but if only one of each branch of the family was the victim it would not be competent. One could go around Scotland—as he said, it is a small place. Areas such as Paisley and Glasgow, and Dundee and some of its outskirts, spring to mind, and one might throw up other examples.
As I said earlier, if the order is to work it has to be perceived to be sensible and fair. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to follow the example, as he already has, of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of giving a qualified undertaking to look at this issue again. It is a practical problem. If, on the other hand, a man reforms when he moves to another area, there is nothing to prevent him from returning to the court and seeking to have the order terminated. That is what the Bill provides. If he wishes to lead a blame-free life in the future, what I am raising need not stand in his way.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. For a moment I wondered whether he was seeking to re-enact the Aliens Act 1705.

1027
This is an important amendment. It is a probing amendment, because I wished to understand the Government's thinking. So although I shall withdraw it, I may well return to it on Report. Particular circumstances should be allowed. I agree that generally there should be at least two other persons. But should not the Bill allow for the particular circumstances where only one person could be involved? I give notice that that is probably the way in which I shall return to the issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 14. line 40. at end insert—
("( ) that an attempt to resolve the situation by mediation has been tried and failed or that the persons involved are not willing to seek resolution through mediation or other voluntary means: and.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is a substantive one which will add an important part to the process of controlling and reducing anti-social behaviour. The task being placed on local authorities will be considerable. It leads local authorities into the relatively uncharted waters of resolving neighbourhood disputes across the whole of their area.
The amendment was suggested to me by Sacro which, among others, runs two community mediation projects, and has built up useful experience in that work. I thought originally that there was £1 million to be spread across the 32 unitary authorities. O-level arithmetic suggested to me that that would amount to about £31,000 per annum across those 32 local authorities. That suggested one additional officer—the person I choose to call the anti-social behaviour officer—in each local authority. Clearly, the cake would not have been sliced in that way. Larger authorities would have had a bigger share of the small cake. I therefore wondered what prospect there was of Clackmannanshire receiving more than the crumbs. However, the noble and learned Lord then kindly wrote to me and suggested that he and I had read the financial memorandum incorrectly, and that unfortunately there is no provision. In consequence, local authorities in Scotland would have to absorb the new duty within their existing budgets. I leave that point.
There is new legislation in place which allows local authorities to take firmer action with troublesome tenants including eviction and resettlements, which may produce conflicts of interest between social work and housing departments. I have yet to work out which local authority department will have to deal with anti-social orders.
Local authorities already deal with neighbour problems among their tenants, and they can claim to have some experience of that work. Will that be true when all citizens can call on the local authority for help? Recent TV programmes have illustrated the intractable nature of some neighbourhood problems, especially in posh areas. Problems arise in all sectors of society. They are by no means confined to local authority tenants.
1028
The amendment, which calls for mediation, is relevant because local authorities will be promoting anti-social behaviour orders not as a first line but rather as a last line of action. They will have to investigate all complaints. I hope that part of that investigation will involve an attempt at mediation. The problem will not go away for local authorities just by promoting an anti-social behaviour order in the sheriff civil court.
The anti-social behaviour order is an unsupervised order. That means that, in effect, it has to be supervised by the neighbours. They will have to report any further anti-social behaviour to the local authority. The local authority will have to follow up that further complaint. The need for effective mediation will become obvious, even if only to reduce the anti-social behaviour officer's workload.
I anticipate that the noble and learned Lord will explain that the desirability and need for mediation will be included in guidance. That will be understating the case. Mediation will be a major activity in the procedure for an anti-social behaviour order. Promoting anti-social behaviour orders in the sheriff civil court will be a minor activity compared with investigating and mediating. Failure of mediation will be part of the proof. It is becoming popular for legislation to give a clear indication of Parliament's intentions when the Bill was enacted. The amendment will do precisely that. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: I agree entirely with the principle which I understand to be behind this amendment that anti-social behaviour orders should be a last rather than a first resort. Perhaps I may say also that I am a firm supporter of mediation projects. The noble Earl referred to the Sacro projects. I know, for example, that Sacro (which is a voluntary organisation working in Scotland to reduce offending, make communities safer and in form change in justice policy) manages two community mediation projects which act to resolve disputes between neighbours in conflict. These projects, and others like them, are showing some success in dealing with anti-social behaviour at the lower end of the scale. I pay tribute to all involved in those projects.
In cases where the anti-social behaviour is directed against a small group of individuals, then mediation or some similar technique should certainly be attempted before court action is considered. The only circumstances where this might not be appropriate is where the anti-social behaviour is directed against a whole community, or where the victims are unwilling to be identified or to negotiate—through fear perhaps.
The importance of using mediation wherever possible, as the noble Earl anticipated, will be fully dealt with in the guidance to be issued to local authorities in due course on implementing these provisions. A first draft of the guidance will be available shortly, well before the Bill has completed its parliamentary passage. The draft will be issued to a wide range of bodies, including the local authorities, for full consultation.
The steps to be gone through before a local authority can make an application are administrative matters which should properly be dealt with in the guidance

1029
rather than the primary legislation. Important though mediation is, there is no reason to single it out above a range of other administrative matters connected with anti-social behaviour orders. On the understanding that the need for mediation will be fully dealt with in the guidance, I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sits down, will he say whether the draft guidance will be available before the Bill leaves this place? If he does not know the answer, perhaps he will write to me on that topic.
Lord Hardie: I do not know the answer to that question, and I shall write to the noble and learned Lord.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I said that this was a substantive amendment and it is one on which I am keen. It might be regarded as a Spice Girls amendment; that is, as the amendment that I really, really want. We shall return to it later on Report.
I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord refer to the promotion of the orders as a last resort. I believe that that is correct; it is where they ought to be. I forgot to declare an interest with regard to Sacro; I am a former employee. I know that the noble and learned Lord will be visiting the Sacro project in Kirkcaldy and I look forward to meeting him there.
I understand that it will not be part of the promotion of the order to establish that investigation and mediation have been undertaken. That may be an optional or desirable aspect but not a mandatory part of the promotion of the order. Will the Minister confirm that?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble and learned Lord answers that question, perhaps I may intervene. Do I understand that Sacro will probably have a locus in the procedure, even though it is not set out in legislation? Will mediation in the general sense of the word involved Sacro? That is an interesting thought, but I had not realised that it was a possibility.
Lord Hardie: In reply to the noble Baroness, that is a possibility that will be considered. It will be for the local authority ultimately to decide the form of mediation to put in place. However, I hope that local authorities will call on the experience of organisations such as Sacro and involve them in mediation.
In answer to the noble Earl, we consider that mediation ought to be attempted in most cases. However, mediation may be inappropriate in some cases; for instance, as a result of fear of the victims or the scale of the problem. It would not be appropriate to make mediation mandatory in every case.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I can begin to see that mediation, which is desirable in most cases, may not be possible in all. Local authorities will wish
1030
to build up experience in mediation. That could be done by buying in a service from an organisation such as Sacro, by seeking training from it or by developing experience from their own resources. I expect to return to the matter on Report, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 15, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
The noble Earl said: The amendment has been suggested to me by the Law Society of Scotland. It is designed to remove discretion from the sheriff when making an antisocial behaviour order. The effect of the amendment would be that if the conditions for making an order were met, the sheriff would be obliged to make an antisocial behaviour order. The amendment answers the question: why should the sheriff have discretion in this matter when it has been established that the conditions for an antisocial behaviour order have been met? There will be a filtering process at the point of complaint, which is at the offices of the local authority and in consultation with the police. But should there be a second process? Are we uncovering part of a scheme to limit artificially the number of antisocial behaviour orders? I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: Amendments Nos. 50A and 55 would remove the sheriff's discretion, first, over whether an order should be made if the criteria in subsection (1) are met and, secondly, over the order's duration. It is not normal practice to restrict the Scottish judiciary's discretion in this way.
On the duration point, no one who responded to the consultation paper on antisocial behaviour orders suggested that there was any need to change the policy that decisions on the duration of these orders should be at the court's discretion.
The person against whom the order is made can of course apply to the sheriff at any time to have the order varied or revoked. In addition, I understand that the intention is that the guidance on implementing these provisions should make it clear that the local authority applicant should periodically review the continuing need for all orders of indefinite duration and seek to have them revoked when this becomes appropriate.
Amendment No. 54 is intended to allow the sheriff to impose compulsory supervision requirements when making antisocial behaviour orders. This would not be appropriate. These are civil orders to be made when the case for them has been proved on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. They are neither a conviction nor a punishment. The orders can therefore prohibit but they cannot require. Any such requirement would run the risk of being in breach of our ECHR obligations.
Although it would not be possible to allow the orders to require compulsory supervision, those subject to the orders will be encouraged to undergo voluntary supervision where appropriate. This will be fully covered in the guidance to which I have referred.

1031
Amendment No. 86 would require the sheriff to impose a specific duration on every order at the outset, preventing orders being of indefinite duration. It is not normal practice to impose such a restriction on civil orders.
The person against whom an order is made can of course apply to the sheriff to have the order varied or revoked. In addition, the guidance will make it clear that the applicant should periodically review the continuing need for all orders. I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I forgot to speak to other amendments in the group, but I acknowledge the fact that the noble and learned Lord has supplied an answer to them. The Committee will not have to listen to an explanation of why I believe the amendment is necessary. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 15, line 6, at end insert?—
("( ) For the purpose of determining whether the condition mentioned in subsection (l)(a) is fulfilled. the sheriff shall disregard any act of the person in respect of whom the application is made which that person shows was reasonable in the circumstances.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 56 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 15, line 6, at end insert—
("(3D) On an application under subsection (l) above the sheriff may make any interim order under subsections (3) and (3A) as he considers appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 57 raises what I believe to be an important practical issue; namely, the desirability of making available in Clause 18 provision for an interim order. Under Clause 19(5)(a), such interim orders will be appropriate when applications are being made for sex offender orders. However, there is no similar provision in Clause 18 and the question is, why?
From time to time, in presenting antisocial behaviour orders to the House, Ministers have drawn on the fact that they are civil orders and that some of the issues are similar to those which arise in relation to interdict or injunction proceedings. Indeed, in his previous answer the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate stated that in interdict proceedings it is not normal for an interdict to be limited in time. Therefore, it may be instructive to draw on experience in interdict and injunction proceedings in asking and seeking to answer the question whether a court could cope with adjudicating on an ex parte basis with an application for an interim order. I believe that sheriffs, who are to handle those matters in Scotland, are more than qualified to do so.
The reasons that such an order may be desirable are, I believe, self-evident. One reason is that it may take time for the proceedings, which have been initiated by the local authority, to reach a conclusion. Initially there may be a delay when the person against whom the application is granted seeks to sist the action, as we say in Scotland—to stay the proceedings—to enable a legal aid application to be made. That may take some weeks, if not longer. There is always pressure on courts' time to get diets for hearings of evidence, and from time to time, such hearings have to be postponed because of the non-availability of a witness or witnesses or any other more urgent pressure on the sheriff's time. Therefore, some delay before the action reaches a hearing and a final conclusion may be unavoidable.
I suggest that a further reason is that the very making of the application, albeit that it is brought by the local authority, may serve to inflame the situation. If the occupants of a particular street have complained about the activities of some young men and for this example, I am quite happy to deal with young men over the age of 16 years—and an application is initiated, the very service of the initiating writ on the persons against whom the order is sought may annoy and irritate them. The first thing they will do, after going to see their lawyer, is to go back to the street where they have been misbehaving, and misbehave again. Far from seeking to protect the innocent members of the public from that criminal behaviour, the situation may be exacerbated.
I accept fully that in such an event, the police may be able to intervene but that applies also in the first instance. The question arises as to why, if a local authority has good prima facie evidence that an order should be pronounced, can the clause not provide an option for the sheriff to consider whether an interim order can be pronounced?
I hope that I shall be forgiven for relying again on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. On the last occasion on which we debated these matters, he referred to individuals who carry out such behaviour as being wicked. That is a sensible description of them and it is one which we should bear in mind when considering to what extent this provision can be improved.
Again, I diffidently mention the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, because we were favoured by another of his qualified undertakings and I hope that following the example which he set earlier this afternoon, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to give a similar undertaking to that which was made at col. 571 of Hansard, if it assists the noble Lord, who I see is urgently searching through his papers. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: This amendment addresses a concern that the court process would not be sufficiently speedy to meet the expectations of local communities. I should point out that Clause 20 provides that applications for such orders should be made by way of normal summary application procedure for civil business; and as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, that is a particularly swift procedure, in so far as any court procedure is swift.

1033
Cases where there is a need for urgency should be rare. However, given that conduct which is clearly criminal will be addressed by other means, in my view it would be unnecessary to have any special provision.
In relation to legal aid, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, and the possibility of sisting for an application for legal aid, there is provision for emergency legal aid in such circumstances. If there is a particular urgency, the local authority applicant can seek that the period of notice to the person against whom the order is to be made could be as little as 48 hours and then make representations to the sheriff to justify an early diet being fixed for the hearing.
I am not satisfied that there is a requirement for an interim order in anti-social behaviour orders. As we shall discuss shortly, we consider that interim orders should be possible when sex offender orders are being considered because of the nature of the behaviour which such orders is intended to prevent. Having said that, and in a spirit of conciliation, I agree to consider this matter further on the same basis as that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. Again, I should not hold out too much hope of change.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Small though the mercy be, I am grateful for it, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 15, line 6, at end insert—
("(3E) On making an anti-social behaviour order, a sheriff shall attach a power of arrest, unless it appears to him that in all the circumstances of the case such a power is unnecessary.
(3F)A power of arrest attached to an anti-social behaviour order shall not have effect until a copy of such an order has been given or sent to the person named in the order in terms of section 20(8).
(3G)If by virtue of subsection (3E) above, a power of arrest is attached to an anti-social behaviour order, a constable may arrest without warrant the person named in the order if he has reasonable cause for suspecting that person of having done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the order.
(3H)Where a person has been arrested under subsection (3E) above, the officer in charge of a police station may liberate that person in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 or refuse to liberate that person; and such refusal and the detention of that person until his appearance in court by virtue of any provision of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 shall not subject the officer to any claim whatsoever.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 58, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 70 and 73, raises the issue of whether, when orders are pronounced in Scotland under Clauses 18 and 19, there should be attached to them a power of arrest which would enable an officer of police who was advised of an alleged breach of the order to arrest the person who is the subject of the order if he deemed it appropriate to do so.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 70 are in my name and that of my noble friends. Amendment No. 73 is in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It may
1034
be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal first with Amendments Nos. 70 and 73 which relate to the question of a power of arrest in sex offender orders.
The government amendment seeks to achieve my objective in that it provides that a constable, without warrant, may arrest any person whom he reasonably suspects of doing or having done anything prohibited by a sex offender order. It does not attach such a power of arrest to the order itself but it gives the police officer the necessary power and to some extent therefore it meets my purpose.
However, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to clarify whether such a power would exist when the court had exercised its powers under Clause 19(5)(a) and granted an interim order pending the granting of a sex offender order. If the answer is that it would not—and as I construe the amendment it would not—then I ask why that is the case.
I also pose a supplementary question relating to such interim orders. Let us suppose that the sheriff has exercised his power under Clause 19(5)(a) and pronounced an interim order and the person against whom the order is directed or pronounced breaches that order. What is the sanction? As I read the Bill, there are no provisions in it which would allow the court to deal with the matter. Therefore, we would have to fall back on the normal rules of contempt of court as regards the breaching of any order. Indeed, harking back to a debate which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, initiated on the last occasion, that might lead to some considerable confusion in that certain orders pronounced under Clause 19 would be penalised as being contempts of court, whereas others would be penalised under the route set out in the Bill. I fully appreciate that we are discussing fairly technical issues. Nevertheless, they are of practical importance notwithstanding the fact that the Government and I are at one in suggesting that, in dealing with sex offender orders, there should be such powers of arrest.
I turn now to Amendment No. 58, which seeks to introduce into the procedure for antisocial behaviour orders a power on the part of the sheriff to attach a power of arrest when such an order is pronounced. If a person acts in breach of an antisocial behaviour order and his action constitutes a criminal offence which could be prosecuted at common law in Scotland as a common law offence, and there is evidence of such a breach, I fully understand that, as a matter of practice, there may be no need for such a power because the police officer could exercise his existing powers to arrest people or, if appropriate, detain them for having committed a breach of the peace, an assault, or whatever the offence may be.
However, from the way that the terms in Clause 18(3) are framed, especially the last few words, it is possible to foresee a situation where an order is breached without any criminal offence having been committed and, therefore, without any arrestable offence being available to allow the police officer to exercise his powers.I suspect it is also possible to foresee a situation where there is little doubt that a common law offence has been committed, but equally there is no doubt that there is only one witness to such a situation. Therefore, the

1035
police officer may feel that he could not rely on his common law powers because such a decision would undoubtedly be countermanded by a superior officer or the procurator fiscal on the basis that there was no legal basis—no sufficiency of evidence—for putting the person against whom the order is directed before a court.
It is in the interests of the order that such a power of arrest should be attached to it. The Scottish Affairs Committee of another place, whose report I referred to on the last occasion, recommended that interdicts involving violence not just in the domestic situation should have such powers of arrest attached to them. As I have mentioned, the Government acknowledge that that is appropriate in sex offender cases. However, I invite them to go that one step further and accept them in relation to antisocial behaviour orders.
I should stress that all I am seeking is that the power of arrest should be included in the order if the sheriff deems it appropriate. I am certainly not suggesting that it should be mandatory for any such power to be attached to the order. Indeed, even if it were included in the order, it would then be a matter for the discretion of the police officer, in the light of his training and experience and the factual situation with which he is confronted when it is alleged that an order had been breached, to decide whether or not he should exercise such a power. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like briefly to contribute to the debate. I certainly approve of the need for a swift procedure in such circumstances. However, I am wondering how the public, who will have to supervise such orders, will get to know about them. We have heard that the police will be supervising them unofficially, but will publicity about who has been placed on an antisocial order be allowed? I suppose that I am really asking a question about community notification, because the working of an antisocial behaviour order will depend on the community responding to it.
Lord Hardie: Amendments Nos. 58 and 70 relate to powers of arrest. It is our position that there is no need for a power of arrest for breach of an antisocial behaviour order. Where the behaviour which constitutes a breach is sufficiently serious to justify arrest, it will almost certainly constitute a criminal offence; for example, a breach of the peace. The powers of arrest relating to that offence would then apply. That is very different from a breach of a sex offender order.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising the issue by way of his amendments. I certainly agree that it is important—given the nature of the criminal conduct that sex offender orders were intended to discourage—that anyone breaching such an order can be arrested. A breach may well indicate that an individual's behaviour is getting out of control, and that a serious sex offence is imminent. The behaviour prohibited by an order may, however, be relatively innocuous and certainly non-criminal. An individual may, for example, be prohibited from entering a children's playground between certain hours. That behaviour may be a reliable indicator, in relation to the particular offender, that a serious sex offence is about to be committed.
1036
The police's common law powers of arrest may not be sufficient to allow arrest in such circumstances. That is particularly so if the police know the home address—as they will do because of the registration requirements associated with orders—and it is not judged that the individual is likely to abscond. In England and Wales, breach of a sex offender order will automatically be an arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, because it carries with it a maximum penalty of at least five years' imprisonment.
I fully accept the need for a power of arrest and the principle behind the amendment. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I indicate that I am not persuaded that it should be couched in the terms set out in his amendment. For example. there is no need for the proposed subsection (5B) as sex offender orders will not have effect until served; and the provisions of Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 would apply automatically as breach of an order is an offence which can be tried summarily. Therefore, subsection (51) is also unnecessary.
Perhaps I may now turn to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord as to whether or not the powers of arrest in the government amendment would cover an interim sex offender order. I should like to take this particular aspect away with me to consider whether a further amendment is required in addition to the present government amendment to meet that point. I shall, therefore, return to the matter at a later stage. Members of the Committee will see from the Marshalled List that there is an equivalent amendment tabled in my name: namely, Amendment No. 73. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment, and that grouped with it, and support my amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his response. When he reflects on Clause 19, I hope that he will treat himself to further reflection on Clause 18, although I am not optimistic that that will bear fruit. Nevertheless, I hope that I can tempt him to do so.
When the noble and learned Lord takes away Clause 19, perhaps I may invite him to look at two issues. First, the question of whether there is a power of arrest; and, secondly, the issue regarding a penalty for breach of such an order. I believe that it would be undesirable to have contempt of court proceedings mixed up with this procedure if the Government's determination is to have a separate route for dealing with breaches of such orders—an aspect of the policy with which, as presently advised, I agree. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 15, line ll. leave out ("sections 19 and 20") and insert ("section 20").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is grouped with other government amendments: namely, Nos. 63, 66, 67 and 75. It is not usual for the police in

1037
Scotland to apply direct to the civil court, as we are proposing for sex offender orders. When we consulted on these orders at the end of last year we therefore sought views on whether the police or local authorities should have the power to make applications. That is why both appear in the Bill as at present.
Views from consultees were divided. The orders, however, can only be made against someone with a previous conviction for a sex offence, and their intention is to prevent future criminal behaviour. It therefore seems right that the police should apply for them, as in England and Wales. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland supports that approach. The police will, however, be required to consult the relevant local authority before making an application. These amendments remove the provision relating to local authority applications in Clause 19(2) and references to it elsewhere. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 62A and 81A which are curiously grouped with the Government's amendments. I hope naïvely that they will be accepted with the same ease as the amendments of the noble and learned Lord. However, I suspect that will not be the case.
These amendments have been suggested to me by the Law Society of Scotland. Amendment No. 62A seeks to transfer responsibility for the promotion of sex offender orders from the chief constable to the procurator fiscal. The case for doing this is a constitutional one. It is unprecedented in Scotland for the police to apply for a civil order in the sheriff civil court. It is also most unusual for the police to appear in Scottish courts in any other capacity than that of witnesses or of court duty officers.
The amendment sets down the following challenge. Although it is rare for a procurator fiscal to appear in a civil court, the hybrid or quasi-criminal nature of a sex offender order makes it appropriate. The breach of a sex offender order will be a criminal matter. The usual process of a report being sent to the procurator fiscal from any source would seem appropriate to be applied to sex offender orders. In the event of a breach, the procurator fiscal will need to know all the circumstances of the imposition of the sex offender order. Therefore he or she may as well have promoted it in the first place. This amendment would avoid muddying the waters in the relationship between the police and the public, including past offenders.
Amendment No. 81A is designed to ensure that consultation on sex offender orders takes place between the chief constable and the local authority. I cannot see how an order seeking to control the behaviour of a citizen could be promoted and informally supervised without the notification, consultation and co-operation of both the police and the local authority. How is the procedure of making these orders enhanced by allowing for a failure of consultation? I believe that we have moved on from the time when social workers found it difficult on ideological grounds to talk to policemen. The advent of the criminal justice specialist social work teams is strong evidence of this progress. Presumably
1038
officers from the police, social work and housing are likely to be involved already in some way with antisocial behaviour order holders and sex offender order holders. These orders may well be a significant step forward in dealing with grossly unsatisfactory behaviour. They must not be tarnished by inadequate procedures.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I speak to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord and to the various other amendments in this grouping which stand in my name. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has explained, the Bill, as initially drafted, sought to give both to the police in the form of the chief constable and to the local authority, power to seek orders under Clause 19. His amendment seeks to exclude the local authority and my Amendment No. 62 seeks to exclude the police. Therefore, in this instance, we cannot say that we seek to achieve a common purpose.
I believe that the crucial issue in this case is whether the police wish to have this jurisdiction, and the related question of whether it would be sensible to give it to them. I do not think there is any doubt that if local authorities are to be charged with the power to seek antisocial behaviour orders, it would be perfectly possible for them to seek sex offender orders too. It is my experience that police forces in Scotland use as their legal departments the legal departments of one or other of the local authorities whose areas they cover. As a matter of practice, the same lawyers will go to court to seek the order. The question therefore is whether they should do that on behalf of the local authority who employs the lawyers or on behalf of the chief constable who seeks to employ their services and no doubt would pay some compensating charge to the local authority budget for that purpose.
I, too, have considered the responses of the police organisations in Scotland to the consultation paper. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate fairly pointed out, it would be unprecedented in Scotland for the police to apply for a civil order. Therefore the Government sought views on whether that should be done by the police on the one hand or local authorities on the other. As I read the responses received from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, they do not express a view on that issue although I fully accept that privately they may have communicated what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has reported. However, their initial response at least did not appear to embrace this new power with enthusiasm. I could not find in the file that I consulted any response from the police superintendents, and the Police Federation, which represents the police constables, favoured the power lying with the local authority and not with the chief constable.
I believe that not only is there a constitutional issue here, of the nature mentioned by the noble Earl, but also a practical issue of good policing, and that of a good relationship between the procurator fiscal on the one hand and the police on the other. Time and time again disputes arise involving neighbours and some of them take on a nasty aspect and result in the commission of

1039
criminal offences. It is possible to imagine situations where rather than resorting to criminal proceedings it is decided that when dealing with an offender who has a sex offender's background and is liable to upset a neighbouring family, the Section 19 route should be followed. In such a situation the police are in a difficult position. On the one hand, they wish to prevent the sex offender from committing further sex offences, but on the other they wish to protect members of the public who are outraged—whether from their own feelings or because they are whipped up by others—at the presence in their community of a sex offender.
In such situations it is extremely important that the police forces exercise impartiality because they are the people who will have to enter a housing scheme to deal with any problems that may arise, whether they be a breach of the peace or problems of a violent nature. If they have taken the initiative—as the Government proposal would empower them to do—it may be difficult to preserve that impartiality.
I mentioned also the relationship with the procurator fiscal. If the police report the sex offender to the procurator fiscal and say that on the basis of the evidence available to them it appears that the sex offender has been guilty of a breach of a stalking nature, such as watching a school playground, a community centre or a public park, and the procurator fiscal for good reason decides that criminal proceedings are not appropriate, at present the police have to accept the decision of the Crown without question; and they do so, having explained what evidence they have been able to collect.
This provision affords the police an option of to some extent second guessing the procurator fiscal and instituting proceedings of their own. I venture to suggest that in an isolated incident it might lead to breakdown of the important relationship between the Crown and police. It is not essential that the police be given this power. By framing Clause 19 in its present form, the Government acknowledge that it would be possible to leave the matter with the local authority. That is the course I invite them to reconsider.
Amendment No. 77 is included in this group of amendments. As a result of a fault entirely on my part it is wrongly included because it raises a somewhat distinct issue; namely, the limitations on the disclosure of information by a chief constable to others of information which might be available to him. In the context of Clause 19, if the government amendment prevails the practical implications for Clause 19 will fly off. But the amendment has implications for Clause 18, and that is why I raise it.
As anyone interested in the criminal justice system will know, chief constables are privy to a great deal of information about people in the community. Some of that information is in the public domain; some of it has not yet entered the public domain but will do so; and some of it will never enter the public domain. As regards a neighbours' dispute it can include information about both sides—convictions, police warnings, warnings by the procurator fiscal and other matters. My concern is that that information, plus any information
1040
the police may have communicated to the procurator fiscal in relation to previous incidents, may seep out during the consultation process unless clear guidance is given as to what a chief constable can or cannot do.
Good policing depends on collecting evidence and information in confidence. It depends upon obtaining that information by surveillance. Good policing and sensible prosecuting depends upon the police forming views as to the rights and wrongs of certain situations and communicating that to the procurator fiscal who takes the ultimate decision as to whether or not to initiate prosecutions.
As I understand the law, at present the police have certain limits on them as to what they can disclose to outside agencies. I fully accept the value of case conferences when dealing with young offenders. I fully accept that information may have to be disseminated further than to the procurator fiscal. However, I put down the amendment to seek from the Government a clear indication of what they believe the correct policy to be and, it is to be hoped, some assurance that it is an issue which will be dealt with in the guidance to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has helpfully referred.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate this question. Having heard the noble and learned Lord move his amendment, I was not absolutely clear as to its full significance. I am sure that he will put me right if I have got wrong what he said. As I understand it, the police will have a duty to consult the local authority in the circumstances which he envisaged. But as we also know, chief officers have an operational independence. What happens if there is a disagreement between the police and the local authority? I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could help me on that.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hardie: Perhaps I may deal with the noble Lord's point. If the government amendments are accepted, the police would apply for the orders. Clearly they would consult with, and take into account the views of, the local authority. But at the end of the day, by opting for the police as the appropriate authority to make the order the ultimate decision would be for the police.
As I shall comment later, clearly one of the duties of the police is concern for the safety of the public. That is part of the reason that we opted for the police rather than the local authority.
The alternative set of amendments removes the power of the police to apply for sex offender orders and replaces it with the power for the local authority or procurator fiscal to do so. I think that everyone is agreed that only one authority should apply, to save the matter falling between two stools, and the appropriate order not being sought by anyone.
As I have already indicated, we consider it right that the police should apply for those orders. They can be made only against someone with a previous conviction, and their intention is to prevent future criminal

1041
behaviour. It is the proper function of the police to prevent criminal behaviour. Accordingly, such orders would fall fully within the role of the police.
We would therefore not wish local authorities to have any power to make such applications. As regards the procurator fiscal, the orders are civil and it would be inappropriate for the procurator fiscal to apply to the civil court for them.
Amendment No. 74A would remove the requirement for local authorities to consult the police before applying for antisocial behaviour orders. The whole thrust of our approach is one of consultation. Accordingly, we do not think that the amendment would be appropriate. It is clearly important that the police should have the opportunity to draw any relevant information to the attention of the local authority before an application is made. In particular it would be helpful for the police to be able to indicate whether a prosecution for the same behaviour was likely.
However, we would not wish the sheriff to be required by statute to reject an application for an order if consultation had not taken place, as Amendment No. 81A proposes. Rather, it should be for the sheriff to determine whether the application should proceed taking all the circumstances into account.
It would be open to the person against whom the order was made to lodge an appeal against the order on the grounds that the necessary steps had not been completed before the application was made.
Once the order is made, it should be considered valid. We would not wish the procurator fiscal to have to look behind the face of the order into the circumstances surrounding the application before deciding whether or not to prosecute for breach.
It is quite right that concerns about the disclosure of information should be raised by Amendment No. 77. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said, this problem would not arise in relation to sex offender orders if the government amendment were allowed. But I appreciate that it may have some relevance in relation to antisocial behaviour orders.
Concern has been expressed that existing statutory and common law powers may not be sufficient to allow the sharing of information between local authorities and the police which will be necessary for the proper consideration of an application for an antisocial behaviour order. The common law duty of confidence and restrictions arising from the data protection legislation is also relevant.
There are limited exceptions from the data protection principles, for example where the disclosure is necessary for the prevention and detection of crime. And breaches of the common law duty of confidence can be defended if they are in the public interest. This is a very difficult area. We are considering as a matter of urgency whether the constraints on what the police—and indeed local authorities—may disclose will cause difficulties in relation to applications for orders and whether express provision to allow disclosure needs to be made. Should it be necessary, we will bring forward an amendment.
1042
Before inviting noble Lords to withdraw their amendment in favour of the government amendment, I should say that I do not have any concern about any breakdown in the relationship between the police and the procurator fiscal should this power be given to the police. The overall concern of both the Crown and the police in such matters is the protection of the public. These orders being applied for by the police will fit in with the overall aims of both the Crown and the police. I beg to move the government amendment, and invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 18, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill, intending to raise at this juncture a number of matters which I raised when we last met to consider the Bill on Tuesday last week. I wish to thank publicly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for having written to me dealing with some of these issues, and in particular to thank his officials for having faxed a copy of the letter to me at the end of last week. It was of great assistance in preparing for today's debate. I understand from having talked to the noble and learned Lord earlier that copies will be available in the Library, if they are not already there.
Noble Lords will recall that I raised two issues. The first was whether an antisocial behaviour order could be justified by conduct which would not found a criminal prosecution. The answer given by the noble and learned Lord in his letter was yes. Secondly, I asked whether an order could be justified by conduct which would not justify the granting of an interdict. Again, I received an answer which was effectively "yes", but which was couched in these terms:
"It is not intended that it should generally do so",
but by implication such a possibility clearly exists.
While I am grateful for the very full and prompt letter in reply to the anxieties that I raised, I regret to say that to some extent it reinforced my concerns about this provision. What we are faced with is Parliament being invited to grant powers to the sheriff to grant a civil order against an individual who on the one hand has committed no crime, and on the other hand may not have committed any civil wrong. Such an order could be pronounced on the evidence of one witness against a civil standard of proof. Once the order is pronounced—which could be as draconian (I use the word advisedly) as preventing a person going to a certain street, to a house which he tenants or owns—the very fact of doing so lays him open to criminal prosecution.
I have some difficulty in imagining circumstances which would justify an application where no crime or civil wrong has been committed. But the noble and learned Lord's letter accepts that such could exist. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile—although I fully accept the noble and learned Lord's analysis of the clause—with the policy as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which was to deal with behaviour which

1043
would be considered criminal. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to suggest practical examples which may answer my concern. If he cannot, some serious anxiety remains.
I wish to make one other point at this stage which arises out of the noble and learned Lord's previous reply dealing with the question of confidentiality. The matter will now arise only in relation to Clause 18. If this matter is to be dealt with in guidance, I respectfully suggest that it would be extremely useful to noble Lords if that guidance could be available in this place before the Bill leaves it. Otherwise, a number of the issues that we are raising—issues which are not being discounted as frivolous—may pass unscrutinised before the Bill goes to another place.
Lord Hardie: Clause 18 provides an additional mechanism for local authorities in Scotland to control antisocial behaviour in their areas through applying to the sheriff for civil orders against individuals who have behaved in an antisocial way and are considered likely to do so again. It mirrors the provisions for England and Wales in Clause 1 which have already been discussed.
There are, however, two main differences for Scotland. The first is that only local authorities will be able to make applications for such orders. The justification for the police making such applications is not sufficiently overwhelming to override the normal arrangement that the police do not apply direct to the courts in Scotland. The police will be consulted by local authorities before an application for such an order is made.
The second difference is that orders will be available against only those aged 16 or over. Antisocial behaviour by those under 16 will continue to be dealt with by the distinctive children's hearing system. As in England and Wales, local authorities will be able to apply for orders against anyone in their area, not just their own tenants. It is envisaged that it will often be possible for evidence to be given by local authority staff to avoid at least some of the difficulties of intimidation. The sheriff will be able to impose whatever prohibitions he considers necessary to protect the community from future harm.
The noble and learned Lord gave the example of someone perhaps being prohibited from going to the home that he tenanted. I accept that that might well be an order which the sheriff would impose in an appropriate case. But it would be only in an extreme case that such an order would be granted. The sheriff will impose such order as he considers necessary to protect the community from future harm.
These provisions fulfil the spirit of the recommendations in the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee on housing and antisocial behaviour published at the end of 1996. They were widely welcomed by consultees last autumn. I also emphasise that orders are not punishments; nor are they convictions. The terms of the orders have to be only those which are necessary to protect the public. Furthermore, the defender has a right of appeal.
1044
In the course of debate on this clause reference has been made to guidance. It is hoped that guidance will be available, certainly before the Bill is enacted. I have undertaken to write to the noble and learned Lord in more detail about the matter.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Sex offender orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 62B not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 15, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 15, line 30, leave out ("serious harm from him") and insert ("the commission by him of a sexual offence within the meaning of section 210A(8) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a probing amendment to be taken with Amendment No. 72. Amendment No. 65 seeks to leave out the words "serious harm from him" in Clause 19, page 15 line 30, and insert the words "sexual offence", defined in greater detail in the amendment.
This amendment seeks to probe one issue: whether the activity which the order would seek to prohibit, if pronounced, would be the commission of further specific offences; or whether the activity which it seeks to prohibit is an activity which, so far as it concerns another member of the public, may be perceived on all sides to be an absolutely innocent activity.
When the clause comes to be construed by the courts, it would be helpful to have clarification from the Government as to what they have in mind. If my amendment, Amendment No. 65, were to be accepted, it would clearly be the first alternative. 1 seek to probe whether that is the Government's policy or the second of the two alternatives. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I fear that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, may be too prescriptive. Particularly when considering paedophiles, I believe that most parents would not want such people to have a contact with children which comes before an offence is committed. We should bear in mind that these orders are to prevent the possibility of the commission of an offence as well as to prevent the offence.
Lord Hardie: I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that there is a danger in being too specific about the harm which sex offender orders are intended to prevent.
The term "serious harm" is not defined for this clause but has been used in previous legislation. It is, for example, used without definition in Section 209 of the

1045
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 which empowers the court to make a supervised release order if it considers it necessary to do so to protect the public,
"from serious harm from the offender on his release".
It is also to be used without definition in the new provisions for extended sentences for sex offenders in Clause 70. It will be for the courts to interpret the term and decide whether the likely consequences of further behaviour of the kind prompting the application for the order fall within the term or not.
A more specific definition—as in the amendments—runs the risk of excluding something which the police and perhaps more importantly the court would like to have been able to include. It would also cover matters that are not necessarily serious. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful for that answer. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate correctly indicates, it touches on an issue which arises later in the Bill. I shall reflect carefully on what he said. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 65.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 66 and 67:
Page 15, line 31, leave out ("or (2)").
Page 15, line 34, leave out ("or (2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move them formally.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 15, line 36, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("necessary").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a series of amendments which are grouped together and which deal with a number of discrete topics. The first is the use of the word "appropriate" in Clause 19(5)(a). That is the power that the sheriff will have to make an interim order, "as he considers appropriate". I contrast that with the use of the word "necessary" in Clause 18(1)(b) dealing with the granting of an antisocial behaviour order and, more important, the use of the word "necessary" in Clause 19(6) dealing with the granting of a sex offender order on a permanent basis or at least on a basis which is time-limited by the sheriff's order.
As I need not inform the Committee, normally when different words are used by Parliament in a statute, different meanings are intended. Amendment No. 68 seeks to probe the policy which lies behind the use of "appropriate" in Clause 19(5)(a) when it falls to be contrasted with "necessary" in Clause 19(6).
Amendment No. 71 is fairly self-explanatory in nature and the Law Society suggested to me that it might be desirable, while I agree that it is not necessary. Amendments Nos. 78 and 84 are consequential on other amendments with which we have already dealt, and I
1046
need not discuss them. Amendment No. 88 is fairly minor in nature, designed to ensure that chief constables are aware of all orders that have been granted. In the light of the Government's amendment to Clause 19, chief constables will automatically become aware of the granting of orders which they have sought. However, the same would not apply to antisocial behaviour orders. Therefore, I shall move the relevant amendment in due course. It is my understanding, from reading the consultation responses which I mentioned earlier, that the suggestion has the support of ACPOS (the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland).
Finally, perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 90. It is in two parts and seeks to prevent a sheriff, or on appeal a sheriff principal or Court of Session, or, indeed, the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, pronouncing either an antisocial behaviour order or a sex offender order if the Crown has intervened in the proceedings by a minute of the procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate indicating that it is believed that the granting of such an order would be in the public interest.
As some Members of the Committee may be aware, when breach of interdict proceedings are initiated in Scotland, that process, being brought by a member of the public as an individual and a private citizen, requires to be done with the concurrence of the Lord Advocate to protect the public interest. It is a practice which is well founded in reason because many of the disputes involve factual situations which may or may not have given rise in the past or may give rise to criminal proceedings. To avoid conflict between proceedings under Clauses 18 and 19, I suggest it would be sensible to put on the face of the Bill a provision which would entitle the Crown to intervene and say: "Go no further".
The amendment is not designed to bring the Crown in as a party to the proceedings: it is not designed to require the Crown to justify the decision which the Lord Advocate has taken in the public interest. It is designed to indicate that if, having regard to all the information he has, he determines that it would not be in the public interest for an order to be pronounced, he has the right to exercise such a veto.
I fully expect that the occasions when that may be necessary will be limited because of the consultations which will no doubt have taken place. But from time to time there may be a breakdown of communications, or a difference of view, or, particularly under Clause 18, a local authority may be under pressure to act but the Crown may not consider that appropriate. Therefore, I include Amendment No. 90 in the group and will seek to move it in due course. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Amendments Nos. 68A and 86A appear in this group and are in my name. Amendment No. 68A is designed to clarify Clause 19 which seems rather vague.
It is worth going back in this regard to the origins of the clause when it was originally to be called a "community protection order". The purpose of its being renamed a "sex offender order" is to prevent future misconduct which would lead to the possibility of a

1047
further offence being committed. The amendment is necessary for public safety and clearly maps out what the order is designed to do.
Not all sex offenders will meet the criteria for a sex offender order to be imposed upon them. A past conviction alone will not be sufficient. The sex offender order evolved to deal with those convicted sex offenders who have not given up their offending behaviour and who are not making the effort to control their interest in sexual offending. Those who reject or pay lip-service to treatment programmes and counselling will, deservedly, be in line for a sex offender order and the neighbourhood supervision that goes with it. Amendment No. 68A sharpens up the clause and gives it greater clarity.
Amendment No. 86A is a probing amendment aimed at clarifying how long should be the minimum period for such an order. The words on the face of the Bill, "at any time", would allow an order to be discharged after one day. That would be a breach of common sense. Can that be a sensible form of wording? I can see the merit of flexibility in being able to apply for the discharge of an order, but it must surely be after a minimum period which itself must be long enough to establish that a new pattern of non-offending behaviour is being pursued.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: These amendments are concerned with the way in which orders are made, served, appealed against, varied or revoked. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, referred towards the end of his remarks to Amendment No. 90 and perhaps I can deal with that first.
Amendment No. 90 would have the effect of removing the possibility of an application being made for a civil order where a procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate decided to raise criminal proceedings relating to the same circumstances that gave rise to the civil proceedings and where those criminal proceedings subsequently fail.
The behaviour which has given rise to an application being made in the first instance may not be sufficient to meet the standard of proof required in successful criminal proceedings, but may yet satisfy the lesser standard required in civil cases. We do not therefore consider that the option of proceeding with a civil measure should be removed.
The Lord Advocate already has the power to enter into any process in the public interest. We will certainly consider whether any amendment is necessary to the clause to include a provision for a minute to be lodged by the Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal, as the case may be, to sist the civil proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
We consider that that would achieve the purpose which the proposed amendment seeks in preventing civil proceedings progressing until the outcome of any criminal proceedings is known. Neither a procurator fiscal nor the Lord Advocate can be required to specify their reasons for making particular decisions, so the second part of the amendment is not required.
1048
Amendment No. 71 seeks to make it clear that the prohibitions in an order are to be those the sheriff considers necessary. Since it is only the sheriff who can make such orders, the amendment would appear to be unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 68A would reduce the sheriff's discretion over when he could make an interim order under Clause 19. Instead of being able to make such an order when he considered it appropriate, he would only be able to do so if he considered one necessary, or necessary in the interests of public safety. In the context of an interim order that would be an unnecessary fettering of the discretion of the sheriff. Given the nature of the behaviour which these orders are intended to prevent, I would not wish to restrict the sheriff in that way.
I have no difficulty with the principle behind Amendment No. 88, which is that the court should send a copy of an antisocial behaviour order or a sex offender order to the relevant chief constable at the same time as it is given or sent to the person to whom it applies. That is sensible as a breach of an order is an offence which the police would be required to follow up.
I do not consider that it is necessary to specify that in the legislation since it is a procedural matter. We would, however, cover this point in the guidance to which I have already referred. The same approach was taken over the copying of the court certificate and notice of requirement to register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997. The certificates and notices are copied to the police and—where appropriate—the local authority, prison or hospital which will be responsible for the offender. The arrangements were provided for in guidance which was discussed in detail with those involved.
In relation to Amendment No. 86A, I see no need to remove the words "at any time" from the provision. It could be argued that the provision would have the same effect without them, but I consider that they provide helpful clarification. To take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in theory it could mean that an application could be made the following day, but in reality that would not occur. If it did, I am sure that any sheriff would give it short shrift.
In relation to Amendment No. 84, I agree that certain of the procedural provisions in Clause 20 should apply to interim orders under Clause 19(5). I do not, however, agree that the provisions in subsection (7) on the duration, variation and revocation would be appropriate for interim orders.
Amendment No. 85A stands in my name and extends the procedural provisions on the service of orders in subsections (8) and (9) to interim orders under Clause 19. I intend to move Amendment No. 85A and therefore ask that Amendment No. 68 be withdrawn along with other amendments grouped with it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for dealing in such a constructive manner—albeit taking different tacks—with the four amendments to which I spoke.

1049
perhaps I can make one further comment in relation to the amendments incorporated in the two parts of Amendment No. 90.
The amendment was designed not only to deal with the situation which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate discussed, where criminal proceedings had been initiated and were running their course or where the view had been taken that they would have been initiated but because of some problem with sufficiency of evidence they could not be initiated; it was also designed to deal with a situation where the Crown was firmly of the view that, albeit there was a sufficiency of evidence, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute the accused man. The issue would therefore arise as to whether it was in the public interest for the local authority to seek an antisocial behaviour order against a man who is no longer the accused, but is the defender.
As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, in many disputes there are two sides to the story. Anybody involved in the criminal justice system, whether prosecuting or defending, will know that it is not uncommon for a dispute to erupt where it is impossible for either the police or the prosecutor to decide which side is in the right or in the wrong. I therefore invite that further consideration to be before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. On the basis that I received a most constructive response, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 68.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68A to 72 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 16. line 14, at end insert—
("( ) A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects of doing, or having done, anything prohibited by a sex offender order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20[Procedural provisions with respect to orders]:
[Amendment No. 74A not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 16, leave out line 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 16. line 19. at end insert ("and the relevant procurator fiscal").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment, which I fully accept might have been grouped with others. I accept that the need for a local
1050
authority to consult with the procurator fiscal prior to seeking an antisocial behaviour order under Clause 18 might be dealt with by way of guidance, although the position as far as concerns the chief constable is set out on the face of the Bill. I would welcome an assurance from the Lord Advocate that he will look at this point when considering the guidance which is currently being drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: I can give the assurance sought by the noble and learned Lord. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 85 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 16. line 34. at end insert ("and subsections (8) and (9) below apply to an order made under section 19(5)(a) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No, 89:
Page 17. line 12. leave out ("shall continue to have effect") and insert ("may be suspended").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment seeks to inject into the appellate procedure for appeals against orders a power for the appeal court to suspend the order complained of.
I fully accept that once an antisocial behaviour order or sex offender order has been pronounced there is a very strong argument that it is in the public interest that that should remain in effect until either varied by the sheriff or successfully appealed against. However, there may be rare occasions when it is appropriate that the order should be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. To take an extreme example, if the local authority had been hoodwinked by a group of alleged victims and it became apparent that the evidence upon which it had relied at the hearing before the sheriff was tainted by perjury but there was delay in getting the matter to a final appeal hearing, it must be appropriate for that order to be suspended ad interim. It is possible to envisage other such examples.
I may be wrong, but as I construe the provisions of Clause 4(2)(b), which deals with appeals against such orders in England, the English Crown Court would have power to make an incidental order as appears to be just. I stand to be corrected as to whether that would cover an interim order; but if it did, it would certainly seem to be sensible for the same discretion to be available to the appeal courts in Scotland as appears, on my layman's reading of the English provision, to be available in England.
The other issue arises in Amendment No. 92, which is grouped with Amendment No. 89. and is of a fairly technical nature. As the Lord Advocate said earlier,

1051
applications will be by way of summary application. Appeals are in certain instances competent from determinations in summary applications, but there is a great variety of jurisprudence as to in what circumstances they are competent and to where the appeal should lie—whether it requires to go first to the sheriff principal or whether it should go directly to the Court of Session. If I may pray in aid again the consultation responses, my recollection is that some consultees asked that this matter be clarified. What I suggest in Amendment No. 92, as this issue will arise locally and be concerned with activity in a specific local authority area, is that it is appropriate that any appeal should in the first instance lie to the sheriff principal. I hope that certainly the spirit lying behind the amendment will he acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: Amendment No. 89 is intended to allow orders to be suspended while appeals are being considered. That would not be appropriate. Given the nature of the behaviour that these orders are intended to prevent and given the risk to the public that they are intended to reduce, it is important that they should be effective immediately and should remain effective until revoked. These orders are prohibitive only and do not impose any requirements on those against whom they are made. There is no need for them to be suspended while appeals are heard and there might be considerable risk to the public in doing so.
Amendment No. 92 seeks to provide that the first line of appeal should be to the sheriff principal. While I can understand and sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment in encouraging people to seek a remedy at the local level, it is already open to anyone to have first recourse to the sheriff principal in summary proceedings in Scotland unless there is any statutory prohibition against that. Accordingly, it is not necessary to have any specific provision for this on the face of the Bill.
The English provisions to which the noble and learned Lord referred are intended to deal with what happens once the appeal has been determined. The power in Clause 4 would not enable the order to be suspended while the appeal is being heard. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any inconsistency between the Scottish and the English provisions. Therefore, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: On the first point, I remain concerned that in a few cases there may be a possible injustice. However, it would not be appropriate to divide the Committee on that issue at this juncture. With regard to the noble and learned Lord's response to Amendment No. 92, having raised the issue, I am fully content with the reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert—
("(10A) Every local authority shall maintain a register containing details of—
(a) the names, ages and addresses of persons resident in the authority's area against whom anti-social orders, sex offender orders and orders under section 18(3A) above have been made and remain in effect,
(b) the dates of any such orders, and
(c) the terms of any such orders.
(10B) A register maintained by a local authority under subsection (10A) above shall be open to public inspection, without charges at such places and at such times as seem appropriate to the local authority to ensure that members of the public have ready access to information that requires to be included in the register.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This again is a short matter which might be dealt with by guidance, but I believe that it would be better for it to be on the face of the Bill. There is one aspect of protecting the public—that every local authority should maintain a register containing details of those against whom orders are pronounced, the dates of the orders and their terms. I cannot see any objection to that proposal. If one of the policies which lies behind these provisions is to get the message across to certain members of society that its law-abiding members will not tolerate their behaviour, it is sensible that a register be maintained and open for public access. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support this amendment. In view of the fact that we are introducing a new concept of neighbourhood supervision, the requirements in the amendment would go some way towards making certain that members of the public know exactly who is to be supervised by the neighbourhood.
Lord Hardie: We do not believe that a local authority-maintained register would serve any useful purpose. Indeed, it could be viewed as a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case of antisocial behaviour orders, those who have been affected by the behaviour will already be aware of the details. The guidance on implementation, which will be available in draft, is likely to advise local authorities to inform such people that an order has been made and of its terms. There will also be arrangements to ensure that the police are aware of such orders. We do not consider that anything further is required.
Those subject to sex offender orders will be required to register their name and address with the police, who will record the details in their own computers. It will be a matter for the police to decide to whom this information should be further disclosed in the interests of public safety.
I understand that revised guidance on the sex offenders Act which will cover risk assessment and disclosure for all sex offenders about whom there are concerns will be issued for consultation shortly. We do

1053
not therefore consider that there is a need for a separate register. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may ask one further question. Will there be a prohibition on publication of the making of such an order in local newspapers?
Lord Hardie: I would not think so because the proceedings in the civil court would be in public.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I fully accept that that answer is a valid response to the point raised by the noble Earl, but perhaps I may probe slightly further. What is the alleged breach of the ECHR that the existence of a register would give rise to? If the purpose of this power is to allow a local authority to take an adult individual to court in open forum and lead evidence there that he or she has behaved in an antisocial manner, and the sheriff then makes an order designed to protect the general public which the local reporter can publish in the Clackmannan Gazette or other local journal, which article of the convention which is part of the schedule to the Human Rights Bill would be infringed in any way? If a register is maintained in the local library, when people read the Clackmannan Gazette or whatever, they can also look at the register to see whether the Graham family, for example, are the subject of antisocial behaviour orders. I appreciate that the question is of a slightly technical nature. I shall be quite content if the noble and learned Lord writes to me about the issue. But as he has raised an ECHR objection to what I would have thought was quite reasonable publicity to orders obtained in the public interest, I believe that the Committee would benefit from having an explanation of what lies behind the comments he made.
Lord Hardie: I shall take up the noble and learned Lord's invitation and write to him in detail. I believe the concern is that having details entered in a register and having it available for inspection by the public is different in kind from having a chance report of proceedings in a newspaper. I accept that in a small community such as Alloa such a report would never be forgotten, but in other communities with larger populations it may go unnoticed or even unreported.
If the idea is to bring home to people that their behaviour is unacceptable, I am concerned that they should be given an opportunity to reform. However, if there is a register and people have ready access to it, we may run the risk of a reaction from the public against the individual or the family which may be counterproductive. That would certainly apply as regards sex offender orders. Sadly, we are all aware of instances where sex offenders have been hounded out of areas by members of the public. That would simply increase the risk.
As regards the ECHR, I shall write to the noble and learned Lord in more detail. I believe that one has the right to live unmolested. The important thing is that this
1054
order is not a conviction or a punishment. As I say, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to make a register which people could examine in the library or at the police station.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hear what the noble and learned Lord says in response to my further question and I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 94 not moved.] Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Offences in connection with breach of orders]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 18, line 10, leave out ("Subject to subsection (7) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 96 are probing amendments which invite the noble and learned Lord to explain Clause 21(7). There is the substitution of the words,
"at the time at which he committed",
for the words "which constitutes" in subsection (2). I have read the subsection on numerous occasions. The fault may be entirely mine, but I do not see its purpose, bearing in mind that a breach of both an antisocial behaviour order and a sex offender order could be carried out by conduct, on the one hand, which constitutes the commission of a separate offence or, on the other, which constitutes no such offence. In those circumstances why is it necessary to have subsection (7)? It will come as no surprise to the noble and learned Lord that I am entirely content with Amendment No. 97. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 would mean that the fact that a person has breached a sex offender order in the course of committing a criminal offence could not be taken into account as an aggravating factor in determining the sentence for that other offence.
For example, if a person has been prohibited by a sex offender order from entering a particular school playground and that person is subsequently found guilty of indecently assaulting a child in that school playground, had he abided by the terms of the sex offender order he could not have committed the assault on the child. So there is an aggravation of the offence by breaching the order. It is only right that the aggravation should be taken into account in sentencing the person for the indecent assault in that example. The provision as drafted would allow this to happen. The amendment would, however, mean that the breach could be taken into account only if the behaviour which constituted it was in itself criminal. Given the likely terms of sex offender orders, this would happen only rarely, if at all, whereas with the antisocial behaviour provisions, one has to establish that the breach is criminal before it becomes an aggravation. In a sex offender order, the breach of the order is itself an

1055
aggravation which is added to the penalty for the sex offence. With that explanation, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment No. 97, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 95 and 96, corrects a typographical error in a previous print of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: 1 am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Now that I know the purpose of the provisions, I apologise to the Committee for further delaying matters and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 95.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 18, line 13, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(6)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Authorities responsible for strategies]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 5, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 12 and insert —
("(a) the local authority according to the meaning given under section 33 below;").
The noble Lord said: We now move away from Scotland and return to England, so we can allow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and my noble and learned friend a brief rest until we reach Amendment No. 166 when we shall return again to Scotland.
We come now to the crime and disorder strategies which are set out in Clauses 5, 6 and 7. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, will note that relatively few amendments have been tabled to those clauses. In moving Amendment No. 99, I am speaking also to Amendment No. 101 (also to Clause 5) and to Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 to Clause 16, as well as, I understand, to the government amendment, Amendment No. 100, which the noble Lord will no doubt explain in due course when he responds to the one or two points that I wish to make about the crime and disorder strategies.
First, I hope that when the noble Lord responds he will be able to expand to some extent on exactly what the crime and disorder strategies are designed to achieve and how the Government propose that they should work. Perhaps the noble Lord could then go on to consider the question of exactly who should be responsible for the strategies. If I understand Clause 5(1)(a) correctly—as one who has tried to work out what it means, I must say that it is not the clearest piece of drafting—it applies in areas where there are not unitary authorities, with both the county and the district being involved. Paragraph (b) provides that the chief officer of police of any police authority lying within the area should also be responsible.
At Second Reading, I asked why sometimes the counties and sometimes the districts are to be involved in the strategies. If I have understood this provision correctly, it seems that both of those two authorities will be involved. That seems to create a number of bureaucratic problems with both authorities coming together to produce presumably separate—I may be wrong—strategies for any given area, with one strategy for the county and a number of different strategies for the districts that comprise that county. Obviously, where there is a unitary authority, the process is somewhat simpler. I should be grateful for some explanation from the noble Lord of why that should be the case.
The noble Lord will see that our amendment seeks to state that it should be for the county to pursue such matters on the basis that the county is often (although not always) the authority which is coterminous with the police authority, so the two will already have considerable links.
The noble Lord will have noted my two amendments to Clause 16 which, in the rather peculiar order that we are considering the Bill, we are now considering with Clauses 5, 6 and 7. Again, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could expand on the purpose and intention of Clause 16. Am I right in thinking that it implements the Morgan report? No doubt the noble Lord can assure me on that point. My amendments to Clause 16 were tabled as a means of getting the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box on this clause and, almost as a tease, to ask what on earth the national parks authorities or the Broads Authority would have to do in terms of the duty to consider crime and disorder implications. As I understand it, the parks authorities are purely planning authorities and have no other role. I see that as having relatively little impact on crime and disorder. No doubt if I am mistaken, the noble Lord will be able to reassure me that it is essential that the national park authorities and the Broads Authority are included. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord indicated, I shall be speaking to Amendments Nos. 99, 100, 101, 104, 105 and 156. The effect of Amendments Nos. 99 and 101 would be to exclude the district council from the process of developing and implementing crime and disorder strategies in all those parts of the country where county councils still exist. We think that would be wrong. It would severely compromise the effectiveness of the strategies for at least two reasons. First, it would give a much larger geographical focus. That means, almost by definition, more remoteness from the specific and particular needs of the particular communities they are intended to serve. Secondly, on a practical basis, district councils are responsible for providing a range of services which impact directly on crime and disorder levels. If carried, the amendment would mean that those services and the wider resources of the districts would be excluded from the fight against crime in two-tier areas.
I repeat what I said earlier. Very often, crime problems are particularly local to particular areas or parts of areas. We think that local communities have a very important part to play in the fight against crime.

1057
They also have particular interests. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord asked about strategies. They are specifically described in Clause 6, which contains the injunction for the responsible authorities to formulate a strategy, having (under Clause 6(2)) carried out a review of the levels and patterns of crime and disorder; prepared an analysis of the results; published a report, and had full consultation with, and obtained views from, appropriate people. Under subsection (4)(a) a strategy shall include:
"objectives to be pursued by the responsible authorities, by co-operating persons or bodies or, under agreements with the responsible authorities, by other persons or bodies; and"—
under paragraph (b)—
"long-tern and short-term performance targets for measuring the extent to which such objectives are achieved".
I strip that down to say that what is required is research in a particular area; consultation in that area; a finding of what the true problem is; setting what targets ought to be established for a particular area and, thereafter, ascertaining to what extent those long-term and short-term performance targets have been achieved. I cannot think of anything more sensible and more practical than having that as an obligation in particular areas—for the very first time in our criminal law system. I commend the scheme to your Lordships.
Amendments Nos. 100 and 156 will change the definition of police authorities in Clause 5 to ensure that it includes the Home Secretary since he is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police and the Common Council for the City of London. They were left out originally because we were troubled that in the case of the metropolitan area the Home Secretary would have to become personally involved in the development of about 40 separate strategies, which would be neither practicable nor desirable. That would have been, on second thoughts. an anomalous situation. We have now agreed arrangements under which the Home Secretary will ask the Metropolitan Police Committee to undertake any necessary liaison on his behalf.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, which have been described by the noble Lord as a tease, are viewed by the Government in the following way. National parks authorities and the Broads Authority do not have the same focused attachment and responsibility perhaps as district councils, for example. However, as the noble Lord rightly observed, they are responsible for planning decisions within their areas. Planning decisions can sometimes—I accept not always—have significant implications for crime and disorder. Since other local authorities when coming to various conclusions will be subject to the quite elementary requirement to have due regard to the crime and disorder implications of their policies, we say that it is right—although I agree in a lesser context—for the parks authorities and the Broads Authority to be subject to the same requirement. It will not be unduly burdensome but it may sometimes be of assistance.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the Broads Authority is
1058
also a by-law making body? If that is right, does the noble Lord agree that the by-laws that it makes about the way in which boats are used on the broads and in the harbours at Lowestoft and Yarmouth can be extremely relevant to a strategy and may very well be a matter that should be considered, quite apart from the planning functions of that authority?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am obliged once again to the noble Viscount for that observation. When I spoke of planning obligations I put the umbrella rather too crudely. The noble Viscount is right that by-laws provide useful assistance. Any responsible authority in considering passing by-laws must pay attention to the question of crime in particular parts of its area, whether it be the Broads Authority or a planning authority in the case of the national parks. For that reason I repeat that in most cases this is not as central a matter as a district council's responsibilities but it is of use and importance. I hope that I have responded reasonably to the tease that has been offered.
Lord Northbourne: I welcome the inclusion of the Broads Authority and the parks authorities. It seems to me that the increase in crime and disorder in the countryside is particularly likely to take place in areas where there are lots of tourists. I would have thought that this was an entirely sensible provision.
Lord Henley: I am virtually satisfied by the explanation particularly that relating to the second pair of my amendments. However, I should like to refer to the first amendments and a policy which in effect excludes districts, although there is no reason why districts cannot be consulted by the counties.
I am still in a state of confusion as to exactly what happens. When dealing with Scotland earlier we heard a great deal about Clackmannan and Alloa. Perhaps on this occasion as an example I can refer to my own part of the world, Cumbria, which has six districts within the county. On top of that there is a national parks authority in the form of the Lake District Special Planning Board. In effect there are seven bodies. Am I right in thinking that Cumbria County Council must set up a crime and disorder committee to consider this matter and consult the chief constable of Cumbria, and that at the same time the six different district councils must set up an appropriate committee and consider crime and disorder strategies for Carlisle, Copeland. Allerdale, Eden, South Lakes and Barrow; or is it the case that all six should get together with the county and produce one single crime and disorder strategy which could be achieved merely by the county producing it in consultation with the others? That is what I fail to understand.
If there are to be seven different strategies, what happens if, for example, the Carlisle strategy differs from that produced by the county? Precisely who will the people of Carlisle consult? Do they consult just the local chief of police in the Carlisle area or must they consult the chief constable; in other words, will the chief constable be involved in seven different consultations

1059
before the seven different areas produce their strategies? I should be most grateful to receive further explanation from the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that there is any difficulty. If one looks at Clause 5(4), the local government areas are defined. In England they are districts; in Wales they are counties or county boroughs. That is the answer to the noble Lord's question. There is no requirement for separate county-based strategies. What one is looking for is consultation and informed in-depth co-operation in the relevant local government areas as defined in Clause 5(4).
Within the county of Cumbria there will be separate areas as defined and specified by the noble Lord. Equally, to take the Dyfed and Powys police area, there is more than one county authority. I take Carmarthen, Cardigan and Pembrokeshire at random. All of those county authorities are within the Dyfed and Powys authority. Certainly, in Wales the county authorities are not coterminous with the police authorities.
I take Dyfed and Powys as an example because I know it reasonably well. Parts of Dyfed and Powys police authority, for instance Llanelli, are industrialised built-up areas; parts of Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire are rural. To take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, they have particular problems but they are different problems from those to be found in a built-up area like Llanelli. Sometimes one has problems of tourism, travelling communities, drugs and motorised crime. All of that depends on a particular area and authority. All we are saying is that we want maximum co-operation and consultation and optimum flexibility. That is the way to deal with these matters rather than have something that is too prescriptive, which perhaps is what the noble Lord is looking for.
No authority in the past has had the statutory duty to do what is necessary in the interests of its inhabitants in this area of crime and disorder. We are placing this duty on the local authorities because we believe that the production of a strategic plan is in itself a useful discipline. It concentrates the mind and avoids the duplication and waste that are presently found and, just as important if not more important, it requires targets to be set so that those who are intimately affected, the people who live there, can say at the end of a year or two years, "These are your targets. Have you met them? By the way, the local elections are coming up".
Lord Henley: I remain confused. The noble Lord referred me to Clause 5(4) which defines "local government area" in paragraphs (a) and (b). That seems to imply "district". I return to Clause 5(1)(a) which contains the words,
"the council for the county which includes the district'.
That appears to imply that the county council is also involved. I accept that there may be validity in taking the district approach as opposed to the county approach, but what Clause 5(1)(a) appears to say is that both are involved. I believe that that is unnecessarily bureaucratic. If the district is to do it, it is all very well for it to consult the county, but one should not have both
1060
of them producing it. It may be that I have completely and utterly misunderstood Clause 5(1)(a), which I suspect is the case.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that the noble Lord has. There is no requirement for separate county-based strategies, merely district-based strategies. It may be that the noble Lord is wrong. It is possible that I am wrong. We can both reflect on the matter, and send each other a postcard, I dare say. It is normally a big postcard these days. If there is still any ambiguity. obviously I shall attend to it on the next occasion.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful to the Minister. I should be pleased if his officials could look at the wording of Clause 5(1)(a) because I do not understand it, and it would help if it were made clear. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment 100:
Pagc 5, lint 17, leave out ("established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I could invite the Minister to throw whatever light he can on subsections (2) and (3) of this clause. They mention persons and bodies to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. Will he say whether "persons" includes magistrates? As regards "bodies", I may be wrong, but I take it that the Bill has in mind voluntary organisations.
As the Minister will be aware, there is an immense number of voluntary organisations and associations, ranging from housing associations, through organisations concerned with young people and children, parent/teacher associations attached to particular schools, and, at the other end of the spectrum there are organisations concerned with victims of crime. Will the Minister assure the Committee that none of the relevant voluntary organisations will be ruled out when the Secretary of State comes to prescribing? Can he give us any idea of how the views of the different kinds of relevant organisations may be co-ordinated in the future as regards the making of strategies?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He is, of course, right, but again I revert to my original point. Particular areas throughout England and Wales differ. In some areas, for obvious reasons—perhaps need, perhaps historical—some voluntary organisations are much more prominent than in other areas, because there is not universal coverage. Victim Support, for instance, would not necessarily claim to be equally active and effective in every area of England

1061
and Wales. That is true of the charitable organisations and the other organisations mentioned by the noble Lord.
"Persons" would include magistrates. The Home Secretary has the highest regard for the co-operative responses he always receives from the Magistrates' Association. The Secretary of State wants the widest consultation to make the Bill not just as effective as possible but its practical effects as useful as possible undertake to transmit the noble Lord's views to the Secretary of State, because he has a wide power, as the noble Lord said:
"every person or body of a description which is for the time being prescribed".
The Home Secretary might well wish to give a wide description, which would include a large number of different voluntary organisations, specifying them by category rather than by name, because of course voluntary organisations sometimes come up to meet particular needs. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for bringing that point to our attention.
Lord Henley: Before the Minister leaves that point, will he give some guidance as to when the Secretary of State might be making that prescription and what consultation he will have before he makes that prescription? In other words, will we be able to have some input into the type of persons and bodies that should be included?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I should have thought it extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State would wish to conclude that process before the Bill has gone through another place. That would be constitutionally inappropriate. Anyone who wishes to make representations to the Home Secretary is more than welcome to do so. We do not intend—if I may give some assistance—to rule out any voluntary organisation. Anyone locally, within the general umbrella to which I referred when answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, could be invited to participate by the local partners if they have anything to contribute.
There are two questions of consultation here. One is the process of consultation with the Home Secretary, and I repeat that we are more than happy to have representation from anyone who has an interest in this field. There is the secondary consultation which will be at the local level between the partners, as it were, and those who are active and able within their particular areas.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Formulation and implementation of strategiesl]:
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 5. line 37, after ("disorder") insert (", and fear of crime and disorder,").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to ensure that the crime and disorder strategy takes account also of the fear of crime and disorder in an area. Fear of crime has long been considered a vital component of
1062
community safety. Local authorities have strategies which are founded on community-based action to inhibit and remedy the causes and consequences of crime, intimidation, and other related anti-social behaviour.
The purpose of those strategies is to secure real reductions in crime and fear of crime in local communities. The absence in the Bill of the concept of the fear of crime has been commented upon by practitioners. If the Government's definition of "crime and disorder" is too narrowly defined, they will miss an important dimension of how crime impacts on communities.
The Government might well feel that having that formulation on the face of the Bill might not be helpful. It is hoped that my noble friend the Minister will take the opportunity to state that the fear of crime needs to be taken into account in the development of new local strategies. It would also be helpful if my noble friend could state whether the guidance currently being developed for local authorities and the police by the Home Office will deal with that issue. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support the amendment. The fear of crime has a disproportionate effect on people. I shall give an example, once again, from Scotland. My brother is a parish minister in Argyll, in the picture postcard country of Kilmelford. He finds it impossible to persuade elderly folk to attend any events because of fear of crime. In practice that is ludicrous in that area. They have seen so much of it on "Crimewatch" and similar programmes, that they believe it is happening. They may accept the social work diktat that feelings are facts: if you think it is out there, it is out there, and so you stay at home. The crime and disorder strategies should perhaps reach as far as television.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws said, the effect of the amendment would be to require that on the face of the Bill one of the matters that the strategy would have to address would be the fear of crime and disorder. I should make it clear that we in government are aware of the enervating, destructive and corrosive effect of the fear of crime. We hope that the strategies will address that important aspect of fear in our society. However, we do not believe that stating it on the face of the Bill as one of the aims of the strategy would be sensible, because the strategies would be based upon an audit of local crime and disorder problems. That would have to be done in conjunction with other agencies, business, the local community, and all the persons on the relevant teams. It is unlikely that any partnership would be able to tackle all the problems identified by the audit. So they will inevitably have to prioritise those problems with which they can deal.
An obligation to reduce the fear of crime may well lead to any area experiencing a high fear of crime being given an artificially high priority simply so that the partnership could demonstrate that it was taking steps to combat the fear of crime. This could lead to an inappropriate diversion of resources, away from poor,

1063
high crime areas to affluent, low crime areas which can demonstrate a high fear of crime. I fear that if the provision is put on the face of the Bill there will be an inappropriate diversion of resources simply in order that the strategies appear to be achieving something.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy asked whether the guidance will deal with the fear of crime. The answer is, yes, it will, which is a recognition of the importance we attach to the issue. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Will the publication of the results of the audit lead to a further and greater fear of crime?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That would depend on the results of the strategy, but, no, I do not believe that it will. The purpose of the strategy is to identify the aims of the local community in dealing with crime. The example given by the noble Earl indicates that one does not need a strategy to create a fear of crime; it already exists. I do not believe that the audit will have a material effect on the anxieties he has raised.
Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws: I am reassured by the Minister's words and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Northbourne: Is it intended that the strategy should cover not only the control of punishment of crime but also crime prevention measures, diversion from crime and strategies attacking the causes of crime? That is not clear from the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Absolutely, yes.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Supplemental]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 6, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall within two years of this section coming into effect make a report to Parliament on the working of crime and disorder strategies.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to a similar amendment at the end of our debate on Clause 1. I implied that I would not return to the other amendments, but I return to this amendment in order to obtain the same helpful reassurance. Can the Minister assure the Committee that all the new provisions of the Bill will be kept under review by the Government and that they will make the review public and allow Parliament to consider the matters? I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic answer. The provision should be made not only from the point of view of Parliament, but the Home
1064
Office should know that it must prepare a summary of its actions which will become public. There is great advantage in that.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment and express the hope that any report from the Secretary of State will take into account the large amount of unreported crime. That aspect gives rise to the fears mentioned in our debate on Amendment No. 102. We know that crime goes unreported because people believe that nothing will be done about it if it is reported.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand the thinking behind the amendment. It was clearly put by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Your Lordships heard the response which was given to a similar amendment tabled earlier in Committee. There are differences between this provision and the provisions in Clause 1. Local strategies involve the appropriate area preparing a strategy, which will mean 400 strategies throughout the country. It will be virtually impossible for my right honourable friend effectively to discharge any obligation to report to Parliament. Even if he were to require those responsible for developing and implementing the strategies locally to report to him at the end of the two-year period—which the Bill does not at present oblige them to do—he would be poorly placed. on the evidence of such reports alone, to make worthwhile judgments about the effectiveness of local action in more than 400 areas. Furthermore, he would be poorly placed indeed to assess the real relevance of the strategies to local needs and circumstances, which must be their primary focus.
I must emphasise that the Government do not intend to wash their hands of these strategies once they are in place. We would certainly wish to be actively involved in the process of helping to identify and disseminate good practice and, resources permitting, would expect to be involved in research-based analysis of the activity of the local partnerships and evaluation of the outcomes achieved. As regards parliamentary debate, one would hope that at some stage it would be appropriate, but that must be arranged through the usual channels.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henley: I hope that I shall be satisfied with that explanation. I wish to make the point that the provision is new and imposes new and bureaucratic duties on local authorities. Although we do not ask for detailed analysis of every scheme proposed by every local authority throughout the country—the noble and learned Lord said that there could be 400 of them—we want to know whether the provision has an effect. We wish to know whether the work which the Bill has imposed on the local authorities is worth while. That research is simpler than the noble and learned Lord implied.
I hope that he will put to his right honourable friend and to officials that it is important to have research in due course on the effect of the crime and disorder strategies and the burden they are imposing on local authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Duty to consider crime and disorder implications]:
Lord Renton: Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 were discussed with Amendment No. 99 to Clause 5. I must protest about the way in which the clauses have been taken out of order and, to an extent, out of context. I raised the issue the day before the Committee began, but now we are debating the Bill one can see how absurd it is. I hope that the Government will not repeat the exercise, whether or not it has been agreed by the usual channels.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 106:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
REASONABLE DUTY OF MINISTERS OF CROWN TO PREVENT CRIME AND
DISORDER
(" . Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on him, it shall be the duty of each Minister of the Crown to exercise his various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that he reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 16, at which the Committee looked a moment ago, lays upon the local authority, the police authority and other authorities a duty to consider crime and disorder implications for the various functions which they must carry out.
Precisely what that adds to the 400 or so strategies of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke a moment ago, which are to be put together under Clauses 5 and 6, I really do not know. If it is intended that in the performance of all its functions, a local authority should have regard to good practice in exercising functions in relation to education, youth, housing, planning, social services and so on, so be it. But if that is what is behind these proposals, why should they not extend to central government agencies and bureaux which also carry out functions over a wide range of areas in local districts?
Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to insert a new clause which will extend a similar obligation from the local authorities and other authorities to which Clause 16 pertains to the agencies and bodies which are governed by central government. This is by way of a probing amendment in order to find out why such a distinction should be made. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I see a certain superficial attraction to the amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated, it would impose on central government the same general obligation to consider crime and disorder obligations as Clause 16 will impose on local authorities.
We believe that there is a distinction between the nature of central and local government. The whole point of the local crime and disorder strategy is to empower
1066
the local community to deal with it. The local police service, the local chief constable and the district services are dealing with services which are intimately concerned with the prevention of crime, the incidence of crime and how one deals with criminals across the whole age spectrum and seriousness spectrum.
If one looks at this amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, it would impose a duty on each Minister of the Crown,
"to exercise his various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that he reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder".
I do not believe that that would be workable in practice. There is so much that Ministers do which is wholly unrelated to crime that that would impose an unconscionable burden. It really would not be workable. I take the criticism voiced earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Such a blanket provision would be impossible to work and would generate a great many unnecessary tasks. There are many aspects of central government work which have no obvious crime and disorder ramifications at all.
I concede that the attraction of the amendment would be, possibly, that it may be of some help in breaking down the tendency of Whitehall to compartmentalise in departments, and I accept that as a point. But it is simply not practicably workable for every Minister to exercise all his functions bearing in mind what he can or cannot do to prevent crime and disorder. I am obliged for the proposition put forward and I hope that I have responded to it in a reasonable way. But it really is not workable.
Lord Henley: I do not support the amendment. However, surely the arguments which the noble Lord has put forward against the amendment apply equally to the arguments which I put forward in relation to the Lake District special planning board, other planning boards and the Broads Authority.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think not, for the reasons already specified, given by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which I respectfully adopt. They are different; they are local. Their functions affect local people. The manifold duties of each Minister of the Crown very often do not affect anyone at all, I regret to say, and certainly many of them have nothing at all to do with the prevention, consideration of or dealing with crime and disorder.
Lord Renton: The subsection states:
"This section applies to a local authority, a joint authority, a police authority".
I hope that I shall be corrected if my recollection is wrong but the Home Secretary used to be, and I believe still is, the police authority for the Metropolitan Police. Within the terms of this amendment, the Home Secretary is a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, to that extent, the amendment merely reflects the present state of the law in relation to the Metropolitan Police.
Within Greater London, there was the exception of the City of London and, if I rerightly, the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London were the

1067
police authority for that and the Home Secretary had no jurisdiction over that. However, I see that there are difficulties about making the Home Secretary responsible for crime prevention and disorder all over the country.
To that extent, I believe that the amendment is somewhat unrealistic because all that the Home Secretary could do from the national point of view is to anticipate further trouble or prevent existing trouble by getting Parliament, in some way or another, to increase his powers and responsibilities. But it is at any rate an extremely interesting suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has made with this amendment. Strangely enough, it raises some constitutional problems.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I should have thought that the Minister was in great danger of torpedoing not just this amendment but a great deal of the thrust of the Bill by what he has just said. In those parts where a Minister's actions will not refer to anything or anybody, then this will not refer to him. But in those parts where it will—and they are surely substantial—it is very much in the spirit of the Bill that the Minister of the Crown, as in the case of so many other people, should have the prevention of crime and disorder carefully in mind. My mind is running in a number of directions where it would be highly salutary for government Ministers to have to bear that proposition in mind. I suggest that the Minister is endangering a lot more than this amendment by his objection to it and that it should stand.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As regards the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when I spoke to Amendments Nos. 100 and 156, I dealt with the Home Secretary's position as the police authority for the Metropolitan Police and also the Common Council for the City of London. On that occasion I said that arrangements have been agreed under which the Home Secretary will ask the Metropolitan Police Committee to undertake any liaison necessary on his behalf.
I should say in response to the right reverend Prelate that it is such a broad-based duty, a blanket provision, that it will have no practical effect beyond general injunction. We are looking for practical utility. The chief constable of police has responsibilities to his police authority and his particular area. All his work is focused on the prevention of and dealing with crime. Similarly, the districts are delivering local services. They can have a precise strategy and some way in which to measure what they have put forward by way of strategy and what they have delivered.
I simply cannot believe that it is possible to have such a blanket injunction; namely, that,
"it shall be the duty of each Minister of the Crown to exercise his various functions"—
and that applies to all Ministers and all functions—
"with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that he reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder".
1068
It is simply a general injunction which would not be capable of being checked. It does not require a Minister of the Crown to set down a strategy for his own department or his sub-department. I shall not say that it is pie in the sky, but it is very close to it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am thrilled to hear that he is against blanket provisions in the Bill. That is a matter to which I shall return at a later stage of our deliberations on the Bill. The Minister said that the amendment would have no practical effect or utility. In the light of that explanation, I wonder what practical effect or utility Clause 16 is supposed to have.
As far as concerns local authorities, they are under a duty under Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill to provide a crime and disorder strategy, but I did not hear the distinction being drawn between that and the provisions of Clause 16. Therefore, to put upon the police authority a duty to,
"exercise its various functions with due regard to the … need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area",
seems to me to be a little otiose. If the police are not involved in preventing crime and disorder in their areas, what on earth are they doing?
If Clause 16 is regarded by the Government as an appropriate clause to introduce in respect of local authorities, I should respectfully have thought that the amendment I have proposed would also have been acceptable and would have had some meaning, blanket provision though it may be. However, this is not a matter that I wish to pursue to a Division. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I believe that this is an appropriate moment to break. I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 to 8.30 p.m.]
Clause 8 [Parenting orders]:
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 7.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to remove Clause 8(1)(d) from the Bill. The intention of this amendment is to prevent the criminal court from being able to give directions to parents because of matters relating to non-school attendance.
The civil family proceedings court already has powers to give directions to parents who are failing to secure that their child is being properly educated, under an education supervision order at Section 36 and Schedule 3 of the Children Act 1989. A parent who unreasonably and persistently fails to comply with such a direction is guilty of an offence and can be fined to the same degree as is proposed in the Crime and Disorder Bill. Thus, in terms of general court powers, this provision is redundant.
Many of those involved in youth justice and penal affairs believe that matters relating to education and home/school liaison are essentially civil, and should

1069
remain under the auspices of the family proceedings court rather than the criminal courts. That is the basis of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the Committee knows, Clause 8 makes provision for courts to impose a new court order called a parenting order. This is designed to help and support parents to control the behaviour of their children by requiring the parents to attend counselling and guidance sessions, and if necessary to comply with specific requirements which the courts may place on the parents.
As my noble friend Lady Kennedy has said, the order can be made in a number of situations, for example when a child safety order, is made; when an antisocial behaviour order or a sex offender order is made in respect of a child or young person; or when a child or young person has been convicted of a criminal offence; or when a person has been convicted of failing to send his children to school. It is the last of the four hurdles to which this amendment relates. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the last of the four triggers from the Bill.
I do not think there is any doubt that the links between the slide into criminality and poor educational achievement are well known. A child who does not attend school regularly is unlikely to do well in most circumstances. That is why there are two sections in the Education Act 1996 which try to compel parents to ensure that their children attend school and why the Prime Minister's new Social Exclusion Unit is paying particular attention to truancy.
When a parent is convicted of either of the offences under the Education Act which I have mentioned, the availability of the proposed parenting order will give the courts another option to help deal with the parent's inability to ensure attendance of his child at school. As we have the parenting order under Section 8, I believe it would be wrong not to offer it to the courts as an option in those circumstances where a parent has been convicted under Section 444 of the Education Act in failing to secure the regular attendance of his child at school. Once a breach of Section 444 has been proved, there is not a compulsory sentence, as it were, but it must be of value to the courts to have this measure in their range of options in dealing with a parent.
I do not think that anyone would disagree with the proposition that good education is vital for the development of children in this country. I have set out the important reasons why the Government believe that the parenting order will be beneficial in dealing with parents who do not ensure that their children attend school. I hope that I have put the noble Baroness's mind at rest, in particular in emphasising that this measure is an option and is not compulsory. There is no reason why it should not be provided. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do, it is important that preventive action should be taken as soon as, or even before, a child is suspended and then expelled de facto from school. That is when
1070
the trouble begins to manifest itself and that may be quite a long time before there can be any conviction under the sections mentioned on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I have concerns about the way in which this measure is being included with behaviour which is of a criminal kind. Often children truant from school because of their unhappiness at their schooling experience. We should try to draw them back into the learning community. However, I am concerned about the use of criminal sanctions for that purpose, and that this should be seen as a way of dealing with non-attendance rather than through the civil courts. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. I shall withdraw the amendment but I ask him to think long and hard on this matter before the next stage of this Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should emphasise that the criminal sanction relates to Section 444 of the Education Act. We are not creating any new criminal sanction. We are simply adding an additional sentence, as it were, for a breach of Section 444. Therefore her concern that we are imposing a criminal sanction for failure to secure regular attendance of a registered pupil at school is wrongly directed through this amendment; it should be directed at Section 444 of the Education Act 1996.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: As the noble and learned Lord knows, there are two options available as regards action to be taken in connection with non-attendance at school. One of the options involves the section that the noble and learned Lord has just mentioned. The other concerns Section 36 of the Children Act which local authorities are currently applying. We still feel concerned that the criminal courts should be used at all in relation to non-attendance at school. We feel that the proper court to deal with this matter is the family proceedings court. I know that the Government have taken a different view; but we ask them to bear the amendment in mind in considering what is in the best interests of children for their future and their education. We do not think that the way that is proposed in the Bill is the best way forward.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not wish to repeat myself. The remarks the noble Baroness made relate more to the existence of Section 444 than to treating the matter as a trigger for making it a parenting order. The noble Baroness kindly indicates that she will withdraw the amendment. Perhaps that will be the end of the matter.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw the amendment?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Yes, but I wish the noble and learned Lord to think twice about whether the provision is necessary. It consolidates a provision that we think was wrong originally—the inclusion of the provision in the Education Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 7, line 10. leave out ("is a parent or guardian of") and insert ("has parental responsibility for").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally, and to speak to Amendment No. 109.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, in her criticism of the concept of parenting orders. The orders seem to be wonderfully idealistic. We have before us the template of the new Labour family where no doubt the mother smilingly greets her children as they come from school with her arms covered in flour from baking the scones for their tea, and father is ready to help with the homework, and so on—and if they are not, we shall jolly well make them so because we shall train them in the proper duties of how to be a father and a mother.
People are not like that. The puritanical, almost Cromwellian, zeal with which the order is introduced is typical of other measures which may be found within the Bill. By definition, the child concerned will be difficult. The aim is not so much to seek to make parents take responsibility for their children as to help parents find effective ways of managing them. When faced with the criminal sanctions contained in Clause 9(7) of the Bill, parents may seek to give up their responsibilities altogether rather than face being dragged through the courts and punished for what their children have done.
It is all very well for parents to enter into voluntary courses to try to help them control and deal with their children. But it is very different when they are forced to do so under pain of conviction and fines. There is a great deal about the parenting order which is highly suspect. I say that by way of an introduction to the two amendments.
It may be preferable at page 7 line 10 to leave out,
"is a parent or guardian of",
and insert,
"have parental responsibility for",
because the parent or guardian may have given up that responsibility and given up the struggle in the face of the difficulties they have with their children.
Similarly as regards Amendment No. 109, we are concerned that many persistent young offenders are no longer under the control of their parents. They are already in care or in local authority accommodation. In such circumstances, there is no point in imposing a liability on their parent or guardian, sending them off on courses and threatening them with legal sanctions and criminal convictions if the responsibility and care of those children has already been taken away from them under one order or another.
The purpose of the amendments is to face the reality of the situation and ensure that no court is tempted to make an order which will have no effect. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I support the amendments. They seem entirely consistent with both the language and concepts
1072
of the Children Act which focuses on the idea of parental responsibility rather than on the specific identity of the parent or guardian.
Parental responsibility is a wider concept than the old ideas of parental rights which existed before the 1989 Act. My noble friend referred to parents giving up parental responsibility. In law, parents never give up parental responsibility short of adoption. But even if their children are taken into care they find themselves sharing parental responsibility with local authorities. The amendments seem entirely suitable to the idea underlying the clauses within the Bill. For that reason I hope that the Government will accept them.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I speak as Chairman of the Children's Society and wish to share for a moment the experience of the society, and those who work with it. Reinforcing parental responsibility is an important part of tackling youth crime. Experience shows that there can be considerable work done in parenting skill courses. They can help to improve the parenting and help to reduce family break ups, the taking of children into care, and the likelihood of offending, truancy and antisocial behaviour by young people. There needs to be more funding for such courses on a voluntary basis as part of family centres and other projects in disadvantaged areas. It could make an important contribution to preventing delinquency. Group work with the parents of young offenders alongside treatment programmes for young offenders has also been shown to be beneficial in bringing about more effective parental control and leading to improved behaviour and reduced offending by their children.
However, we have strong reservations about the provisions of more compulsory parental orders. Co-operative parents who are keen to accept help could be involved in those groups, whether or not it was compulsory. However, the order is least likely to work with unco-operative parents; and if they are returned to court and fined for not co-operating that is unlikely to help reduce the child's offending. Fines simply increase the degree of pressure and hardship on families for many of whom life is already a struggle to survive. To punish a parent for a child's action could also result in injustice and increased resentment on the parent's part, thereby putting children even more at risk.
I support the amendments because the expression "parental responsibility" is consistent with the Children Act 1989. We also feel that the provision will not work with the psychology of most parents who would be asked to take that responsibility.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It is perhaps rather late in the day, but I wonder whether it might save time if I were to speak to my Amendment No. 114 which has not, alas, been included in this group, but which is aiming at the same kind of thing. I am entirely in the Committee's hands about this.
Amendment No. 114 is entirely a probing amendment. As I understand it, parents of children who have committed offences may be required to attend

1073
parenting classes. If they fail to do so, they may be fined at a level not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. I can see excellent reasons why parents may not attend parenting classes after work. They may have no one with whom to leave their children and be unable to afford a baby sitter. Are they to be fined for that? If they are fined, for whatever reason, it is very likely that they will be unable to pay the fine. Some will be single parents; some will be on income support. If they cannot, or will not, pay the fine, what are the sanctions? I believe the fine applies equally to offences under Clauses 8 and 9. Are they to be imprisoned? If so, what is to happen to the children? Will they be taken into care? Will the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, tell us what is the Government's thinking on this matter?
Lord Northbourne: I had intended to hold my fire until Amendment No. 110 was called. However, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and other noble Lords have decided to raise general issues, it may be appropriate for me also to raise general issues and the concerns that I have now.
The principle of reinforcing parental responsibility must be good. It must be desirable. I am chairman of an organisation called the Parenting Support and Education Forum. We have over 450 is, many of whom are deeply concerned as to whether this provision will actually work. We must listen to the voice of those who work with parents.
Counselling and guidance sessions could conceivably, and may sometimes, help. But there are very severe limitations. As the right reverend Prelate said, parents will go into those sessions in a spirit of rebellion and resentment. That will mean that they are not normally receptive. The severity of the sanction in many cases will seem unreasonable, because the problem arises not from but from a lack of parenting skills.
The Minister will answer that the whole idea of the provision is to teach parenting skills. But wait a minute—we are talking about children who have already committed an indictable offence; that is to say, they will probably be 11, 12, 13 or 14 years old. Those children are deeply entrenched in the emotional and social problems that have caused them to offend. It is unlikely that half a dozen, or a dozen, lessons to parents will give those not necessarily very able parents the necessary skills to cope with children with emotional problems.
I wish to raise a further matter. If you are a frustrated parent whose child has been causing serious problems and the law then comes and leans on you, starts fining you and threatening to put you in prison because your child is misbehaving, what are you going to do? You are going to hit it; you are going to hit it hard and often. I suspect that there is a danger that these provisions could lead to quite a lot of domestic violence. It is a real danger.
There is one final point which I could raise under the debate on clause stand part but which I will raise now in order to save trouble. Why is only one parent referred to in the text of the Bill? Bearing in mind that on the whole the Government believe that two-parent families
1074
have some advantages, it should read, "parent or parents". I suggest that Amendment No. 110 contributes to ensuring that the terms of a parenting order are not unreasonably onerous.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Northbourne that, as I read the Bill, this clause could come into effect not only when an indictable offence has been committed but when it is a question of antisocial behaviour—which is probably a good deal sooner.
I support the general thrust of these two amendments. I should like also to quote a piece of work presently being conducted in Northern Ireland. It has the slightly trendy name of Kidstart. I have the honour of being president of NIACRO, and the programme to which I refer is under the auspices of NIACRO. It aims to support parents who are bringing up young children in difficult situations. We believe that a key factor in its success so far is that participation is voluntary. Kidstart is for parents who want to make changes for themselves and their children. It is effective because the parents and the workers concerned operate in partnership. Forcing parents who already face difficult situations to take part in parenting programmes will be at best useless and at worst counter-productive, creating resentment and additional stress, as was mentioned by my noble friend. I hope the Government will take this matter into consideration.
Lord Henley: As the debate is moving slightly wide of the amendments, perhaps I may put one brief question to the noble Lord replying for the Government. As the noble Lord will be aware, we generally support these clauses dealing with parenting orders. They very much follow on from what was suggested and promoted by my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard, the former Home Secretary, in his White Paper of February 1997, Preventing Children Offending.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord would address a question relating to resources for the Probation Service. Obviously, the mechanisms proposed here will increase the burdens on the Probation Service. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, in replying, will say just a little about how extra resources will be made available for the Probation Service, where that money will come from and whether it will have to be taken from other bodies for other aspects of local government and other work before it comes to the Probation Service.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may come to the aid of the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench—surprisingly perhaps. The crisis theory of social work suggests that, for many people, nothing changes until there is a crisis. I therefore suggest that for as many people as are put off by the compulsory measures proposed by the Government, there will be an equal number who start to face up to their responsibilities and who might otherwise not have done so.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps it is as well to stick to the groupings; in that way we shall at last have

1075
a structure that has been agreed. Therefore, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 108, 109, 110, 111 and 112, which were the grouped amendments.
To deal briefly with a specific question put by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the use of the term "parent" simply means that if there is one parent effectively, that parent can be subject to a parenting order. Of course, if there are two, there is no difficulty on our construction of the Bill.
At the centre of the parenting order is the need to try to restore, perhaps even to construct for the first time, a proper relationship between a child and its parents. That is a fundamental step to help prevent offending or antisocial behaviour. That is why we have framed the legislation as we have. There is no doubt at all, as we see it, that there is a significant gap at present. Not all parents have the inner resources to bring up their children well. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, rightly pointed out that a large number of parents would welcome support and assistance. It may well be that a degree of sanction will assist them.
To deal with the grouped amendments as I have indicated them to be, the first would have the effect of widening the focus of the order by including the words, "has parental responsibility for". This could mean the local authority if the child is in care. It would also exclude the father of a child who was born at the time when he was not married to the child's mother, if he had not acquired parental responsibility under Section 4 of the Children Act 1989. I do not believe that that is an intended consequence of the amendment.
The second amendment is intended to ensure that a parenting order is not made on a local authority where children in its care offend, but it also unfortunately excludes from the parenting order the parents of those children who are in the care of the local authority or—and this is not infrequent—in local authority accommodation when they commit the offence in question. I do not believe that that is a helpful adjustment of the Bill.
We do not believe it right to have a general exclusion in such cases. We believe that these decisions should be left to the court's discretion. If children have committed an offence and are in care of the local authority, there are various factors which the court needs to take into account. For those children who are subject to a care order, the local authority has day-to-day parental responsibility for the child, but the child's parents—rightly, I believe—do not lose their parental rights for the child. In some cases the child, even if subject to a care order, may well be living at home. Alternatively—and this again is quite a commonplace occurrence—the child may well be living with local authority foster parents.
It is hard to think, if a child is living in local authority accommodation or with foster parents, that the court would impose a requirement on the local authority or the foster parents to attend counselling and guidance sessions; that would hardly be sensible, some might say absurd. But it may well be that in some circumstances there would be a proper need on sensible consideration to impose specific requirements under Clause 8(4)(a)
1076
which would help to address the child's offending behaviour. It may well be that the court would think that counselling and guidance sessions for the actual parents would help lead to the eventual return of the child in care to its parents. That is very often the best outcome.
These are difficult areas. There is undoubtedly a gap at the moment. Too many children fall into that gap.
There are amendments to Clauses 8 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lady Amos. The first amendment goes to the very heart of the parenting order and is not acceptable to us. We must have available for the courts the option of placing requirements on the parents to ensure that their child behaves in an acceptable way. It must be right in certain circumstances—and some parents would welcome this—for the court to be able say to a parent: "Your young child must be in at night", if there is a general pattern of antisocial offending behaviour because the child is running loose. It is important to bear in mind that it is sometimes an offence to leave a child unattended at home, if the child is of a certain age. But the child can be out and about, possibly being drawn into crime, when it is susceptible to the influences of older children, and there is no sanction to deal with that.
I have to stress that these are not intended to be draconian or Dickensian remedies. They are intended to slot in with the philosophy of the Bill, which is: to try to think what causes children to fall into harm. That is what it is. They are often very young, they have little benefit from what most of us had: namely, a loving home. What we are trying to provide is a regime which will assist parents, not dragoon them unmercifully, but offer assistance to parents where at the moment they have little help at all.
The second amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Amos would include the duty to avoid any interference with the parent's responsibilities to care for other children in the family. I sympathise with its aim, but I simply do not believe it is a necessary addition.
We then consider the final amendment in the group, that of my noble friend Lady David. It relates to parental involvement in the criminal justice system. We have tried to draw a distinction between the parents of young and older juveniles. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that juveniles aged 16 and 17 are quite different in their development from younger children. They are at a transitional stage between childhood and adulthood and should have different considerations given to them. The emotional, intellectual and physical development of 16 and 17 year-olds will vary greatly. Some will have left school, they may be at work, they may be living independently. They may even in these days have family responsibilities of their own. Others may be living fully dependent upon their parents at home in full-time education.
We believe that when children under 16 go to court in criminal proceedings, the parents must be involved. Subsection (1), therefore, puts a duty on the court to make a parenting order where a child or young person under the age of 16 is convicted of a criminal offence and—and this is the important matter—when the

1077
condition in Clause 8(6)(b) is met—that is, it is desirable in the interests of preventing a further commission of an offence by that child or young person.
For older juveniles, we believe the situation is somewhat different. It will often be right for parents of 16 and 17 year-olds to be involved, but in some circumstances it may not be. We therefore put the duty on the courts to involve the parents of children and young people under 16. For 16 to 17 year-olds we say that should be a power. We believe that that reflects what occurs in real life because 16 and 17 year-olds are at a different stage of development.
In a nutshell, the real basis of the whole strategy behind parenting orders is this: no one wants to see a child fall into crime. Many children fall into crime because they do not have adequate parents. Some inadequate parents can be assisted. They can sometimes—as the right reverend Prelate said—be assisted on a voluntary basis. Sometimes a sanction may be effective, which may be gentle, tempered to the appropriate circumstances. We would prefer voluntary counselling and parenting guidance, but for those who do not wish it, who are perhaps afraid of it, in some cases a sanction may be of assistance. We believe that we have got the scheme about right. It is not perfect, but about right. Therefore, I have taken a little longer than I wished to deal with matters in this grouping in that way.
Perhaps I am deviating outside the groupings, but the noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised the issue of resources in particular and I do not want to overlook his question; it is obviously important. It will be part of our consideration. With the new regime we are intending to introduce pilot exercises and I can assure him that the question of resource, wherever it needs to be directed and from wherever it comes, will be an important part of the pilot exercises and our review of them.
Lord Meston: Before my noble friend responds, will the Minister at least consider the point that, though he is right that there are fathers who do not have parental responsibility within the meaning of the Children Act, there are also people who have parental responsibility in law and who are in fact not parents? It may well be appropriate therefore, at a later stage, to consider an amendment to the Bill framed differently from Amendment No. 108, but which enables the orders to cover people who are parents or guardians, or who have parental responsibility. That is perhaps something which may be considered at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, put that point forward in an endeavour to be helpful and his suggestion is consistent with what we wish. If a differently worded amendment is brought forward, then I undertake, without prejudice as it were, to give it careful consideration.
1078
We want to cover every child who is at risk or has fallen into risk, rather than being simply legalistic. At the moment these amendments are not rightly couched but I shall give any further amendments proper consideration.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am sure that the Committee will agree that this has been a thoughtful discussion in which a number of people participated who have considerable experience of children's organisations, including my noble friend, who has experience in child matters and in the law.
I hope the Minister will read the discussion carefully and take on board the thrust of it; namely, that the provision of voluntary counselling to parents is accepted on all sides as a good thing. If resources were provided to enable such courses to take place, be fully advertised and be made readily available to people who are in need of such help, there is not a person in your Lordships' Chamber who would disagree with that approach.
What those with experience of these problems have demonstrated is that the compulsory element in a parenting order can have two effects. It can cause resentment on the part of a parent who is forced under criminal sanction to do something that he or she does not want to do. But the second effect may be that difficult children can blackmail their parents with threats that they will do something which will allow the parents to be brought before the court and to face the sort of sanctions that exist under a parenting order.
I agree with the Minister that this is a difficult and sensitive area. All we ask from these Benches is that this clause and the whole concept of the parenting order be looked at thoroughly before the Bill comes back before the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Parenting orders: supplemental]:
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (1)
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 111 removes the statutory presumption in favour of the court making a parenting order where the offender is under 16. The Bill as it stands requires the court to make a parenting order if it is satisfied that such an order will help to prevent further offences being committed and to give reasons if it does not make such an order. That goes to the heart of the debate we have just had as to whether this will be dealt with with the lightness of touch described by the Minister when he said that courts would approach this with great sensitivity because there is a recognition that voluntariness is probably preferable to coercion if we are to encourage parents to take on their responsibilities.
My concern is that I suspect that reinforcing parental responsibility, while clearly crucial as a way of tackling youth crime, will not always be dealt with with the lightness of touch which the Minister hopes for. I am

1079
concerned that if the Government were to do a piece of research they would find that the parent who attends at court most often with young offenders or children in trouble, tends to be the child's mother, even with all the difficulties that she faces in bringing up the children if they become involved in offending or antisocial behaviour. Bringing to bear an order of this kind will be particularly hard on women already in extremis. I am concerned that by creating a presumption in favour of the courts making such orders they will be made much more often than would be the case if involvement in voluntary schemes were the course taken.
I urge the Minister to consider the amendment, which removes the statutory presumption in favour of the court making the parenting order and presents it as one of the many possibilities afforded to the court and one to be taken up only in the appropriate circumstances. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: This amendment enables me to ask a question of the Government Front Bench which follows from it. The amendment seeks to leave out subsection (1). That is where there is presumption in favour of a parenting order if the person is convicted of an offence and is under 16. If the court is to look at this properly, it is right that it should do what subsection (2) says. To "obtain and consider information" would no doubt take in the noble Baroness's point. But why only in those circumstances is the court to obtain the information?
I imagine that parenting orders will frequently be made by magistrates or by a youth court. A child safety order comes under Clause 11 and is made by the magistrates' court and antisocial behaviour orders and sex offender orders are made by complaint to the magistrates. Only under Clause 8 (1)(c) does one have,
"a child or young person…convicted of an offence".
Surely in all cases where a court intends to make a parenting order it needs to have the information in Clause 9(2). Why is it only in the case of being convicted of an offence that the Bill makes this compulsory? I am sure that all courts would obtain this information. They would get the relevant probation officer to prepare what would be the equivalent of a pre-sentence report. In fact, it would probably be rather wider than a pre-sentence report because it would have to go into the whole question of the family.
What I do not understand—and what I am sure the Minister will be able to explain to me—is why subsection (2) relates only to a conviction and not to the other circumstances in which a parenting order can be made. I should have thought that the court would require this information in every circumstance, particularly when it is treading the unknown territory of antisocial behaviour orders or sex offender orders. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: I was impressed by what the Minister said about the parenting orders being applied with sensitivity and full consideration of the circumstances of both the parent and the child. But here
1080
in this clause we have an effective compulsion on the court either to make an order or to explain in open court why not. In line with what the Minister was saying, there must be reasons for not making an order which it would not be appropriate to cry out in open court. Is the magistrate to say, "I am not making an order because the parents are too thick to understand what they are going to be taught anyway" or "The child is such a tearaway that it will not have any effect"? I cannot think immediately of examples but there must be examples of when it would be inappropriate to make an order and inappropriate to express in open court the reason why it was not being made.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the Minister explain what the "relevant condition" is in Clause 9(1)(a)? It seems to me that, on a proper reading of the clause as drafted, the only condition that has to be fulfilled is that the person should be under the age of 16. It is a premise that a person has been convicted of an offence. That is a ground in Clause 8(1)(c) which gives rise to the parenting order. The only way that the relevant condition cannot be fulfilled is if it should prove that the person is over 16. Am I entirely misunderstanding the subsection?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure that we should not try to discipline ourselves by dealing with the amendments as they are grouped. I have dealt with the groupings in the usual way. However, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked about reasons. Magistrates are trained. In dealing with this class of jurisdiction magistrates are very careful and scrupulous. I have no doubt at all that in appropriate cases they will be able to give reasons which conform with their oath but which, nevertheless, are not as harshly put as the examples given by the noble Lord, which I agree were deliberately extreme.
The noble Baroness asked about research into the effects of parenting orders. I reassure her by saying that we shall be piloting them first before implementing them nationally. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked about relevant conditions. They are defined in Clause 8(6). It seems to me that, in response to the noble Viscount's question, if one looks at that one is going to have a degree of reporting material before the order can be made.
Perhaps I may put this point generally. The alternatives that we have are these. We can rely on voluntary counselling and guidance. For years I was a trustee of the NSPCC, which I had to give up after the election. It provided parenting services and agitated for them over the years. That is one situation. For various and subtle reasons to which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred, for those who are not able to take advantage of voluntary counselling the alternatives are quite stark: introduce a degree of sanction to assist the child, not to punish or stigmatise the parent, or do nothing at all.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I have not heard a response to the suggestion that subsection (1) is deleted instead of making it part of the panoply of possibilities

1081
before the court. It is saying that the court has to consider this matter and give reasons for rejection. That seems to be more of a demand on the court than is necessary for these kinds of cases and circumstances. The noble Lord has not responded to that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did deal with the matter earlier, but I shall repeat what I said. We believe that this is the proper scheme to bring forward in the circumstances. There is a plain gap in the legislative opportunities offered to courts at the moment. Children are suffering because they do not have proper parenting. If parents will not voluntarily consent there must be a degree of sanction available in appropriate cases. That is my response.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I am happy that piloting is involved. I would have thought it important that the courts sort out whether voluntariness was an option that the parents were happy to accept before compulsion was involved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 8, line 39, at end insert?—
("( ) The Crown Prosecution Service may bring proceedings in a magistrates' court for failure to comply with a parenting order.").
The noble Baroness said: I am moving this amendment because I believe that the responsibility for bringing breach proceedings with regard to parenting orders should be clearly spelt out. The defect in Clause 9 was brought to my attention by both the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society. I am grateful to both of them for the clarity of their briefing on this point.
They point out that there is a lack of clarity about procedure in the clause as it stands at present. The clause runs through a series of powers, including the making of an order and the discharge of an order but then it seems to leap over the process about what happens next if there is a breach. It goes straight to the ultimate stage in subsection (7), which simply says that if a parent breaches the order he or she is liable to a level 3 fine on conviction.
But the clause does not say who is responsible for instituting proceedings, nor does it specify in which court those proceedings shall be brought. One can make assumptions about that by the implications of the clause, but it is not made clear. If we do not make that clear, I believe that no action would be taken against a parent who breached the order, so we would never reach the penalty point.
This amendment makes it clear that where there is a breach of a parenting order it is the Crown Prosecution Service which institutes proceedings and that it should do so in the magistrates' court. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I know that other noble Lords wish to express an opinion, but before they do so, I feel obliged
1082
to point out that this amendment involves a question of principle. It has been a tradition since early times that the ordinary citizen may prosecute when a crime has been committed. Admittedly, the failure to comply with a parenting order is somewhat different from the commission of a crime. Nevertheless the proceedings that have to be brought are essentially criminal proceedings and they will be brought in a magistrates' court in the normal way. To say,
"The Crown Prosecution Service may bring proceedings",
is to give rise to a problem. I use the Latin tag because lawyers understand it, but I shall try to translate it into our own language—expressio unius est exclusio alterius. If we say that the Crown Prosecution Service may bring proceedings, that implies that nobody else may do so. That is the difficulty that I find with the amendment.
It is arguable, of course, that if such a burden were placed upon the Crown Prosecution Service, the word "may" should be replaced by the word "shall" and that might not invoke the rule of interpretation about the expression of one being the exclusion of the other. Surely we want the local authorities to have the power to bring proceedings—or the police, or, as I said, any citizen. Although I have the deepest respect for the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society and, above all, for my noble friend, I have doubts about the amendment.
Viscount Tenby: I should like to speak in support of Amendment No. 113. At Second Reading I mentioned the problems inherent in parenting orders arising from the difficult position in which some inadequate parents, often single-parent mothers, might be placed. In his very full answer to the debate, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General dealt with the matter fully and pointed out, reasonably enough, that the imposition of fines for non-compliance would hardly be ordered by any reasonable court. From my experience over the years, I understand and accept that assessment, so I was satisfied from that point of view. However, whether it is wise to have fines as the only sanction is another matter, especially in view of the possibility of a custodial sentence for those who wilfully refuse to pay such fines.
I am concerned about the lack of any detail in the Bill in spelling out how a breach will be dealt with other than, as the amendment suggests, by the CPS bringing proceedings in a magistrates' court. The Minister may say that it is not necessary to spell it out, and that it is obvious. If that is his position, I must say, in all extreme humility, that I do not quite understand it. We should be told what is intended.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment. I should have thought that the right person to bring proceedings for a breach, whether in a magistrates' court or occasionally in the Crown Court (because it is not inconceivable that the Crown Court might make a parenting order) ought to be the Probation Service or whoever is supervising the order. That is the system that works at the moment. If a probation or community service order is breached, the Probation Service instructs counsel. It has had

1083
hands-on experience of the person concerned and can give the court the benefit of all its knowledge about that person and about what has gone wrong with the order. If one brings in the Crown Prosecution Service, all one does is to add another rather expensive wheel to the coach. One would in any event have to call the Probation Service to tell the court what had gone wrong. The Probation Service can do that by itself. I hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will not be brought in for this purpose.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The Committee may be getting this matter slightly out of proportion. No social worker or probation officer would recommend to the Bench that someone should be made the subject of a parenting order in a deliberate attempt to set him up to fail. Reflecting on the two years that I spent as the member of an intensive probation project, which a parenting order would be—I hope that I am not atypical of those who work on such projects—great efforts are made to help the person to comply. This is not a hostile environment. Most clients of such projects are remarkably relieved when they find that it is not a hostile place in which they will be criticised for everything; it is a place that entirely looks forward. I hope that the Committee will take a slightly less jaundiced view of what has been proposed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am genuinely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter. It gives the Government an opportunity to explain how the enforcement process will work. To go through the matter in stages, if a parenting order is made, "a responsible person" is appointed to give directions under the order. If the parent disobeys the directions of the responsible person, that is a criminal offence under Clause 9(7). The responsible officer will report it to the police, who will investigate it. The police give the results of their investigation to the Crown Prosecution Service. It will then be for the CPS to determine whether or not a prosecution should be brought.
In determining whether or not a prosecution should be brought, the CPS will first have to satisfy itself as to the evidential burden. It will then consider, having regard to all the circumstances, whether or not it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution. It may well not be appropriate depending on the circumstances of the breach.
To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, there being nothing special about this crime, in theory it would be open to a private citizen to bring a private prosecution. I anticipate that that would be exceptionally rare, if not unprecedented. However, for the purposes of defining the legal position, it appears to me to be lawful, and such a prosecution can be brought. That has not been spelt out in the Bill because it arises from the fact that the criminal offence has been identified or created in the Bill. Therefore, there is no need to spell it out. The effect of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness is to make explicit that which is already the case, including the discretion in the CPS
1084
whether or not to prosecute. Obviously, even if the evidential burden is satisfied, the CPS may decide not to prosecute for public interest reasons.
I hope that I have explained the position. I am jolly glad to have had the opportunity to explain the matter. If I am right in what I have said, as I believe I am, the amendment is completely redundant. Therefore, I ask that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I thank the Minister for spelling it out with such clarity—a clarity that was not evident in the clause as I read it. I am also grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton, as ever courteous in making translations for those of us who are not lawyers. My Latin is somewhat rusty. I am grateful to him.
I noted also the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. He said that people would not be set up to fail with regard to parenting orders. I am sure that that will be the case, but I am sure that it is also the case when a community service order is imposed. We know that with the best will in the world when the probation service has put forward recommendations, the magistrates have considered them, and a community service order has been imposed, there are still those who fail. We can foresee that with parenting orders there will be those who will fail, and proceedings for a breach may well be brought in. There may be recourse ultimately to a fine upon conviction.
It was important to tease out the issues in this clause so that we could have the benefit of the Minister's clear explanation of the procedure. Having heard his words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 114 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 115.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 8, line 40, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lady said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 114. All I want to say now is that it is fairly clear that if the parents fail they may, at the end of the day, be fined. If they then cannot or do not pay the fine, what is the next step? Are they to be imprisoned? What is to happen to the children then? I am less concerned, I am afraid, about the public interest than I am about the fate of the children. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: Perhaps I may go back to the previous amendment. I made a point which was perhaps not addressed by the Minister. It has now been resurrected by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. If the only sanction is a fine, the only way that one can deal with a culpable refusal to pay the fine is by imposing a prison sentence. In the absence of any other punitive measure attached to non-compliance with a parenting order, that will happen. So the point that the noble Lady makes is a valid one.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: There is a problem with the fact that Amendment No. 115 cannot be called if

1085
this amendment is agreed to, because it is grouped with Amendment No. 115 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Perhaps I may be permitted to address that amendment. If Amendment No. 114 should fail, this is the least relief that could possibly be given to those who are the subject of parenting orders, because, at least, it makes it possible for them to go to court to seek to establish, on a balance of probabilities, by way of a defence, that they had some reasonable excuse for their failure. For example, that the children had become completely out of control; that they were ill or that some other factor had entered the equation which made it impossible for them to stand by the order which had been made against them, notwithstanding their utmost effort.
Surely we will permit people to escape conviction for the breach of a parenting order when there is a reasonable excuse for their failure. That is the least that can be done.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: If the words "without reasonable excuse" were on the face of the Bill, a reasonable excuse might be that which is found about 10 lines earlier in subsection (4)(a). Although I recognise that there is no amendment standing to it, I wonder whether on some future occasion the Minister and his colleagues would examine the fact that whereas it may be reasonable to have, "as far as practicable" in relation to subsection (4)(b) or in relation to Amendment No. 112, which was not dealt with earlier, I am puzzled to see how the phrase "as far as practicable" can relate to the phrase in subsection (4)(a),
"any conflict with the parent's religious beliefs".
Were a parenting order to be introduced which conflicted with the parent's religious beliefs it is unlikely in the extreme that it would be viable either for the parent or for the child. Unless an amendment is introduced at a later stage in relation to the wording in subsections (4) and (4)(a), that would be another reason why the phrase "without reasonable excuse" needs to stand as part of the Bill.
Lord Monson: I do not believe that I can improve on the powerful argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in favour of Amendment No. 115. Unless one or other of the amendments is accepted, we are in danger of creating an absolute offence. Surely, we want to avoid that.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and other noble Lords in pressing for one or other of the amendments. Until recently, we saw the horrific spectre of many women going to prison for non-payment of a fine imposed for failure to buy a television licence. We should be concerned about similar circumstances; about women going to prison because they cannot pay a fine imposed for being unable to bring their adolescent sons to book for their behaviour. It would be a scandal if we were to implement such a change in the course of this Bill, which is supposed to support parenting. Many
1086
women who go to prison will have other children at home. Those children will not have their mothers with them as a result of this legislation being passed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I thank the noble Baroness for putting the case in a nutshell.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The two amendments raise important issues in relation to the working of the parenting order. Perhaps I may again seek to explain their intention, because I believe that many of the concerns expressed during the short debate on these amendments may be allayed.
An order can be made only if one of the relevant conditions referred to in Clause 8(6) is complied with. That means that an order can be made only if the magistrates' court believes that it will prevent the child concerned either committing further breaches of a child safety order or an antisocial behaviour order or will prevent the commission of a further offence; or that it will help the parents not to fail in sending the child to school.
It was said that the effect of the order, far from helping in that respect, will hinder. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that it could lead to domestic violence. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that it would put greater pressure on families rather than assisting them. The magistrates' court must make a judgment pursuant to the terms of the Bill. If it judged that an order would prevent such events recurring, then and only then would it be allowed to make the order. I believe that an experienced magistrates' court would be able to make such judgments and that it would be able to take into account issues such as resentment, the effect on the family and putting more pressure on the family. Magistrates' courts have experience of such situations.
Unquestionably, from time to time, they will get it wrong. The Bill seeks to deal with that by providing that the responsible officer who is appointed in respect of a particular parenting order can go back to court and ask that the provisions of the order be varied or discharged. Therefore, there are two safeguards, the first of which is that the magistrates' court considers whether it will help. Secondly, if it does not help, there is the opportunity for the responsible officer to take the matter back to court.
Let us assume that both those safeguards fail to correct a bad situation. If there is a failure to comply with the terms of the parenting order, it is a matter for the responsible officer first to decide to report it to the police and then, after the police have investigated, for the CPS to consider whether or not there should be a prosecution. As I indicated in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, there is still a public interest element.
Therefore, there are three discretions available before the matter leaves court. I regard that as quite a substantial safeguard against the situations which Members of the Committee have indicated are causing them concern in relation to the parenting orders. Although the risk is definitely there, with those three safeguards, the benefits from the parenting orders are

1087
worth having. I am sure that we all believe that there are unquestionably parents who would be assisted by, first, having guidance and, secondly, being under pressure to make some effort in relation to being good parents. It helps them and places them under pressure. I do not believe that it is bad or wrong that that measure is in the armoury of the magistrates' courts. While the risks are known and recognised, the Bill is so drafted to provide the least risk possible of those things occurring.
Let us go to the last stage for a moment; namely, that the court has made the order. It has not been asked to discharge it or has refused to discharge it. There has been a breach of the condition and the matter has been referred to the responsible officer and to the police. The police have referred the matter to the CPS and the matter has been brought to court. There has been a conviction of a breach of Clause 9(7). At that point, the magistrates' court must decide what to do and there is a further discretion.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: What is the function of the magistrates' court at the end? All the discretions have been exercised for a prosecution and on the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, that is it. The magistrates' court simply rubber stamps the decision to prosecute. That is an absolute offence once the decision to prosecute has been made. We are merely seeking to leave a discretion with the court to decide whether there was a reasonable excuse for a breach of the order. If the matter just ends with the prosecutor, the magistrates have no function.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I was going to come to the amendment moved so skilfully by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I was simply seeking to describe the situation under the present Bill.
When the prosecution is brought, it is for the magistrates' court to decide what to do. It can impose a fine of £1 or £1,000, which is the maximum. Let us assume that the court has before it all the family circumstances. The court will make a decision as to what is the appropriate fine. Let us assume that that is done and there is a failure then to pay the fine. It is within the discretion—not the obligation—of the magistrates' court in those circumstances to consider what to do next. It does not have to send the defaulter to prison. It can impose a community service order in relation to a failure to pay a fine or, in certain circumstances, remit the fine altogether if a proper excuse for non-payment of the fine was pointed out.
In relation to the points made from the Cross-Benches, it would be open to the court to say, "Here is somebody who is not paying a fine. We are not happy with the excuses advanced but there are four children at home who will suffer if the mother or father or both are sent to prison. Therefore, we shall not do that". I believe that the magistrates' courts are capable of dealing with those problems. Although the points were very effectively and forcefully put, if one understands all the protections that are built in, I believe that, while mistakes will be made, there are enough safety nets in place to reduce the chances of that
1088
happening as much as possible. If the situation works as it is supposed to under the Bill, parenting orders will help; indeed, they will not hinder.
I turn, finally, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, regarding "without reasonable excuse". If, for example, a parent failed to turn up for the guidance session or the classes in parenting that had been provided because, say, his or her children or parents were ill, I would hope that the responsible officer would not report that to the police. Indeed, if he were to do so, the Crown Prosecution Service would regard it as absurd to prosecute in such circumstances.
Nevertheless, in a situation where the process had gone through all those filters, the noble Lord has a point regarding whether or not there should be an opportunity on the part of the parent to say, "The excuse for me failing to comply was because I was run over on the way to the parenting classes", or something of that nature. I see the force of that argument and it seems to be a point well worth considering. I can give the noble Lord the undertaking that we will consider the matter. However, I can give him no further assurance in that respect. I cannot promise to return to the matter with any sort of reasonable excuse. Nevertheless, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I hope that my response has answered the point in relation to the two amendments and that, on the basis of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I can come to his aid once again, while making the aside that, perhaps, I ought to go into private practice. I should point out to Members of the Committee that the decision on any social work project to recommend breach proceedings is taken as a last resort. In other words, the person must have demonstrated a determined failure before one does so. It is recognised that people may he somewhat reluctant to get started in the process. It is important for us to keep that fact in mind.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I know that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General is not used to the kick and rush of the magistrates' court. However, he left out one particular point of my argument. In his analysis of the situation, the noble and learned Lord did not leave it open for the magistrate to find the person who is alleged to have breached the order not guilty. Indeed, in his analysis, all the magistrate had to do was to consider the penalty—that is, whether it should be a fine, imprisonment, or whatever. Surely the magistrate should decide whether the person concerned is to be convicted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I should, perhaps, have made it clearer. I am sure that I have been to a magistrates' court more recently than the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I apologise for not saying so. I assumed that most, if not all, is of the Committee knew that, before one reached the sentencing stage, there is a point in the magistrates' court where consideration is given to the question of guilt or innocence. However, for those noble Lords who did not know, that is the position.

1089
I went straight to the question of a fine because the point that had been made with sincerity and force was: what happens when a fine is imposed? Plainly, if there was a finding of not guilty—and that is a possibility because, for example, it could be established that there had been no failure to comply with the direction—then the problems that have been raised to my right would not have arisen because there would not have been a fine. I apologise for not spelling out that point.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his very lengthy and thorough answer to what I said. I think that I am satisfied in that respect. Having met and talked to children who had been in care, I am now of the opinion that few worse fates can befall a child than being taken into care. That is why I have been very concerned lest the ultimate sanction against the parents should be imprisonment. I shall read carefully everything that has been said this evening, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. However, I am always a little worried about legislation which relies upon good intentions because we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am sorry to go back to this. We have had a most enlightening discussion about what happens at the end, but I have not had an answer about what happens at the beginning. As I understand Clause 9, subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) apply to all parenting orders from whatever source they arise, whether they arise under Clause 8(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d). All of them are covered by subsections (3) to (7) inclusive. Subsection (2) requires a court to obtain the necessary information only where a person has been convicted of an offence and that person is under the age of 16. I entirely understand why the age of 16 is chosen but I cannot understand why it is only in those circumstances that there is a statutory requirement to obtain the necessary information. I should have thought that it was a prerequisite of making any parenting order. The limitation in that subsection—in other words,
"where the person convicted of the offence is under the age of 16"—
ought to be taken out, and the measure ought to be of general application.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The point that has been made by the noble Viscount concerns why Clause 9(2) provides an obligation only in relation to people under 16. I apologise if I have not understood that.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I have not explained it. The parenting order can arise from a complaint to the magistrates' court, for instance, in the proposition that an antisocial behaviour order or a sex offender order has been made, and then the parenting order follows—that
1090
is one of the circumstances—subject to the fulfilment of one of the conditions in Clause 8(6). In order to fulfil Clause 8(6) and to make sure that the court understands that that has been fulfilled, the court will have to obtain information. Why does that apply only in the case of a person under 16 having been convicted and not in the case of an antisocial behaviour order, a sex offender order or a child safety order? Why is it only in the case specified in subsection (2) that the court has to obtain and consider the information?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That seems to me to be a fair point and one which we should take away and think about. I shall give the noble Viscount what seems to me to be the answer to this. One can make an order only if one is satisfied that one or other of the relevant conditions is fulfilled. Any court acting in accordance with the law would therefore need to have before it such information as would be necessary for it to form a view as regards the satisfaction of the relevant condition. I see that leads to a strange anomaly when there is the obligation under Clause 9(2) in respect of the under-16s but not in relation to those who are over 16. However, I should have thought that is a drafting point rather than a point of substance. One still needs to be satisfied that the relevant condition is fulfilled. Therefore, one needs to know something about the circumstances of the family. As I say, I see the force of the point. We shall take it away, think about it and write to the noble Viscount.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I do not think I heard the Minister show any sign of having taken note of my point about Clause 9(4)(a).
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am afraid the right reverend Prelate is right: that got lost so far as I am concerned.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Will the Minister be prepared to think about it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am prepared to think about it. Perhaps I may consider the point when I have read Hansard. I am sorry that I did not mention it in the course of my speech.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Child safety orders]:
10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("a magistrates' court") and insert ("the High Court").
The noble Lord said: We come to the under 10s. The issue is whether they should be looked after by the magistrates' court or by family proceedings in the High Court.
There has long been a conflict between those who would wish to see the juvenile courts replaced by a more welfare orientated council in which youth offending is

1091
decriminalised with the goal being the care and protection of children, and those who deem it important to preserve the safeguards of due process, the finding of guilt and the awarding of punishment.
To make my point, it may assist if I take the Committee through a lightning survey of the way in which the legislation has developed and how the conflict has been seen over this century. The Liberal Government's Children Act 1908 provided for the separation of juveniles from adults in the summary courts and united in the new children's court which was then created the twin jurisdictional strands, one relating to young offenders, and the other to children in need of protection. The children's court took the welfare of children and the punishment of children together.
In 1927 the Molony Report advanced the concept that reformation and rehabilitation of the family was the keynote of the administration of justice. That report saw the juvenile courts as an instrument of reform. As a result, the Children and Young Persons Acts of 1932 and 1933 required the appointment of a juvenile court panel of magistrates for each petty sessional division and laid down the test that their decisions in criminal and care proceedings must have regard to the welfare of the child. That is a concept with which we have all been familiar—certainly as lawyers in our practising lives.
In the early 1960s the noble Earl, Lord Longford, chaired a Labour Party policy committee which perceived, rightly, that juvenile delinquency was caused primarily by a breakdown in the family for which the juvenile was not primarily responsible. The committee concluded that in the first place the child, the family and a social worker should try to agree what had gone wrong with the child and what measures were necessary to put it right. Only if the facts were in dispute, or there was no agreement, would the case come to court,. So Lord Longford's committee said that juvenile courts should be replaced by a "family court". That philosophy was borne out in the White Paper, The Child, the family and the Young Offender, published by the Home Office in 1965. It suggested that there should be a family council consisting of social workers, the children's service and other persons selected for their understanding and experience of children.
In England and Wales that was opposed by the vested interest of magistrates and magistrates' clerks and the Magistrates' Association overwhelmingly voted against those proposals at their annual conference. So far as concerned England and Wales, they were shelved. But in Scotland, a more enlightened jurisdiction, the children's panels were formed in 1968 and since that date have operated very much along the lines envisaged by the Labour Government of that day and Lord Longford's committee.
In that jurisdiction, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 retained the juvenile courts. The Magistrates' Association won. The traditional approach of due process, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt even of a 12 or 13 year-old child, was preferred along with the punishment that went with it. In the 1970s there was a dramatic increase in custody for juveniles, followed by a more enlightened regime in the 1980s to avoid the use
1092
of custody for juvenile offenders. Sentences of custody for males between the ages of 14 and 16, for example, dropped from 7,700 in 1971 to 1,400 in 1991. Within that period of 20 years, the emphasis on imprisonment for juveniles completely changed.
Then, of course, we entered a period when the cry was, "Prison works", and the enlightened trend was reversed. We entered the dark ages of the past six years. when competing Home Secretaries or spokesmen on home affairs have tried to talk tougher than each other. Helping the reversal of the trend that had reduced juvenile imprisonment was the transfer of the care jurisdiction from the magistrates' court to the High Court in October 1991—so the care of children went to the High Court—under the Children Act 1989. The juvenile court became the youth court, and 17 year-old defendants were transferred from adult courts to the youth court. The rhetoric of the past six years has increased public concern about youth crime and persistent young offenders. Policies that were well-established in the late 1980s were reversed. The policies that we, as recorders, part-time judges and so on were trained to follow, all went.
To give some examples, the guidance in Home Office Circular 18/94 limits the use of cautions to one for each offender. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 offered the youth court an increased range of sentences for 10 to 17 year-olds. The Code for Crown Prosecutors was changed in 1994 so as to increase prosecutions for juveniles of 10 to 13 years of age, who, previously, were prosecuted only exceptionally. The ethos of the youth court has entirely changed. So the care side of the magistrates' court went to the High Court for family proceedings and the juvenile court became the youth court, with a completely different ethos and philosophy from that which the enlightened Liberal Government of 1908 had started.
So what is the child safety order aimed at the under-lOs to be? Where are they to be dealt with? Will it be by way of the equivalent of a criminal prosecution, requiring due process, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to a form of restriction equivalent to a punishment? Or is it to be seen as a care matter, a family proceeding, a civil proceeding under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, which will lead to an order cast in general terms with maximum flexibility for adjustment as the circumstances change?
The Law Commission's purposes, as set out in its report No. 172, upon which the Children Act 1989 was based, sought to create a scheme of family proceedings which directed the court's attention to the issues that needed determining. There are four types of order provided for under Section 8 of the 1989 Act. A residence order settles the arrangements as to where the child is to live, including the imposition of conditions and directions upon the person concerned and the provision of medical care. There is considerable experience in the High Court in family proceedings; 24,900 such orders were made in 1994, and one cannot assume that there have been fewer in succeeding years. Another type of order is the contact order, allowing access to a named person or persons. There is a prohibited steps order, which guards the child; and a

1093
specific issue order, whereby the family proceedings court can determine any specific question that arises with regard to any aspect of parental responsibility for the child. There is even power under a different section for the court to grant a family assistance order in exceptional circumstances to enable a probation officer to be available for advice and assistance.
We therefore have the regime of the youth court—the due process, conviction beyond reasonable doubt, punishment, restriction. That is how this Bill is framed. Or we have now, and have had over the past eight years, the family proceedings in the High Court—a flexible order which enables various considerations to be taken into account, enables flexibility and adjustment to happen in the best interests of the child.
Surely, if we are to have these orders for the under-10s, the last thing we want to do is to put them into the existing criminal system. It is essential that the orders that are now proposed should be seen within the framework of those proceedings. It is vital that children under the age of 10 should not be labelled as potential criminals, nor should they come within the aegis of the criminal courts.
As the Committee will see in the Marshalled List, there is a whole series of amendments and those that we put forward do not quarrel with the circumstances in which the order should be made. However, they emphasise that, with the changed role of the youth court and the High Court, with its growing experience of how to look after children, it is the family proceedings court that should be used. The services needed by children under 10 for whom an order is deemed necessary are surely to be welfare-based services rather than those relating to the criminal justice system. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 117 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 118.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who has so powerfully described the incredible journey we have made in our understanding of young people in the course of this century.
If the purpose of the child safety order included in the Bill is preventive, it is important that we do not label young children as potential criminals. Therefore, I consider that such orders should be made by the family proceedings court, not the criminal court. They should be supervised by local authority social workers and not is of youth offending teams. So I should like Amendment No. 125A included in the parcel of amendments, and when the Minister replies, perhaps he could deal with it.
The purpose of these clauses is to gain the support of parents in providing control and care for their children. The setting of the court is important in achieving that. The family proceedings court will allow a more informal setting for discussion and inclusion of the parents than a youth court would be capable of doing.
1094
I know that the Minister is anxious that such matters should be dealt with sensitively. That sensitivity and experience are most likely to be found in the High Court. Moreover, the services needed by such children are likely to be welfare-based services with which the family proceedings court is familiar, rather than those relating to the criminal justice system. I therefore support my noble friend.
Lord Meston Lord Meston: Clause 11(6) states:
"Proceedings under this section or section 12 below shall be family proceedings for the purposes of the 1989 Act".
Of course, for the purposes of the 1989 Act, public law care proceedings have a single point of entry, which is the family proceedings court. It is at the magistrates' court level, with the ability to transfer up, first, to the county court and then to the High Court in cases of particular complexity.
In the context of my noble friend's amendment, I wonder whether there is any significance in the use of the phrase "a magistrates' court" in Clause 11 and the reference in Clause 11(6) to "family proceedings". Alternatively, is what is envisaged that there will be, as in ordinary care proceedings, an initial application to the family proceedings court, as it is now understood, with at least the potential for it to move up through the county court to the High Court in cases where there is difficulty?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: We have a number of amendments down which have been grouped with the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Perhaps I may first speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 118, 127, 129, 132, 137, 139, and 141. All those amendments suggest deleting "magistrates' court" and inserting "family proceedings court".
Following what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, it now seems that our amendments were completely and utterly unnecessary. I receive a nod of approval from the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, therefore we need not pursue those amendments any further. However, I should be grateful for an oral assurance on the matter when the Ministers come to respond.
We would support the Government's line that the magistrates' court is in fact the appropriate arena for these matters and it is not something that needs to start off at the High Court. When the noble Lord comes to respond, I would be grateful if he could say a little about Clause 11(2) which states that:
"A court shall not make a child safety order unless it has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for implementing such orders are available in the area in which it appears that the child resides or will reside and the notice has not been withdrawn".
I shall be grateful for a degree of explanation on that subsection.
We have tabled two other amendments which are included in this group and it may be helpful if I remark upon them now. I refer to Amendments Nos. 119 and 127A. I hope that to some extent they are self-explanatory. As it is currently drafted, the Bill does

1095
not provide any power to require the attendance of the child, parent or guardian on the making of an order, yet subsequently a breach can give rise to a care order under Section 31 of the 1989 Act without the need to comply with the normal statutory requirements of being satisfied that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer harm and that it is attributable to the care being given to him or that he is beyond parental control.
Granting of a care order should be a matter of last resort. I am certain that the Government will agree with that. It should be issued only after great care has been taken to ensure that all parties have been fully and fairly heard. Those who have trained for iship of the family proceedings court within the magistrates' court will rethe statistic that if a child is taken into the care of a local authority and is not returned to its family but spends six months in care, it is highly likely that the child will never return home. The making of a care order therefore seems to be a Draconian step.
As the Magistrates' Association pointed out—we are grateful to it for the advice it offered on the amendments—it would appear that a child safety order can be made without the child or parent being required to attend the court. The making of the order could in itself be seen as the first event which triggers the possibility of a care order being made later for breach of that order. The association also points out that an anomaly arises as a result of the provisions of Clause 12(2) which requires the court to explain the effect of the order to the parent or guardian. Since there is no power to compel the parent or guardian to attend, the question arises as to how that would be done.
We hope that those amendments rectify the omissions and the confusion caused by the provisions of Clauses 11 and 12. However, I shall be grateful if the Minister, when he responds, can give an explanation.
Amendment No. 125, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, comes within this group. I do not know whether she intends to speak to it now or at some later stage. Should she wish to—to some extent she was deprived of speaking to some amendments earlier—it may be useful for me to remind the Committee of the note at the top of the groupings list that says the groupings are informal and that it is open to any of the Committee to speak to any amendment when we come to the natural place for that amendment on the Marshalled List. I have a sneaking feeling that the Deputy Chairman, who was formerly in his place, to some extent prevented the noble Baroness from speaking to her amendment at the appropriate time. It is open to her to speak to it at this stage or later.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My inexperience in this Chamber meant that I had not spoken to a grouping and I understand that that is what is expected of one. I had not appreciated the form that these things take; I learn by listening. On this occasion I have spoken to Amendment No. 125A, but I am grateful for the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I know that Members on this side will learn from it.
Lord Henley: I merely take the opportunity to remind the Committee that the groupings are informal and that
1096
we are not bound to stick to them, useful though they may be on many occasions for expediting the progress of business through the long nights.
Viscount Tenby: On the basis that good tunes can be hummed more than once, I should like to speak for just a moment on two of the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred, particularly as one of them, Amendment No. I27A, carries my name. Both are concerned with the attendance of a parent or guardian at the appropriate court and charges that court with the duty of satisfying itself that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that that is so.
With such an important and sensitive order, those must surely be basic considerations. It is essential that a parent or guardian be present for such proceedings. I should accordingly be most grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would be kind enough to assure some of us on this point.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I wish to speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. It is of the greatest importance in ensuring that the orders prescribed do not carry the connotation of criminal responsibility. If that were to be the case, far from diverting young children from crime, a child safety order would be more likely to label them as criminals. In addition, the provisions of Clause 12 ensure that failure to comply with a child safety order will lead to proceedings under the Children Act, which will be dealt with in the family proceedings court.
It therefore seems reasonable that the same court with the same ethos should carry responsibility throughout the process. The change of court setting seems in itself unnecessarily disruptive and is also likely to be confusing and convey unclear messages to those involved. The essential point seems to be that where the priority is the care and upbringing of the child the courts charged with that prime responsibility should always be those which deal with their individual cases.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Like my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I am inexperienced in the procedures of the House. Perhaps I may indicate the amendments I intend to reply to because if we know where we stand it might assist us later on. I am replying to Amendments Nos. 117, 118, 119, 124, 126, 127, 127A, 128, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 189, 299, 303 and 125A, to which my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws spoke. If there is any amendment to which I am to reply to which someone would like to speak before I reply, I should think that the appropriate thing for me would be to subside at this point. However, I shall assume, unless any noble Lord interrupts, that noble Lords have made their points on those amendments.
The amendments go primarily to the procedural aspects of the child safety order. Perhaps I may briefly explain the basic structure of the child safety order. It relates only to under 10 year-olds. The application is made to the magistrates' court by the local authority. The application is made when one of the conditions under subsection (3) exists, which in effect involve a

1097
child committing what would have been a criminal offence if he had been over 10, and the purpose is to prevent that happening again, or he has contravened a ban imposed by a curfew notice, or has behaved in a way that causes alarm or distress to two or more persons. It is in effect parallel to an antisocial behaviour order.
To deal with the point raised by the right reverend Prelate—the point was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—these are not criminal proceedings. The Bill makes that clear. The Bill says:
"Proceedings under this section…shall be family proceedings for the purposes of the 1989 Act"—
that is a reference to the Children Act—
"and the standard of proof applicable to such proceedings shall be that applicable to civil proceedings".
These are not criminal proceedings, but family proceedings. The purpose of making an order is not to characterise a child as a criminal, but in order that the child receives appropriate care, protection and support and is subject to proper control. Alternatively, it is to prevent the repetition of the kind of behaviour which led to the child safety order being made.
This order is parallel in a sense to the parenting order. It is trying to provide assistance, not to characterise people as criminals. It is trying to lead to intervention at the earliest possible stage to try to prevent the child becoming involved in criminal activity. It is important to emphasise that point. Where there is a failure by the child to comply with the terms of the child safety order, the sanction is not criminal. That is set out in Clause 12(6). The order may be discharged at the end of it or a care order may be made in respect of that child. That is the basic structure of a child safety order.
A point has been made as to how it works in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised a question about the point of Clause 11(2). It is there simply to indicate that the scheme will be piloted first. So one has to check whether one is in one of the pilot areas before one can use it. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made a point about permitting applications to be made either to the High Court or any other court. We believe that the appropriate court is the magistrates' court. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, that is where all public law applications under the Children Act begin. A child safety order, just like a public law application under the Children Act 1989, can be transferred upwards, so it is in precisely the same position as the great majority of public law Children Act cases in any event.
As regards the history of how it worked given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, he left out the end, which is the most important part.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I was most grateful to my noble friend Lord Meston for putting me right.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I assumed that it was a team effort and that the noble Lord would bring us to the end. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has an amendment, but he did not refer to the fact that he
1098
wants to remove the proviso in Clause 12(6) which permits a different magistrates' court to deal with an order from that which heard the original application. We want to leave it in because if it is taken out we then have to assemble the same Bench. That would cause confusion and difficulty in individual magistrates' courts. Therefore we oppose that provision being taken out. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was given free advice by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, with which I entirely agree.
Lord Meston: It was very cheap!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It was free indeed. Every time one refers to the magistrates' court it is not necessary to put in the words "family proceedings". That is made clear in subsection (6), to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred. The Government have a number of technical amendments all making the same point. Perhaps I may indicate what they are for the sake of completeness. They are Amendments Nos. 124, 189, 299 and 303. Those amendments seek to add in family proceedings for the purposes of the 1989 Act. We too want them to be family proceedings for the purposes of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which refers to family proceedings. The amendments to which Ihave referred also pick that up, and I do not think that there will be any real dispute about that.
I turn to the point about a parent or guardian attending. Amendments Nos. 119 and 127A seek to strengthen the ability of the court in ensuring that a parent or guardian attends proceedings involving their child in relation to a child safety order application. Amendment No. 119 gives the court the power to compel the attendance of a parent or guardian at court. Amendment No. 127A provides that, in the absence of a parent or guardian, the court shall satisfy itself that all reasonable efforts have been made to secure his or her attendance. I agree entirely, as would everybody, I am sure, that it should be right for parents to attend court proceedings involving their children, but I believe the amendments to be unnecessary because there are already adequate powers in the law to achieve that end.
Section 34A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides that where a child or young person is charged with an offence or is for any other reason brought before a court, the court may in any case, and shall in the case of a child or young person who is under the age of 16, require a person who is a parent or guardian to attend at the court during all stages of the proceedings, unless the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so.
We are of the view that Section 34A of the 1933 Act applies equally to magistrates' courts dealing with civil and family proceedings as it does to magistrates' courts dealing with criminal proceedings. Because the provision relates not only to offences but to cases where the child is for any other reason brought before the court, we believe that Section 34A would apply in the case of proceedings in relation to the child safety order. I believe that this is what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seeks to achieve by his first amendment. His second

1099
amendment is therefore, in my view, unnecessary. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel it unnecessary to press his amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that under Clause 11(8) the responsible officer in relation to a child safety order can be either a local authority social worker or a of a youth offending team. I believe that the noble Baroness wants to ensure that the responsible officer should be only a social worker because we are dealing with the under-lOs and it would be inappropriate for somebody from a youth offending team to be involved. I believe that under normal circumstances it would be a social worker.
The requirements in each individual case will be different and will be tailored to the individual child. The aim will always be to secure that the child receives appropriate care, protection and support and is subject to proper control. To achieve that purpose, the role performed by the supervising or responsible officer will be crucial. The officer's main responsibility will clearly be to the child and paramount to that will be the need to supervise him or her to ensure full compliance with the terms or requirements of the order. However, the officer will have an important role to play in relation to the child's family circumstances.
In deciding who should perform that important role, the court will be guided by a number of circumstances. There will be various factors to consider, not least the child's age, and previous involvement with the child and his or her family. In the majority of cases, were a child safety order to be made, the most appropriate responsible officer is likely to be a of the social services department, but there may be occasions where the youth offending team would have a role. I hope that, having indicated that it would normally be a person from the social services department but that there may be cases where it would be appropriate to have someone else, the noble Baroness will reconsider her amendment. I hope that my remarks have persuaded her that it is not necessary to press her amendment.
I think that I have covered all the points made on this group and, with the exceptions of the government amendments which seek to add in the reference to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that all noble Lords will feel—
Viscount Tenby: I apologise to the Committee for intervening. I do not want to be more owlish or obtuse than is the norm. Can the noble and learned Lord reinforce the important point about attendance at court by the parent or guardian? The noble and learned Lord said that one should not worry about it because the law had taken care of it. Without asking the Solicitor-General to go into great detail, can the noble and learned Lord give reasons for his confident answer?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sorry that I have not made the position sufficiently clear. Section 34A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides that where a child or young person is charged with an offence or is for any other reason brought before the court, which includes a child safety order, the court has
1100
power to compel. I hope that in the light of the remarks that I have made the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to return to one point made by the noble and learned Lord. Am I correct in my impression that the noble and learned Lord in speaking to my noble friend's amendment implied that a different set of magistrates would deal with an individual child each time he or she appeared in court? If it is right that there is an inconsistent or casual approach to who is on the Bench, I suggest that the children's panel system in Scotland requires the same members for each regrettable appearance of the child.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I reject the suggestion that it is casual. The reason why there is power in the Bill for a different panel of magistrates to hear an allegation, for example that the child safety order has been broken, is simply a matter of practicality. Given that these orders can last for a considerable period—in some cases 12 months—it would not be possible or practical to gather together precisely the same people who made the original order. Far from that assisting the child, it would be a great hindrance because inevitably it would lead to delay. Where the breach very quickly followed the making of the order and to get the same panel together would cause no inconvenience, it might be sensible to do that. It is a matter for individual magistrates' courts to sort out among themselves. I believe it is imperative that the courts have the flexibility to have different panels dealing with the same child, if it proves to be necessary.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: It appears to be possible to do that in Scotland. One wonders whether magistrates offer an adequate service in England and Wales.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As a Scot, I agree that we should all aspire to be as Scottish as possible. I do not know how many magistrates' courts there are in Britain but it must be a very substantial number. I believe that it would be impractical and very damaging to require the same three individuals to hear every single application in respect of a child. It would lead to delay and confusion which would not be in the interests of the child.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I have listened to what my noble and learned friend has said in reply. I remind those who are involved in the drafting of the Bill that there is a cultural difference in the method of operation between the criminal courts, even when they wear a civil hat, and family courts. It is for that reason that these concerns have been raised. These matters should be supervised by social workers rather than members of the youth offending team because of the cultural differences. That is the matter on which we seek to place emphasis in the debate. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for withdrawing the amendment that I

1101
moved. I cannot add anything to the excellent way in which she put the matter. I repeat my thanks to my noble friend for putting me right on the procedural aspects, but the points that the noble Baroness made as to the importance of keeping the civil side of these orders distinct from the criminal side relate to matters which concern us and upon which we shall reflect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 10, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("and").
The noble Lord said: In Amendment No. 120, we return to subsection (3)(c). The purpose of the amendment is to omit, as one of the conditions for the making of a child safety order, the following condition:
"that the child has contravened a ban imposed by a curfew notice".
We shall no doubt have an interesting and acerbic debate on the curfew order in due course. Even assuming that a curfew order were to be made, the mere contravention of the ban—namely, that the child was out after nine o'clock in the evening—surely cannot be sufficient for the making of a child safety order. That is rounding up children, putting them away, and punishing them if they do not go indoors. That is far too severe a penalty for the contravention of such a ban.
I speak also to Amendment No. 121. That imports into Clause 11(3)(d):
"that the child has acted in a manner that caused or was likely to cause serious harassment".
Amendment No. 122 imports:
"or reasonable and serious alarm or distress to two or more persons not of the same household as himself—.
That appears to be the under-10 version of the antisocial behaviour order. To categorise the conduct of an under-10 child:
"harassment, alarm or distress to two or more persons",
as being a sufficient ground for imposing a child safety order, with all the surrounding machinery that is involved, again, is going far too far. We suggest that the harassment, alarm or distress should be serious and not merely as is stated in the Bill.
Amendment No. 123 is designed to exclude from subsection (4) the words from "three months" to "exceptional", so that the subsection would read:
"The maximum period permitted for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above is 12 months".
That is merely a practical matter. If one goes to all the trouble to make such an order, and to bring in responsible officers to oversee the way in which the child is behaving, and to ensure that the requirements of the order are being fulfilled for a period of three months is an excessive waste of resources. The maximum period should be extended from three months to 12 months accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I added my name to one of the amendments. They cover the same ground as similar
1102
amendments to Clause 1. The same arguments apply, but for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with even greater force. I hope that the Government will look upon them favourably.
Lord Hylton: I supported the insertion of "serious" when we earlier discussed antisocial behaviour and I support Amendment No. 121.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I speak to Amendments Nos. 120 to 123. We know from research that the quality of relationships within families and the degree of parental supervision is crucial in predicting which children are likely to get into trouble and, generally, at what age. The first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seeks to remove the condition that the order can be applied following the breach of a curfew notice. It is a discretionary power; the Bill providing that the court "may" impose the order.
If there is a breach of a local child curfew notice it will be the responsibility of the police, possibly—maybe probably—in conjunction with the local authority social services, to take the child back home. Under Clause 15(4), social services will have a duty to visit the family in order to inquire into the circumstances of why the child was in breach of a curfew notice.
One must bear in mind that for a breach to occur a child under the age of 10 will have been found in a public place, unsupervised, after nine o'clock at night. There may be a good reason for that and the follow-up visit by the social services under Clause 15(4) can establish that. However, there may well be other reasons which are not good; for instance, lack of control or possibly a child suffering neglect. That is often the case when small children under 10 are wandering the streets at night. The child may be in need of care or protection, or have slipped through the net and never come to the attention of the welfare services.
It is for such situations that social services need to have available a number of options. It is most important to bear in mind the contents of the child safety order. It emphasises that a child at a very young, tender age under 10 receives appropriate care, appropriate protection, appropriate support and appropriate proper control. We believe that that is a real benefit to a child who may be on the downward spiral. These are discretionary remedies. As was rightly observed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we had a similar discussion on Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 when we discussed Clause 1 on antisocial behaviour orders. We remain adamant in our view.
The triggering of a child safety order simply brings about intervention to assist the child. It is designed specifically to address problems as early as practicable. We know from all the criminal statistics—it is dismal, almost Orwellian—that one can look at the predictors and know which child will be in what kind of trouble. The predictors are not infallible, but they point strongly to what will happen. At the moment, we do not

1103
intervene sufficiently. This provision is not intended to be harsh or a criminal sanction. It is intended to ensure that a child—in many ways, hardly more than a baby in terms of his needs—receives care, protection, support and decent control.
The order is designed to help a child at an age when he needs it. It is designed to sustain the child and give him a decent opportunity of having a fruitful and happy life. It cannot be over stressed that we are looking to provide care, protection, support and help, which is why the hearings will take place in the family proceedings court, as the Solicitor-General indicated earlier.
We do not want that downward spiral. It is misery and heartache for the child. It is very often distressing for the community, because an enormous amount of crime is committed by quite young children. We believe that child safety orders are a key proposal in our approach to dealing with the problems of youth crime by early intervention and help.
This is an order aimed at children below the age of criminal responsibility. We believe that it gives us a unique opportunity to reconstruct a system which often is triggered too late, inappropriately and not constructively in the interests of the child. That is why we have spoken of the parameters, which I have mentioned often enough now. That is why it comes under family proceedings. That is why we have offered a short, intensive period of supervision.
The fourth amendment to which the noble Lord spoke refers to a maximum period of 12 months in all cases. We have turned our faces away from that. After all, we are talking about three months in the life of a nine year-old. That is very different from three months in the life of a fourteen or fifteen year-old. We want intensive care, support and assistance limited to three months in virtually all cases.
There may be some extraordinary cases where three months is insufficient. Therefore we have said to the courts that in exceptional cases—I underline those words—if three months is not sufficient, then an order of up to 12 months' duration may be made. We do not believe that that is necessary in many cases because we believe that a correctly-focused, short duration order will be most effective in the majority of cases.
Although I am grateful for the care with which these amendments have been moved, that is why we are not able to accept them. I repeat that these orders are aimed at helping children who, in all probability, if there is no intervention on a structured, focused, three-month basis to help them, care for them, assist them and support them, will be the criminals of the future and we shall have done nothing useful to prevent that.
Lord Northbourne: I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I believe that early intervention is right. Only time will tell whether this legislation gets it exactly right but it is a try and we should give it a go.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I heard what the noble Lord said and I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 123 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 10, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("or section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act")").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 125A not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Child safety orders: supplemental]:
[Amendments Nos. 126 to 129 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 10, line 38, after ("fails") insert (", without reasonable excuse,").
The noble Lord said: Here again we are trying to introduce into the Bill the concept of "reasonable excuse". The amendment goes to Clause 12(2)(b), where the magistrates' court is to explain to the parent or guardian of the child in ordinary language,
"the consequences which may follow … if the child fails"—
and we seek to insert the words "without reasonable excuse"—
"to comply with any of those requirements".
I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 133, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 130 and 134. Clearly, this is a probing amendment. What I want to understand is why, in the event of a breach of a child safety order, the only disposal will be reception into care. I recognise that there is also the power to reorganise the terms of a child safety order in order to increase or lower the scale. However, I wonder why the use of a domiciliary supervision order is not included in the responses to a breach of a child safety order.
Lord Monson: I should like to express my support for Amendment No. 130. The principle is the same as that in Amendment No. 115, except that no criminal penalty is involved. Nevertheless, I believe that it is still desirable and worth supporting.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 130, 133 and 134. Amendment No. 130 requires that one must take into account a "reasonable excuse" for failure. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, indicated, we discussed this earlier. Perhaps, therefore, I can be reasonably economic in my reply. We believe that this amendment is unnecessary. If one looks at Clause 12(6), it will be seen that there is ample opportunity for the court to consider the reasonableness of any failure to comply with the terms of an order when it considers an application by the responsible officer. I echo what my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General said earlier; namely, that if there is a reasonable excuse,

1105
the responsible officer has the opportunity to decide whether to take the matter before the court. We believe that Clause 6 gives ample opportunity for the court to consider reasonableness, or otherwise, of failure.
I turn now to Amendment No. 133 tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and Amendment No. 134 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Amendment No. 133 would allow the courts the option of making a supervision order in addition to a care order. Amendment No. 134 would replace the option of making a care order with the option of a supervision order. We do not believe that either amendment is particularly appropriate. If a child fails to comply with the terms of a child safety order, the court needs the option of a higher sanction, so to speak, although it does have the discretions which are allowed in Clause 12(4) and (6).
We do not believe that it is appropriate simply to impose a supervision order as a response to comply with the requirements under a child safety order because those requirements are likely to more burdensome—or at least more demanding—than those under a supervision order. There is nothing to stop local authorities using their existing powers under the Children Act if they so wish. If these are probing amendments, we believe that they are centred on fears which are not properly based. In our view, the regime of Clause 12 gives sufficient discretion to the courts in these general circumstances.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: For my part, I do not propose to pursue Amendment No. 130. In the circumstances, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 135 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Appeals against child safety orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 141 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Lord Henley: I ask one brief point on Clauses 11, 12 and 13 relating to child safety orders. As I understand it, this is one part of the Bill that affects only England and Wales and there do not seem to be mirror clauses for Scotland. The same is true of other aspects of the Bill which we shall certainly consider when we discuss racially aggravated offences. I should be interested to know either from the noble and learned Lord or the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, why it is that in Scotland child safety orders are not necessary whereas in England they seem to be.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The collective muttering leading to the collective wisdom which I individually present is that there are sufficiently appropriate arrangements in Scotland already under
1106
the children's panel and therefore we do not need this remedy for Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, nodded twice: therefore I am sure I am right.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Local child curfew schemes]:
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 12, line 5, after ("considers") insert ("that there are exceptional circumstances which make").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment requires a local authority to be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying a local child curfew before imposing such a curfew. I think every one of us would agree that children under 10 should not be roaming the streets at night without adult supervision, and clarifying police powers to take them home would not be unreasonable. However, the proposed curfew power is sweeping. It would apparently apply not just to children in moral danger but to nine year-olds playing football near their homes at five past nine on a summer evening. It is difficult to see that it is a good use of police time to have them sort out who is nine and who is 10 in such a group, and then to decide to take them home if they fall into the former category. Our concern is about the sweeping nature of blanket local curfews. It is our view that they should be used only in exceptional circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think it has been a theme in relation to a number of the provisions of this Bill that we believe that more needs to be done to help prevent children under the age of 10 from turning to crime. I think we would all agree that what happens to children when they are very young can influence their chances of becoming offenders. Research shows that the younger the age at which children begin to offend, the more likely they are to continue offending.
Everyone knows that some neighbourhoods are troubled by the criminal and antisocial activities of unsupervised young children. Gathered in public places at night they can cause real alarm and misery to the local community. They can also encourage each other into antisocial and criminal habits. To address such concerns we believe that local councils, following consultation with local communities, should have the option of using local child curfews as a response to a particular identified problem. Local child curfews will form one part of a wider community safety strategy and will be applied at the instigation of the local authority concerned because it believes that there is no other way of dealing with the particular issue of unsupervised young children.
The aim of local child curfews is twofold. Not only will they aim to protect communities from the activities of young children, but they will also aim to protect the young children themselves. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws will have the effect of ensuring that a local child curfew notice is applied only if the local authority considers that there are

1107
exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to use the power to apply such a notice. This is clearly designed to ensure that such proposals are used sparingly and as a measure of last resort.
I suggest to my noble friend that such an amendment is unnecessary. As is apparent on the face of the Bill the powers for local child curfews are not mandatory; they are entirely permissive. Once a local authority concludes that such a proposal will be helpful as a response to the problem of unsupervised children, it must consult the police and the local community. This must be done not only prior to submitting the proposals for a scheme to my honourable friend in another place but also after my right honourable friend has given his confirmation of the scheme and before a local child curfew notice is applied.
So the local authority has to decide in its discretion that it wants a local child curfew. Once it is minded to have one it has to consult both the police and the local community. Once it has done that, it has to submit the proposals to the Home Secretary. He then has to approve or confirm them. Then when it comes back from the Home Secretary the local authorities have to consult again. With those provisions built in, this will not be an order that is made at the drop of a hat or in other than unusual circumstances.
I am glad that my noble friend has given me the opportunity to set out the thinking underlying the Government's approach to these provisions. I very much hope that as I have gone through the procedure it has become obvious that this occurs only after pretty thorough consultation and debate.
Baroness David: How much time will it take? A small child will have to wait while all this is going on.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may explain. By the nature of the order, it is not directed at one small child but to a problem in an area where a group of children under 10 are causing a disturbance or are on the streets regularly unsupervised. There will be no child waiting to know whether the Home Secretary will confirm the order. That is the wrong way to look at the issue.
I do not know how long it will take to go through these steps. I believe that it is appropriate that there should be these steps before such an order is made. If I may say so, the anxieties of my noble friend Lady David are misplaced.
Lord Northbourne: I am no more happy with this amendment than is the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General. On the other hand, is there not some scope for amending the text on the face of the Bill for two reasons? The noble and learned Lord said that the order would be introduced only if there were no other way. That seems to be a better expression than to use the words "exceptional circumstances". Perhaps at Report stage we could insert into the Bill some clarification which will indicate that it is a measure to be used only in extreme circumstances.
1108
In Clause 14(l)(b) the purpose of the order is described as being,
"for the purpose of maintaining order.
The noble and learned Lord said—I suspect it is the most important reason for the order—that it is to help the children, to avoid them getting into harm. That objective should be on the face of the Bill.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may virtually propose a verbal probing amendment. At line 5, would it not be better to replace "maintain" by "restoring"? Most local authorities would not wish to have a local child curfew scheme in place. In fact it would mark the fact that they had lost control and it resulted from riots and disturbances. The local authority would use these child curfews only in extreme circumstances.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal with those three points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, correctly pointed out that I said that these orders would be used only when the local authority concerned believed that there was no other way of dealing with the particular issue of unsupervised young children. One would hope that it would be that sort of issue that would be involved, both in the consultation process and in relation to what the Home Secretary was applying his mind to when considering whether to confirm the order. As a matter of drafting and as a matter of law, if you put in the words, "there is no other way of dealing with it", you simply create too great a difficulty for yourself. Is it not much more sensible, as a matter of drafting, to impose considerable consultation and also the need to acquire the approval of the Home Secretary? Putting those practical steps in place, with people who are concerned about the practical effect, may well be a much better way of dealing with the matter than writing artificial hurdles into the Bill. With respect, I ask the noble to reflect on that point in considering whether the drafting is sensible—to provide protection against such orders being made, save in circumstances when there is no other way of dealing with a particular problem.
Secondly, the noble Lord made the point that the purpose given was the protection of order—whereas I had said in the course of debate that it was both the maintenance of order and the protection of children. I reiterate that protection of the children concerned is just as important an issue. We do not believe it necessary to set that on the face of the Bill, because, for example, child safety orders can be made on the basis that a local curfew order has been breached. In other words, the Bill provides the means whereby the child safety order can be made if there is a breach. Of itself, a local curfew order will not provide protection to an individual child. All it says is that the child cannot be out on the streets between particular times. By providing for that order, if there is a breach intervention can then take place. So it is in relation to the consequences of an order being breached that the child's interests may then be protected. That is the way the provision works.

1109
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked whether we should use the phrase, "restore order", rather than "maintain order". I had not thought about that point before he suggested it. I am not sure that it makes that much difference—though "maintain" strikes me at first blush as a better phrase. "Restore order" suggests that a much more comprehensive riot is going on than is envisaged in the order. I am minded to stick with the provision as drafted. On that basis, I ask all noble Lords who have tabled amendments to withdraw them.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 142.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley: Before the next amendment is called, perhaps I might ask the government what their intentions are as to how late the debate will go. We have started debating the number of amendments—some 10 or more—dealing with child curfew schemes. I should be more than happy to continue debate on child curfew schemes now that we have started. But beyond that, as noble Lords will be aware, there are a number of very important amendments relating to racially aggravated offences both in England and Wales and in Scotland which I believe a number of noble Lords think deserve fairly thorough discussion at a brighter time of day. Beyond that, there is an amendment proposing a new clause providing an offence of publishing telephone conversations. If it is to be almost beyond midnight before we reach the end of our debate on child curfew schemes, noble Lords should consider very carefully whether we want to go beyond, for example, amendment No. 155A. I am interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not think that the noble Lord's request is unreasonable. Sometimes we seem to spend an awful lot of time on certain amendments which might more happily have been spent on other matters. But that is a matter for your Lordships. I suggest that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, might take soundings from the Deputy Chief Whip, who was present a moment or two ago seeing how his chickens were getting on, and then left quite promptly. There will come a time—possibly about three o'clock—when we are rather tired and will need to go home. Perhaps the best thing is to press on at least with the issue of child curfew and see what message the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, brings back.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. I do not know whether the Government even have a House at this stage. Of course, it is open to us in effect to ask the opinion of the House on the matter and if there is not a House, we shall not
1110
continue. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, could take soundings before we feel we have to take such measures.
Lord Monson: As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked for, it is now quarter past 11 and no one has been filibustering or wasting time in any way. The problem is that we had a Statement which took up nearly 40 minutes and that brought us to the point we have reached. I should be grateful if the Government could consider the request.
Lord Bridges: Before the matter goes any further, perhaps I may say a word. The last amendment on the list is in my name, Amendment No. 171. I suggest to the Government Front Bench that certain things have happened in the course of organising the debate which leave something to be desired. For example, the groupings list was not available at 2 o'clock on either the first or the second day of the Committee stage. I do not know the reason for it, but it meant that we came into prayers before we knew how the groupings had been arranged. It may simply have been inefficiency, but it was discourteous to all Members of your Lordships' Committee.
I find it odd that the amendment in my name, which I believe is of considerable significance and which has attracted quite a lot of attention from noble Lords in all parts of the House, is the last. I would have welcomed debating it at a time when we could have a fairer view of the opinion of the Committee. I do not have access to the usual channels and we all know that they move in mysterious ways, but it strained my credulity somewhat that this amendment, which I believe to be of great importance, should have been assigned to being the last to be moved.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I sympathise with what the noble Lord said. The amendment is certainly of great importance and I have taken the trouble to research it in order to deal with it. However I take the point that we may be quite late reaching it. As the noble Lord rightly said, access to the usual channels is somewhat mysterious. Perhaps one might even contemplate a non-taped telephone call to the usual channels. But I will bring what message and comfort I can as soon as I have it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("(not exceeding 90 days)").
The noble Baroness said: As the Minister explained, Clause 14 gives the local authority the power to establish a local child curfew scheme. Subsection (1) allows a local authority to make such a curfew scheme under which it may issue a notice imposing a ban for a specified period not exceeding 90 days, for the purpose of maintaining order.
This is a probing amendment, as will be obvious, to ask the Government to explain their justification for imposing this period of 90 days as a maximum. Why not allow the local authority the discretion to

1111
determine the maximum period, using local knowledge of local conditions to have a scheme that meets local needs?
It has been put to me by several local authorities that the effort of putting up a scheme and obtaining approval, when it would last for a maximum of only 90 days, would make it questionable as to whether the authority would even apply for such a scheme, even if it were needed by the local area. Also, the implication, they felt, was that if we have a maximum of 90 days, there would be shorter periods under which a scheme would operate. That would make it even more difficult for anyone to apply for, set up and administer a scheme. They felt that 90 days was not a practical period and that it would not be possible to publicise the scheme effectively and feel that it was fair that it should be enforced.
This is a probing amendment, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This amendment brings us back to my original point of trying to find out whether this is an emergency measure to be used as a result of something approaching a riot, in which case there is a need for an almost immediate response and hence a procedure which takes virtually no time at all to implement.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the tone and the nature of the inquiry made by the noble Baroness. The provision is not intended to deal with rioting. The Solicitor-General went laboriously through all the safeguards built into this curfew scheme—and I shall not cover the ground again.
In the past the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart, have stressed—I accept their concerns as being properly based—that one has to have a proper balance about the human rights aspects and the public protection and child safety aspects. The scheme described fully by the Solicitor-General in respect of the last amendment is there, and it is deliberately there to be circumscribed—I want to make that quite plain. At the end of the road, it has to have the authority of the Secretary of State, and I believe that to be right. A further safeguard ought to be that one cannot have indefinite periods, but if one needs to implement the scheme in a specific area for the maintenance of order and for the protection of children, it should not extend beyond 90 days.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness that local authorities may feel that it is hardly worth it. But the true way of looking at the situation is that one ought not to look for these curfews until they are demonstrated to be needed. If they are demonstrated to be needed there is consultation, co-operative inquiry and application to the Secretary of State. After that, 90 days will be the limit. Of course, subsequently a further application may or may not be made in a specific area, but we have tried to balance carefully what I can call the "Thomas-Goodhart" questions
1112
about human rights and we believe that 90 days is enough in the circumstances of what we are trying to prevent.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I will reflect upon what he said. I still have anxieties about the practicability of 90 days being the maximum, given that it implies that there will be shorter periods which will be the norm for such a scheme, and the difficulty of setting those up. However, I will reflect on his words and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("(under 10)").
The noble Baroness said: Again, this is a probing amendment as to why the Government have chosen the age of 10 to be the barrier. Amendment No. 144 deletes the requirement that the curfew scheme should apply only to children under that age. Subsection (2) states that it,
"applies to a ban on children of specified ages (under 10) being in a public place within a specified area … between 9 pm and 6 am",
unless they are with a responsible adult aged 18 or over.
I am concerned to find out why that is the age range at which the Government are looking—the nought to the 10 minus one day; or indeed, 10 minus one hour. It is difficult to know how they define the age of 10 for this; I am not too sure. It seems to me to be a narrow age range. I have the most extraordinary visions—perhaps it is the late hour and a low blood sugar level, I am not sure—in which a local authority imposes a child curfew scheme on children perhaps between the ages of eight and 10, four and six, but not between nought and four and six and eight, unless there are such things as delinquent toddlers—there may be. There certainly seem to be some peculiarities associated with the provision and we could end up with huge difficulties for the police in trying to implement any kind of curfew scheme.
This is a probing amendment to ask the Minister to explain why the Government chose 10 as the make or break age. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 144 removes the upper age limit so that a local child curfew would apply to any child of a specified age.
One of the main thrusts of the youth justice programme is to seek earlier, more effective intervention to prevent young children turning to crime in the first place. In the past too little has been done to prevent children and young people from taking the first steps into criminal behaviour. The local child curfew is one of the early intervention methods and seeks to support that objective. That is why it is geared towards those under the age of 10. We believe that no suitable powers are available to deal with this

1113
age group. Whereas if you are over 10 sanctions are available, there are no such sanctions if you are under 10.
In addition, we are introducing in the Bill antisocial behaviour orders which will apply to those who are 10 and over. In certain cases these orders can be applied for by local authorities and the police and they can prohibit certain activities. They can also include in certain cases the imposition of a curfew on the person named in the order. But these are all for those over 10. This one, for the under-10s, in a sense complements that. If you had an antisocial behaviour order and a local curfew order, you could deal with the horrendous age problem of trying to identify who is under 10 and who is over 10.
In drawing up the proposals for local child curfews, one of the issues to which the Government gave serious thought was the age limits that should apply. I have therefore attempted to set out the thinking behind the Government's approach and how that fits in with the other proposals in the youth justice reforms to give the Committee some understanding of why the Government concluded that the proposals should apply to those young children who are below the age of criminal responsibility; namely, 10. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I shall reflect carefully on what he has said and read it in Hansard. I recall his words that the Government are concerned to prevent the first steps into criminal behaviour. It almost sounds as though my delinquent toddlers are becoming a reality. I hope that is not so. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("with").
The noble Lord said: This is not a probing amendment. It is a quite simple drafting amendment which I trust the Government will be prepared to accept. I am seeking to leave out the word "with" on the grounds that it is otiose and inelegant English and that the Bill would read better without it. I do this very much in the spirit of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is always a great believer in brevity in Bills. If we can remove at least one word from the Bill, that will be progress.
I should also point out that though the word "with" is used here, I notice that it is not used in a similar provision, Clause 1(2), where there is also mention of consultation. If it is not used there, I do not see why it need be used here. I do not think I need quote at length from Fowler's Modern English Usage, either the second or third editions, both of which are quite clear on their use of what they describe as phrasal verbs in these circumstances, and I trust that the noble and learned Lord will be prepared to accept my amendment. But before he does accept my
1114
amendment, which I am sure he is about to do, I wonder whether he could just address one point in relation to Clause 14(3)(b), which refers to,
"such other persons or bodies as it considers appropriate",
being consulted. Can the noble and learned Lord elaborate on who those might be and whether guidance will be issued by the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: I rise to support the noble Lord's amendment. Will the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General accept that this is the sort of English up with which we will not put?
Lord Monson: Like my noble friend, I find it very pleasing to support this amendment, which is simple, non political, non controversial, I trust, and concerned with the purity of the English language. How horrified the late Lord Airedale, who, as the Committee may remember, used to sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches and was zealous in his concern for the preservation of the language, would have been to see an Americanism like "consulting with" in a government Bill. I trust that the amendment will be accepted.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I disagree with the amendment. I see a difference between consulting someone, which means asking for his opinion, and consulting with someone, which suggests a flow of opinions in both directions. The latter would be preferable and would support the retention of the word "with" in the Bill.
Lord Meston: If the Minister will not accept this amendment, will he at least "meet with" the Front Bench opposite to discuss it?
11.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That cannot be passed without mention of the fact that five is of the Committee have risen to discuss whether the word "with" should be removed, it being agreed by me that it makes absolutely no difference to the substance. The previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, queried the age of 10, but not one of the Committee was included in that debate. That is a slightly churlish remark to make, but it is perhaps an indication.
I can see that it is more elegant to remove the word "with". May I consider what to do about it, although it makes no difference to the substance? I will consider and perhaps take up the position of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and "meet with" others to discuss it. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
A more significant point was raised as regards who are the,
"such other persons or bodies as it considers appropriate,"
in Clause 14(3)(b). We hope to deal with that in more detail and perhaps I may write to the noble Lord about it. Such organisations that would be typically

1115
involved would be the social services departments, voluntary agencies and another—but unfortunately I cannot read the wording. It is something "groups and other similar groups". I shall come back on that. I apologise.
Lord Henley: I look forward to receiving a copy of the noble and learned Lord's letter outlining the words which he has a little difficulty in deciphering. I am grateful for the fact that I have had some movement from the noble and learned Lord on this slightly important amendment and that he might agree to accept it at a later stage.
I did quote from the third edition of Fowler in my opening remarks. I prefer the comments in the second edition edited by Sir Ernest Gowers on the subject of the fused participle. He refers to the fact that during the passage of the Homicide Act in 1957 a noble Lord had objected to the use of the fused participle. The government then, as now, had resisted the suggestion, despite the fact that he had the weight of Fowler behind him. Gowers goes on to say that Fowler would have been unlikely to accept even the House of Lords as the final court of appeal on such a point. I shall certainly come back to this matter at a later stage and I look forward to receiving the noble and learned Lord's letter on the point.
There is one last matter before the noble Lord intervenes. I see that we are in the presence of the Deputy Chief Whip. There is now some sort of agreement that we shall not go beyond the end of Clause 14. If that is the case I certainly have no intention of seeking to press the amendment at this stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to disillusion the noble Lord. We had an agreement as to where we would get to, which was not based on any particular time of night. I have indicated that we shall be willing to talk about the matter again in half an hour. But for the moment our intention is to proceed to the end of the groupings as printed.
Lord Henley: I treat that with the utmost seriousness. It is a matter which the noble Lord will have to consider, particularly when he considers whether he has a House present to maintain a Committee. We have major amendments and we might wish to press them in half an hour or so. It would be unwise for the House to go on to discuss amendments such as those relating to racially aggravated offences at the hour we are now approaching.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that these discussions should be conducted in public. I hear what the noble Lord says. There is a difference between the racially motivated offences and the conclusion of the curfew clauses.
Lord Henley: Again, if the noble Lord will accept my apologies for intervening, I am more than happy to get to the end of the amendments to Clauses 14
1116
and 15, but not to move on to those dealing with racially aggravated offences, which is a whole new ball game, if I may put it in those terms. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment with the promise that I shall return to it depending on the response I receive in writing from the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 12, line 16, after ("area;") insert—
("( ) every social services authority, local education authority and health authority any part of whose area lies within the area of the local authority, and the probation service;").
The noble Lord said: Our discussion on Amendment No. 145 is rather like sucking on an orange at half-time, having regard to what we heard a moment ago. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for pointing out the balance that Clause 14 seeks to strike between its purposes and the rights about which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself are concerned. It strikes me as sad that it is beyond the powers or the wit of a modern policeman to take a child of under 10 back to its home if it is making a nuisance of itself in the streets. Perhaps I am being a little nostalgic for the past as a son of a policeman, but what greatly concerns me about the proposal for local child curfew schemes is that they are likely to alienate children from policemen. A policeman will no longer be seen as a child's friend. Clause 14(1)(b) states that the scheme is to apply where,
"the authority considers it necessary to do so for the purpose of maintaining order"—
the purpose of maintaining order in the under-10 age group? All the machinery of Clause 14 seems over the top for what is required.
I shall return to that at a later stage, but I should like to deal now with Amendment No. 146. We wish to expand Clause 14(3)(b) which refers to,
"such other persons or bodies as it considers appropriate".
I was interested that the Solicitor-General was unable to read his own notes. It struck me that he might have read out Amendment No. 146 and that those bodies and persons are to be defined as the social services authority, the local education authority, the health authority and the Probation Service. If that was not sufficient, under Amendment No. 147 the Solicitor-General might have added the words,
"members of the community within the specified area to which subsection (2) applies".
A child curfew scheme should be regarded as entirely exceptional. It must be an exceptional thing if its purpose is to maintain order in the streets among the under-lOs between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m! If things have got to such a pass that all that machinery has to be brought into play, more than the local authority and the police authority should be involved. The people who are affected by that breakdown in the maintainance of order on the streets should also be involved.
The purpose behind Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 is to ensure that there is wide consultation before all this clumsy machinery is brought into being. I call it "clumsy" because it brings into effect a blanket ban to tidy up the streets and to remove children from the sight of those who might be offended. It brings into effect a ban on children who can be stopped by police officers and have to prove their age. Then, if the order is made and they are proved to have breached it in some way, they can be made subject to the child safety order that we have already discussed. The next step is that if the child safety order is broken by them being out at five minutes past nine once the order has been made, we can then obtain a parenting order. All of the various proposals that we have looked at will begin to apply in reverse order. The child curfew scheme triggers the child safety order which triggers the parenting order. The net result of this is to turn the policeman into the enemy of the under-lOs when the reverse should be the case.
I believe that before this machinery is brought into being it should have the consent and support of the authorities and the members of the community referred to in the two amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: As the Committee has debated the curfew proposals I have been trying to imagine what it would have been like to have such powers in East London during the 20 years that I worked on estates both north and south of the river. Although the Government appear from their explanations to be kind, caring and sensitive, as one reads the Bill that does not always appear so. It is important that we get it right. It is said that this is not about riots. Thank God for that. Imagine what it would have been like trying to apply such an order during the Wapping riots. It is said that it relates to very specific areas and communities, but such communities are very complex organisms. If we are to consult the community itself, what happens if sections of it believe that particular numbers of children from particular groups are the nuisance, but other sections of the community believe that that is an attempt to identify groups as the troublemakers?
As to consulting the community, there are various qualifications as to what makes up a community. But it would have to be quite clear that the workers within the community—for example, the police—would be those who knew it intimately rather than those from further afield. If the police were consulted it would not just be those from regional or other departments but the community policeman. The task of consulting a community is a very complex matter. It would be very dangerous if it exacerbated tensions and splits between different sections of the community. It could jeopardise the principle of policing by consent and unnecessarily damage relationships between young people and other members of the community.
I have suffered quite considerably from under-10s. In particular, I have met elderly people whose lives have been made a total misery by under-10s. But I have always believed that this is best dealt with by
1118
the workers on the estates, the community policemen and others, who are there with that specific purpose in mind. I find it difficult to imagine this process. Maybe it will be a successful, helpful measure, but from my experience inherently it has immense difficulties, some of which have perhaps not yet been discerned.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This grouping consists of Amendments Nos. 146 to 149. All of those amendments relate to the consultation process before a local curfew order becomes effective. Amendments Nos. 146, 147 and 148 relate to who should be consulted before the matter is submitted to the Home Secretary for his approval. Amendment No. 149 is intended to extend the period of consultation, after the Home Secretary has approved the making of the local curfew order, from one month to three months. That amendment has not been spoken to.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I know that we are all as anxious as my noble and learned friend to get through the amendments, but I have not yet had the opportunity of speaking to Amendment No. 148 which relates to those with whom one consults. It is suggested that, as far as is practicable, the parents and the children who will be the subject of the proposed curfew should be spoken to and involved in consultation.
My concerns are different from those which have already been raised. Consultation with the community is likely to elicit the views of the residents who are complaining about destructive children. It is less likely to be with the parents of those children or the children themselves. Such parents may be the least likely to attend a public meeting, especially if they feel that they might face hostility. The children themselves may be on the streets because home is not a conducive environment. The children who are on the streets may well be the children who may be subjected to domestic violence, who may witness domestic violence, or suffer sexual abuse. Not to seek the views of those children and to understand their circumstances, may result in sending them back into the arms of parents who are abusing them.
It is insensitive to proceed with such a curfew if we do not know enough about the children involved. We know that there will be difficulties, but, as far as is practicable, the parents and the children who will be the subject of the proposed curfew should be spoken to, and their views should be sought during the consultation process.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That was well put, but it still leaves the amendment relating to extending the period of consultation not spoken to. I understand that my noble friend Lady David will not be moving it, so I shall not deal with it.
I shall again explain how the provision works to try to set my noble friend Lady Kennedy's mind at rest. The local authority has to consult the police and any other appropriate organisation before it submits a scheme to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary

1119
then approves or rejects the scheme. The scheme will have to contain provision for consultation with the area to which it will apply, before the local curfew notice becomes effective. There is a two-stage process. One is the compulsory consultation with the police and any other body, such as social services, residents' groups, or voluntary agencies with which it appears at the time it should consult. There is then the approval by the Home Secretary.
Before the order becomes effective there must be consultation with the area which will be affected. It is hoped that at that second stage it will be possible to consult the people whom it will affect—the people who are having a bad time, because of the conduct of under-10 year-olds, and also the people (the children or more likely the parents) who may be affected. They can say, "This is a good idea; this is a bad idea", or whatever.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I am afraid that my concerns are not appeased. The experience of social workers, community workers and those involved is that some children on the streets at late hours are avoiding their homes for the very reason that they are not safe and conducive environments. Often, such children are in families where abuse of one form or another is prevalent. Therefore, speaking to their parents will not get to the real problem. Such children need sensitive handling because home is not a place to which they wish to return. They are too young to be runaways, but often a few years later they are on the roads making their way to London.
We should he concerned about the safety of such children. It is all very well to be dismissive of that, but many people involved with those communities are concerned that children are on the streets because home is not a place to which they want to return.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not sure where that leads. The purpose of the order is that if a child is out at the relevant time he can be taken into the custody of a responsible person. Intervention can occur. To say simply that they might not like to be in their homes, but to provide no means by which anything can be done, appears to lead nowhere.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: The purpose of the amendment is to consult as far as is practicable with the parents and the children. That is something which the Minister imagines might happen. It may well be that he can consider the matter in the fullness of time, but he has already conceded that he would like to see that happening. However, that is not stated in the Bill. Earlier, the Minister's reply suggested that that would happen in any event.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect, my noble friend Lady Kennedy is taking two entirely separate points. As regards consultation, the answers I have given about the two-tier process meet her point that there is inadequate consultation. I believe that there is adequate consultation and that the second tier meets precisely the point about not consulting with
1120
those in the locality and the people concerned. That will be one of the aspects of the scheme before the Home Secretary approves it.
When I gave that answer, my noble friend remarked that some children will be on the streets because they do not want to be at home. That is right and the local curfew notice will have the effect of allowing responsible adults to intervene and help. However, the issues are entirely separate.
Perhaps I may deal with the specific points about consultation. Amendment No. 146 suggests that certain specified bodies should be consulted. That will be at stage l of the consultation; that is, before the scheme is put to the Home Secretary. It is suggested that we include in the Bill social services authorities, local education authorities and health authorities. One would imagine that they would be precisely the bodies to be consulted. There is a problem if one identifies who must be consulted because the focus will be only upon those people when it might be appropriate to consult others, too. We do not believe that that provision is appropriate. However, that is not to denigrate or downplay consultation with such people; they are the kind of people one would wish to consult.
In Amendment No. 147, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, proposes that there be consultation with:
"members of the community within the specified area to which subsection (2) applies".
Again, I hope in the laborious description I have given the area to which the local curfew scheme applies will have its opportunity for consultation at the second stage of the process. I hope that meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised.
Amendment No. 148 refers to the point made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws about,
"so far as practicable, the parents and children who would he the subject of the proposed curfew".
Again, that would be met at the second stage of the consultation. In fact, both the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy propose that that consultation should take place before the matter goes to the Home Secretary, whereas it seems to us much more appropriate to consult the community which may be affected after there is a scheme approved by the Home Secretary which is not yet effective. They must be consulted on that scheme before it becomes effective.
I hope it is clear that we have already considered the issues raised in relation to consultation and have put them into effect in terms of the scheme that we have put together. I hope that we have done enough to indicate that we too, as far as is practical, would like to consult with the people with whom Members of the Committee would wish us to consult. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before that is done, I am rather concerned that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, seemed to imply in what she said on Amendment No. 148 that the whole raft of

1121
child protection measures which we have in place is inadequate. I wonder whether that is quite what she meant.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not know whether she did or did not mean that. I cannot answer for her in that respect. She does not choose to answer and I do not blame her at this time of the night.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, although I shall return to the whole scheme in a few moments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147 to 149 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: Clause 14(6) provides the local authority with the power to vary the hours of the curfew according to the ages of the children. This amendment removes that power. It is a probing amendment to ask the Minister to explain how the Government expect that the police can operate the clause effectively as it stands.
So far today is of the Committee have been taken to Clackmannan. At this stage of the day I do not propose to take them on quite such a long journey but just down the railway line to Brookwood in Surrey. to the forecourt of J. Sainsbury, a large supermarket. But just to make it a bit easier, I shall transport them to a warm June Friday evening. It is a supermarket which has 24-hour shopping on a Friday evening. It runs a crèche until fairly late into the afternoon but after that responsible parents take their children shopping with them. Unfortunately. there are irresponsible parents as well, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred earlier to such parents. Therefore, one could have a situation where there is a curfew in place in the area to cope with some of the difficulties which have been known to occur on summer evenings when children under the ages of 10 have gathered together and have caused mayhem, particularly in the area of the bottle bank.
What happens then when there is a mix of children? Some of them are there because they were originally shopping with their parents but have slipped away. Others are there bent on having a good time. However, that is not a good time for the neighbours in the area because, although it is a large forecourt for a large supermarket, it is bounded by some very pleasant areas in which to live; that is, they are pleasant until children become rather noisy. That sounds a rather cynical description, but it is a situation that occurs and one with which the police have to deal.
It would appear that the Government have set in train a process where the police are expected to sort out various categories of children as to why they are there, and also various ages of children, in order to deal with curfew requirements which would apply to
1122
children in different ways according to their ages. It seems to be a minefield—a minefield in which the police are expected to weigh in and sort out matters. I hope that they would not do so in a mob-handed way; indeed, I can just imagine some of the newspaper headlines if a sufficient number of police officers turned up to try to sort out the children, especially the under 10 year-olds. It is a most difficult situation and one that I hope the Minister will be able to explain. Perhaps he can tell the Committee how the police can operate effectively with the clause as it currently stands. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The provision in the clause is intended to give a local authority a certain flexibility in the operation of the scheme. I take note of the noble Baroness's observations about the difficulty of police enforcement, but that is dealt with because no scheme will be put into effect without the mandatory consultation under Clause 14(3)(a). Therefore, the senior police officer in the relevant area must be consulted before one has a differential scheme. The point behind that requirement is that, for example, with the older age group of eight or nine year-olds, one might have to have specified hours which would be less or more extensive than for a younger age group. I believe that children aged five or six are quite different in their behaviour and, indeed, in their needs from those of eight or nine. That is especially so these days when children seem to grow up very quickly.
Therefore, in a particular area one might want a differential scheme but it could not even be considered before one had the full views of the chief officer of police. I take the point made by the noble Baroness. We have built in flexibility but we have also built in the mandatory consultation of the police. I hope that that is a satisfactory answer to what I accept was a reasonable question.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I still have some concerns that consultation in itself may not solve the problem of what happens on the night when a group of rowdy children gather together and cause a severe difficulty for police who are seriously trying to solve public order problems with young people whom they wish to see return home safely. Indeed, they want to see the problem resolved without having to use any heavy-handed methods. I shall read carefully what the Minister said but, in the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Midnight
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I oppose the Question that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill because I do not feel that the investigation we have carried out into its

1123
provisions this evening has satisfied me that this is a viable scheme. The clause starts off by saying that the child curfew scheme is to be made where it is,
"necessary to do so for the purpose of maintaining order".
But there is nothing there about the purpose of protecting children, although it has been sold to us on the basis that the purpose behind the legislation is to protect children. It is not; it is to maintain order and clear the streets.
Moreover, the machinery involved seems to me to be overwhelmingly cumbersome. The local authority has to consult with various people before submitting a scheme to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then has to consider it. There then has to be further consultation and, when all that process has been gone through, it appears that the scheme applies to under 10 year-olds and for a maximum of 90 days.
I appreciate what the Minister said; namely, that he is seeking to strike a balance between the rights of children to play and to be in the streets and maintaining order. Indeed, I appreciate that fact. However, at the end of the day, it seems to me to be very cumbersome machinery which needs to be further examined.
There could well be some purpose in having child curfew schemes, but if there is I respectfully suggest that there should be a much simpler machinery; that it should be far less draconian in its results, leading, as I have said, to child safety orders which then lead to parenting orders; and it should be for children not necessarily under 10 but of an age group who may be above that. If riots are envisaged, the provision should perhaps extend for a period of longer than 90 days and not be subject to the limitations that are placed upon it here. The whole of this scheme, as set out, seems to me to be cumbersome and ineffective. I hope that the Government will look at it.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support what the noble Lord. Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said. I do so for four reasons. I am not convinced that the Government have really thought this matter through. The first reason is the administrative one to which both the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, have referred. Time will be required to get a scheme into place with, first, consultation, then the approach to the Secretary of State and, finally, the implementation period. I cannot see how that process can be gone through in under three months and it might easily be as much as six months if the summer holidays happen to intervene. Then, as has been pointed out, the scheme is effective only for up to 90 days.
My second reason is the burden that will be put on the police once such schemes are in place. They will have to establish the exact age of any given child they come across. Here I suggest to the Government that 11 would be a better age than 10 if we must have this kind of measure. I say 11 because that is the age at which most children transfer from primary to secondary school. Therefore, one simple question should be capable in most cases of establishing the
1124
position. The police will have to make up their minds, somehow or other, whether the child's home is a safe place to take the child to, or whether he has to be taken somewhere else. That will not he at all easy.
My third reason is that the imposition of such curfews will affect all the children in the given area and not just those who are causing problems. However, 1 was encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said about these schemes being used only if there was no other way of dealing with the situation. Fourthly, with that in mind, I suggest to the Government that it may be far more productive to put new resources into particular local areas where the social provision for children is deficient, and where there are little or no after school facilities, rather than adopt such clumsy, laborious and time-consuming machinery.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in listening to this discussion I have been concerned about the machinery. I hope that the Government might think again, and perhaps they could answer two questions which arise out of subsection (5). I understand the process. There is to be prior consultation, then the measure is put before the Secretary of State who either confirms it or refuses to confirm it, and then there is subsequent consultation. I have two questions. First, what is the objective of the subsequent consultation? The scheme is in the form in which it has been approved. There is no power to vary it. What is the point of consulting after the Secretary of State has already approved it?
Secondly, if there is to be subsequent consultation, and it is to have any effect, why have not the Government given the Secretary of State power to vary the order? I have never seen a power of a confirming Minister which does not give the Minister the powers to confirm, to refuse to confirm, or to confirm with variations. The power is invariable. If the Secretary of State is providing himself with a method of informing his own mind about the rightness of the scheme, perhaps in view of some possible infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights, or because there is a pattern he wishes to establish, he should have the power to vary what is being put forward by the local authority.
I merely reinforce that if there is to be subsequent consultation, he must have power to vary it, otherwise there is no point in having that subsequent consultation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the observations which have been made. Some have been replied to by the Solicitor-General or by me on earlier aspects of Clause 14.
On the one hand, it is complained that we are being draconian and taking civil rights away from small children and possibly their parents. On the other hand, it is said that we are not sufficiently consultative. I believe that we have the balance about right. To take this unique step it is necessary to proceed with caution. It is not right to say that the curfew period

1125
must last for 90 days. The Bill says that there may be a curfew order for a specified period not exceeding 90 days.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy said that we must consult properly. I take her point. But this is a scheme which requires consultation. It requires notification to the chief officer of police and to other appropriate persons; and then one has the sanction of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may confirm or refuse to confirm. Any subsequent consultation he has, if he wishes may lead to a varied scheme being put forward. But we believe that this is essentially a local remedy, that local people are likely to know best here, subject to the overall control of the Secretary of State to confirm or refuse to confirm. We do not think that it is appropriate for him to have the power to vary unilaterally. It may be that consultation with the local authority or appropriate persons in the locality might produce a varied scheme which, after the appropriate consultation had been gone through, he could then decide to confirm or refuse to confirm.
We think that we have sufficient consultation here. It is said that it is a draconian scheme simply for the purpose of maintaining order. It is not. Mischief is caused by young people who often commit quite a lot of crime, not least, surprisingly to me, taking and driving away motor cars at very young ages. There may be dissent on the Opposition Front Bench; the noble Lord, Lord Henley, raises a question. But the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who has more knowledge than many of us in this House, knows well from sitting in the magistrates' courts that children are amazingly adept at driving motor cars. When we think how difficult it was for us to pass our test at the age of 17-plus, we realise how readily the facility of taking other people's motor cars seems to be acquired.
When young children are in this state there is something seriously wrong with the parenting arrangements for those children. It is true, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, that their homes may be disagreeable. They may have been the subject of domestic abuse, or witnessed it, or the subject of sexual abuse. But my answer echoes that of the Solicitor-General. If that is so, they have slipped through the net. Despite all the arrangements that we pride ourselves on. sometimes wrongly, to protect children sufficiently, plainly in the circumstances which we anticipate those children will not have been protected.
I recognise the concerns of the noble Lord. Lord Thomas, on the civil liberties' front. The noble Lord said that the measure is draconian and may lead to a child safety order. It will lead to a child safety order only if certain important hurdles are crossed: that it is necessary in the interests of securing that the child receives appropriate care, protection, support and proper control. Those should be the birthright of all children of this age. If a curfew order of up to 90 days led in significant cases to children receiving appropriate care, protection and support, I would not
1126
regard that as draconian. I would regard it as civilised, and many people would regard it as Christian behaviour.
We have to consult people, because it is their areas, their lives, their communities and their children that are to be affected. We believe, of course, that we are breaking new ground. But as I said earlier—and I do not apologise for repeating it—the alternative is to do nothing. We repudiate the idea that we do nothing. I beg to move that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Contravention of curfew notices]:
12.15 a.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 13. line 1. leave out ("The constable") and insert ("If the constable believes that the contravention is sufficiently serious to justify bringing it to the attention of the local authority, he").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 154.
The purpose of the amendments is to leave discretion with the constable who, under Clause 15(1),
"has reasonable cause to believe that a child is in contravention of a ban imposed by a curfew notice".
As the clause is drafted, the constable,
"shall … inform the local authority … that the child has contravened the ban".
The purpose of Amendment No. 152 is that he shall do so only if he believes,
"that the contravention is sufficiently serious to justify bringing it to the attention of the local authority".
Some discretion is specifically left to the police officer. I am quite sure that he would exercise discretion in any event, but it is perhaps a protection for him that that discretion be spelt out on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 154 merely repeats, not that the child has contravened the ban, but the words of subsection (1); namely,
"that he has reasonable cause to believe",
that the child is in contravention of the ban. It seems a reasonable drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This amendment deals with the enforcement of a local curfew notice. For local child curfews to be effective, they must have within them the right levers so as to ensure that proper action can be taken to react to situations where children are found in breach of a curfew. One of those levers will be a visit by the local authority to the family of a child found in breach. The purpose of such a visit would be to ascertain why the child was out late at night unsupervised and then to decide whether further action was necessary to prevent any repetition.
However, for that important step to take place, the police constable who found the child must inform the local authority of the incident. That is why subsection (2) of Clause 15 places a duty on the police constable to do that "as soon as practicable".

1127
Amendment No. 152 would undermine that important step. It would make the decision discretionary and place the police constable in the difficult position of having to make a judgment which he or she might not be qualified to make and in circumstances where the full facts might not be known.
As to the second amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Amendment No. 154, we believe it is unnecessary because the issue with which it is concerned is already dealt with in Clause 15(1). On the basis of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord is happy not to press his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I do not propose to press the amendment. However, my concern that the policeman should not be seen as the bogyman remains. If a child knows that being stopped by a policeman will result inevitably in the local authority being informed and all the subsequent machinery coming into action, that will give him a certain view of policemen which I believe is unhealthy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("shall, as soon as practicable,") and insert ("may. if he thinks fit,").
The noble Lord said: I trust that this will be the last amendment I shall speak to this evening. I intend to speak to it briefly and I suspect it is something which I may wish to come back to on Report, depending on what I hear from the Government in response. It is a simple amendment, merely to change the wording. At the moment the wording suggests:
"The constable shall, as soon as practicable, inform the local authority".
We suspect that that is over-prescriptive as to what the constable ought to do. We suggest that more appropriate words might be:
"may, if he thinks fit, inform the local authority".
I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall reply as briefly, if I may. I have already identified the social evils that curfews are intended to deal with: child protection and public disorder. If a child is found in breach of a curfew, one needs to bear in mind that all the steps are gone through before the local authority curfew order has been given. So it will not be done lightly. We have already identified and recited the consultative process, which is quite deliberately made intensive. If a child is then found in breach of a curfew, one consequence will be simply a visit by the local authority to the family home to see why the child was out late at night unsupervised and to see whether or not the kind of dangers and home conditions which my noble friend Lady Kennedy rightly identified as existing do exist and, if so, to decide whether any further action is necessary.
1128
For that step to take place, in other words for the local authority to be able to visit the home, it has to be notified. It is as simple as that. The police officer in those circumstances will be obliged to inform the local authority. That triggers a local authority visit. If all is well at home, or all can be made well at home, that should be an end of it. If there are dangers identified by my noble friend, the child's interests demand that further investigation and steps follow.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that answer. I shall look at it carefully and consider whether I wish to come back to it at Report stage. It is late and it becomes harder to concentrate on precisely what is being said at this stage. For that reason, I prefer to read what the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 13, line 5, at end insert (", in which case he shall remove the child to the care of a responsible adult").
The noble Baroness said: I shall not rehearse the arguments again for this. We seek to add the words in the amendment, for the sake of completion. I hope that noble Lords, including the Minister, will consider it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Under the Bill, where a child is found in breach of a curfew, the position is this. In the first instance, children in breach of the curfew will come to the attention of the police. Clause 15(3) states that:
"The constable may remove the child to the child's place of residence".
I am sure we all agree that that is the appropriate first step.
If, however, the constable believes that such a step would place the child—and let us rethat we are dealing here with children less than 10 years old—at risk of significant harm, we would expect him or her to make use of existing powers under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989 to remove the child to suitable accommodation. The nature of that suitable accommodation should in my view be a matter of good liaison between the relevant local agencies. There should be no need to detain such children in inappropriate accommodation such as a police cell, which would obviously be undesirable. This is a matter which we will cover in guidance. In any event, Section 46(3)(f) of the Children Act 1989 requires the constable to remove the child to local authority accommodation or an approved refuge as soon as practicable if he is not initially taken to such accommodation.
The amendment of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws requires that the child in those cases be removed to the care of a responsible adult. That qualification is unnecessary for the reasons I have already given. I hope that I have reassured her and

1129
that she will not press her amendment. In effect, what is being said is that the child is taken home, and if that does not lead to a suitable result, then he is dealt with in ways which will protect him from significant harm.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 155A not moved.] Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Interpretation etc. of Chapter 1]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 14, line 2, at end insert—
(""police authority" has the meaning given by section 101(1) of that Act;").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past midnight

  Diplomatic Service: Foreign Language Qualifications
  Diplomatic Service: Foreign Language Qualifications
  Iraq: UN Resolutions
  Iraq: UN Resolutions
  Hamid Awachi and Mohammed Abdul-Jallel
  Hamid Awachi and Mohammed Abdul-Jallel
  Meskhetian Muslims: OSCE Investigation
  Meskhetian Muslims: OSCE Investigation
  Weapons in Space: "Global Engagement" War Game
  Weapons in Space: "Global Engagement" War Game
  Crown Copyright
  Crown Copyright
  Notes on Clauses
  Notes on Clauses
  "Global Engagement" War Game
  "Global Engagement" War Game
  Organophosphorus Compound Exposure: Research
  Organophosphorus Compound Exposure: Research
  Housing Fitness Standard: Review
  Housing Fitness Standard: Review
  Emergency Towing Vessels
  Emergency Towing Vessels
  Scottish Farming: Support Costs
  Scottish Farming: Support Costs
  Scottish Farming: Restructuring
  Scottish Farming: Restructuring
  Hospital Bed Day Comparisons
  Hospital Bed Day Comparisons
  LIFE: Grant Aid
  LIFE: Grant Aid
  NHS Performance Assessment: Abortion Services
  NHS Performance Assessment: Abortion Services
  Late Abortions: Protection of Live Infants
  Late Abortions: Protection of Live Infants
  Exhaust Emission Reduction: Health Benefits
  Exhaust Emission Reduction: Health Benefits
  Bovine TB in Cattle and Badgers: Monitoring Group
  Bovine TB in Cattle and Badgers: Monitoring Group
  Education (Student Loans) Act 1998
  Education (Student Loans) Act 1998
  Autistic Children: Educational Provision
  Autistic Children: Educational Provision
  National Curriculum Key Stage 1 Results 1997
  National Curriculum Key Stage 1 Results 1997
  GCSE: Analysis of Results 1994–97
  GCSE: Analysis of Results 1994–97
  A-Level: Analysis of Results 1994–97
  A-Level: Analysis of Results 1994–97